Eco-friendly ceramic bricks: a comparative study of life cycle impact methods.

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.

Comparative life cycle assessment of ornamental stone processing waste recycling, sand, clay and limestone filler.

Owing to the cost of destination and transportation of ornamental stone processing waste, many studies focused on the reuse and recycling of this product. However, there is a scarcity of articles addressing the environmental viability of the recycling of ornamental stone. In this context, this study comprehends a comparative life cycle assessment of ornamental stone processing waste and conventional materials: sand, clay and limestone filler. The modelling software used was SimaPro 8.3.0.0 with Ecoinvent 3.2 database, employing the ReCiPe H/H methodology for impact assessment. The results show that the recycling of ornamental stone processing waste is environmentally preferable, and the artificial drying alternatives, such as flash dryer and rotary dryer, have lower environmental impact than extracting and processing clay through atomisation methods and limestone filler production. The sensitivity analysis indicated that it is possible to transport the ornamental stone processing waste 37 km after processing, so it reaches the same environmental impact as sand extracted by dredging. On the other hand, an increase of 25% in the energy consumption incremented only 7% of the environmental impact owing to the Brazilian energy mix.