Contribution to the development of product category rules for ceramic bricks

An Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) provides information on a product's environmental performance along its life cycle. This paper aims to contribute to the development of Product Category Rules (PCR) specific for ceramic bricks in order to support the establishment of a “cradle to grave” EPD. The methodology for developing the PCR takes into account ISO 14025, ISO 21930 and EN 15804, and the environmental profile is based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. In this context, some core issues like product category definition, impact categories, indicators, cut-off criteria and allocation criteria are addressed. The selected impact categories for this study were: global warming, ozone layer depletion, photochemical oxidation, acidification, eutrophication, depletion of abiotic resources and respiratory inorganics. Indicators of energy and water consumption were also considered, as well as particle emissions to air. The results obtained from an LCA study on ceramic bricks produced in Portugal, to support the development of the PCR, show that the use of different fuels in the brick manufacturing stage has a significant effect in some impact categories. The use of petroleum coke generates higher impacts than natural gas or biomass. In general, the major environmental impacts occur in the brick manufacturing stage, mainly due to fuel usage in the firing operation. Particle emissions to air should be considered as an additional parameter in the EPD, being especially important when solid fuels are used. A sensitivity analysis of the cut-off criteria options was also conducted, which concluded that a 0.5% decrease in mass proved to be adequate for adoption, with a significant reduction in the effort required for data collection.

[1]  Wesley W. Ingwersen,et al.  Can we compare the environmental performance of this product to that one? An update on the development of product category rules and future challenges toward alignment , 2012 .

[2]  O. Jolliet,et al.  Multimedia fate and human intake modeling: spatial versus nonspatial insights for chemical emissions in Western Europe. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[3]  Ingunn Saur Modahl,et al.  Comparison of two versions of an EPD, using generic and specific data for the foreground system, and some methodological implications , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[4]  Kari-Anne Lyng,et al.  State of the Art Study - How is Environmental Performance Measured for Buildings/Constructions? , 2011 .

[5]  Cristina Rocha,et al.  Stepwise environmental product declarations: ten SME case studies , 2008 .

[6]  Wesley W. Ingwersen,et al.  Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[7]  Eric Johnson Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment Operational Guide to the ISO Standards , 2003 .

[8]  Adisa Azapagic,et al.  Assessing the sustainability of Best Available Techniques (BAT): Methodology and application in the ceramic tiles industry , 2013 .

[9]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Is cumulative fossil energy demand a useful indicator for the environmental performance of products? , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[10]  Maria-Dolores Bovea,et al.  Cradle-to-gate study of red clay for use in the ceramic industry , 2007 .

[11]  Ignacio Zabalza Bribián,et al.  Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential , 2011 .

[12]  Christopher J. Koroneos,et al.  Environmental assessment of brick production in Greece , 2007 .

[13]  Lutz Breuer,et al.  An institutional analysis of EPD programs and a global PCR registry , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards , 2002 .