NEWS
Focus On High-Quality Silicate (Ceramic) Materials
Sustainable Ceramic Production: Bio-based and Low-carbon Footprint Additives
The ceramic industry's sustainability transition is being driven by converging forces: tightening carbon regulations (EU CBAM, China's Dual Carbon Policy), supply chain ESG requirements, and emerging consumer preference for low-embodied-carbon building materials. Bio-based additives — deflocculants, binders, and rheology modifiers derived from renewable feedstocks — represent one pathway to reducing the cradle-to-gate carbon footprint of ceramic production.
However, process efficiency remains the most immediately actionable sustainability lever for most manufacturers. A conventional deflocculant that enables 3–4 percentage points higher slurry solid content can reduce spray drying energy by 10–15%, delivering carbon savings that outweigh the embedded carbon of the additive itself by a large margin. The most pragmatic sustainability strategy today combines additive optimization for maximum process efficiency with incremental adoption of bio-based alternatives where they meet or exceed performance requirements.
Key Facts at a Glance
- Carbon footprint breakdown (typical tile plant): Fuel combustion ~55–65% (kiln + spray dryer); electricity ~15–20%; raw materials ~15–25%; additives typically <2% (P2: Industry LCA benchmarks; Ref: Cerame-Unie / European Commission JRC Best Available Techniques Reference Document for Ceramics)
- Key regulation timeline: EU CBAM transitional phase began October 2023 with full implementation by 2026 — ceramics are included. China's carbon peak target is 2030; carbon neutrality by 2060 (P2: Ref: EU Regulation 2023/956; China State Council Carbon Peak Action Plan 2021)
- Bio-based additive types in ceramics today: Lignin sulfonates (commercial, from wood pulping), starch derivatives (commercial), tannin-based dispersants (commercial), polyglutamic acid / PGA (emerging) (P3: Based on published ceramic science literature and supplier information)
- Indirect carbon leverage: Process-efficiency gains from optimized additives — higher solids, lower firing temperature, shorter cycles — typically deliver 5–20× greater carbon reduction than switching additive feedstock alone (P3: General engineering principle — verified by comparing typical additive embedded carbon to process energy savings; specific ratios depend on individual plant configuration)
- Life Cycle Assessment standard: ISO 14040 (principles and framework) and ISO 14044 (requirements and guidelines) define the methodology for full environmental impact quantification (P2: ISO 14040:2006 / ISO 14044:2006)
- Phosphate-free trend: Regulatory pressure on phosphorus discharge in wastewater is driving interest in non-phosphate deflocculants; Goway FG-2017 represents an STPP replacement that addresses this concern while maintaining deflocculation performance
§1 Drivers of Sustainability in Ceramic Manufacturing
The shift toward sustainable ceramic production is not being driven by a single force but by a convergence of regulatory, market, and operational pressures. Understanding these drivers helps manufacturers prioritize which sustainability initiatives will deliver compliance, commercial advantage, and cost savings — ideally in combination.
- Carbon pricing: EU CBAM will impose carbon costs on imported ceramic products starting 2026, directly affecting exporters to Europe. China's national carbon market is expanding sectoral coverage
- Chemical regulation: EU REACH restrictions on substances of concern (phosphates, certain organic compounds) drive reformulation toward safer, biodegradable alternatives
- Green building certification: LEED v4.1, BREEAM, DGNB, and China Green Building Label increasingly reward low-embodied-carbon materials — affecting ceramic tile specification in commercial projects
- Supply chain ESG requirements: Large architectural firms and construction groups now require Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) from building material suppliers
- Consumer preference: Growing end-user awareness of embodied carbon in building materials, particularly in European and premium Asian markets
- Energy cost reduction: Spray drying and kiln firing account for the majority of a tile plant's variable cost. Efficiency improvements driven by additive optimization directly improve margins
- Brand differentiation: First-mover advantage in sustainability positioning, particularly for export markets where green credentials influence buyer decisions
- Regulatory preparedness: Proactive compliance reduces the risk of sudden reformulation demands or carbon cost shocks when new regulations take effect
- Waste reduction: Better dispersion and binder efficiency reduce rejects and rework, lowering both material and energy waste
- Talent attraction: Manufacturers with credible sustainability programs are becoming more attractive to engineering talent, particularly younger professionals who prioritize environmental responsibility
1.1 Regulatory Timeline: What to Watch
EU CBAM Transitional Phase
Importers must report embedded emissions for cement, iron/steel, aluminium, fertilizers, electricity, and hydrogen. Ceramics not yet in scope but precedent is set for construction materials. (P2: Ref: EU Regulation 2023/956)
EU CBAM Full Implementation Begins
Financial adjustment (carbon price equalization) takes effect for in-scope sectors. Ceramics industry is under active assessment for inclusion in later phases. EU Taxonomy criteria for manufacturing activities become more stringent. (P2: Ref: European Commission CBAM implementation timeline)
China Carbon Peak Target
China's national policy mandates peak carbon emissions by 2030. Building materials sector (including ceramics) is a key target sector for energy intensity reduction and fuel switching. Provincial-level implementation plans are now being rolled out. (P2: Ref: China State Council Carbon Peak Action Plan, 2021)
China Carbon Neutrality Target
Net-zero emissions target. For ceramic manufacturers, this implies near-complete transition from coal and oil to natural gas, hydrogen, or electric kilns, plus process efficiency optimization approaching theoretical limits. (P2: Ref: China State Council Carbon Neutrality Policy Framework)
Environmental regulations affecting the ceramic industry are evolving rapidly across multiple jurisdictions. The summaries above reflect publicly available policy documents as of mid-2026. For current regulatory status in your specific market, consult local environmental compliance specialists. Goway Chemical does not provide regulatory compliance advice; this timeline is provided for strategic awareness only.
The ceramic industry has a structural advantage in sustainability communication: ceramic tiles are inherently long-lasting, inert, and non-toxic building materials with service lives measured in decades. When paired with energy-efficient manufacturing (enabled by optimized additives), the 'whole-life' carbon story of a ceramic tile compares favorably against shorter-life flooring alternatives that require replacement every 10–15 years. This durability advantage should feature prominently in any manufacturer's sustainability narrative.
§2 Bio-based vs. Conventional Additives: A Comparative Framework
2.1 What Defines a "Bio-based" Additive?
In the context of ceramic processing, a bio-based additive is defined as a processing aid — deflocculant, dispersant, binder, or rheology modifier — that is derived wholly or partially from renewable biological sources rather than from fossil (petroleum) feedstocks. (P3: Industry consensus definition, consistent with European standard EN 16785-1:2016 for bio-based product determination)
The "bio-based carbon content" — the fraction of total organic carbon in the product that originates from contemporary (non-fossil) sources — is the standard metric for quantifying bio-based content, typically measured via ASTM D6866 or EN 16640 radiocarbon analysis. A fully bio-based additive would have 100% bio-based carbon; a partially bio-based product might have 50–80% (P2: ASTM D6866-22; EN 16640:2017).
2.2 Performance, Cost, and Sustainability Comparison
| Dimension | Conventional (Petroleum-based) Additives | Bio-based Additives |
|---|---|---|
| Typical chemistry | Polyacrylates, polycarboxylate ethers (PCE), STPP, petroleum-derived polyols | Lignin sulfonates, starch derivatives, tannins, polyglutamic acid, chitosan, alginate |
| Dispersion mechanism | Electrostatic (STPP), electrosteric (polyacrylates), steric (PCE) — well-established mechanisms | Primarily electrostatic via charged functional groups (sulfonate, carboxylate on lignin/tannin structures); limited steric component |
| Solid content ceiling | Polyacrylate/PCE systems: 66–70+% solid content achievable with proper optimization | Lignin sulfonate/tannin systems: typically 63–67% — lower ceiling due to weaker electrosteric stabilization. Can be combined with conventional dispersants for hybrid performance |
| Thermal stability | Polyacrylates: stable to ~250°C before decomposition; complete burnout by 400–500°C | Variable: lignin sulfonates oxidize ~220–280°C; starch derivatives decompose ~200–300°C; may be adequate for most ceramic firing schedules but require verification for fast-fire cycles |
| Supply chain maturity | Global production capacity, multiple competitive suppliers, consistent quality | Lignin sulfonates: mature (by-product of paper pulping, 50M+ tonnes/year global production). Tannins: moderate (specialty chemical). PGA and starch derivatives: developing, batch-to-batch consistency still a known challenge |
| Typical unit cost | Established price baselines; polyacrylates and STPP are commodity or near-commodity chemicals with competitive pricing | Lignin sulfonates: generally lower or comparable to polyacrylates (by-product economics). Specialized bio-based dispersants (PGA): 2–5× premium over conventional equivalents at current production scale |
| Cradle-to-gate carbon footprint | Polyacrylates: ~2–4 kg CO₂e/kg product (industry estimates). Petroleum feedstock + energy-intensive polymerization | Lignin sulfonates: ~0.5–1.5 kg CO₂e/kg (by-product allocation). Starch derivatives: highly dependent on agricultural practices. General range: 20–60% of conventional additive footprint |
| Phosphate content | STPP contains phosphorus — subject to wastewater discharge regulations in many jurisdictions | Phosphate-free by nature (all current bio-based ceramic dispersant chemistries) |
| Performance consistency | High: controlled polymerization produces narrow molecular weight distribution, predictable performance | Moderate: natural product variability (wood species for lignin, crop conditions for starch) can affect molecular weight and functional group density. Supplier quality control is critical |
P3: Bio-based additive performance ranges are based on published ceramic science literature and supplier technical data; conventional additive data from Goway product experience and industry reference. Actual performance depends on specific raw material composition, water chemistry, and process conditions. Carbon footprint estimates are approximate order-of-magnitude comparisons; site-specific LCA is required for accurate quantification. (P2: LCA methodology reference ISO 14040/14044)
2.3 The Efficiency Paradox: Why "Green" Inputs May Not Deliver the Greenest Outcome
A ceramic tile plant's carbon footprint is dominated by thermal energy — natural gas burned in kilns and spray dryers — not by the embedded carbon of its chemical additives. Additives typically represent <2% of total product carbon footprint. Therefore, an additive's influence on process energy consumption matters far more for overall sustainability than the additive's own feedstock origin.
A petroleum-derived polyacrylate dispersant that enables 68% slurry solid content (vs. 64% with a bio-based alternative) will deliver 12–15% lower spray drying energy — a carbon saving that exceeds the dispersant's own embedded carbon by 10–50× over a year of production. The most "sustainable" additive is not necessarily the one with the greenest feedstock label, but the one that enables the greatest reduction in total process energy and resource consumption.
This principle does not argue against bio-based additives; it argues for holistic assessment: evaluate every additive by its total system impact — cradle-to-gate embedded carbon plus the process efficiency gains or losses it enables — rather than by feedstock origin alone. (P3: Engineering systems principle — confirmed by comparing typical additive embedded carbon of ~2–4 kg CO₂e/kg at a dosage of 0.3–0.8% vs. natural gas CO₂ emissions of ~0.2 kg CO₂/kWh thermal, with spray drying consuming ~600–800 kWh thermal per tonne of evaporated water)
§3 Carbon Footprint Assessment for Ceramic Manufacturers
3.1 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Fundamentals
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the internationally standardized methodology for quantifying the environmental impacts of a product across its entire life cycle. ISO 14040 defines the principles and framework; ISO 14044 specifies the requirements and guidelines. For a ceramic manufacturer evaluating additives, LCA provides a structured way to answer: "Is switching to this additive actually better for the environment, considering all stages from raw material to end-of-life?" (P2: ISO 14040:2006; ISO 14044:2006)
P2: LCA framework per ISO 14040:2006. The five stages represent the full life cycle perspective. For ceramic additives, the "use phase" — specifically the additive's effect on kiln/spray dryer energy consumption — is often the dominant impact category, making it the most important stage to model accurately.
3.2 Simplified Carbon Footprint Screening for Additive Evaluation
A full ISO 14040-compliant LCA is resource-intensive and typically unnecessary for initial additive screening. A simplified "carbon footprint screening" using the same life-cycle perspective can help manufacturers compare additive options:
| Assessment Dimension | What to Evaluate | Data Source |
|---|---|---|
| A1 — Raw material supply | Is the feedstock fossil (petroleum) or renewable (plant/biological)? What is the extraction or cultivation carbon intensity? | Supplier environmental data sheet; industry LCA databases (Ecoinvent, GaBi); bio-based carbon content (ASTM D6866) |
| A2 — Transport to factory | Distance from additive manufacturing site to your plant. Transport mode (sea freight ~10–40 g CO₂/t·km; truck ~60–150 g CO₂/t·km) | Supplier logistics data; standard transport emission factors (GLEC Framework / EN 16258) |
| A3 — Manufacturing | Energy source and intensity of additive production. By-product allocation (for lignin sulfonates from paper pulping) | Supplier energy declaration; industry process data |
| B1 — Use phase (process impact) | Dosage rate (kg additive per tonne ceramic body). Effect on slurry solid content and spray drying energy. Effect on firing temperature or cycle time (if any). Impact on reject/rework rate | Plant trial data; energy metering; this is typically the largest impact category — verify with real measurements |
| C1 — End-of-life | Does the additive biodegrade in wastewater? Does it volatilize or leave residues during firing? Toxicity of decomposition products | Supplier SDS (Section 12: Ecological Information); wastewater discharge composition analysis |
P3: Simplified screening framework adapted from ISO 14040 LCA principles for practical manufacturer use. The A1–A3/B1/C1 notation follows EN 15804 (sustainability of construction works — Environmental Product Declarations) stage conventions for familiarity. This is a screening tool, not a substitute for a formal EPD or full LCA.
3.3 The Dominant Lever: Use-Phase Energy
P2: Approximate carbon footprint distribution for a natural gas-fired ceramic tile plant, based on industry LCA benchmarks and Cerame-Unie / European Commission JRC Ceramics BREF document. Actual distribution varies with fuel type (coal-fired plants have higher combustion emissions), product type (sanitaryware has different energy profile), and plant efficiency.
This distribution makes the strategic priority clear: additives that reduce the 55–70% thermal energy slice deliver far greater carbon reduction than switching to a lower-carbon additive that occupies the <2% slice. The most effective sustainability strategy for most manufacturers is to optimize additive selection for maximum process efficiency first, then address additive feedstock origin as a secondary improvement.
§4 Bio-based Additive Categories: What Exists Today
4.1 Current Bio-based Additive Options for Ceramics
Lignin Sulfonates
By-product of sulfite wood pulping. Functions as an electrostatic dispersant via sulfonate and hydroxyl groups. Most mature bio-based ceramic additive; decades of use. Performance ceiling typically lower than synthetic polyacrylates for solid content elevation, but cost-competitive. Suitable for partial substitution in conventional deflocculant systems.
Commercial — MatureTannin-based Dispersants
Extracted from tree bark and plant sources (mimosa, quebracho). Polyphenolic structure provides multiple charged sites for clay surface adsorption. Historically used in ceramic casting slips; less common in spray-dried tile body applications. Sensitive to pH and cation concentration in process water.
Commercial — NicheStarch Derivatives
Modified starches (etherified, oxidized) from corn, potato, or cassava. Used as temporary binders in ceramic bodies and as rheology modifiers in glazes. Bio-based carbon content near 100%. Thermal decomposition complete by 300–400°C — adequate for most firing schedules. Performance comparable to synthetic cellulosic binders for many applications.
CommercialPolyglutamic Acid (PGA)
Produced by bacterial fermentation (Bacillus species). Polypeptide with multiple carboxyl groups providing electrosteric dispersion. Research-stage for ceramic applications; published studies show promising deflocculation performance in alumina and clay suspensions. Current production cost is the primary barrier to commercial ceramic use.
Research / EmergingCellulose Derivatives
Carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC), methyl cellulose from wood or cotton linter. Widely used in ceramic processing for glaze suspension and body plasticization. Bio-based carbon content depends on degree of chemical modification. Well-established supply chain and consistent quality.
Commercial — MatureAlginate / Chitosan
Alginate from brown seaweed; chitosan from crustacean shells. Both have been studied in ceramic processing for gel-casting and suspension stabilization. Limited to specialty and research applications currently; unlikely to compete with synthetic dispersants on cost-performance for commodity tile production.
ResearchGoway Chemical currently does not manufacture or supply bio-based deflocculants, binders, or dispersants. This overview of bio-based additive categories is based on published ceramic science literature and publicly available supplier information, provided for the reader's strategic awareness. Goway's existing product line (FG-2017, FG-MK03, FG-N203B, FG-SL01A deflocculants; FG-ZM01A/D organic polymeric binders; ZG-302/303 inorganic binders) is petroleum-derived and/or mineral-based. For manufacturers seeking bio-based additive supply, independent evaluation of available commercial sources is recommended.
4.2 The Hybrid Approach: Partial Bio-based Substitution
The most pragmatic pathway for most ceramic manufacturers today is not a full switch from conventional to bio-based additives, but partial substitution: replacing 20–40% of a conventional polyacrylate or STPP deflocculant with lignin sulfonate or a tannin-based dispersant. This approach:
- Reduces the petroleum-derived content of the additive package without sacrificing the solid-content ceiling that the synthetic component provides
- Provides a measurable bio-based carbon content for sustainability reporting and green certification documentation
- Lowers the total additive cost in many cases (lignin sulfonates are often priced below synthetic dispersants)
- Maintains process reliability because the synthetic component provides the performance backbone
- Creates an incremental pathway — the bio-based fraction can be increased as formulation experience grows and as bio-based additive quality and consistency improve
Partial substitution requires careful rheological characterization: the viscosity vs. dosage curve at the target solid content must be re-established for the blended system, and atomization behavior must be verified, since the two dispersant types may interact synergistically or antagonistically depending on the specific raw material mineralogy and water chemistry. (P3: General formulation engineering principle — specific blend ratios must be determined by trial for each raw material system)
§5 Goway's Sustainability Contribution: Efficiency as Carbon Strategy
5.1 Our Position on Sustainable Additives
Goway Chemical is a supplier of performance-driven ceramic additives. We do not currently offer bio-based deflocculants, binders, or dispersants in our product portfolio (as of June 2026). However, we believe that process efficiency is the most immediately impactful sustainability strategy available to most ceramic manufacturers, and our existing product line is designed to deliver exactly that.
We are actively monitoring developments in bio-based ceramic additive technology and maintain an open posture toward collaboration with research institutions and technology developers in this space. Manufacturers seeking bio-based additive supply should evaluate available commercial sources independently.
5.2 How Goway's Existing Products Contribute to Carbon Reduction
High-Solids Slurry Preparation
Goway Ceramic Deflocculant / STPP Replacement products enable 2–4 percentage points higher slurry solid content compared to standard deflocculant systems. Each +1% solid content reduces spray drying energy by approximately 3–5%, directly cutting natural gas consumption and associated CO₂ emissions.
Wastewater Impact Reduction
Goway's STPP replacement deflocculants reduce or eliminate phosphate discharge in ceramic plant wastewater. This addresses tightening phosphorus regulations in many jurisdictions and reduces the environmental burden of wastewater treatment. The spray drying energy optimization guide at Spray Drying Energy Optimization details the energy savings achievable through deflocculant-driven solid content elevation.
Lower Additive Consumption per Tonne
More effective dispersion means less deflocculant is needed to achieve the same slurry viscosity. A shift from 0.6% to 0.4% dosage rate — achievable with optimized deflocculant selection — reduces additive transport, packaging, and embedded carbon by one-third. The companion guide on Reduce Ceramic Slurry Viscosity provides the optimization methodology.
Supporting Circular Economy
Ceramic bodies incorporating recycled fired scrap, waste glass, or other secondary raw materials require effective dispersion to manage the varied particle surfaces and water demand characteristics. Goway's deflocculants are compatible with these formulations. For guidance on recycled material integration, see Recycled Materials in Ceramic Body.
5.3 Indirect Carbon Leverage: A Quantitative Perspective
Scenario: A ceramic tile plant producing 100,000 tonnes of tiles per year evaluates two deflocculant options:
Option A (conventional polyacrylate): Embedded carbon of additive ~3 t CO₂e/year (0.4% dosage × 100,000 t × 3 kg CO₂e/kg additive × 0.25 production ratio). Enables 67% slurry solid content.
Option B (bio-based lignosulfonate blend): Embedded carbon of additive ~1 t CO₂e/year (lower feedstock carbon). But maximum achievable solid content is 64% due to weaker dispersion.
Result: Option B saves ~2 t CO₂e/year in additive embedded carbon. But Option A's +3% solid content advantage saves ~1,500–2,500 t CO₂e/year in spray drying energy. Net advantage of Option A: ~1,500–2,500 t CO₂e/year.
This is the "efficiency paradox" in practice: the conventional additive, through its superior process efficiency, delivers 500–1,000× greater carbon reduction than the bio-based alternative saves through its lower feedstock carbon. Until bio-based additives match or exceed the process efficiency of optimized conventional systems, holistic carbon accounting will favor the conventional option in most cases. (P3: Illustrative calculation using typical industry parameters; actual values depend on specific plant conditions, fuel type, deflocculant performance, and LCA boundaries)
§6 Implementation Roadmap for Sustainable Additive Adoption
The transition to more sustainable additive practices does not happen overnight. A phased approach — from baseline measurement through piloting to full-scale implementation — minimizes production risk while building organizational capability and data to support sustainability claims.
Phase 1: Audit & Baseline (Months 1–3)
Establish your starting point before making changes. Without a baseline, you cannot quantify improvement or support sustainability claims.
- Measure current slurry solid content, viscosity, and deflocculant dosage for each body formulation
- Record energy consumption: natural gas (m³/tonne tile), electricity (kWh/tonne tile) — separately for spray drying and kiln firing
- Calculate current approximate carbon footprint per tonne of product (fuel CO₂ + electricity CO₂)
- Document current wastewater phosphorus levels if using phosphate-based deflocculants
- Identify target improvement metrics (e.g., +3% solid content, −10% spray drying gas, phosphate elimination)
Phase 2: Efficiency Optimization First (Months 2–6)
Maximize process efficiency with existing or optimized conventional additives. This is the highest-return, lowest-risk sustainability action.
- Trial alternative deflocculants at lab scale to identify the system that maximizes solid content while maintaining processable viscosity and atomization quality
- Run a 5-point deflocculant dosage curve at +1%, +2%, +3% above current solid content to map the operational window
- Pilot the best candidate at production scale; measure energy consumption and pressing quality against baseline
- Implement the optimized deflocculant system across production; document energy savings
- This phase alone can deliver 10–15% spray drying energy reduction — the single largest sustainability gain available through additive optimization
Phase 3: Bio-based Exploration (Months 6–12)
Once process efficiency is maximized, explore partial bio-based substitution where it does not compromise the efficiency gains achieved in Phase 2.
- Request samples and technical data from bio-based additive suppliers (lignin sulfonates, tannin-based dispersants, starch derivatives)
- Begin with partial substitution trials: replace 20–30% of the conventional deflocculant with a bio-based equivalent
- Characterize the blended system: viscosity vs. dosage curve, atomization behavior, granule morphology, pressing performance
- If pressing quality and solid content are maintained, progressively increase the bio-based fraction in 10% increments
- Document the bio-based carbon content of the final additive package for sustainability reporting
Phase 4: Certification & Communication (Months 9–18)
Formalize and communicate your sustainability achievements. Credible documentation differentiates genuine improvement from greenwashing.
- Consider an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) per EN 15804 for your key product lines — this provides a standardized, third-party-verified carbon footprint that is increasingly required by specifiers
- Document the energy savings achieved through additive optimization with metered data
- If bio-based content exceeds a meaningful threshold (e.g., 25% bio-based carbon in the additive package), consider ASTM D6866 or EN 16640 certification
- Integrate sustainability metrics into product marketing and technical documentation
- Explore green building certification credits (LEED, BREEAM, China Green Building Label) that your improved product may qualify for
6.1 Common Pitfalls to Avoid
| Pitfall | Why It's a Problem | How to Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Switching to bio-based additives without first optimizing process efficiency | Sacrifices the largest carbon reduction opportunity (process energy) for a small one (additive feedstock). May actually increase total carbon footprint if the bio-based additive underperforms | Always optimize efficiency first (Phase 2); introduce bio-based additives only if they do not compromise efficiency gains |
| Making unverified "green" claims | Greenwashing risks reputational damage, loss of green certification eligibility, and in some jurisdictions, legal penalties under consumer protection laws | Base all sustainability claims on measured, documented data. Use standardized terminology (e.g., "bio-based carbon content per ASTM D6866" rather than vague "eco-friendly") |
| Ignoring the use-phase energy impact of additive choice | Selecting an additive based on its own carbon footprint without considering its effect on spray drying and kiln energy consumption misses the dominant impact category | Include use-phase energy impact in every additive evaluation. The additive that enables the highest solid content and lowest process energy almost always wins on total carbon |
| Treating sustainability as a one-time project rather than continuous improvement | Regulations tighten, bio-based additive technology improves, and energy costs change over time. Yesterday's optimal solution may not be tomorrow's | Establish an annual sustainability review cycle: re-benchmark energy consumption, re-evaluate additive performance, scan for new bio-based options, update carbon footprint calculation |
§7 Frequently Asked Questions
(1) Buyers are already requesting carbon data as part of supply chain ESG due diligence;
(2) Having established emissions accounting makes future CBAM compliance faster and cheaper;
(3) Proactive carbon transparency is becoming a competitive differentiator in the EU market. (P2: Ref: EU Regulation 2023/956; European Commission CBAM implementation guidance)
Request a Sustainability & Process Assessment
Goway's technical team assists ceramic manufacturers in identifying the most impactful process efficiency and sustainability improvements achievable through additive optimization. Whether your priority is carbon reduction, energy cost savings, phosphate elimination, or preparation for regulatory compliance, we can provide a targeted assessment based on your current production parameters.
Please note: Goway does not supply bio-based additives. Our sustainability contribution is through process efficiency optimization using our existing deflocculant and binder product lines. We can also advise on partial bio-based substitution strategies and connect you with specialist suppliers as needed.
Please reference this guide ("Sustainable Ceramic Production Guide") when submitting your inquiry. Providing energy consumption data and current deflocculant details enables a more precise assessment of your potential carbon reduction through additive optimization. For urgent CBAM preparation or regulatory compliance questions, indicate your timeline in the inquiry.
Related Resources
- Spray Drying Energy Optimization — the energy-efficiency framework for reducing the largest single source of carbon emissions in tile manufacturing (visit /News_detail/155.html)
- Reduce Ceramic Slurry Viscosity — deflocculant optimization methodology that underpins process efficiency gains (visit /News_detail/150.html)
- Recycled Materials in Ceramic Body — circular economy strategy for reducing virgin raw material consumption (visit /News_detail/153.html)
- Ceramic Deflocculant / STPP Replacement — Goway's phosphate-free deflocculant product line with high-solids capability (visit /products_detail/6.html)
Keyword：
More News
GOWAY INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL CO., LTD
Founded in 2009, we specialize in producing and supplying ,ceramic additives and related products, committing to supplying stable, environmentally friendly,professional and ceramic materials.
Contact UsContact Us
Company Phone/Wechat：86-0757-82131106 / +8613728575572
Company Fax：86-0757-82131106
Whatapp/skype: +8613600032377
E-mail：info6@goway-china.com
Office Address: Room C11-6, Foshan National Torch Innovation and Pioneer Park, Jihua 2nd Road, Chancheng District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, China.
Factory Address: Nanbian Industrial Zone, Sanshui District, Foshan City Guangdong Province，China.