Abstract
The growing need for natural resources for the production of inputs for construction, such as ceramic bricks, as well as the high rates of solid waste generation in the sector, makes construction an industrial segment with unfavorable environmental effects. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) emerges as a tool capable of assisting in the quantification and analysis of the impacts associated with construction materials, whether traditional or alternative. Thus, the goal of this paper is to assess the environmental impacts associated with the development of alternative building materials. To compare the conventional and the alternative bricks, both were evaluated according to the LCIA methods Ecoindicator 99, IMPACT 2002+, and ReCiPe 2016, in the midpoint and endpoint levels. The sensitivity analysis was carried out considering as an alternative input for the firing process, a mixture composed of wood and biomass originating from the Pennisetum purpureum. According to Ecoindicator 99 method, the categories respiratory organics, fossil fuels, and radiation stand out, which showed greater sensitivity in altering the input used in the firing process, reducing their impacts by 38.38%, 34.68%, and 31.81%, respectively, when comparing product III (ceramic brick incorporated with OSPW and submitted to the firing process with the mix of wood and Pennisetum purpureum) and product I (ceramic brick incorporated with OSPW and submitted to the traditional firing process). In addition, in the respiratory organics category, the IMPACT 2002+ method showed a reduction of approximately 43% of the impacts associated with product III, when compared to the product with the greatest impact in this category. In a global analysis of the results presented by the ReCiPe 2016 method, the product III had the lowest associated environmental impact when compared to the other evaluated systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author Josinaldo Dias. The data are not publicly available due to containing information that could compromise research participant privacy/consent.
Abbreviations
- LCA:
-
Life cycle assessment
- LCIA:
-
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
- LCI:
-
Life cycle inventory
- OSPW:
-
Ornamental stone processing waste
- C:
-
Carcinogens
- RO:
-
Respiratory organics
- RI:
-
Respiratory inorganics
- CG:
-
Climate change
- R:
-
Radiation
- OL:
-
Ozone layer
- E:
-
Ecotoxicity
- A/E:
-
Acidification/eutrophication
- LU:
-
Land use
- M:
-
Minerals
- FF:
-
Fossil fuels
- NC:
-
Noncarcinogens
- IR:
-
Ionizing radiation
- OLD:
-
Ozone layer depletion
- AEC:
-
Aquatic ecotoxicity
- TE:
-
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
- TA:
-
Terrestrial acid/nutria
- LO:
-
Land occupation
- AC:
-
Aquatic acidification
- AE:
-
Aquatic eutrophication
- GW:
-
Global warming
- NR:
-
Nonrenewable energy
- ME:
-
Mineral extraction
- SOD:
-
Stratospheric ozone depletion
- OFHH:
-
Ozone formation, human health
- FPMF:
-
Fine particulate matter formation
- OFTE:
-
Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems
- TA:
-
Terrestrial acidification
- FE:
-
Freshwater eutrophication
- ME:
-
Marine eutrophication
- TE:
-
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
- FEC:
-
Freshwater ecotoxicity
- MEC:
-
Marine ecotoxicity
- HCT:
-
Human carcinogenic toxicity
- HNCT:
-
Human noncarcinogenic toxicity
- MRS:
-
Mineral resource scarcity
- FRS:
-
Fossil resource scarcity
- WC:
-
Water consumption
References
Aguiar MC (2012) Use of ornamental rock sawdust using red ceramic diamon wire technology [dissertation]. Campos dos Goytacazes: St.Univ. of Northern Flum. – UENF (In Portuguese)
Balaguera A, Carvajal GI, Albertí J, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2018) Life cycle assessment of road construction alternative materials: a literature review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 132:37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.003
Barbosa MZ, de Oliveira Dias J, Marvila MT, de Azevedo AR (2021) Life cycle approach applied to the production of ceramic materials incorporated with ornamental stone wastes. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(7):9957–9970
Bare JC, Gloria TP (2006) Critical analysis of the mathematical relationships and comprehensiveness of Life Cycle Impact Assessment approaches. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:1104–1113. https://doi.org/10.1021/es051639b
Batouli SM, Zhu Y, Nar M, D’Souza NA (2014) Environmental performance of kenaf-fiber reinforced polyurethane: a life cycle assessment approach. J. Clean. Prod. 66:164–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.064
Dias JO; Xavier GC; Azevedo ARG; Alexandre J; Colorado HA; Vieira CMF (2021) Life cycle assessment applied to red ceramic bricks production versus red ceramic bricks incorporated with stone wastes: a comparative study. The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series. 1ed.: Springer International Publishing, p. 277-286. 10.1007/978-3-030-65493-1_27
EC-JRC, 2010. ILCD handbook: framework and requirements for LCIA models and indicators. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2788/38719.
De Azevedo ARG, Marvila MT, da Barroso LS, Zanelato EB, Alexandre J, de Xavier GC, Monteiro SN (2019) Effect of granite residue incorporation on the behavior of mortars. Materials (Basel). 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12091449
Geng Y, Chen W, Liu Z, Chiu ASF, Han W, Liu Z, Zhong S, Qian Y, You W, Cui X (2017) A bibliometric review: energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the residential sector. J. Clean. Prod. 159:301–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.091
Hauschild MZ (2017) Introduction to LCA methodology, Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_6
Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, De Schryver A, Humbert S, Laurent A, Sala S, Pant R (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18:683–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0489-5
Hertwich EG, Pease WS, Koshland CP (1997) Evaluating the environmental impact of products and production processes: a comparison of six methods. Sci. Total Environ. 196:13–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(96)05344-2
Huang TY, Chiueh PT, Lo SL (2017) Life-cycle environmental and cost impacts of reusing fly ash. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 123:255–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.07.001
Huedo P, Mulet E, López-Mesa B (2016) A model for the sustainable selection of building envelope assemblies. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 57:63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.11.005
ISO (2006a) ISO 14040 Environmental management—life cycle assessment— principles and framework. Geneve
ISO (2006b) ISO 14044 Environmental management—life cycle assessment— requirements and guidelines. Geneve
López-Aguilar HA, Huerta-Reynoso EA, Gómez JA, Olivarez-Ramírez JM, Duarte-Moller A, Pérez-Hernández A (2016) Life cycle assessment of regional brick manufacture. Mater. Constr. 66. https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2016.02315
Kumbhar S, Kulkarni N, Rao AB, Rao B (2014) Environmental life cycle assessment of traditional bricks in western Maharashtra, India. Energy Procedia 54:260–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.269
Malça J, Freire F (2006) Renewability and life-cycle energy efficiency of bioethanol and bio-ethyl tertiary butyl ether (bioETBE): assessing the implications of allocation. Energy 31:3362–3380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.03.013
Marcelino-Sadaba S, Kinuthia J, Oti J, Seco Meneses A (2017) Challenges in life cycle assessment (LCA) of stabilised clay-based construction materials. Appl. Clay Sci. 144:121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2017.05.012
Canals MI, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Knuchel RF, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Müller-Wenk R, Rydgren B (2007) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12:5–15. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.05.250
Mohammadhosseini H, Lim NHAS, Tahir MM, Alyousef R, Alabduljabbar H, Samadi M (2019) Enhanced performance of green mortar comprising high volume of ceramic waste in aggressive environments. Constr. Build. Mater. 212:607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.04.024
Muñoz I, Cifrian E, Andrés A, Miguel GS, Ruiz D, Viguri JR (2018) Analysis of environmental benefits associated with the incorporation of Waelz slag into fired bricks using LCA. Constr. Build. Mater. 168:178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.108
Pennington DW, Potting J, Finnveden G, Lindeijer E, Jolliet O, Rydberg T, Rebitzer G (2004) Life cycle assessment part 2: current impact assessment practice. Environ. Int. 30:721–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.12.009
Poinot T, Laracy ME, Aponte C, Jennings HM, Ochsendorf JA, Olivetti EA (2018) Beneficial use of boiler ash in alkali-activated bricks. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 128:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.013
Robayo-Salazar RA, Mejía-Arcila JM, Mejía de Gutiérrez R (2017) Eco-efficient alkali-activated cement based on red clay brick wastes suitable for the manufacturing of building materials. J. Clean. Prod. 166:242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.243
Rosenbaum, R.K., 2015. Ecotoxicity. Chapter 8 “Life cycle impact assessment” (Hauschild MZ and Huijbregts MAJ eds). LCA Compend. - Complet. World life cycle assessment, Life Cycle Impact Assess. 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9744-3
Sandanayake M, Zhang G, Setunge S (2018) A comparative method of air emission impact assessment for building construction activities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 68:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.09.003
Seco A, Omer J, Marcelino S, Espuelas S, Prieto E (2018) Sustainable unfired bricks manufacturing from construction and demolition wastes. Constr. Build. Mater. 167:154–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.026
de Xavier GC, de Azevedo ARG, Alexandre J, Monteiro SN, Pedroti LG (2019) Determination of useful life of red ceramic parts incorporated with ornamental stone waste. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31:04018381. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0002590
Ye L, Hong J, Ma X, Qi C, Yang D (2018) Life cycle environmental and economic assessment of ceramic tile production: a case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 189:432–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.112
Zhang Z, Wong YC, Arulrajah A, Horpibulsuk S (2018) A review of studies on bricks using alternative materials and approaches. Constr. Build. Mater. 188:1101–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.152
Acknowledgements
Financial support for this work was provided by the State University of the northern Rio de Janeiro (UENF). The authors are grateful for the assistance provided by the staff of the Laboratory of Advanced Materials (LAMAV) and the Civil Engineering Laboratory (LECIV) of the UENF. The complementary data on the technological and environmental performance of eco-friendly bricks is available from Xavier et al. (2019) and Dias et al. (2021), respectively.
Dias et al. (2021) presents preliminary data on the life cycle assessment of eco-friendly and conventional bricks. This contributed to the development of the present study, enabling comparative evaluation according to the LCIA methods (ReCiPe 2016, Ecoindicator 99 and Impact 2002+) at the midpoint and endpoint of the levels. In addition, it was possible to analyze the sensitivity of the system considered to assess the life cycle of conventional and eco-friendly bricks, evaluating the performance of the firing process of the respective bricks, using a mixture of wood and Pennisetum purpureum as input for firing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization, JD; methodology, JD and GX; validation, JD and GX; investigation, JD, JA, and GX; writing—original draft preparation, JD and AA; writing—review and editing, JD, AA, and HC; supervision, CMV.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not applicable
Consent to participate
Not applicable
Consent to publication
Not applicable
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Philippe Loubet
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
ESM 1
(DOCX 27 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dias, J., Xavier, G., Azevedo, A. et al. Eco-friendly ceramic bricks: a comparative study of life cycle impact methods. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 76202–76215 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21292-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21292-w