Knowledge Agora



Scientific Article details

Title Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) between standard gypsum ceiling tile and polyurethane gypsum ceiling tile
ID_Doc 7574
Authors Rodrigo-Bravo, A; Cuenca-Romero, LA; Calderon, V; Rodríguez, A; Gutiérrez-González, S
Title Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) between standard gypsum ceiling tile and polyurethane gypsum ceiling tile
Year 2022
Published
DOI 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.111867
Abstract In this paper, the LCA of two gypsum ceiling tiles is compared, the first one is a traditional gypsum tile and the second is a new eco ceiling tile in which polyurethane foam waste has been incorporated. Both tiles were made at one of the largest gypsum tile factories in Europe. The life cycle assessment has been considered from cradle to grave for which the corresponding production stages have been defined. This includes the extraction and transportation of raw materials, the manufacturing process, transportation to the client, the use of the product and the end of its useful life. The results show that the tile with polyurethane has a better environmental performance than the standard commercial ceiling tile. This is quantified as a 14% reduction in energy consumption, a 14% reduction in CO2 emissions and a 25% reduction in water consumption compared with the standard tile, all the while maintaining the technical performance. An analysis of the results suggests that the new eco product has a competitive advantage on the market thanks to its environmental improvements and good technical performance. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Author Keywords Gypsum ceiling tile; Polyurethane waste; Life Cycle Assessment-LCA; Cradle to grave; Environmental assessment; Environmental impact; Circular Economy
Index Keywords Index Keywords
Document Type Other
Open Access Open Access
Source Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)
EID WOS:000753993300007
WoS Category Construction & Building Technology; Energy & Fuels; Engineering, Civil
Research Area Construction & Building Technology; Energy & Fuels; Engineering
PDF https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.111867
Similar atricles
Scroll