PSI - Issue 64

Patrizia Ghisellini et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 64 (2024) 1689–1695 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

1693

5

Table 2. CED impacts for the production of 1 m 3 of concrete made of natural and recycled aggregates and green concrete made of hemp by-products (Source of the data: Ghisellini et al., 2021).

Natural aggregate concrete

Recycled aggregate concrete

Green concrete (al. 30%)

Green concrete (al. 20%)

Green concrete (al. 10%)

Impact category

Unit

Non renewable, fossil Non-renewable, nuclear Non-renewable, biomass Renewable, biomass

MJ MJ MJ MJ MJ MJ MJ

1635.53 217.51

1138.80 165.94

766.92 110.06

757.02 109.62

747.12 109.18

0.50 42.08 21.43 46.62

0.52 40.75 18.01 37.00

0.37

0.35

0.33

385.46

266.35

147.25

Renewable, (wind, solar, geothermal)

12.38 26.31

12.33 26.12

12.27 25.93

Renewable, water

Total

1963.67

1401.02

1301.50

1171.78

1042.07

Table 3 shows the impacts related to 1 m 2 of façade made of conventional bricks and by using rice straw calculated in the study by Quintana-Gallardo et al. (2021). The impacts are higher for the brick façade for almost all the impact categories except Land Use and Water Use. About Climate Change the brick façade generates impacts for 76.16 kg CO 2 eq. while for the rice straw façade the contribution is 16.69 kg CO 2 eq., a much lower value. These results indicate that avoiding burning the rice straw or mixing it to the soil reduces CO 2 emissions by 18.85 and 52.54 kg CO 2 eq. respectively. Table 3. Characterized Midpoint impacts associated to the production of 1 m 2 of conventional brick façade compared to rice straw façade (Source of the data: Quintana-Gallardo et al. 2021). Impact category Unit of measure Brick façade Rice Straw façade Rice straw façade (avoiding burning)

Rice straw façade (avoiding mixing the straw in the soil)

Climate change Ozone depletion Ionizing radiation Photochemical ozone formation Particulate matter

kg CO2 eq kg CFC11 eq kBq U- 235 eq kg NMVOC eq

76.16

16.69

-18.85

-52.54

6.13E- 06

1.14E-06

1.22 0.26

0.24 0.04

disease inc.

3.13E- 06 6.89E- 07 1.11E- 07 2.31E- 03 6.83E- 02 0.30

5.19E-07 1.78E-07 5.63E-09 8.83E-04 2.96E-02 216.16 1268.23 0.06 0.17

Human toxicity, non-cancer Human toxicity, cancer Eutrophication, freshwater Eutrophication, marine Eutrophication, terrestrial Ecotoxicity, freshwater Acidification

CTUh CTUh

mol H+ eq kg P eq kg N eq mol N eq

0.82

CTUe

1096.76 713.27

Land use Water use

Pt

m 3 depriv,

7.48

45.44 93.59

Resource use, fossil Resource use, minerals and metals

MJ

694.79

Kg Sb eq.

9.17E- 04

1.12E-04

Notes: For an overview of impact categories and their unit of measure see the following: https://stich.culturalheritage.org/life-cycle-assessment explained/ Table 4 shows the results obtained for a 1 m 2 of panel made of recycled materials. The potential contribution to Global Warming resulted lower for the panels made of rice husk (1.11 kg CO 2 eq.) and coffee chaff (0.56 kg CO 2 eq.). Moreover, the impacts to GWP and CED by considering the sound absorption and thermal resistance also resulted lower for the rice husk and coffee chaff panels along with WP3 panel made of wood fibres and waste paper compared to the other panels. It is worth noting that 1 m 2 of any panel from Table 4 shows impacts lower than those reported in Table 3.