Comparison of Different Software Approaches to Carbon Footprint Analysis: Pilot Study Using a 3D-Printed Mold Insert Example

Abstract

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a key tool for evaluating the environmental impacts of products and processes, providing a comprehensive view of their sustainability. This study evaluated the carbon footprint of a three-dimensional (3D)-printed mold insert using Ecochain Mobius (Ecoinvent Association, Zurich, Switzerland) version 3.9.1 and GaBi Sphera (Sphera Solutions, Chicago) version 2024.2. The software tools were selected because of their widespread use, differing databases (ecoinvent- and GaBi-based data sets), and the possibility of comparison using the same Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI 2.1) life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method. The mold inserts were fabricated using multi jet fusion (MJF) technology on an HP Jet Fusion 4200 printer, enabling layer-by-layer powder deposition with precise energy and thickness control. The analysis covered all main life-cycle phases: material transport to the printer, mold insert printing, delivery of the mold insert, use, recycling, and transport of recycled material. Results revealed substantial differences between the software tools, with the largest deviations observed for the transport of polyamide 12 (PA 12) powder to the printing facility (56.36%) and mold recycling (50.00%). Other stages, including the 3D printing phase (49.38%), transport to customer (26.44%), and transport of recycled material (26.21%), also showed notable differences. No impacts were assigned to the use phase (Stage 4), because the mold insert was assessed as a stand-alone product system and no operational burdens were modeled. Overall, the total impact on climate change differed by 49.45% between Ecochain Mobius and GaBi Sphera. These findings confirm that the selection of software and database content can significantly influence LCA results, underscoring the need for transparency and methodological consistency in comparative studies.