Author
Listed:
- Isla Hodgkinson
(Institute of Waste Management and Circular Economy, TUD Dresden University of Technology, 01796 Pirna, Germany)
- Maximilian Barth
(Institute of Waste Management and Circular Economy, TUD Dresden University of Technology, 01796 Pirna, Germany)
- Christina Dornack
(Institute of Waste Management and Circular Economy, TUD Dresden University of Technology, 01796 Pirna, Germany)
Abstract
This study presents a systematic literature review of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies applied to the principal constituents of Carbon Fibre Metal Laminates (CFMLs): aluminium, carbon fibres, and epoxy resin. CFMLs are increasingly utilised in aerospace and automotive sectors due to their favourable strength-to-weight ratio; however, their production is resource- and energy-intensive, and their composite structure poses significant challenges for end-of-life (EoL) management. This review maps the diversity of existing LCA approaches, revealing substantial heterogeneity in system boundaries, impact categories, and geographical representativeness. A strong regional focus on Asia, and China in particular, was identified in the case of aluminium, as almost half of the aluminium sources were in this geography. For carbon fibres and epoxy resins, the regional impact was even more pronounced, with 63% and 70% of publications originating from Europe, respectively, hence showing an underrepresentation of certain life cycle geography, such as bauxite mining regions. A key finding is the limited consideration of EoL scenarios, primarily due to difficulties in separating composite layers, which highlights the technical gap and need for a chemically or thermally separable intermediate layer for carbon fibre composites. Furthermore, the study compares traditional keyword-based literature searches with AI-driven tools (Undermind, You.com, Litmaps), demonstrating that AI-assisted methods substantially enhance the efficiency and comprehensiveness of literature retrieval. Notably, although Undermind contributed only 23% of the initial search results, it accounted for 39% of the publications ultimately selected for in-depth analysis. In contrast, the standard Web of Science (WoS) search exhibited the lowest precision, with merely 10% of its results deemed relevant for detailed review. Importantly, 70% of the total WoS search results were excluded following an initial human screening, which underlines the extensive filtering required to identify pertinent studies from broad database outputs. The findings highlight the higher efficiency of AI-supported search strategies in comparison to conventional approaches, underscoring their potential to optimise literature screening processes in LCA research while also revealing shortcomings in reproducibility, which must be addressed to ensure the maintenance of scientific standards.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:23:p:10445-:d:1800128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.