Knowledge Agora



Similar Articles

Title Environmental comparison of indoor floor coverings
ID_Doc 13893
Authors Ros-Dosdá, T; Celades, I; Vilalta, L; Fullana-i-Palmer, P; Monfort, E
Title Environmental comparison of indoor floor coverings
Year 2019
Published
Abstract Appropriate selection of construction materials plays a major role in a building's sustainable profile. The study sets out a comparative life cycle assessment of indoor flooring systems of different nature. The flooring systems consisted of coverings and, where required, bonding material and/or impact soundproofing material. The following coverings were assessed: inorganic (natural stone and ceramic tiles), polymer (carpeting and PVC), and wood-based (laminate and parquet) coverings. The life cycle assessment scope was defined cradle to cradle, i.e. product stage, transport to the construction site, installation of all construction elements, use, and valorisation by recycling, as end-of-life transition scenario towards a circular economy. In the use stage, three scenarios were defined as a function of pedestrian traffic intensity, which determined maintenance, repair, and replacement operations and frequencies. The environmental impacts of the coverings product stage were taken from previously assessed and selected Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), as these are standardised public documents devised to provide environmental life cycle information. The method adopted in the study suggests that, though the use of EPDs as information source is interesting, erroneous conclusions may be drawn if the EPDs are not comparable and/or if the comparison is not made in the building context. The results indicate that the flooring systems with inorganic coverings performed best in the global warming, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical ozone creation, and abiotic depletion for fossil resources impact categories, whereas laminates performed best in the abiotic depletion for non-fossil resources and ozone layer depletion impact categories. The carpet flooring system performed worst in every impact category except photochemical ozone creation potential. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PDF

Similar Articles

ID Score Article
14297 Gomes, MI; Miranda, T Indoor air quality for sustainability, occupational health and classroom environments through the application of earth plaster(2022)
64819 Fischer, H; Fruehwald, F; Korjenic, A Ecological comparison of hygrothermally safe floor constructions based on renewable raw materials for multi-storey buildings(2022)
17362 Backes, JG; Del Rosario, P; Petrosa, D; Traverso, M; Hatzfeld, T; Günther, E Building Sector Issues in about 100 Years: End-Of-Life Scenarios of Carbon-Reinforced Concrete Presented in the Context of a Life Cycle Assessment, Focusing the Carbon Footprint(2022)Processes, 10, 9
20595 Hossain, MU; Ng, ST Influence of waste materials on buildings' life cycle environmental impacts: Adopting resource recovery principle(2019)
22286 Luthin, A; Crawford, RH; Traverso, M Assessing the circularity and sustainability of circular carpets - a demonstration of circular life cycle sustainability assessment(2024)
16571 De Wolf, C; Hoxha, E; Fivet, C Comparison of environmental assessment methods when reusing building components: A case study(2020)
20950 Krause, K; Hafner, A Relevance of the information content in module D on circular economy of building materials(2019)
4435 Balasbaneh, AT; Sher, W; Ibrahim, MHW Life cycle assessment and economic analysis of Reusable formwork materials considering the circular economy(2024)Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 15, 4
17104 Callegher, CZ; Grazieschi, G; Wilczynski, E; Oberegger, UF; Pezzutto, S Assessment of Building Materials in the European Residential Building Stock: An Analysis at EU27 Level(2023)Sustainability, 15, 11
79453 Neururer, C; Smutny, R; Treberspurg, M; Sellner, G Environmental Life Cycle Assessment Of Office Buildings - Analysis Of Determinants(2013)
Scroll