Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.

v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

1 Type of the Paper (Article.)

2 Comparative study into the environmental impact of

3 traditional clay bricks and mixed with a biological
4 ingredient using life cycle analysis
5 José Adolfo Lozano-Miralles 1, Manuel Jesús Hermoso-Orzáez 2 Carmen Martínez-García3 and
6 José Ignacio Rojas-Sola 2,*
7 1 University of Jaén, Spain; [email protected]
8 2 University of Jaén, Department of Engineering Graphics, Design and Projects, Spain; [email protected]
9 3 University of Jaén, Department of Engineering Chemical, Environmental and Materials, Spain;

10 [email protected]
11 * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-610-389-020
12

13 Abstract: The construction industry is responsible for 40 to 45% of primary energy consumption in
14 Europe alone. Therefore, it is essential to find new materials with a lower environmental impact in
15 order to attain sustainable housing. This study aims to determine and compare the environmental
16 impact of two clay samples forming a basis for the manufacture of traditional brick, a standard
17 material in building construction; traditional red clay brick and a brick based on clay mixed with a
18 biological ingredient. The samples of fired clay were manufactured at the laboratory scale, the
19 results being valid exclusively as indicators for the extrapolation of the analysis to other studies.
20 The results of the environmental impact of these formulations have been examined through an
21 evaluation of life-cycle analysis (LCA), observing that the incorporation of biological pore forming
22 agents led to a decrease of around 15 to 20% of all impact categories studied. Thus, the suitability of
23 using biological-based additives in clay bricks was confirmed both for their constructive
24 characteristics (lighter material) and increased energy efficiency (better thermal insulation)
25 considering the environmental point of view.

26 Keywords: Life-cycle analysis (LCA); sustainable materials; sustainability climate impact;

27 bioclimatic architecture; green buildings
28

29 1. Introduction
30 Building and road construction is responsible for almost half of the raw materials and energy
31 consumed throughout the planet [1]. Consequently, construction has a great impact on the depletion
32 of finite resources in addition to greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the combustion of fossil
33 fuels. In order to reduce the associated greenhouse gas emissions and resulting impact on the
34 climate, it is necessary to use environmentally sustainable building materials [2] [3].
35
36 Clay bricks have been widely used for thousands of years in the construction of houses, since it
37 is an economical product which uses cheap raw materials (clay, sand and water) and a simple
38 process of manufacture, firing. However, since their arrival in the 1980s and due to construction
39 systems based on exterior enclosures of concrete blocks, the market for clay-based bricks began to
40 decrease. Nevertheless, the producers found technological barriers due to the limitation as
41 insulating objects, in addition to which their weight limits their use to low height buildings [4] [5].
42
43 Nowadays, in the context of sustainable development and with thermal regulations, it is
44 necessary to develop new construction materials with high thermal and mechanical performance.

© 2018 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

2 of 14

45 The incorporation of by-product or waste from different origins has been evaluated to improve these
46 properties. [6].
47
48 Historically, there are studies that apply LCA, to the materials used for the construction of
49 buildings since the 70s, especially in Germany [7-9]. Thus, life cycle analyses have been carried out
50 in residential sectors such as houses [10], or single-family homes [11], to establish strategies for
51 reducing gas emissions in residential sectors through new construction structures in hot and humid
52 conditions [12].
53
54 Following these guidelines, studies are being carried out in the United Kingdom applied to
55 LCA that demonstrate that materials of biological origin such as hemp, introduced in the
56 manufacture of construction materials, improve the environmental impact. Hemp is a natural
57 resource that has recently been used as a low environmental impact material in a series of composite
58 products and is increasingly used in buildings as an insulating element in exterior wall construction
59 [13-15].
60
61 In addition, it should be noted that the thermal decomposition, during the brick manufacturing
62 process, of the pore-forming agents (drying and firing stages), leads to an increase in the porosity of
63 the material [16] and, therefore, to an increase in insulating capacity [17-19].
64
65 Current environmental sustainability policies and associated concepts of bioclimatic
66 architecture, as well as social concern for general environmental aspects (global warming, increased
67 damage to the ozone layer and the accumulation of waste), have caused the construction industry to
68 be increasingly sensitive and obliged to consider new construction materials that reduce energy
69 consumption, innovating in the creation of products of a sustainable nature. In fact, in Europe, the
70 construction sector is responsible for 40-45% of primary energy consumption, which contributes to
71 significant emissions of greenhouse gases [20] [21].
72
73
74 In this line of research, similar studies have been carried out that applied the LCA technique to
75 the production of cellulose nanofibers as an organic biofuel additive against the use of plastic
76 materials, observing reductions in greenhouse gases by up to 75% and reducing production costs by
77 12%, as well as improving the energy efficiency of production between two and five times [22]. In
78 addition, the LCA model is currently being applied in numerous studies like that of Tsinghua
79 University to calculate fossil energy consumption in the life cycle and greenhouse gas emissions in
80 China [23]. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the environmental impact of construction materials
81 using the LCA technique. Many scientific studies that use the LCA methodology compare different
82 materials together, highlighting those with less impact on the environment [24, 25].
83
84 The objective of this research is to apply the LCA method to new samples of clay with the
85 incorporation of biomass, to determine new construction materials from the point of view of
86 sustainability. [26].
87
88 To this end, a comparative study has been carried out between a sample made exclusively with
89 100% clay (BYRC) and a mixture composed of 15% barley components (leftovers that remain after
90 the seed has been extracted from the cereal) and 85% of the base clay mixture (Brick with red clay
91 (BYRC)) called BB15 (Barley bagasse 15).
92
93 These materials have been selected due to their low cost, availability and close location to the
94 research centre. Also, in the firing process, the biological material degrades under the thermal effect,
95 producing pores that increase the sample's insulation capacity [27], enabling the improvement of the
96 thermal bridge and energy efficiency in the construction of sustainable housing. [28],
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

3 of 14

97
98

99 2. Materials and Methods

100 In this study, samples of ceramic material have been used, made with products and resources
101 from the nearby geographical area (Bailén, Jaén). The manufacturing process, including the
102 grinding, sieving, drying and firing of the materials has been carried out in a similar way to
103 industrial manufacturing so that the results can be extrapolated to greater production levels.
104
105 LCA is an adequate methodology to determine the environmental impact that occurs
106 throughout the life cycle of products, services or processes. It also allows the determination of the
107 impact of any of the phases independently from the rest.
108

109 2.1. Development of fired clay samples

110 The first sample is a reference sample without additives (BYRC). It contains 100% clay which
111 originated in Bailén (Jaén, Spain). Clay has been provided by a company in the sector. First, it will be
112 crushed to obtain a powder with particles of approximately 3 mm, to promote thermal conductivity
113 [29, 30].
114
115 For the second sample (BB15), 85% of the reference sample (BYRC) was separated, to which 15%
116 of barley bagasse was added as an additive and mixed in a laminator to improve the homogeneity,
117 obtaining a sample with a biological basis.
118
119 The bagasse, provided by the Heineken brewery (Jaén, Spain), located in Jaén’s capital, was
120 crushed and sieved to obtain a milling of less than 0.5 mm. The amount of incorporated additive was
121 chosen in line with previous studies [31].
122
123 The required amount of water was added to obtain the desired moisture and plasticity that are
124 necessary to avoid defects in the structure during the process. Subsequently, the samples were
125 modelled by an extrusion process in the form of tablets (175 x 79 x 17 mm), dried up to 105° C and
126 finally fired by increasing the temperature progressively during 11 hours until the maximum
127 temperature of 920° C, remaining for 1 h afterwards, according to the industrial recommendations of
128 the ceramic sector.
129

130 2.2. Life-cycle analysis (LCA)

131 The life cycle analysis was carried out using the ISO 14040 standards [32] defining the principles
132 and framework, and according to ISO 14044 [33] describing the different stages of the analysis. [34].
133

134 2.2.1. Definition of objective and scope

135 The evaluation of the life cycle was carried out following the process to obtain the clay
136 samples. To analyse and compare the environmental impact of the different formulations and
137 identify the unit of the process that presents the strongest environmental impact, in an ecological
138 design approach, as the main environmental benefit in construction is to reuse the bricks and recycle
139 the aggregates [35].
140
141 In order to build the inventory of production and establish the scope of the study, the functional
142 unit is defined as the production of 1kg of clay with a fixed thermal resistance.
143
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

4 of 14

144 The LCA methodology allows the determination of the environmental impact of the processes,
145 products or systems analysed in different ways. That is, you can analyse certain stages of the life
146 cycle, or analyse the entire cycle. The present investigation will focus only on the impact associated
147 with the production of these new samples, thus performing the analysis known as ‘Gate to Gate.’
148
149 The system studied uses raw materials from the laboratory (clay, sand, water and vegetable
150 matter) and takes into account the energy consumed in production (sieving, drying and firing), to
151 overcome the potential limitations, the initial hypotheses are defined as follows:
152
153 • The electricity used considers that the production mix corresponds to the Spanish energy
154 production system.
155 • The cleaning of the different devices used in the process is dismissed since it is not a
156 considerable percentage.
157 • The transport of material from the quarry, or from the factory to the laboratory, is not
158 considered as it is a gate to gate study.
159
160 The evaluation of the life cycle impact of the use of bagasse for brick construction was carried
161 out using the LCA SimaPro software 8.30 [36], which is widely used [37].
162

163 2.2.2. Life-cycle inventory

164 For the life cycle inventory, all inputs and outputs of the system were listed for the different
165 stages of the life cycle. Figure 1 shows a flow diagram of the different steps of the process with the
166 associated flows and Figure 2 shows the inputs, also called foreground data that have their own life
167 cycle. These environmental impacts (background data) are taken into account for the overall
168 evaluation of the life cycle of the product.
169
170

171
172 Figure 1. Clay cycle.
173
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

5 of 14

174
175
176 Figure 2. Barley cycle.
177
178 The inventory data was obtained directly from the experiments or through the use of data
179 collected from industrial producer partners or from bibliographic references (Table 1). The
180 consumption data of the different processes are shown in Table 2.
181
182 Table 1. Inventory data
BYRC (kg) BYRC (%) BB15 (kg) BB15 (%)
Mix clay + sand 0.143 100 % 0.122 85 %
Barley 0.021 15 %
Water 0.317 100 % 0.317 100 %
183
184 Table 2. Total energy consumption data of the different processes
BYRC (kwh) BB15 (kwh)
Crushing 0.250 0.333
Drying 0.083
Firing 25.400 21.850
Total 25.730 22.183
185
186 Due to confidentiality issues, all process data provided by industries cannot be detailed in this
187 publication for either the clay mixture or for the vegetable pore forming agents.
188

189 2.2.3 Impact evaluation

190
191 With the data previously provided, an evaluation of the environmental impact of the samples is
192 carried out using the software Simapro 8.30. We will carry out a comparative study using two
193 methodologies to check for possible deviation in the results. The ReCiPe Endpoint v 1.12
194 methodology will be used first. This methodology evaluates the damage caused in four impact
195 categories, whose characteristics are described in Table 3. Impact 2002+ v2.12 will be the second
196 analysis methodology
197
198
199
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

6 of 14

200
201 Table 3. Indicators of impacts according to ReCiPe Endpoint v1.12
Impact category Category indicator Measurement units
Quality of the ecosystem FDP* FDP / m2 x year
Human health DALY** People / year
Natural resources Damage to resources MJ/Kg
Abiotic resources *** Exhaustion Kg
202 * Fraction of potential disappearance of the ecosystem per m2 and year.
203 ** Disability-adjusted life year: Reduction of years of life per person / year
204 *** Climatic, geological and geographical resources. Biodiversity.
205
206

207 3. Results and discussion

208 The objective is to compare the environmental impact of the two formulations developed. The
209 functional unit has been defined as well as the production of 1kg of the porous sample,
210 corresponding to that of the reference sample, without the vegetable agent.
211

212 3.1. Methodology ReCiPe Endpoint v1.12

213
214 Once the inventory data has been entered, the Simapro software and, using the first
215 methodology, the ReCiPe Endpoint v1.12, provides the results shown in Table 4, where the
216 contribution amounts provided by the different clay samples can be analysed in each impact
217 category. This data has been provided by the program, once the different amounts of raw materials
218 and processes have been introduced.
219
220
221 Table 4. Analysis of the energy and non-energy resources of the comparative cycle of clay samples as a
222 base.
Non-energy resources BYRC BB15 Energetic resources BYRC BB15
Ammonium (g) 0 3.10 Low radioactive waste (mg) 399.75 344.64
NH4 (Kg) 0 0.026 Water power (g) 317 317
Calcite (g) 0 1.94 Barley (Kg) 0 0.15
Crushed stone (g) 14.43 10.54 Electric mix(MJ) 92.62 79.85
Ni (Kg) 16.15 13.92 Urea (g) 1.60 1.82
223
224
225 The general comparison of the scenarios represents the relative percentage in each impact
226 category. The most impressive scenario in the category represents 100% and the others are
227 calculated according to the latter. The comparison with the scenario of the BB15 sample, using the
228 ReCiPe Endpoint v1.12 method is presented in Figure 3, for the characterisation of the impact and in
229 Figure 4 for the characterisation of the damage.
230
231
232 The reference sample, without a pore-forming agent, shows the maximum impact in the 12
233 impact categories. Therefore, in the three categories of damage, human health, ecosystem and
234 resources, with a gap or difference from the other scenarios between 10% and 22%. In Figure 3, the
235 impacts of the two samples are compared showing that, in general, the base sample (BYRC)
236 produces a greater impact than the sample to which biological material has been added
237 (BB15). Likewise, the electricity consumption is higher in the base sample, so the aspects relating to
238 resources are affected in the final result.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

7 of 14

239

240
241 Figure 3. Comparative impact of the samples analysed with the methodology ReCiPe Endpoint v 1.12.
242
243
244 In Figure 4, the impact of the samples to human health, ecosystem and resources can be
245 observed. In the base sample (BYRC) the impact is greatest, with human health and resources,
246 showing the greatest difference. This is motivated by the need for fewer raw materials in the
247 development of the samples. The third indicator of this ReCiPe Endpoint v 1.12 methodology
248 shows that the impact on the ecosystem is similar in the two samples.
249
250

251
252
253 Figure 4. Damage assessment of the samples with the methodology ReCiPe Endpoint v 1.12.
254
255
256
257 Performing an analysis of the samples using the single score, it is easy to determine the impact
258 percentages that each sample has on the three aspects to be considered with the ReCiPe Endpoint v
259 1.12 methodology. As can be seen in Figure 5, the base sample (BYRC) has the greatest impact.
260
261
262
263
264
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

8 of 14

265
266

267
268 Figure 5. Single score with the methodology ReCiPe Endpoint v 1.12.
269
270
271 Results in figures 6 to 8 show the quantities of the flows that produce the greatest impact;
272 resources, air emissions and impact on human health. The greatest impact is the emission of CO2
273 into the atmosphere, mainly due to the electrical energy consumed in the firing phase, followed by
274 the emissions of Methane, Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Dioxide.
275
276

277
278
279 Figure 6. Weighting and quantity of resources with the methodology ReCiPe Endpoint v 1.12.
280
281
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

9 of 14

282
283
284 Figure 7. Weighting of emissions to the air with the methodology ReCiPe Endpoint v 1.12.
285
286

287
288
289 Figure 8. Impacts on the ecosystem with the methodology ReCiPe Endpoint v 1.12.
290
291
292

293 3.2. Methodology Impact 2002+ v2.12

294
295 The Impact 2002+ methodology provides us with additional information about factors that
296 influence climate change. The results obtained are analysed below.
297
298 Figure 9 shows that of the 15 indicators, 11 contribute the greatest impact and correspond to the
299 base sample (BYRC), the samples with biological material show a higher impact in only 4.
300
301
302
303
304
305
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

10 of 14

306
307
308 Figure 9. Comparative impact of the samples analysed with the methodology Impact 2002+ v2.12.
309
310
311 We can see in Figure 10, how the results are practically similar, with the addition of the
312 information provided by the methodology on climate change.
313

314
315
316 Figure 10. Evaluation of the damage of the samples with the methodology Impact 2002+ v2.12.
317
318
319 Figure 11 shows how the greatest impact occurs on resources, both for the extraction of raw
320 materials and for obtaining the raw materials necessary to produce the electrical energy needed in
321 the manufacturing processes of the new material.
322
323
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

11 of 14

324
325 Figure 11. Weighting and quantity of resources with the methodology Impact 2002+ v2.12
326
327
328 As a summary, in Figure 12, we note that a considerable improvement is achieved in the
329 reduction of impacts in all categories, the most considerable being that of resources.
330
331

332
333 Figure 12. Single score with the methodology Impact 2002+ v2.12.
334
335
336 5. Conclusions
337
338 In this investigation, the environmental impacts of two brick samples have been studied using
339 life cycle analysis, one with a traditional make-up and the other with a mixture of clay and a
340 biological agent. In addition, the results have been verified using two different methodologies.
341
342 For the biological sample, a vegetable additive, specifically barley bagasse, has been
343 incorporated into a traditional clay base, to check for improvement in the aspects of insulation,
344 weight and environmental contamination. The study focuses on the environmental impact of the
345 two formulations through a Life Cycle Analysis, using the ReCiPe Endpoint v 1.12 characterization
346 method and the Impact 2002+ methodology. It is observed that the incorporation of plant additives
347 into the matrix, decreases the impact by 15% to 20% compared with the reference sample.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

12 of 14

348 Therefore, a clear improvement of the environmental impact is possible using a biological
349 vegetable and clay mixed brick. It shows a reduction in the impact generated by obtaining and
350 transforming the raw materials. In addition, this would be a very interesting innovation in the field
351 of new materials used in bioclimatic architecture. Even so, other aspects such as mechanical
352 resistance, bending resistance and thermal conductivity should be considered in future studies.
353
354 Thus, according to the results obtained and taking into account both general sustainable
355 development and regulations on energy efficiency [38, 39], it is deduced that it is necessary to
356 develop new materials using by-products or waste that facilitate their incorporation into the cycle of
357 industrial life, since it would constitute a reduction of emissions and a reduction in energy and
358 resource consumption.
359
360
361 Author Contributions: The following authors have contributed to this article “Conceptualization,
362 Lozano-Miralles. and Martinez-Garcia.; Methodology, Lozano-Miralles and Hermoso-Orzáez; Software,
363 Lozaro-Miralles and Martínez-Garcia.; Validation, Lozano-Miralles, Hermoso-Orzáez and Martínez-García;
364 Formal Analysis, Rojas-Sola.; Investigation, Lozano Miralles, and Hermoso-Orzáez.; Resources, Lozano
365 Miralles, Martinez-García, Hermoso-Orzáez and Rojas-Sola.; Data Curation, Lozano-Miralles and
366 Martinez-García; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, Lozano-Miralles-and Hermoso-Orzáez.; Writing-Review
367 & Editing, Hermoso-Orzáez and Rojas-Sola.; Visualization, Lozano-Miralles .; Supervision, Martinez-Garcia,
368 Hermoso-Orzáez and Rojas-Sola.; Project Administration, Lozano-Miralles and Hermoso-Orzáez.;

369 Funding: “This research received no external funding” This research did not receive any specific grant from
370 funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
371
372 Conflicts of Interest: Declare conflicts of interest or state “The authors declare no conflict of
373 interest.”
374

375 References
376
377 1. Edwards, B. Rough guide to sustainability. 3rd ed. RIBA Enterprises, London, 2010.
378 2. Pittau, F.; Krause, F.; Lumia, G.; Habert, G. Fast-growing bio-based materials as an opportunity for storing
379 carbon in exterior walls. Building and Environment 2018; 129, 117-129, DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.12.006.
380 3. Dong, L.; Wang, Y.; Li, H.X.; Jiang, B.Y.; Al-Hussein, M. Carbon Reduction Measures-Based LCA of
381 Prefabricated Temporary Housing with Renewable Energy Systems. Sustainability.2018.10, 3. 718 DOI:
382 10.3390/su10030718
383 4. Kornmann M. Clay building materials: Manufacturing and properties, 2005.
384 5. Life Cycle Assessment of Completely Recyclable Concrete. De Schepper, M.; Van den Heede, P.; Van
385 Driessche, I.; De Belie, N. Materials. 2014.7, 8, 6010-6027, DOI: 10.3390/ma7086010
386 6. Bio-Inspired Sustainability Assessment for Building Product Development-Concept and Case Study.
387 Por:Horn, R.; Dahy, H.; Gantner, J.; Speck, O.; Leistner, P . Sustainability. 2018.10, 1, 130, DOI:
388 10.3390/su10010130
389 7. Dong, Y.H.; Ng, S.T. A life cycle assessment model for evaluating the environmental impacts of building
390 construction in Hong Kong. Building and Environment 2015, 89, 183-191, DOI:
391 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.020.
392 8. Weibenberger, M.; Jenschb, W.; Lang, W. The convergence of life cycle assessment and nearly zero-energy
393 buildings: The case of Germany. Energy and Buildings 2014; 76:551–557. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.03.028.
394 9. Finnveden, G.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Ekvall, T.; Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R.; Hellweg, S. Recent developments in
395 life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 91, 1-21,
396 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018.
397 10. Cuellar- Franca, R.M.; Azapagic, A. Enviromental impacts of the UK residential sector: Life cycle
398 assessment of houses. Building and Environment 2012; 54, 86-99, DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.02.005.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

13 of 14

399 11. Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Llatas, C.; Garcia-Martinez, A. Simplification in life cycle assessment of single-family
400 houses: A review of recent developments. Building and Environment 2016, 103, 215-227, DOI:
401 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.04.014.
402 12. Balasbaneh, A.T.; Bin-Marsono, A.K. Strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from residential
403 sector by proposing new building structures in hot and humid climatic conditions. Building and
404 Environment 2017; 124, 357-368, DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.08.025.
405 13. Kenneth, I.P.; Miller, A. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hemp–lime wall constructions in the UK.
406 Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2012, 69, 1-9, DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.09.001.
407 14. Islam, H.; Jollands, M.; Setunge, S.; Ahmed, I.; Haque, N. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost
408 implications of wall assemblages designs. Energy and Buildings 2014 84, 33-45, DOI:
409 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.07.041.
410 15. Aouba, L.; Bories, C.; Coutand, M.; Perrin, B.; Lemercier, H. Properties of fired clay bricks with
411 incorporated biomasses: cases of olive stone flour and wheat straw residues. Construction and Building
412 Materials 2016,102, 7-13, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.040.
413 16. Russ, W.; Mörtel, H.; Meyer-Pittroff, R. Application of spent grains to increase porosity in bricks.
414 Construction and Building Materials 2005, 19, 117-126, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.05.014.
415 17. Barbieri, L.; Andreola, F.; Lancellotti, I.; Taurino, R. Management of agricultural biomass wastes:
416 preliminary study on characterization and valorisation in clay matrix bricks. Waste Management 2013, 33,
417 2307–2315, DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.03.014.
418 18. Bories, C.; Borredon ME, Vedrenne E, Vilarem G. Development of eco-friendly porous fired clay bricks
419 using pore-forming agents: a review. Journal of Environmental Management 2014, 143, 186-196. DOI:
420 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.006.
421 19. Mohammed, M.S.; Ahmed A..I., Osman, R.M.; Khattab, I. Combinations of organic and inorganic wastes
422 for brick production. Polymer Composites 2014, 35 , 174–179, DOI: 10.1002/pc.22647.
423 20. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Buildings and Climate Change: Status, Challenges and
424 Opportunities, 2006
425 21. Application of Eco-Design and Life Cycle Assessment Standards for Environmental Impact Reduction of
426 an Industrial Product. Navajas, A.; Uriarte, L. Gandia, L.M. Sustainability. 2017.1 9 10, 1724, DOI:
427 10.3390/su9101724
428 22. Moon, D.; Sagisaka, M.; Tahara,; Tsukahara, K. Progress towards Sustainable Production: Environmental,
429 Economic, and Social Assessments of the Cellulose Nanofiber Production Process. Sustainability 2017, 9,
430 2368. DOI: 10.3390/su9122368.
431 23. Peng, T.D.; Zhou, S.; Yuan, Z.Y.; Ou, X.M. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Analysis of Multiple Vehicle Fuel
432 Pathways in China. Sustainability 2017; 9, 2183. DOI: 10.3390/su9122183
433 24. Monteiro, H.; Freire, F. Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: comparison of
434 three impact assessment methods. Energy and Buildings 2012 47, 572-583.
435 DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.12.032.
436 25. Pargana, N.; Pinheiro, M.D.; Silvestre, J.D.; Brito, J. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of
437 thermal insulation materials of buildings. Energy and Buildings 2014, 82, 466–481. DOI:
438 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.05.057.
439 26. Insulation Cork Boards-Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of an Organic Construction Material.
440 Silvestre, J.D.; Pargana, N.; de Brito, J .; Pinheiro, M. D.; Durao, V. Materials. 2016, 9, 5, 394, DOI:
441 10.3390/ma9050394.
442 27. Fu, Y.C.; Zhu, H.Y.; Shen, J.Y. Thermal decomposition of dimethoxymethane and dimethyl carbonate
443 catalyzed by solid acids and bases. Thermochimica. Acta 2005; 434, 88-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.tca.2005.01.021.
444 28. Climate Change Mitigation Potential of Wood Use in Civil Engineering in Japan Based on Life-Cycle
445 Assessment. Kayo, C.; Noda, R. Sustainability.2018.10, 2. 561. DOI: 10.3390/su10020561
446 29. García-Ten, J.; Orts, M.J.; Saburit, A.; Silva, G. Thermal conductivity of traditional ceramics. Part I:
447 Influence of bulk density and firing temperature. Ceramics International 2010, 36 1951-1959. DOI:
448 10.1016/j.ceramint.2010.05.012.
449 30. García-Ten, J.; Orts, M.J.; Saburit, A.; Silva,G. Thermal conductivity of traditional ceramics: Part II:
450 Influence of mineralogical composition. Ceramics International 2010, 36 2017-2024. DOI:
451 10.1016/j.ceramint.2010.05.013.
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 July 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0067.v1

Peer-reviewed version available at Sustainability 2018, 10, 2917; doi:10.3390/su10082917

14 of 14

452 31. Bories, C. Study of the characteristics of a bio-based pore-forming agent and mechanisms used to obtain a
453 micro-porous building brick with high thermal and mechanical properties. Toulouse, Institut National
454 Polytechnique, Sciences des Agroressources, 2015
455 32. British Standards Institution (BSI). ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management – life cycle assessment –
456 principles and framework. United Kingdom, 2006.
457 33. British Standards Institution (BSI). ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management – life cycle assessment –
458 requirements and guidelines. United Kingdom, 2006.
459 34. Study of the Technical Feasibility of Increasing the Amount of Recycled Concrete Waste Used in
460 Ready-Mix Concrete Production. Fraile-Garcia, E.; Ferreiro-Cabello, J .; Lopez-Ochoa,
461 L.M.; Lopez-Gonzalez, L.M. Materials. 2018.10, 7, 817, DOI: 10.3390/ma10070817
462 35. De Klijn-Chevalerias, M.; Javed, S. The Dutch approach for assessing and reducing environmental
463 impacts of building materials. Building and Environment 2017, 111, 147-159. DOI:
464 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.003.
465 36. PRé Consultants. SimaPro LCA software Ver 7.2.3. Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2010.
466 37. Pieragostini, C.; Mussati, M.C.; Aguirre, P. On process optimization considering LCA methodology.
467 Journal of Environmental Management 2012, 96, 43-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.014.
468 38. Reglamento de Instalaciones Térmicas en los Edificios y sus instrucciones complementarias (ITE).
469 Directiva 1751/1998, Madrid, 1998.
470 39. Código Técnico de la Edificación. Exigencias para los edificios establecidas en la Ley 38/1999 de 5 de
471 Noviembre de 1999, Madrid, 1999.
472
473