At the end of the road: is there life after 
rolling? 
Life cycle assessment of the impacts of 
different end of life treatments of tyres 
Master’s Thesis in Industrial Ecology 
E2019:117 
 

Pedro Anchustegui 
Efstathios Pasakopoulos 
 
 
 
 

 
Department of Technology Management and Economics 
Division of Environmental Systems Analysis 
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 
Gothenburg, Sweden 2019 
Report No. E 2019:117  



 

 

  



 

 

 
 
 

MASTER’S THESIS E 2019:117 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

At the end of the road: is there life after rolling? 

Life cycle assessment of the impacts of different end of 
life treatments of tyres 

 
 

Pedro Anchustegui 
Efstathios Pasakopoulos 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Examiner, Chalmers: Matty Janssen 
Supervisor, Chalmers and Volvo Cars: Felipe Oliveira 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Department of Technology Management and Economics 
Division of Environmental Systems Analysis 

CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 

Gothenburg, Sweden 2019  



 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At the end of the road: is there life after rolling? 

Life cycle assessment of the impacts of different end of life treatments of tyres 

Pedro Anchustegui 

Efstathios Pasakopoulos 

 

 

© PEDRO ANCHUSTEGUI, 2019. 

© EFSTATHIOS PASAKOPOULOS, 2019. 

 

 
Master’s Thesis E 2019: 117 

 

 

Department of Technology Management and Economics 
Division of Environmental Systems Analysis 

Chalmers University of Technology 

SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden  
Telephone: + 46 (0)31-772 1000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chalmers digitaltryck 
Gothenburg, Sweden 2019 
  



 

 

Abstract 
 
End of life tyres (ELTs) are waste in the form of passenger car tyres that are no longer suitable to perform 

their original function. As such, this waste must be disposed of in compliance with European legislation, 

which forbids them to be landfilled and at the same time encourages them to be recovered or recycled 

with the End of Life Vehicle Directive. This study is performed for Volvo Car Corporation to map out the 

Swedish ELT treatment system and, by performing a life cycle assessment, quantify the impacts of the 

system. An additional goal was to analyze which of all the fates in the treatment of tyres is less impactful 

from an environmental perspective. 

The objective of this report is to analyze the fates of ELTs and their impacts in Sweden. The increasing 

environmental concern which eventually turns into legislation puts pressure on companies to acquire 

knowledge for the environmental impacts of their products.  

The method of this study is LCA and it is performed from gate to grave. It is a method to assess the 

environmental impacts related to a product or a service. The stages that were taken into account were the 

use of energy, resources, water and transportation. The results are presented in the form of different 

impact categories which gives a broader perspective in the environmental attribute. LCA can be used for 

detecting improvement possibilities and mapping all the different processes in a system not studied as a 

whole, and calculate their impacts, which is what is done in this study. 

The system was mapped and the four main fates were found to be: incineration of ELTs as fuel in the 

clinker production, with 40.4% of the share per weight; incineration in coal furnaces for the production of 

metallurgical coke, with 32% of the share per weight; separation into rubber, steel and textile fractions, as 

12% of the share per weight; and pyrolysis with 5% of the share per weight. 

The impact assessment shows that the incineration of ELTs as fuel in both coal furnaces and clinker 

production contribute the most to the overall impact of the system. When a system expansion is done, 

however, the credits from avoiding the production and incineration of fossil fuels paints a different 

picture on the role of ELTs play in the system as a viable replacement of fossil fuels in energy intensive 

processes. 

Pyrolysis was found to be the best treatment option for ELTs from an environmental standpoint, and a 

sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the change in the overall impacts of the system with an 

increase in the pyrolysis share. The sensitivity analysis confirmed that an increased percentage of 

pyrolysis in the system would lower its overall emissions. 

 

 

 

 

Keywords: ELT, tyres, end of life, end of life tyres, ELV, end of life vehicles, LCA, life cycle assessment 

  



 

 

Acknowledgements 
 
This report constitutes our final thesis at the program Industrial Ecology at the Chalmers University of 

Technology. The study was for the team “Environmental Attribute and Materials Management” of the 

environmental department of Volvo Car Corporation. The project was carried out from January 2019 to 

June 2019. 

We would like to thank our supervisor Felipe Oliveira and our examiner Matty Janssen for all their inputs 

and their patience. In addition, we would like to thank Maria Bernander, Andreas Andersson and Kristina 

Gross for their support and valuable information they gave us. We would also like to thank all the people 

working at the team of “Environmental Attribute and Materials Management” for their support and 

encouragement during the project. 

Special thanks to all those people who gave us their time and information while data for the project was 

gathered. 

. 

 

 

 

Efstathios Pasakopoulos 

Pedro Anchustegui 

Göteborg June 2019   



 

 

Contents 
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

2. Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 

2.1. Shredding and separation of ELT ...................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2. Energy recovery ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2.1. Cement – Clinker production.......................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2.2. Incineration in coal furnaces ........................................................................................................................... 5 

2.2.3. Textiles incineration .......................................................................................................................................... 5 

2.3. Material reuse and recycling ............................................................................................................................... 6 

2.3.1. Pyrolysis................................................................................................................................................................ 6 

2.3.2. Steel recycling ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 

2.3.3. Other uses ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 

2.3.3.1. Infill in football turfs ................................................................................................................................ 7 

2.3.3.2. Mixing CR with bitumen in asphalt ..................................................................................................... 8 

2.4. Insights from the literature review ................................................................................................................ 8 

3. Methodology:................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

3.1. Life Cycle Assessment .......................................................................................................................................... 9 

3.2. Goal of the study ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 

3.3. Scope ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 

3.3.1. Initial Flow Chart ........................................................................................................................................ 10 

3.3.2. Functional Unit ................................................................................................................................................ 10 

3.3.3. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodology and impact categories .................................. 11 

3.3.4. Type of LCA ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 

3.3.5. Allocation .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 

3.3.6. System Boundaries ......................................................................................................................................... 12 

3.3.6.1. Technical system boundaries .............................................................................................................. 12 

3.3.6.2. Geographical boundaries ...................................................................................................................... 12 

3.4. Data gathering and data quality ....................................................................................................................... 12 

3.5. Assumptions and Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 13 

3.5.1. Transport ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 



 

 

3.5.2. Simplification of clinker production ..................................................................................................... 13 

3.5.3. Simplification of coal furnaces ............................................................................................................... 13 

3.5.5. Assumptions regarding mass balance of the flowchart ................................................................... 14 

4. Life Cycle Inventory ................................................................................................................................................... 15 

4.1. System Flowchart ................................................................................................................................................ 15 

4.2. Results of the Life Cycle Inventory ............................................................................................................... 16 

4.2.1. Hydrogen chloride and cement production .............................................................................................. 16 

4.2.2. Coal furnaces results ...................................................................................................................................... 17 

5. Life Cycle Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 18 

5.1. Characterization ................................................................................................................................................... 18 

5.3. System Expansion Results ............................................................................................................................ 20 

5.4. Scenario Analysis: Single fate scenario ........................................................................................................ 23 

5.4.1. Sensitivity analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 26 

6. Conclusions & Further research .............................................................................................................................. 28 

References ............................................................................................................................................................................... 29 

Annex 1: Life Cycle Impact Assessment full results.................................................................................................. 34 

Annex 2: Inventory Data ..................................................................................................................................................... 37 

Annex 3: Calculations for HCl allocation in clinker production ............................................................................ 43 

 

  



 

 

Abbreviations: 
LCA: Life cycle assessment.  

LCI: Life cycle inventory.  

EOL: End of life.  

ELT: End of life tyre.  

TDF: Tyre derived fuel.  

EU: European Union 

GWP: Global Warming Potential.  

POCP: Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential. 

AR: Asphalt rubber.  

GHG: Greenhouse gases.  

IVL: Swedish environmental institute 

rCB: recovered Carbon Black 

CR: Crumb rubber 

EU: European Union 

ELV: End-of-life vehicle 

US: United States 



 

1 
 

1. Introduction 

Tyres are complex products consisting of a variety of different materials. The percentage of each material 

included varies depending on the company producing it, as each company has its own proprietary mix of 

materials, and on the type of vehicle on which it is going to be used. Figure 1 shows the average 

composition of a tyre [1]. 

 
Figure 1: Average composition of a tyre based on  [1] 

Tyres exist in significant numbers worldwide, and this number is increasing as new-car purchases 

increase [2]. This increase is also reflected in the number of tyres to be disposed annually. This is 

demonstrated on Table 1 where the end-of-life tyres (ELTs) in the European Union (EU) are presented for 

each year from 2008 to 2013  [3]. 

 
Table 1: EU ELTs from 2008 to 2013 

Year ELTs (k tons) 

2008 2650 

2009 2621 

2010 2699 

2011 2645 

2012 2765 

2013 2883 

 

Other reasons to treat ELTs exist. ELTs are non-degradable waste which is generated in significant 

amounts and might lead to a series of environmental and health hazards, if improperly disposed  [4], [5]. 

The recyclability of some of its components, as well as the high average calorific value of an ELT 

(approximately 32.5 MJ/kg, similar to that of coal  [6]) allows different possible End of Life (EOL) 

treatment for them. An efficient waste management strategy can considerably reduce the adverse 

environmental impacts of ELTs and at the same time provide outputs that could serve as resources for 

other activities.  

48%

22%

15%

8%

5%

1%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Rubber/Elastomers

Carbon black

Metal

Additives

Textile

Zinc oxide

Sulfur

COMPOSITION (%WT)

M
A

T
E

R
IA

L
S

AVERAGE TYRE COMPOSITION



 

2 
 

There are two categories of used tyres: part-worn tyres, which can be reused as vehicular tyres, either as a 

second-hand purchase or after reprocessing (e.g. retreading); and end-of-life tyres (ELT), which are non-

reusable as vehicular tyres. ELTs are waste that needs to be managed using material recycling and energy 

recovery since it is illegal to be sent to landfill since 2006, in Europe  [7]. 

 

 
Figure 2: Potential fates of ELT as seen on ETRMA [8] 

When examining the situation in Sweden, about 60% of ELTs are incinerated for energy recovery, 34% 

are recycled into different products, 5% are used for other uses in civil engineering like erosion barriers 

and landfill construction [9], and 1% is exported [10]. Svensk Däckåtervinning AB is charged with the 

collection of all used tyres in Sweden  [11], which is done by Ragn-Sells Tyre Recycling on their behalf  

[12]. 

One existing methodology to assess the environmental impact of such different EOL fates is Life Cycle 

Assessment (LCA) allowing the evaluation of the environmental impacts of each different ELT fate. In an 

LCA, the emissions throughout the life of a product are classified and characterized into impact 

categories and indicators, in order to assess the environmental impact the product has. This study seeks to 

map the current EOLs of ELTs in Sweden and evaluate the environmental impacts of these. 

Given that the European landscape is progressively stricter when it comes to environmental regulations, 

the current and future fates of a product like an ELT could be of high interest to those who, like Volvo 

Cars, must comply with extended producer’s responsibility for the EOL of tyres. 

This study is conducted for Volvo Car Corporation (from here on referred to as Volvo Cars), a car 

manufacturing company based in Gothenburg. The goal is to map and quantify the current EOLs of a tyre 

in Sweden, and to estimate the environmental impact that the entire system has in reference to a single 



 

3 
 

ELT. Moreover, the impacts of each fate will be discussed in order to provide Volvo Cars with an 

overview of the environmental attribute of EOL treatment options for ELTs in Sweden. 

  



 

4 
 

2. Literature Review 

2.1. Shredding and separation of ELT 

One fate of ELTs is the separation of the three main materials (rubber, steel, textiles) through granulation 

of ELT, mechanically or cryogenically1 [13], to use the materials separately to be either recycled or 

incorporated into new products (e.g. asphalt modifiers or football turfs). There have been numerous 

studies and LCA, both from academia and from industry, exploring potential uses of the resulting 

products, particularly that of rubber or textiles (steel is already known to be recyclable to an extensive 

degree). Examples of such studies are  [14], [15], [16]. 

Some ELT fates (such as pyrolysis or coal furnaces) requires the ELT to be pre-processed. This is often 

done by shredding the whole ELT into chips of smaller and more manageable size. Separation is one fate 

where the reduction in size is taken even further, pulverizing the rubber and resulting in a separation of 

the steel, textile and rubber share of the ELT. The main processes to separate the material are 

mechanically or cryogenically. These separation processes also affect the amount of electricity consumed, 

since grinding smaller granules of rubber requires more energy [6], [13]. These two studies show that 

there are no airborne emissions from the process, other than small amounts of dust. 

2.2. Energy recovery 

Waste to energy is a way of recovering ELTs. Tyre Derived Fuel (TDF) is used predominantly in co-

incineration to reduce the demand of fossil fuels [6], although there can be other reported benefits in the 

use of TDF (e.g. cement and coal furnaces benefit from using TDF due to iron content  [13], [17]). 

2.2.1. Cement – Clinker production 

The usage of waste as alternative fuel in cement production has been studied by several authors. Cement 

production is responsible for 5-7% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,  [18]. This has 

driven research for solutions to improve cement’s environmental performance and decrease its fossil fuel 

consumption at a production level. One of such measures is the utilization of waste-derived fuels and 

waste as a raw material in the clinker production [19].  

Galvez-Martos & Schoenberger [19] detail, for a case study in Germany, how the usage of waste-derived 

fuels is done for an economic reason, and the change that this has had on cement plants operators 

becoming “waste managers”. The study also points out that in clinker production the use of TDF has 

remained relatively constant in that country for the years 1998 to 2011. The authors conclude that using 

waste-derived fuel in cement production leads to a decrease in fossil fuel consumption, despite marginally 

affecting GHG emissions of the process, and that if reducing those emissions is the goal, the more 

effective route is to reduce the proportion of clinker included in cement. 

                                                        
1 Mechanical separation involves the use of shredders that reduce the size of the ELT until the result is crumb (or 
pulverized) rubber, steel and textiles.  
Cryogenic separation involves lowering the temperature of the rubber chips to facilitate the reduction in size. 



 

5 
 

Georgiopoulou & Lyberatos  [20] review the potential replacement of the fuel needed for the production 

of clinker with, among others, TDF. The results also show marginal improvements on GWP when 

compared with 100% fossil fuel scenarios with coal, coke, etc. For other impact categories however, the 

results show considerably better performance when using TDF as fuel (e.g. acidification/eutrophication, 

ecotoxicity, land use, etc.). 

Rahman et al.  [21] provides a status of the use of different alternative fuels in cement, including TDF. 

The authors provide percentages of ELTs used by different producers of cement, and TDF is shown to be 

between 10 and 20% of the alternative fuels used. The paper reviews and compares different benefits and 

obstacles when using TDF as whole tyres, shredded, or crumb tyres. Interestingly, the authors point out 

that there is a 30% TDF substitution limit in cement kilns, since a higher share of TDF might affect the 

process of cement production adversely. Additionally, the authors point out that there are several 

conflicting results in existing literature when it comes to emissions (e.g. NOx, SO2, dioxins, furans, etc.) 

from using TDF in cement kilns.  

2.2.2. Incineration in coal furnaces 

According to the “Energy in Sweden 2017” report [22], coke and coal sources represent approximately 

only 4% of the total energy system production in Sweden. The majority of coal is utilized in industry, 

specifically for the production of metallurgical coke to be used as a reductant in iron production [22]. 

Pavlovich, Solovyova and Strakhov  [17] detail advantages of using crushed waste tyres with steel cord2 

as an alternative for coal. According to the authors, this is beneficial not only for economic reasons, but 

also because of different properties that this use brings to metallurgical coke. Adding ELTs improves the 

yield of the coking furnaces, the mechanical strength, and improves the yield of valuable byproducts such 

as tar and benzene. Furthermore, the output ash has a higher content of iron oxide, which is beneficial for 

its use in blast furnaces. 

2.2.3. Textiles incineration 

Textiles is one of the three main components of a tyre and is about 5% of its weight [1]. Their fate after 

being separated from an ELT typically is incineration for energy recovery [23], [24]. 

The main issue for recycling textiles from ELTs is contamination with rubber which prevent the 

production of an economically feasible product. Cleaning the textiles is not usually done, since currently 

there is not yet a market that justifies the required effort and resources.  There is however a lack of 

available information on the characteristics of the textile fiber [23] and the common fate of these textile 

fibers is to be landfilled or be incinerated for energy recovery. 

It has also been demonstrated the technical feasibility of reusing textile fibers as secondary raw materials 

in asphalt and plastic compounds [23] 

                                                        
2Radial tyres have a steel cord in their build, allowing for a longer life-span and a smoother ride, better suited for 
passenger use. Bias tyres do not have a steel cord in them and are better suited for construction and other utility 
applications since it reinforces both tread and build [52]. 



 

6 
 

2.3. Material reuse and recycling 

2.3.1. Pyrolysis  

Pyrolyzing shredded ELT has been gaining interest recently, since it allows for recovery of many of the 

composing materials of the ELT, as well creating potential new materials of value for other processes 

[25]. 

Pyrolysis can be described as “a process which decomposes organic materials in an inert condition into 

liquid, gas and solid products”  [25]. This is done by submitting the material to high temperatures in 

absence of oxygen.  

The above mentioned solid product is called recovered carbon black (rCB), a substance which otherwise 

would be produced from crude oil and it is used extensively in tyres and rubber applications [26]. 

Pyrolysis is not yet applied in an industrial scale, although there are actors who are performing this 

process and trying to scale up. One of them is Scandinavian Enviro Systems [27], based in Gothenburg. 

Enviro was approached by the authors of this study and during an interview provided information about 

rCB not being able to replace virgin carbon black in a one to one basis in all of its uses due to degraded 

quality. Nevertheless, rCB can be a part of different, less mechanically demanding, products such as, for 

example, general rubber or rubber membrane  [28]. According to Enviro, every kilo of rCB which 

replaces the production of carbon black from virgin materials, corresponds to 1.5-2kg of crude oil savings  

[29]. In addition, the gaseous and liquid oil-like by-products, have both a high calorific value which gives 

them economic value if being used as fuels. More specifically the gas product can supply the energy 

needed for the pyrolysis process itself while the oil-like product can be used, with some additional 

processing, as a replacement for diesel fuels or chemicals produced from fossil fuels like 1,3-butadiene, 

limonene, benzene, toluene and xylene [25]. However, the high sulfuric content of tyres could lead to 

these products causing major environmental problems once combusted, such as acidification due to SO2 

emissions. According to Oh Choi & Kim [25] in a two-stage pyrolysis the sulfur content can be reduced 

by approximately 40%. However, this process is still in an experimental phase. Pyrolysis can be 

considered as an option for treating ELTs with a prospect of upscaling and potentially being a more 

environmentally friendly option compared to other treatment processes, as the main product generated 

today by this process is carbon black, it might help creating more ‘circularity’3 in the life cycle of a tyre 

[30]. 

2.3.2. Steel recycling 

Steel is a particularly valuable material of car tyres because of its properties. Another characteristic of 

iron as a material is that since it can be indefinitely recycled into new forms and with new properties  

[31]. Recovered steel from an ELT is steel scrap and can be recycled. An advantage of steel scrap is that 

it requires less energy to be reprocessed into a “new” product, and therefore it is more economical and 

                                                        
3 Circularity: It refers to circular economy which can be defined as decoupling the economic from the consumption of 
finite resources and designing waste out of the system [53] 



 

7 
 

results in lower emissions than virgin steel production [32]. According to Yellishetty [33] since 1950, 

worldwide scrap consumption by the steel industry has grown by 12% per year. The same study mentions 

that since 1987 the prices of iron ore increased at a rate of 24% per year, while scrap prices grew by 13% 

per year.  

All these facts, in addition to an increasing trend in the use of steel [34], result in greater value being 

given to products from which steel can be recovered, like ELTs [33].  

2.3.3. Other uses 

Shredded tyres can be used in a wide range of products like civil engineering applications, rubber mats, 

shoe soles, dyes and inks [1]. The rubber share resulting from the separation process, known as crumb 

rubber (CR), can be also used for different applications, of which the biggest share has infill in football 

turfs and asphalt. 

2.3.3.1. Infill in football turfs 

After the process of separation, an important use of rubber is as infill material for football turfs.  It is 

estimated that in European market 83 % of the existing artificial turf fields have rubber infill from 

recycled tyres (referred to in the article as styrene butadiene rubber (SBR))  [35]. According to an LCA 

study performed by Ragn-Sells  [15] the environmental impact due to the use of such replacement 

materials might be considerably greater. In the last 20 years the market of artificial turf fields has 

increased in Scandinavia so the demand for rubber as infill has consequently also followed this trend [35]. 

Since the estimated lifetime of football turfs is 15 years  [36] the amount of rubber granulates that will 

require treatment in the future is likely to grow as a growing number of football turfs will reach its end of 

life, and the treatment could become an issue. According to Magnusson [37] about one hundred artificial 

turf fields are built in Sweden every year.  

The impact of the use phase of rubber infill has not been extensively studied, and thus no information to 

describe how they impact, for example, water bodies was found. The major dispersion pathways that is 

followed by rubber infill are through rain water runoff, drains system, snow moving and players who will 

carry it in their shoes or clothes [35]. In addition to that, the same report indicates that granulates degrade 

and wear over time, forming a layer of dust at the bottom of the turf. Since this is within the size range of 

microplastics their environmental impact needs to be studied further. These infill losses result in a need of 

refilling the infill with, on average, 5.5tons per year for a regular football pitch as stated in a report by 

Rambøll [38]. One of the main treatments of worn granulates, nowadays, is incineration for energy 

recovery [39]. To the best of our knowledge, the only Scandinavian company that recycles football turfs 

and their rubber infill is Re-Match [40] which collects and recycles turf waste. A study conducted by IVL 

has estimated the loss of granulates between 1640 and 3510 tons per year in Scandinavia from 1336 

football turfs [37].   



 

8 
 

2.3.3.2. Mixing CR with bitumen in asphalt 

Asphalt is generally produced by mixing bitumen and aggregates (stone, sand or gravel  [41]). Modified 

asphalt concrete is produced by mixing crumb rubber (a possible outcome of ELT treatment) with 

bitumen. The combination of this modified asphalt concrete with the aggregates results in what is known 

as Asphalt Rubber (AR) [15]. 

In an LCA performed by Ragn-Sells, Johansson [15] explains the advantages of using AR pavements, 

such as increased life of the road, reduced noise, and less crack propagation. The study investigates three 

different types of AR surfaces, by a scenario analysis approach. The authors find that, the manufacturing 

of AR shows a worse environmental performance compared to that of conventional asphalt. However, the 

ability to reduce the thickness of the asphalt layers when using AR could lead to lower overall 

environmental impacts. The potential reduction of the life span of AR due to the use of studded tyres in 

Sweden is also mentioned. 

Farina et al.  [42] performs an LCA on road paving technologies containing different recycled materials, 

such as AR. The study found that the AR resulted in lower energy usage and global warming potential 

(GWP) in both the production and maintenance phase. 

2.4. Insights from the literature review 

There is a number of different pathways for reusing or recycling tyres, leading to diverse environmental 

impacts, energetic requirements and/or final products. This results in ELTs being handled in different 

ways in different countries. LCAs on ELTs are commonly done to fulfill one of two functions: either to 

compare different EOL fates(e.g. [6],  [13]), or to assess the impacts of using ELTs into a specific process 

or product(e.g. [17], [20]). The focus on specific processes and individual comparisons has not yet 

translated to a study that evaluates the system as a whole. This is relevant because the Swedish ELT 

treatment system is a combination of different treatment processes and fates that connect to many other 

processes, and thus the actual impact of the disposal of an ELT, or a kilo of it, has so far not been 

assessed, and it likely differs from the impact that could come from treating an ELT in one single process. 

  



 

9 
 

3. Methodology: 

3.1. Life Cycle Assessment 

The ISO standard 14040 (1997) states that “LCA is a technique for assessing the environmental aspects 

and potential impacts associated with a product by: 

• Compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of a product system 

• Evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs and outputs 

• Interpreting the results of the inventory analysis and impact assessment phases in relation to the 

objectives of the study” 

Figure 3 shows the LCA methodology as described by Baumann and Tillman [43]. 

 

Figure 3: LCA methodology based on "A Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA" by Baumann & Tillman 

3.2. Goal of the study 

Given the variety of end-of-life treatments of tyres mentioned in the previous section, research on the 

topic becomes very relevant in order to broaden the knowledge Volvo Cars has about the EOL fates and 

impacts of ELTs. Because of this, it was determined to investigate the following questions: 

• What are the possible fates that Volvo Cars’ ELTs undergo and what are the potential 

environmental implications arising from such fates? 

• Under an environmental perspective, what are the preferable fate for Volvo Cars’ ELTs?  



 

10 
 

3.3. Scope 

3.3.1. Initial Flow Chart 

In Figure 4, an initial flowchart of the analyzed system is presented. Here the study includes all fates of an 

ELT grouped as either material recycling/reusing or as energy recovery and the inputs (energy and 

material resources) and outputs (emissions to air, water and soil) of the system. It is a “gate-to-grave” 

study which means that the use phase, the production and the extraction of materials will not be 

considered. 

 
Figure 4: Initial flow chart 

 

3.3.2. Functional Unit 

One characteristic of an LCA is that all flows and results have to be related to the functional unit of the 

system that is being analyzed. As such, an appropriate functional unit allows addressing all the different 

aspects relevant to the analysis, while being representative of the system.  

In this study, the chosen functional unit is “one ELT entering treatment” since the function of the system 

is to analyze the various ways of treating an ELT. As a reference flow one kilogram of ELT entering 

treatment was chosen.  

 



 

11 
 

3.3.3. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodology and impact categories 

Tyres have a high content of carbon so, when incinerated, carbon dioxide emissions are expected. 

Another important element of a tyre is sulfur (see Section 1) which can be a result from energy recovery 

in the form of sulfur oxides. NOx emissions are produced during combustion processes, and therefore can 

be expected to be present as a result of all combustion related activities. Activities in the background as 

well, like electricity are expected to affect the results. 

Because of these expected emissions, in this study, the assessed mid-point impact categories included in 

this study are the following: 

• Global Warming 

• Freshwater and Terrestrial Acidification 

• Eutrophication 

• Photochemical Ozone Creation 

The impact categories were also chosen according to their relevance to the scope of this project. Global 

warming is a relevant and global issue. Acidification is relevant to Sweden as it is a sensitive area where 

acid rain has caused problems in the past both in terrestrial and water ecosystems. Eutrophication of 

natural ecosystems has affected many areas of northern Europe such as the Baltic Sea. Finally, 

photochemical ozone creation is an important impact assessment category as far as human health is 

concerned. As such, it was decided to be included in the report.  

The characterization factors for the impact categories were obtained from the Environmental Footprint 

database v3,0 of the European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment [44]. 

3.3.4. Type of LCA 

There are currently two accepted types of LCA methodologies, each serving a different purpose that must 

be aligned with the goal and scope of the project, since they affect the type of data and decisions required 

to model the entire system, and therefore affect the resulting impacts. These two different types are 

attributional and consequential LCA.  

Consequential LCA (CLCA or change-oriented LCA) is a type of assessment concerned with comparing 

the environmental consequences of alternate courses of action, modelling the effects of change  [43]. 

Attributional LCA (ALCA) is also known as accounting LCA, and aims to compare different options, or 

to assist in future decisions by showing the impact that the functional unit has on average. As such, this is 

the type of assessment that will be performed since the purpose of the study is to determine the impacts of 

the current system and compare the different EOL pathways.  

3.3.5. Allocation 

In this study, allocation will be dealt with using two different approaches. In the baseline assessment, a 

“strictly attributional” allocation will be done, meaning that the analysis will be performed considering no 

credits or additional burdens outside of the system as per the attributional LCA methodology. This is 

because it is considered that the ELT is waste that is disposed at, for example, cement production and coal 



 

12 
 

furnaces, so the impact resulting from their disposal should be attributed to the ELT. If the ELT is 

processed into a feedstock for a new process, only the impact of processing the ELT will be considered, 

and once the new feedstock is produced, it leaves the system boundaries. 

As an alternative to allocation, a method known as system expansion is to be used, where the system 

under study is credited for the outgoing flows that can be used as feedstock in other activities, replacing 

the use of virgin materials or energy resources.  These credits come from the following replacements 

being made: 

• The replacement of petroleum coke burning by TDF in clinker production and the avoidance of 

petroleum coke production 

• The replacement of hard coal burning by TDF in coal furnaces and the avoidance of hard coal 

production in Europe (without Rusia or Turkey) 

• Recovered carbon black replacing virgin carbon black and thus avoiding its production 

• Scrap resulting from the process turned into low alloy steel replacing low alloy hot rolled steel 

produced globally 

3.3.6. System Boundaries 

3.3.6.1. Technical system boundaries 

No information regarding the resource extraction, production or use-phase of the tyres will be considered, 

since a “gate-to-grave” assessment will be performed from a strictly attributional point of view, reviewing 

only the impacts from the moment the ELT leaves the use-phase until it reaches its final fate. This is 

because only the EOL fates and impacts are assessed in this study. 

3.3.6.2. Geographical boundaries 

This study focuses on ELT processing in Sweden Since Volvo Cars has the largest share of vehicles sold 

cars in Sweden [45], the company is a relevant source of ELTs in the country. 

3.4. Data gathering and data quality 

For this study, average data coming mainly from scientific reports and articles, and grey literature is used. 

Additional information was gathered first hand from interviews and conversations with companies 

involved in the system. The information used for all the calculations of pyrolysis were used exclusively 

from an interview with Enviro and the share of each fate was based on a flowchart from Ragn-Sells and 

some further discussions with them. 

Finally, the environmental profile related to inflows (lubricating oil or electricity for example)4 and the 

production of virgin materials were extracted from ecoinvent 3.5 [46].  

                                                        
4 The complete list of these flows, as well as the datasets from ecoinvent, can be found in the Annex 2 



 

13 
 

3.5. Assumptions and Limitations 

3.5.1. Transport 

Transportation was simplified so calculation of the travelled distances was feasible. ELTs are generated 

all over Sweden, and no information was found regarding amounts of tyres recovered and transported to 

the many different places where they would be further processed. The transport method determined was 

then road transport by trucks. Distances and the mass-distance value of each route can be found in Annex 

2. The simplifications done were the following: 

• A single point of collection and shipping from Stena was considered in Halmstad, since there were 

many Stena recycling facilities close to it, and it is located in the middle of the southern part of 

Sweden, central to the population density of the country 

• A single point of processing and shipping was considered for Ragn-Sells in Vänersborg. This was 

based on the location of their granulate factory  [15].  

• Of the three cement production plants from Cementa, the one in Slite was chosen. This is the 

biggest plant Cementa operates in Sweden [47] 

• A single point for the coal furnaces was assumed in Oxelösund. As mentioned previously coal 

furnaces are mainly used in the production of metallurgical coke, which is commonly done in 

integrated steel plants.  Oxelösund, at the biggest integrated steel plant operated by SSAB [48]. As 

mentioned previously coal furnaces are mainly used in the production of metallurgical coke, 

which is commonly done in integrated steel plants 

• The facility of Enviro Systems is located in Åsensbruk  [27], so all transports to and from are to be 

assumed to come from there. 

3.5.2. Simplification of clinker production 

The production of clinker requires different fuels and raw materials. These fuels (TDF, biomass, and 

fossil fuels) are burnt simultaneously and, as a result, it is difficult to measure which emissions come 

from each fuel. This problem was dealt with by collecting data about the emissions of burning TDF 

exclusively. It is not an accurate representation of what happens in the kiln, because several chemical 

reactions might take place simultaneously, which might lead to emissions directly related to the 

interaction of the combustion of TDF with other chemical species, but assuming that TDF is burnt 

separately is assumed to be an approximation of reality.  

3.5.3. Simplification of coal furnaces 

The use of ELT in the coal furnaces for the production of metallurgical coke improves, as mentioned in 

Section 2.2.2, the yield of byproducts and the organic content of the coke. This likely results in a 

percentage of the ELT mass used in this fate going to both the coke and to the byproducts. However, the 

split between the emissions to air, coke and byproducts share was not found by the authors. Because of 

this it is assumed that, as in clinker production, ELTs in this process are used only as TDF. 

 



 

14 
 

3.5.4. Infill in football turfs limitations 

Despite the negative impacts that could result from infill leakage, there are no regulation today which 

binds either the producer or the purchaser for their treatment.  

3.5.5. Assumptions regarding mass balance of the flowchart 

Some assumptions were made in order to reconcile the mass balance numbers that were used in the 

flowchart. The mass balance data were based on data published by Ragn-Sells  [10] and on information 

provided by them via email. However, there were some data gaps in the information which were dealt 

with by assumptions. These were the following: 

• Fates mentioned in Section 2.3.3 were not included in the calculation of the emissions. This was 

because they represent either only a small percentage of ELTs fate in Sweden, or because the CR 

is utilized in many different fates with different processes and amounts and has an overall low 

share of emissions. In the latter case, the corresponding fates should be studied further. 

• No explicit distinction on the amount of crumb rubber undergoing different fates were available 

o There are several small uses of crumb rubber (e.g. shoe soles, various plastic products, 

etc.) that are not considered in the split, but instead it is divided into the two main 

categories, i.e. football turfs and asphalt rubber 

o The split between these two categories is not known, but AR is currently in test-phase in 

Sweden, so the use of it is likely not widespread [15]. This, combined with the 

considerable amount of crumb rubber that an artificial turf requires yearly [35], and the 

fact that only one small company that recycles it was found, lead us to assign the majority 

of crumb rubber to artificial turfs. Due to the cut-off being made after crumb rubber is 

produced, this does not alter our results and thus is simply meant to be informative 

o Blasting mats are produced from whole tyres by the mining industry. However, the share 

of tyres used this way is unknown, and in provided information by Ragn-Sells, it is 

mentioned that the fate of the majority of whole tyres is cement production. Because of 

this, a 10% share of whole tyres is assumed for blasting mats. Since this represents 1% of 

total tyres, this fate is omitted. 

  



 

15 
 

4. Life Cycle Inventory 

4.1.  System Flowchart 

Figure 5 shows the process flowchart as the result of the data gathering process. In Table 2 below, the 

share of the weight that is processed by each fate is shown. This share was obtained through 

conversations with Ragn-Sells, as well as through the assumptions mentioned in section 3.5.3. 

 
Figure 5: System flowchart 

Table 2: Share of ELTs flow to each fate by weight percentage 

Share of ELTs flow to each fate by weight percentage 
Whole 11% Shredded 77% Separation 12% 
Export 1% Pyrolysis 5% Crumb Rubber 8% 
Retreading 0,5% Cement 32% Textile Incineration 2% 
Cement Whole 8,4% Coal Furnace 32% Secondary Steel 2% 

Blasting Mats 1.1% Other Uses 5%   

  Secondary Steel 3%   

 

Table 2 shows that the share of ELT that is currently directed towards energy recovery is currently 74.4% 

(32% to cement as shredded ELT, 32% to coal furnaces, 8.4% to cement as whole ELT and 2% as textile 

incineration). Material recovery and recycling then takes 23% of the weight (8% as CR, 5% as pyrolysis, 

5% other uses, 3% as secondary steel from shredding and 2% secondary steel from separation). The 

remaining 2.6% consists of 1.1% of ELT to blasting mats (see section 3.5.3). Finally, 1% leaves the 

system as an export to other countries and 0.5% is refurbished or retreaded and re-used. 

  



 

16 
 

 

4.2. Results of the Life Cycle Inventory 

Tables Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 below shows the emissions, inputs and products of all the different 

fates included in the calculations. The exception to that is pyrolysis, due to confidentiality reasons. 

 
Table 3: Material and energy inputs 

Material and energy inputs per kg of ELT 

System flows Shredding Separation TDF in cement 

production 

TDF in coal 

furnace 

Electricity (kWh) 0.04 0.04   

TDF (kWh)   3.61 2.87 

TDF (kg)   0.41 0.32 

Water 0.12 0.02   

Whole ELT 0.77 0.12 0.08  

Shredded ELT   0.32 0.32 

Lubricating Oil 8.47x10-6 1.32x10-6   

Steel 1.77x10-4 5.29x10-5   

 
Table 4: Elementary flows; emissions to air 

Direct emissions to air (kg reference substance/kg of ELT) 

Elementary flow Shredding Separation TDF in cement 

production 

TDF in coal 

furnace 

CO2 total (bio+fossil) - - 1.26 1.01 

CO2 biogenic - - - - 

CO - - - - 

SO2 - - 0.01 0.01 

NOx - - 4.78 3.82 

Particulates (PM10) - 2.2945 x 10-8 - - 

O2 - - 0.24 0.19 

HCl - - 0.01 0.01 

P2O5 - - 0.07 0.05 

 
Table 5: Main and coproducts 

Products 

Technical system 

flows 

Shredding Separation TDF in cement 

production 

TDF in coal 

furnace 

Shredded Tyre 0.74    

Crumb Rubber  0.11   

Textiles  0.01   

Scrap Steel 0.03 0.03   

 

4.2.1. Hydrogen chloride and cement production 

Hydrogen chloride emissions occur as a result of the incineration of TDF, as can be seen in Table 4. 

However, these emissions are not the same as the emissions that the entire clinker production process has, 

but instead only the emissions of the TDF incineration. As can be seen in detail in Annex 3: Calculations 

for HCl allocation in clinker production, an energy allocation was done to estimate the emissions of HCl 



 

17 
 

from the clinker production process that can be attributable to the incineration of TDF within said 

process. 

 

4.2.2. Coal furnaces results 

It was assumed that the use of TDF in furnaces has no byproducts was made (see Section 3.5.3).. No 

information regarding the shares of products resulting from the use of ELTs on coal furnaces for coking 

was found, and thus no allocation is done. Because of this, the emissions presented for coal boilers here 

(and in the scenario analyses) are likely higher than they would be.  



 

18 
 

5. Life Cycle Impact Assessment 

5.1. Characterization 

Table 6 shows the impacts of the entire system for each category for one kg of ELT entering treatment. in 

terms of their mid-point indicators. 

 
Table 6: System's impact categories 

Impact Categories Values Units 

Global Warming  2.28 kg CO2-equivalents 

Freshwater & Terrestrial Acidification 5.84 Mol H+-equivalents 

Terrestrial Eutrophication 11.75 Mol N-equivalents 

Photochemical Ozone Creation 8.61 kg NMVOC-equivalents 

 

When assessing the system as a whole, the strictly attributional perspective shows that there is an actual 

environmental impact from the processing of ELTs.  

Below, Figure 6 presents the results for each impact category for each fate of the system. In each fate all 

activities (shredding, transportation, electricity, water use etc.) required by that fate are included. The 

major contributors to the environmental impact of the system in all the mentioned impact categories are 

cement and coal furnaces. The share of impact from cement production and coal furnaces is similar in all 

categories because both fates process ELTs as TDF and thus have the same emissions. Cement production 

contributes more to the impact than coal furnaces because of the higher amount of ELT destined to it. As 

fates, pyrolysis and separation have smaller impacts, being an almost dismissible share of the results 

shown in Figure 6. This is likely due to a combination of having a smaller share of ELT being processed 

by them (in terms of mass), as well as being fates where the materials of the ELT are recycled or reused, 

rather than incinerated for energy recovery. 



 

19 
 

 
Figure 6: Contribution of each fate to the overall environmental impacts of the system 

Since almost a major share of ELTs are utilized as fuel, and therefore consumed, the emissions in all 

impact categories are large when compared to more circular options such as pyrolysis or separation.  

When the system is seen not in terms of fates, but of the processes that form those fates, the results are 

similar. Incineration of TDF in both coal furnaces and clinker production dominate the impacts in each 

category, being 99.1% in GWP, 98.2% in freshwater and acidification, 97.9% for terrestrial 

eutrophication and 99.9% for POCP. The impacts from the remaining activities (such as pyrolysis, 

separation, shredding and background processes) were small. These results show that the impact from 

energy recovery fates is higher than the share of ELT processed by them, and thus meaning that the 

material recovery and recycling fates could be less impactful. 

When not accounting for the incineration of TDF, the most impactful activities in terms of GWP are 

pyrolysis, incineration of textiles, and electricity for separation. However, on the other impact categories, 

transport represents the dominating share of impact. 

5.2. Normalization 

In order to provide a reference point for the results of the system, the impacts were normalized following 

the Environmental Footprint 3.0 global normalization factors per capita (complete list in Annex 2). Figure 

7shows the results for the chosen impact categories in percentage relative to the global normalization 

factors per capita. 



 

20 
 

 

 
Figure 7: Impacts of the entire system relative to the global per capita normalization factors of EF3.0 

When compared to the average total impacts per person worldwide, the impact from one kilogram of ELT 

processed is of over 20% when it comes to POCP. Acidification and eutrophication have a lower impact, 

of approximately 10% and 6% respectively. Finally, the GWP impact is small, being equivalent to less 

than 0.03% of the kg of CO2-equivalents emitted per capita world-wide. 

5.3. System Expansion Results 

Results in this section are intended to show the system from a different perspective and evaluate the 

impact of each activity considering the emissions “avoided” when using ELTs instead of primary 

resources. This includes both the use of the virgin resources, as well as the avoidance in production of 

those resources. 

Figure 8 shows the impacts of the entire system on the different impact categories (as seen in Table 6 in 

Section 5.1) and the credits resulting from the system expansion allocation. The values for each impact 

category are in a different unit (GWP100 is in kilograms of CO2-equivalents, freshwater and terrestrial 

acidification is in moles of H+-equivalents, terrestrial eutrophication in moles of N-equivalents and POCP 

is expressed in kilograms of non-methane volatile organic carbon-equivalents).  



 

21 
 

 
Figure 8: System’s environmental impacts using system expansion. Units for each impact category are kilograms of CO2-equivalents, 

moles of H+-equivalents, moles of N-equivalents and kilograms of non-methane volatile organic carbon-equivalents respectively. Strictly 

attributional impacts are mentioned in Section 4.2 

Results in Figure 8 show that, on all impact categories considered in this study, crediting for both avoided 

emissions from combustion and from replacing new products with products derived from the analyzed 

processes leads to smaller system impacts. 

Further analysis into the impacts from each process was also done, comparing the cut-off and system 

expansion results. All impacts from the background system (i.e. those supporting the assessed system, 

such as electricity generation, lubricant oil production, and such others) as well as transport were 

allocated to each fate. The results of this analysis can be seen for cement and coal furnaces in Figure 9 

and for pyrolysis and separation in Figure 10. 



 

22 
 

 
Figure 9: TDF in Cement production and coal furnace results from a system expansion allocation approach 

 
Results in Figure 9 show that, when using a system expansion perspective, impacts are greatly reduced 

both in cement production and in coal furnaces on all impact categories, with GWP becoming negative on 

both fates. It is noticeable that all impacts are of similar magnitude on both fates, except GWP being 

lower for cement. Cement can be credited for the emissions coming from petroleum coke that are avoided 

from both consumption and its production. The GWP value becomes the lowest of all fates, and 

acidification, eutrophication and POCP are improved by an order of magnitude. Some uncertainty comes 

to these results since we are considering the emissions to be only from the incineration of TDF, and not 

considering the emissions at the end of the clinker production process. As far as incineration in coal 

furnaces is concerned the results are similar to cement. As mentioned in Section 4.2.2, the uncertainty that 

comes from the assumption that all emissions from TDF are burdened to the emissions to air, and that 

there are no byproducts, probably results in the impacts being higher than they would be.  

GWP has the largest improvement from this system expansion, but it is not as noticeable as that seen in 

the cement production fate. This might be explained by considering that an ELT in a coal furnace replaces 

coal, and in cement it is replacing petroleum coke.  

 



 

23 
 

 
Figure 10: Pyrolysis and separation results from a system expansion allocation approach 

 

Results for separation are shown in Figure 10, and the values for three of the four impact categories 

remain similar from both a system expansion and a strictly attributional perspective. The exception here is 

GWP, which changes from being a positive impact to a negative one. This is due to the credit from the 

scrap steel recycling. 

Figure 10 also shows the results of pyrolysis. Results when analyzing the system from a system expansion 

perspective show a reduction on all impact categories, with GWP becoming negative and POCP being the 

second lowest impact category. This reduction is due to the credits of recycled steel and the recovered 

carbon black replacing the need for producing virgin carbon black. As mentioned, the pyrolysis oil is also 

a product that is currently being researched for the possibility of using it as a feedstock in refineries (and 

take advantage of its biogenic carbon content) and further refine it into a partial biofuel. These uses are 

still experimental and not widespread, but if they were to become widespread practices, the results of the 

process would likely improve further. 

5.4. Scenario Analysis: Single fate scenario 

Further analysis of the different fates was done assuming that the entirety of the ELT would be processed 

in one fate, in order for the study to be able to determine which fate would be preferable for the ELTs of 

Volvo Cars. 

Results were the separated into 2 different figures to ensure clarity and readability. In Figure 11, the 

results for cement and coal furnaces are shown, while the results for pyrolysis and separation are shown 

in Figure 12 



 

24 
 

 

 
Figure 11: TDF in cement production and coal furnace results from a system expansion allocation approach in a scenario where all ELTs 

in the system is treated by a single fate 

 



 

25 
 

 
Figure 12: Pyrolysis and separation results from a system expansion allocation approach in a scenario where all ELTs in the system is 

treated by a single fate 

 

Separation is the fate with the lowest emissions when using a strictly attributional allocation, with the 

main impacts coming from the electricity required by the process, and the incineration of textiles 

(recycling of these is not yet done at an industrial scale but if this was done, and thus not incinerated, the 

impacts from separation would reduce considerably). CR obtained from separation is mostly used in two 

processes that, nowadays, use no other replacement. Those are asphalt rubber and infill in football turfs.  

Asphalt rubber produced with the addition of CR gives it some characteristics like absorption of 

vibrations which are given solely by CR. Although, this kind of asphalt currently has very limited use in 

Sweden and since it is not well-studied its impacts are mostly unknown.  

Infill in football turfs is made almost exclusively by CR, thus assessing replacements wouldn’t be realistic 

for today’s situation. Infill has leakages which cause pollution because of the microplastics (worn CR) 

and this is not properly studied yet. Also, there is no regulation for a specific treatment of the infill, so it 

is mostly treated as waste (this could change in the future, as the number of football turfs entering their 

EOL increases, and consequently the need to treat the end-of-life granulates). 

Further studies on the infill leakage could reveal the true extent of the pollution and possible treatments, 

in order to reduce its impact especially since the use of artificial football turfs is increasing. Additionally, 



 

26 
 

possible replacements with less environmental impact could be researched (e.g. the development of 

football turfs without infill).  

Pyrolysis is a fate that shows good performance when assessing its environmental impacts. From a strictly 

attributional perspective, it falls short only of separation, and in the categories of acidification, 

eutrophication and POCP the impact ranges between 16% and 31% more than the respective separation 

impacts. In the case of GWP this number is a few times higher than the strictly attributional results of 

separation. However, the outputs of pyrolysis are better known and the total impacts of the pyrolysis can 

be quantified more easily, and the inclusion of benefits coming from commercial uses of pyrolytic oil 

could close this gap further. The system could likely be further improved by changing the current share of 

ELT fates. When assessing this, it was determined that separation was not to be increased from its current 

share because, as mentioned above, there is not enough information regarding the impacts of some of the 

main uses of crumb rubber and the current lack of recyclability where textiles are concerned. It is because 

of this that the recommendation is to increase the share of pyrolysis since its environmental performance 

is among the best of the analyzed fates, and the process brings circularity to a number of different 

materials, instead of simple energy recovery. The potential of this increase was analyzed in the next 

section. 

5.4.1. Sensitivity analysis 

A sensitivity analysis was performed to further understand how the total share of an ELT treated by 

pyrolysis affects the total results of the system. Pyrolysis was selected as the fate to test since, from 

previous results, it is one of the best performing fates, and had a low overall share in the system 

(separation shows better results as a single fate but, for reasons better explained in section Figure 13: 

Change in overall system impact by changing share of ELT pyrolyzed, it was not chosen as the variable to 

shift in this analysis). Figure 13 shows that as the share of pyrolysis increases in the system, all 

environmental impacts improve in an almost linear manner. 

This analysis was done by changing the share of pyrolysis while adjusting all other fates to maintain the 

relative proportion they had to each other.  



 

27 
 

 

 
Figure 13: Change in overall system impact by changing share of ELT pyrolyzed 

As can be seen from the sensitivity analysis, increasing the share of pyrolysis in the system improves the 

overall results in a linear fashion, with no significant penalty for increasing the share. This does not mean, 

however, that the share of pyrolysis could be increased to that level anytime soon. Production capacity for 

pyrolyzing tyres is not capable of managing the increase in volume, and thus any evaluation of whether or 

not to increase this production should be done in a consequential LCA. Also relevant is that products and 

services that have grown dependent to a certain amount of ELTs in their feedstock (such as cement 

production or football turfs) could likely have issues adapting to this change. Because of these reasons, 

the sensitivity analysis here is only used to examine the theoretical benefits of increasing ELT processing 

by pyrolysis. 

  



 

28 
 

6. Conclusions & Further research 

ELTs are a waste stream which could be a feedstock for different products and, therefore, has value. The 

different fates of ELTs have different environmental impacts, so the emissions of the system have the 

potential to be reduced if the shares of ELTs processed by each fate change. Of course, this has many 

parameters to be considered; pyrolysis has a low capacity and an expansion of it would need the 

construction of more facilities and, therefore, a certain carbon footprint from the construction. Cement is 

a complicated process which produces a considerable amount of emissions. It is a well-suited process for 

waste disposal, and because of this, the mix of energy feedstocks varies between countries. There are 

many studies regarding the use of alternative energy feedstocks in the cement process. However, the 

optimization of the combination of feedstocks specific to a country or region is something that can be 

further studied.  

Another fate of ELTs is coal furnaces. The information found regarding LCAs and the use of ELTs in 

coal furnaces was limited. Because of this, our calculations were based on the assumption that ELTs are 

burnt as TDF.  

Pyrolysis, although not widely used is a process with low emissions. Increasing the share of pyrolysis 

treatment would lower the emissions of the whole system. Pyrolysis appears to be a promising fate for 

ELTs as it produces secondary products which can replace other virgin products, thus preventing fossil 

fuel extraction and additional processing. This is notable when system expansion is used in order to credit 

the system. Pyrolysis as a fate improves the circularity of the system because of its outputs (e.g. carbon 

black, steel). The pyrolytic oil has been and is being studied to evaluate its potential as a refinery 

feedstock and as a component of alternative fuels. Further developments in these efforts might improve 

the results of pyrolysis when considering an expansion of our system. 

Separation has also very low environmental impact, but some of its products, namely football turf infill 

and asphalt could be further researched. Infill in football turfs is the main use of crumb rubber. The level 

of pollution derived from CR in football turfs is still unknown and, given that the use of CR in football 

turfs is constantly growing, researching a more environmentally friendly replacement might be 

interesting. In spite of separation’s good environmental performance, further research on the resulting 

products, especially those that include CR, should be done before increasing the share it has in the 

system. 

 

  



 

29 
 

References 
 

[1]  V. Torretta, E. C. Rada, M. Ragazzi, E. Trulli, I. A. Istrate and L. I. Cioca, "Treatment and disposal 

of tyres: Two EU approaches. A review," Waste Management, vol. 45, pp. 152-160, 2015.  

[2]  OICA, "OICA," [Online]. Available: http://www.oica.net/category/sales-statistics/. [Accessed 3 

May 2019]. 

[3]  Ewan Scott, Editor of Tyre and Rubber Recycling Magazine, "ETRma European Tyre & 

Rubbers Manufacturers' Association, uploads, modules, documentsmanager," 2015. [Online]. 

Available: http://www.etrma.org/uploads/Modules/Documentsmanager/elt-report-v9a---

final.pdf. [Accessed 3 May 2019]. 

[4]  T.-H. Lin, Y.-S. Chien and W.-M. Chiu, "Rubber tire life cycle assessment and the effect of 

reducing carbon footprint by replacing carbon black with graphene," International Journal of 

Green Energy, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 97-104, 2016.  

[5]  E. Blanco Mchin, D. Travieso Pedroso and J. Andrade de Carvalho, "Energetic valorization of 

waste tires," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 68, no. Part 1, pp. 306-315, 2017.  

[6]  R. Feraldi, S. Cashman, M. Huff and L. Raahauge, "Comparative LCA of treatment options for US 

scrap tires: material recycling and tire-derived fuel combustion," Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 18, 

pp. 613-625, 2013.  

[7]  European Comission, "European Comission, project, rcn, 75238, factsheet," NORSK 

DEKKRETUR AS, 6 August 2012. [Online]. Available: 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/75238/factsheet/en. [Accessed 3 May 2019]. 

[8]  ETRma European Tyre & Rubber Manufacturers' Association, "ETRma European Tyre & 

Rubber Manufacturers' Association, tyres, ELTs," [Online]. Available: 

http://www.etrma.org/tyres/ELTs. [Accessed 3 May 2019]. 

[9]  ETRma, "ETRma," [Online]. Available: http://www.etrma.org/tyres/ELTs/material-recovery. 

[Accessed 22 May 2019]. 

[10]  Ragn-Sells Tyre Recycling, "Artiklar: Däckets väg i återvinningsprocessen Ragn-Sells Tyre 

Recycling," 11 April 2019. [Online]. Available: 

https://www.ragnsellstyrerecycling.com/article-startpage/dackets-vag-i-

atervinningsprocessen/. 

[11]  Svensk Däckåtervinning AB, "About us: Svensk Däckåtervinning AB," 9 April 2019. [Online]. 

Available: https://www.sdab.se/en/about-us/. 

[12]  Ragn-Sells Tyre Recycling, "About us: Ragn-Sells Tyre Recycling," 9 April 2019. [Online]. 

Available: https://www.ragnsellstyrerecycling.com/en/about-ragn-sells-tyre-recycling/. 



 

30 
 

[13]  A. Corti and L. Lombardi, "End life tyres: Alternative final disposal processes compared by 

LCA," Energy, vol. 29, pp. 2089-2108, 2004.  

[14]  D. Landi, S. Gigli, M. Germani and M. Marconi, "Investigating the feasibility of a reuse scenario 

for textile fibres recovered from end-of-life tyres," Waste Management, pp. 187-204, 2018.  

[15]  K. Johansson, "Life cycle assessment of two end-of-life tyre applications: Aritificial turfs and 

asphalt rubber," Ragn-Sells Däckåtervinning AB, Uppsala, 2018. 

[16]  N. H. Kløverpris, A. Schmidt, B. Jørgensen Kjær, R. Vogt and J. Giegrich, "Comparative life cycle 

assessment of two options for waste tyre treatment: material recycling in asphalt and 

artificial turf vs. civil engineering application for drainage layers in landfills," GENAN 

HOLDING A/S, 2009. 

[17]  L. Pavlovich, N. Y. Solovyova and V. Strakhov, "Utilizing Waste Tires with Steel Cord in Coke 

Production," Coke and Chemistry, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 119-126, 2017.  

[18]  P. Van den Heede and N. De Belie, "Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of 

traditional and ‘green’ concretes: Literature review and theoretical calculations," Cement & 

Concrete Composites, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 431-442, 2012.  

[19]  J.-L. Galvez-Martos and H. Schoenberger, "An analysis of the use of life cycle assessment for 

waste co-incineration in cement kilns," Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 86, pp. 118-

131, 2014.  

[20]  M. Georgiopoulou and G. Lyberatos, "Life cycle assessment of the use of alternative fuels in 

cement kilns: A case study," Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 216, pp. 224-234, 

2018.  

[21]  A. Rahman, M. Rasul, M. Khan and S. Sharma, "Recent development on the uses of alternative 

fuels in cement manufacturing process," Fuel, vol. 145, pp. 84-99, 2015.  

[22]  Swedish Energy Agency, "Energy in Sweden 2017," Arkitektkopia, Bromma, 2018. 

[23]  D. Landi, S. Vitali and M. Germani, "Environmental analysis of different end of life scenarios of 

tires textile fibers," Procedia CIRP, p. 58, 2016.  

[24]  D. Landi, M. Marconia, I. Meoa and M. Germani, "Reuse scenarios of tires textile fibers: an 

environmental evaluation," Procedia CIRP, pp. 508-513, 2018.  

[25]  G.-G. Choi, S.-J. Oh and J.-S. Kim, "Non-catalytic pyrolysis of scrap tires using a newly 

developed two-stage pyrolyzer for the production of a pyrolysis oil with a low sulfur content," 

Applied Energy, vol. 170, pp. 140-147, 2016.  

[26]  ICBA, "ICBA (International Carbon Black Association)," 2016. [Online]. Available: 

http://www.carbon-black.org/index.php/carbon-black-uses. [Accessed 13 May 2019]. 



 

31 
 

[27]  Scandinavian Enviro Systems, "Scandinavian Enviro Systems," [Online]. Available: 

https://www.envirosystems.se/en/. [Accessed 3 May 2019]. 

[28]  Scandinavian Enviro Systems, "Scandinavian Enviro Systems, plants % circular materials, 

applications," [Online]. Available: https://www.envirosystems.se/en/plants-circular-

materials/applications/. [Accessed 3 May 2019]. 

[29]  Scandinavian Enviro Systems, "Scandinavian Enviro Systems, app, uploads," [Online]. 

Available: https://www.envirosystems.se/app/uploads/EnviroCB-flyer-largefilesize.pdf. 

[Accessed 3 May 2019]. 

[30]  I. Hita, M. Arabiourrutia, M. Olazar, J. Bilbao, J. M. Arandes and P. Castaño, "Opportunities and 

barriers for producing high quality fuels from the pyrolysis of scrap tires," Renewable and 

Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 56, pp. 745-759, 2016.  

[31]  Jernkontoret, "Jernkontoret, Steel industry Production, utilisation, recycling Recycling iron 

and steel," 19 November 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.jernkontoret.se/en/the-

steel-industry/production-utilisation-recycling/recycling-iron-and-steel/. [Accessed 3 May 

2019]. 

[32]  D. B. Muller, T. Wang, B. Duval and T. Graedel, "Exploring the engine of anthropogenic iron 

cycles," PNAS, p. 6, 2006.  

[33]  M. Yellishetty, G. M. Mudd, P. Ranjith and A. Tharumarajah, "Environmental life-cycle 

comparisons of steel production and recycling: sustainability issues, problems and prospects," 

Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 650-663, 2011.  

[34]  WorldSteel Association, "WorldSteel Association," 2019. [Online]. Available: 

https://www.worldsteel.org/about-steel/steel-facts.html. [Accessed 3 May 2019]. 

[35]  NTNU, "Report for the purchasing group of The Swedish Association of Local Authorities 

(SKL)-Market analysis artificial turf," 2018. 

[36]  Artificialgrass.info, "Artificialgrass.info, Laying and maintenance," [Online]. Available: 

http://www.artificialgrass.info/en/about-artificial-grass/laying-and-maintenance.html. 

[Accessed 3 May 2019]. 

[37]  K. Magnusson, K. Eliasson, A. Fråne, K. Haikonen, J. Hultén, M. Olshammar, J. Stadmark and A. 

Voisin, "Swedish sources and pathways for microplastics to the marine environment-areview 

of existing data," IVL Swedish Environmental Institute, Stockholm, 2017. 

[38]  Rambøll, "Kartlegging av håndtering av granulat på kunstgressbaner," Rambøll, Oslo, 2017. 

[39]  Re Match turf recycling, "Re Match turf recycling, the market, the challenge," [Online]. 

Available: https://re-match.dk/the-market/the-challenge. [Accessed 3 May 2019]. 



 

32 
 

[40]  Re Match turf recycling, "Re Match turf recycling," 2019. [Online]. Available: https://re-

match.dk/. [Accessed 3 May 2019]. 

[41]  M. Mazumder, V. Sriraman, H. H. Kin and S.-J. Loo, "Quantifying the environmental burdens of 

the hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavements and the production of warm mix asphalt (WMA)," 

International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 190-201, 2016.  

[42]  A. Farina, M. C. Zanetti, E. Santagata and G. A. Blengini, "Life cycle assessment applied to 

bituminous mixtures containing recycled materials: Crumb rubber and reclaimed asphalt 

pavement," Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 117, no. Part B, pp. 204-212, 2017.  

[43]  H. Baumann and A.-M. Tillman, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA, Lund: Studentlitteratur AB, 

2004.  

[44]  Joint Research Centre, EF reference package 3.0, European Platform on Lifecycle Assessment, 

2019.  

[45]  Bil Sweden, "MarkLines, Sweden - Flash report, Sales volume, 2018," 5 December 2018. 

[Online]. Available: 

https://www.marklines.com/en/statistics/flash_sales/salesfig_sweden_2018. [Accessed 3 

May 2019]. 

[46]  G. Wernet, C. Bauer, B. Steubing, J. Reinhard, E. Moreno-Ruiz and B. Weidema, "The ecoinvent 

database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology," The International Journal of Life 

Cycle Assessment, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 1218-1230, 2016.  

[47]  Cementa AB, "Produktion: Slite," 10 April 2019. [Online]. Available: 

https://www.cementa.se/sv/slite. 

[48]  SSAB, "Sites all over the world: SSAB," SSAB, [Online]. Available: 

https://www.ssab.com/company/about-ssab/our-business/sites-all-over-the-

world?di=discoverCC22E9720F574940BEE692A6C9DFD05C. [Accessed 06 May 2019]. 

[49]  D. Kellenberger, H.-J. Althaus, T. Künniger, N. Jungsbluth, M. Lehmann and P. Thalmann, "Life 

Cycle Inventories of Building Products. Final report ecoinvent Data v2.0 No. 7," EMPA, 

Dübendorf, CH, 2007. 

[50]  Engineering ToolBox, "Fuels - Higher and Lower Calorific Values," Engineering ToolBox, 2003. 

[Online]. Available: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-

d_169.html. [Accessed 21 May 2019]. 

[51]  United Nations Environment Programme, "Revised technical guidelines for the 

environmentally sound management of used and waste pneumatic tyres," Secretariat of the 

Basel Convention, Cartagena, Colombia, 2011. 



 

33 
 

[52]  J. G. Sommer, "Engineered Rubber Products - Introduction to Design, Manufacture and testing 

- 8.1 Introduction," Hanser Publications, 2009, pp. 143-168. 

[53]  Ellen MacArthur Foundation, "Ellen MacArthur Foundation," [Online]. Available: 

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept. [Accessed 13 May 

2019]. 

 
 

 

 

  



 

34 
 

Annex 1: Life Cycle Impact Assessment full results 

Life cycle impact assessment from a strictly attributional perspective 

Impact Category Total Impact Unit 

GWP100 2.20E+00 kg CO2-Eq 
FreshWater & Terrestrial Acidification 5.64E+00 mol H+ -Eq 
Freshwater Ecotoxicity 1.72E+01 CTU 
Freshwater Eutrophication 9.96E-02 kg P-Eq 
Marine Eutrophication 3.23E+00 kg N-Eq 
Terrestrial Eutrophication 1.14E+01 mol N-Eq 
Carcinogenic Effects 7.98E-06 CTUh 
ionising radiation 3.53E-02 kg U235-Eq 
non-carcinogenic effects 1.31E-03 CTUh 
ozone depletion 2.91E-09 kg CFC-11-Eq 
POCP 8.32E+00 kg NMVOC-Eq 
respiratory effects inorganics 1.67E-07 decease incidence 
Dissipated Water 2.09E-02 m3 water-Eq 
Fossils 5.13E-01 MJ 
Land use 4.04E-01 Points 
minerals and metals 5.55E-03 kg Sb-Eq 

 

Life cycle impact assessment from a systems expansion perspective 

Impact Category Total Impact Unit 

GWP100 -7.17E-01 kg CO2-Eq 
FreshWater & Terrestrial Acidification 6.15E-01 mol H+ -Eq 
Freshwater Ecotoxicity -6.46E+00 CTU 
Freshwater Eutrophication 9.90E-02 kg P-Eq 
Marine Eutrophication 3.65E-01 kg N-Eq 
Terrestrial Eutrophication 1.49E+00 mol N-Eq 
Carcinogenic Effects 7.98E-06 CTUh 
ionising radiation 7.59E-03 kg U235-Eq 
non-carcinogenic effects 1.31E-03 CTUh 
ozone depletion -8.19E-08 kg CFC-11-Eq 
POCP 9.41E-01 kg NMVOC-Eq 
respiratory effects inorganics -4.42E-07 decease incidence 
Dissipated Water -3.58E-02 m3 water-Eq 
Fossils -1.84E+01 MJ 
Land use -2.39E+00 Points 
minerals and metals 5.55E-03 kg Sb-Eq 

 

  



 

35 
 

 

Life cycle impact assessment of comparison of each fate in the current Swedish system 

 

 Cement Coal Furnaces Pyrolysis Separation 
Strictly 

Attrib. 
System 

Exp. 
Strictly 

Attrib. 
System 

Exp. 
Strictly 

Attrib. 
System 

Exp. 
Strictly 

Attrib. 
System 

Exp. 

GWP100 1.2E+00 -4.9E-01 9.7E-01 -1.5E-01 1.0E-02 -1.9E-02 5.7E-03 -4.7E-02 

Freshwater & 

terrestrial 

acidification 3.1E+00 2.9E-01 2.5E+00 3.1E-01 2.7E-03 2.5E-03 5.5E-03 5.2E-03 

Freshwater 

ecotoxicity 9.6E+00 -1.3E+01 7.6E+00 6.2E+00 5.9E-04 -9.5E-03 2.1E-03 8.6E-03 

Freshwater 

eutrophication 6.3E+00 7.3E-01 5.0E+00 7.3E-01 6.7E-03 6.4E-03 1.4E-02 1.3E-02 

Marine 

eutrophication 4.1E-06 4.1E-06 2.8E-06 2.8E-06 2.2E-07 2.2E-07 4.4E-07 4.4E-07 

Terrestrial 

eutrophication 6.8E-03 -7.5E-03 6.7E-03 -2.5E-03 5.2E-03 6.5E-05 1.6E-02 1.6E-02 

Carcinogenic 

effects 6.8E-04 6.8E-04 4.7E-04 4.7E-04 3.5E-05 3.5E-05 7.2E-05 7.2E-05 

Ionising 

radiation 7.8E-10 -5.1E-08 6.6E-10 -1.1E-08 3.6E-10 -1.8E-08 1.0E-09 -1.5E-09 

Non-

carcinogenic 

effects 4.6E+00 4.6E-01 3.7E+00 4.8E-01 2.4E-04 1.5E-04 4.3E-04 1.7E-04 

Ozone 

depletion 9.2E-08 -2.5E-07 7.3E-08 -1.8E-07 4.9E-10 -3.9E-09 9.7E-10 -2.9E-09 

POCP 3.9E-03 -6.2E-03 3.9E-03 -1.8E-02 3.1E-03 5.7E-04 9.4E-03 -8.4E-03 

Respiratory 

effects 

inorganics 9.8E-02 -3.2E+00 9.8E-02 -1.4E+01 7.5E-02 -1.1E+00 2.3E-01 -4.1E-01 

Dissipated 

water 7.7E-02 -3.1E-01 7.7E-02 -2.0E+00 6.0E-02 -9.8E-03 1.8E-01 -2.0E-02 

Fossils 2.9E-03 2.9E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 1.5E-04 1.5E-04 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 

Land use 1.2E+00 -4.9E-01 9.7E-01 -1.5E-01 1.0E-02 -1.9E-02 5.7E-03 -4.7E-02 

minerals and 

metals 3.1E+00 2.9E-01 2.5E+00 3.1E-01 2.7E-03 2.5E-03 5.5E-03 5.2E-03 

 

  



 

36 
 

Life cycle impact assessment of the single fate scenario 

 

 Cement Coal Furnaces Pyrolysis Separation 
Strictly 

Attrib. 
System 

Exp. 
Strictly 

Attrib. 
System 

Exp. 
Strictly 

Attrib. 
System 

Exp. 
Strictly 

Attrib. 
System 

Exp. 

GWP100 2.91E+00 -1.18E+00 2.90E+00 -4.39E-01 2.04E-01 -5.73E-01 4.74E-02 -3.92E-01 

FreshWater & 

terrestrial 

acidification 7.49E+00 6.94E-01 7.46E+00 9.32E-01 5.36E-02 4.89E-02 4.57E-02 4.35E-02 

Freshwater 

ecotoxicity 2.28E+01 -3.02E+01 2.27E+01 1.86E+01 1.15E-02 -1.62E-01 1.79E-02 7.15E-02 

Freshwater 

eutrophication 1.23E-01 1.22E-01 1.06E-01 1.05E-01 5.28E-02 5.26E-02 4.56E-02 4.51E-02 

Marine 

eutrophication 4.30E+00 4.23E-01 4.28E+00 5.63E-01 5.08E-04 -1.22E-04 2.93E-04 -1.55E-04 

Terrestrial 

eutrophication 1.51E+01 1.75E+00 1.50E+01 2.19E+00 1.31E-01 1.24E-01 1.13E-01 1.08E-01 

Carcinogenic 

effects 9.82E-06 9.82E-06 8.49E-06 8.49E-06 4.23E-06 4.24E-06 3.65E-06 3.67E-06 

Ionising 

radiation 1.85E-02 -1.53E-02 2.02E-02 -7.63E-03 1.02E-01 4.37E-03 1.29E-01 1.36E-01 

Non-

carcinogenic 

effects 1.62E-03 1.62E-03 1.40E-03 1.40E-03 6.97E-04 6.97E-04 6.01E-04 6.01E-04 

Ozone 

depletion 2.00E-09 -1.21E-07 1.98E-09 -3.38E-08 6.98E-09 -3.63E-07 8.53E-09 -1.24E-08 

POCP 1.11E+01 1.09E+00 1.10E+01 1.45E+00 4.67E-03 1.95E-03 3.55E-03 1.38E-03 

Respiratory 

effects 

inorganics 2.21E-07 -6.02E-07 2.18E-07 -5.49E-07 9.60E-09 -9.15E-08 8.08E-09 -2.45E-08 

Dissipated 

water 1.07E-02 -1.57E-02 1.17E-02 -5.33E-02 6.00E-02 -5.94E-02 7.84E-02 -7.00E-02 

Fossils 2.68E-01 -7.78E+00 2.92E-01 -4.05E+01 1.47E+00 -2.34E+01 1.90E+00 -3.41E+00 

Land use 2.12E-01 -7.28E-01 2.31E-01 -6.05E+00 1.17E+00 -9.79E-01 1.49E+00 -1.67E-01 

Minerals and 

metals 6.83E-03 6.83E-03 5.91E-03 5.91E-03 2.94E-03 2.94E-03 2.54E-03 2.53E-03 

 

 

  



 

37 
 

Annex 2: Inventory Data 

Tyre Derived Fuel, Petroleum Coke, and Coal emission factors from Combustion  [20] 

Net Calorific Value TDF Coal Petroleum Coke 

MJ/kg dry fue 32000 30000 33000 

Emissions TDF Coal Petroleum Coke 

CO2 3.00E+00 2.76E+00 3.23E+00 

H2O 9.42E-01 5.97E-01 5.01E-01 

O2 5.79E-01 4.70E-01 5.37E-01 

NOx 1.14E+01 9.28E+00 1.06E+01 

SO2 2.61E-02 9.05E-02 1.08E-01 

HCl 2.04E-02 3.20E-03 4.88E-02 

P2O5 1.62E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 

 

Shredding and Separation Data  [13] 

Authors divide the Shredding and Separation into three different processes, while we divide them into 

two. However, the first step (shred tyres for us, or Ground tyres for the authors) is the same for both, and 

the result of the third process is what we consider crumb rubber (Pulverized and fine pulverized tyres for 

the authors). Because of this, the second a third step are consolidated in our calculations into a single 

process. Here is the data as presented by the authors in their article. 

Inputs Outputs Amount Unit 

End of Life Tyre to Shredded tyres 

ELT  1000 kg 

Electricity  170 MJ 

Water  150 kg 

Steel  0.230 kg 

Oil  0,011 kg 

 Ground tyres 966 kg 

 Iron Scrap 34 kg 

Ground Tyres to Crushed Tyres 

Ground Tyres  1000 kg 

Electricity  573 MJ 

Steel  0.01 kg 

 Crushed tyres 750 kg 

 Iron Scrap 250 kg 

Crushed Tyres to Pulverized & fine Pulverized tyres 

Crushed Tyres  1000 kg 

Electricity  513 MJ 

Steel  0.278 kg 

 Fine Pulverized tyres 630 kg 

 Pulverized tyres 310 kg 

 Textile Fibers 60 kg 

 Particulate Matter 263.92 mg 

 

Pyrolysis information 

The source of most information regarding pyrolysis was Enviro Systems. Information confidential to their 

process and operation was used, and it was required by them to keep it from appearing explicitly in the 

report. However, the following information was used to calculate the mass of the pyrolysis gas used as 

fuel, to then obtain the emissions: 



 

38 
 

Transport information 

Distances were obtained using Google maps to plot the over the road route from each point. When 

available, exact addresses were used, otherwise the waypoint was decided to be at the center of the 

location. Doing this could lead to imprecision on the final distance, but the difference is likely 

dismissible, given the relatively small impact transport has on the total environmental impacts in each 

category. 

 

Transportation step Route - Location to location Distance in km 

Stena to Ragn-Sells Halmstad - Vänersborg 274 

Ragn-Sells to Cementa Vänerborg - Slite 487 

Ragn-Sells to Enviro Vänerborg - Lindholmen (gbg) 55 

Ragn-Sells to SSAB Vänerborg - Oxelösund 386 

 

The mass-distance value for each route was calculated with the distribution of the ELT, resulting in the 

following values: 

Route Mass-distance in kg*km 

Stena to Ragn-Sells 1918 

Ragn-Sells to Cementa 1385.19 

Ragn-Sells to Enviro 18.92 

Ragn-Sells to SSAB 870.95 

Total 4193.07 

 

 

ecoinvent 3.5 LCIA datasets used for the assessment 

Flow Dataset Used 

Transport Market for transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO5, RER 

Energy market for electricity, medium voltage, SE 

Water market for tap water, Europe without Switzerland 

Steel market for steel, low-alloyed, hot rolled, GLO 

Lubricant Oil market for lubricating oil, RER 

Textile Incineration market for waste textile, soiled, CH 

Carbon Black market for carbon black, GLO 

Petroleum Coke market for petroleum coke, GLO 

Coal market for hard coal, Europe, without Russia and Turkey 

Scrap Steel steel production, electric, low-alloyed, RER 

 

Methods used for calculation of the mid-point indicators in the Environmental Footprint 3.0 

methodology: 
Mid-point impact category Mid-point indicator 

Acidification Accumulated Exceedance (AE) 
Climate change Radiative forcing as Global Warming Potential (GWP100) 
Ecotoxicity, freshwater Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems (CTUe)  

EF-particulate Matter Impact on human health 
Eutrophication marine Fraction of nutrients reaching marine end compartment (N) 
Eutrophication, freshwater Fraction of nutrients reaching freshwater end compartment (P) 
Eutrophication, terrestrial Accumulated Exceedance (AE)  
Human toxicity, cancer Comparative Toxic Unit for human (CTUh)  
Human toxicity, non-cancer Comparative Toxic Unit for human (CTUh) 

Ionising radiation, human health Human exposure efficiency relative to U235 
Land use Soil quality index 
Ozone depletion Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)  



 

39 
 

Photochemical ozone formation - 

human health Tropospheric ozone concentration increase 
Resource use, fossils Abiotic resource depletion fossil fuels (ADP-fossil) 
Resource use, minerals and metals Abiotic resource depletion (ADP ultimate reserve) 
Water use User deprivation potential (deprivation-weighted water consumption) 

 

  

  



 

40 
 

Impact 

Category 

Transport (per 

ton*km) 

Energy  

(per kWh) 

Water  

(per 1 kg) 

Steel  

(per 1 kg) 

Units 

CC Total 166.22E-03 0.045406 0.000359 1.9971 kg CO2-Eq 
FreshWater & 

Terrestrial 

Acidification 680.49E-06 0.00023623 2.52E-06 0.010648 mol H+ -Eq 
Freshwater 

Ecotoxicity 407.67E-03 0.03742 0.00053 7.3519 CTU 
Freshwater 

Eutrophication 13.32E-06 2.13E-05 2.77E-07 0.001785 kg P-Eq 
Marine 

Eutrophication 199.07E-06 6.06E-05 4.09E-07 0.002169 kg N-Eq 
Terrestrial 

Eutrophication 2.19E-03 0.00075056 5.59E-06 0.023927 mol N-Eq 
Carcinogenic 

Effects 1.23E-09 1.43E-09 3.86E-11 6.20E-07 CTUh 
ionising radiation 12.31E-03 0.42408 1.28E-04 0.10849 kg U235-Eq 
non-carcinogenic 

effects 24.55E-09 1.38E-08 1.64E-10 1.36E-06 CTUh 
ozone depletion 38.14E-09 2.44E-08 3.07E-11 1.22E-07 kg CFC-11-Eq 
POCP 665.28E-06 1.20E-04 1.22E-06 9.44E-03 kg NMVOC-Eq 
respiratory effects 

inorganics 11.64E-09 2.78E-09 2.01E-11 1.76E-07 
decease 

incidence 
Dissipated Water 9.26E-03 2.43E-01 2.58E-04 8.32E-01 m3 water-Eq 
Fossils 2.55E+00 6.01E+00 7.13E-03 2,.76E+01 MJ 
Land use 2.49E+00 4.83E+00 3.05E-03 1.05E+01 Points 
minerals and 

metals 493.42E-09 0.045406 1.04E-09 2.22E-05 kg Sb-Eq 

 

  



 

41 
 

 

Impact 

Category 

Lubricant 

Oil (per 1 kg) 

Textile 

Incineration 

(per 1 kg) 

Carbon Black 

(per 1 kg) 

Petroleum 

Coke 

Units 

CC Total 1.3029 0.75089 1,8816 1,0682 kg CO2-Eq 
FreshWater & 

Terrestrial 

Acidification 0.009956 2.74E-03 0,012173 0,001143 mol H+ -Eq 
Freshwater 

Ecotoxicity 0.84599 0.073272 0,68138 0,12619 CTU 
Freshwater 

Eutrophication 4.78E-04 1.18E-05 0,000166 1,21E-05 kg P-Eq 
Marine 

Eutrophication 1.33E-03 2.01E-03 0,001367 0,000178 kg N-Eq 
Terrestrial 

Eutrophication 0.015883 1.36E-02 0,015023 0,001949 mol N-Eq 
Carcinogenic 

Effects 1.59E-08 2.25E-09 1,07E-08 9,45E-10 CTUh 
ionising radiation 3.63E-02 3.42E-03 0,34423 0,036769 kg U235-Eq 
non-carcinogenic 

effects 1.57E-07 7.93E-09 8,53E-08 1,02E-08 CTUh 
ozone depletion 8.11E-07 1.64E-08 1,22E-06 1,28E-07 kg CFC-11-Eq 
POCP 2.65E-02 3.23E-03 5,48E-03 6,95E-04 kg NMVOC-Eq 
respiratory effects 

inorganics 6.35E-08 9.73E-09 2,87E-07 7,14E-09 
decease 

incidence 
Dissipated Water 4.11E-01 9.08E-02 1,49E-01 1,02E-02 m3 water-Eq 
Fossils 6.56E+01 1.27E+00 7,54E+01 7,93E+00 MJ 
Land use 8.61E+00 2.78E-01 4,45E+00 8,01E-01 Points 
minerals and 

metals 1.12E-05 1.22E-07 4,77E-06 1,09E-07 kg Sb-Eq 

 

  



 

42 
 

 

Impact 

Category 

Coal  

(per 1 kg) 

Scrap Steel (per 

1 kg) 

Units 

CC Total 0,42866 0,40282 kg CO2-Eq 
FreshWater & 

Terrestrial 

Acidification 0,003672 0,002793 mol H+ -Eq 
Freshwater 

Ecotoxicity 0,34462 7,5463 CTU 
Freshwater 

Eutrophication 0,001322 0,000311 kg P-Eq 
Marine 

Eutrophication 0,001194 0,00054 kg N-Eq 
Terrestrial 

Eutrophication 0,011452 0,007193 mol N-Eq 
Carcinogenic 

Effects 5,49E-09 6,73E-07 CTUh 
ionising radiation 0,027784 0,13205 kg U235-Eq 
non-carcinogenic 

effects 1,77E-07 2,41E-06 CTUh 
ozone depletion 3,22E-08 4,55E-08 kg CFC-11-Eq 
POCP 2,79E-03 1,56E-03 kg NMVOC-Eq 
respiratory effects 

inorganics 1,56E-08 5,74E-08 
decease 

incidence 
Dissipated Water 4,53E-02 2,93E-01 m3 water-Eq 
Fossils 38,946 8,35E+00 MJ 
Land use 5,90E+00 4,51E+00 Points 
minerals and 

metals 1,90E-07 1,24E-06 kg Sb-Eq 

 

  



 

43 
 

Annex 3: Calculations for HCl allocation in clinker production 

In [49], the distinction between primary and secondary fuel is made. The amount of primary fuel used, 

with the exception of natural gas, was given in kilograms of fuel per kilogram of clinker produced. The 

rest of the fuels were given in megajoules (MJ). The list as found on the report is found in Table 7 

 

Table 7: Share of fuels utilized in clinker production [49] 

Fuel Amount Unit Fuel Amount Unit 

Natural gas 6.81X10-3 MJ TDF 1.36x10-1 MJ 

Light fuel oil 

3.74X10-4 kg 

Distillation 

residue 2.25X10-2 MJ 

Heavy fuel oil 2.55X10-2 kg Plastics 9.92X10-2 MJ 

Hard coal 3.54X10-2 kg Rubber meal 2.55X10-3 MJ 

Petroleum coke 3.91X10-3 kg Crap coke 8.32X10-3 MJ 

Dried sludge 

7.51X10-2 MJ 

Meat and bone 

meal 4.66X10-2 MJ 

Used oil 5.84X10-1 MJ Animal fat 3.42X10-2 MJ 

Solvents 

1.64X10-1 MJ 

Substitute solid 

combustibles 5.04X10-2 MJ 

 

To obtain the total energy needed for one kg of clinker, the energy provided by the primary fuels had to 

be calculated. The low heating values used for this calculation can be seen in Table 8 

 
Table 8: Low heating value (LHV) of primary fuels used in clinker production 

Low heating value (MJ/kg) 

Fuel Value Fuel Value 

Light fuel oil [50] 40.6 Coal [20] 29 

Heavy fuel oil [50] 39 Petroleum coke [20] 33 

 

The equation for the calculation of the energy supplied by a fuel is shown as Equation 1. After all energy 

values were in MJ, the total energy was calculated according to Equation 2 and resulted in 3.43 MJ per kg 

of clinker. 

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 ∗ 𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 = 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙         (1) 

∑ 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 = 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙1 + 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙2 + ⋯       (2) 

 

The share of the energy coming from TDF is, according to the calculation in Equation 3, 3.96%. The total 

HCl emissions to air for 1 kg of clinker is 6.31x10-6 kg, of which 2.5x10-7 kg come from TDF. 

𝐻𝐶𝑙𝑇𝐷𝐹𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
= 𝐻𝐶𝐿𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑇𝐷𝐹 = 6.31𝑥10−6 𝑘𝑔𝐻𝐶𝑙

𝑘𝑔 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑟
∗ 3.96% = 2.5𝑥10−7 𝑘𝑔𝐻𝐶𝑙

1 𝑘𝑔𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑟
 (3) 

 

This number is, however, the amount of HCl emitted that is allocated to TDF when producing 1 kg of 

clinker. To obtain the amount of HCl that is emitted by 1 kg of TDF, the amount of clinker that must be 

produced to consume 1 kg of TDF is first calculated. Equation 4 (derived from Equation 1) shows the 

calculation of how much TDF, in kg, is used when producing 1 kg of clinker (the LHV of TDF is 32 MJ 



 

44 
 

per kilogram of TDF [20]), and Equation 5 shows how the total amount of clinker produced when 1 kg of 

TDF is used. 

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑇𝐷𝐹 =
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦𝑇𝐷𝐹

𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑇𝐷𝐹
=

0.136
𝑀𝐽

𝑘𝑔𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑟

33
𝑀𝐽

𝑘𝑔𝑇𝐷𝐹

= 4.25𝑥10−3  
𝑘𝑔𝑇𝐷𝐹

𝑘𝑔𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑟
     (4) 

𝑘𝑔𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑟

𝑘𝑔𝑇𝐷𝐹
=

1
𝑘𝑔𝑇𝐷𝐹

𝑘𝑔𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑟

=
1

4.25𝑥10−3 = 235.29
𝑘𝑔𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑟

𝑘𝑔𝑇𝐷𝐹
       (5) 

 

With the results from Equations 3 and 5, Equation 6 results in the total emissions to air of HCl due to the 

use of 1 kg of TDF in the clinker production. 

𝐻𝐶𝐿1𝑘𝑔𝑇𝐷𝐹
= 𝐻𝐶𝐿𝑇𝐷𝐹𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

∗
𝑘𝑔𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑟

𝑘𝑔𝑇𝐷𝐹
= 2,5𝑥10−7 ∗ 235.29 = 5.89𝑥10−5  

𝑘𝑔𝐻𝐶𝑙

𝑘𝑔𝑇𝐷𝐹𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

  (6) 

 

Equation 7 shows the calculation of the emissions coming from the incineration of 0.42 kg of TDF in 

cement (as seen in Table 3). 

𝐻𝐶𝐿𝐸𝐿𝑇𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
= 𝐻𝐶𝐿𝑘𝑔𝑇𝐷𝐹

∗ 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐿𝑇𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
= 5.89𝑥10−5   

𝑘𝑔𝐻𝐶𝐿

𝑘𝑔𝑇𝐷𝐹𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

∗ 0.42
𝑘𝑔𝑇𝐷𝐹𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

𝑘𝑔𝐸𝐿𝑇
=

                 2.47𝑥10−5  
𝑘𝑔𝐻𝐶𝑙

𝑘𝑔𝐸𝐿𝑇
            (7) 

 

Using the characterization factor used in the beginning of the section Equation 8 shows the calculation of 

freshwater ecotoxicity impact with the result of the allocation done for the HCl. 

𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦𝐻𝐶𝑙𝑇𝐷𝐹
= 𝐻𝐶𝐿𝐸𝐿𝑇𝐶𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

∗ 𝐶𝐹𝐻𝐶𝑙𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑥
= 2.47𝑥10−5 𝑘𝑔𝐻𝐶𝑙

𝑘𝑔𝐸𝐿𝑇
∗

1153.5
𝐶𝑇𝑈

𝑘𝑔𝐻𝐶𝑙
= 2.85𝑥10−2 𝐶𝑇𝑈

𝑘𝑔𝐸𝐿𝑇
         (8)