Life cycle assessment of borate-treated lumber with comparison to galvanized steel framing
A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment was done to identify the environmental impacts related to borate-treated lumber used as structural framing and to determine how the impacts compare to the primary alternative product, galvanized steel framing members. Borate-treated lumber may be used for fram...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of cleaner production 2011-04, Vol.19 (6), p.630-639 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 639 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 630 |
container_title | Journal of cleaner production |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Bolin, Christopher A. Smith, Stephen T. |
description | A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment was done to identify the environmental impacts related to borate-treated lumber used as structural framing and to determine how the impacts compare to the primary alternative product, galvanized steel framing members. Borate-treated lumber may be used for framing buildings in locations of high decay or termite hazard. A model of borate-treated lumber life cycle stages was created and used to calculate inputs and outputs during the lumber production, treating, use, and disposal stages. Lumber production data are based on published sources. Primary wood preservative treatment data were obtained by surveying wood treatment facilities in the United States. Product use and disposal inventory data are based on published data and professional judgment. Life cycle inputs, outputs, and impact indicators for borate-treated lumber were quantified using life cycle assessment LCA methodologies at functional units of 1000 board feet, 100 linear feet (30.5 linear meters) of structural perimeter wall framing, and framing required for the perimeter walls of one representative home. In a similar manner, a life cycle inventory model was developed for the manufacture, use, and disposal of the primary alternative product, galvanized steel framing, and comparisons were done using an equivalent measure of 100 linear feet of structural perimeter wall framing. Impact indicator values such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil fuel use, water use, acidification, ecological toxicity, smog forming potential, and eutrophication were quantified for each of the two framing products.National normalization was done to compare the significance of the framing in a representative U.S. family home to the family’s total annual impact footprint.
If a U.S. family of three builds a 2225 square feet (207 square meters) home using borate-treated lumber for structural perimeter wall framing, the framing impact “footprint” (normalized over the use life of the structure) for GHG emissions, fossil fuel use, acidification, ecological toxicity, smog forming potential, and eutrophication each is less than one-tenth of a percent of the family’s annual overall impact. The cradle-to-grave life cycle impacts of borate-treated lumber framing were approximately four times less for fossil fuel use, 1.8 times less for GHGs, 83 times less for water use, 3.5 times less for acidification, 2.5 times less for ecological impact, 2.8 times less for smog formation, and 3.3 time |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.005 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_864409332</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0959652610004579</els_id><sourcerecordid>864409332</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-6c24e5d661a877c83160fe04042b62cc3426544baf0797dc15d12b84a7f3ed893</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LxDAURYMoOI7-BCE73bQmaZq0K5HBLxhwoxs3IU1fxwxtMyYZZfz1psysdXXhce6FdxC6pCSnhIqbdb42PWy8yxmZbiwnpDxCM1rJOqOyEsdoRuqyzkTJxCk6C2FNCJVE8hl6X9oOsNmlAaxDgBAGGCN2HW6c1xGy6CFFi_vt0IDH3zZ-YOOGjfY2uBFHh1e6_9Kj_UlQiAA97rwe7Lg6Ryed7gNcHHKO3h7uXxdP2fLl8Xlxt8xMIXnMhGEcylYIqispTVVQQTognHDWCGZMwZkoOW90R2QtW0PLlrKm4lp2BbRVXczR1X43GfjcQohqsMFA3-sR3DaoSnBO6qJgibz-k6RSSlpOahJa7lHjXQgeOrXxdtB-pyhRk3W1VgfrarKuKFPJeurd7nuQPv6y4FUwFkYDrfVgomqd_WfhF6BJjik</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1777150170</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Life cycle assessment of borate-treated lumber with comparison to galvanized steel framing</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Bolin, Christopher A. ; Smith, Stephen T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bolin, Christopher A. ; Smith, Stephen T.</creatorcontrib><description>A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment was done to identify the environmental impacts related to borate-treated lumber used as structural framing and to determine how the impacts compare to the primary alternative product, galvanized steel framing members. Borate-treated lumber may be used for framing buildings in locations of high decay or termite hazard. A model of borate-treated lumber life cycle stages was created and used to calculate inputs and outputs during the lumber production, treating, use, and disposal stages. Lumber production data are based on published sources. Primary wood preservative treatment data were obtained by surveying wood treatment facilities in the United States. Product use and disposal inventory data are based on published data and professional judgment. Life cycle inputs, outputs, and impact indicators for borate-treated lumber were quantified using life cycle assessment LCA methodologies at functional units of 1000 board feet, 100 linear feet (30.5 linear meters) of structural perimeter wall framing, and framing required for the perimeter walls of one representative home. In a similar manner, a life cycle inventory model was developed for the manufacture, use, and disposal of the primary alternative product, galvanized steel framing, and comparisons were done using an equivalent measure of 100 linear feet of structural perimeter wall framing. Impact indicator values such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil fuel use, water use, acidification, ecological toxicity, smog forming potential, and eutrophication were quantified for each of the two framing products.National normalization was done to compare the significance of the framing in a representative U.S. family home to the family’s total annual impact footprint.
If a U.S. family of three builds a 2225 square feet (207 square meters) home using borate-treated lumber for structural perimeter wall framing, the framing impact “footprint” (normalized over the use life of the structure) for GHG emissions, fossil fuel use, acidification, ecological toxicity, smog forming potential, and eutrophication each is less than one-tenth of a percent of the family’s annual overall impact. The cradle-to-grave life cycle impacts of borate-treated lumber framing were approximately four times less for fossil fuel use, 1.8 times less for GHGs, 83 times less for water use, 3.5 times less for acidification, 2.5 times less for ecological impact, 2.8 times less for smog formation, and 3.3 times less for eutrophication than those for galvanized steel framing.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0959-6526</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1786</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.005</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Borate ; Building products ; Carbon sequestration ; Ecology ; Environmental impact ; Feet ; Framing ; Galvanized steel framing ; Galvanized steels ; Isoptera ; Life cycle assessment ; Life cycle assessment (LCA) ; Life cycle engineering ; Smog ; Treated lumber ; Walls ; Wood</subject><ispartof>Journal of cleaner production, 2011-04, Vol.19 (6), p.630-639</ispartof><rights>2010 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-6c24e5d661a877c83160fe04042b62cc3426544baf0797dc15d12b84a7f3ed893</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-6c24e5d661a877c83160fe04042b62cc3426544baf0797dc15d12b84a7f3ed893</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bolin, Christopher A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Stephen T.</creatorcontrib><title>Life cycle assessment of borate-treated lumber with comparison to galvanized steel framing</title><title>Journal of cleaner production</title><description>A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment was done to identify the environmental impacts related to borate-treated lumber used as structural framing and to determine how the impacts compare to the primary alternative product, galvanized steel framing members. Borate-treated lumber may be used for framing buildings in locations of high decay or termite hazard. A model of borate-treated lumber life cycle stages was created and used to calculate inputs and outputs during the lumber production, treating, use, and disposal stages. Lumber production data are based on published sources. Primary wood preservative treatment data were obtained by surveying wood treatment facilities in the United States. Product use and disposal inventory data are based on published data and professional judgment. Life cycle inputs, outputs, and impact indicators for borate-treated lumber were quantified using life cycle assessment LCA methodologies at functional units of 1000 board feet, 100 linear feet (30.5 linear meters) of structural perimeter wall framing, and framing required for the perimeter walls of one representative home. In a similar manner, a life cycle inventory model was developed for the manufacture, use, and disposal of the primary alternative product, galvanized steel framing, and comparisons were done using an equivalent measure of 100 linear feet of structural perimeter wall framing. Impact indicator values such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil fuel use, water use, acidification, ecological toxicity, smog forming potential, and eutrophication were quantified for each of the two framing products.National normalization was done to compare the significance of the framing in a representative U.S. family home to the family’s total annual impact footprint.
If a U.S. family of three builds a 2225 square feet (207 square meters) home using borate-treated lumber for structural perimeter wall framing, the framing impact “footprint” (normalized over the use life of the structure) for GHG emissions, fossil fuel use, acidification, ecological toxicity, smog forming potential, and eutrophication each is less than one-tenth of a percent of the family’s annual overall impact. The cradle-to-grave life cycle impacts of borate-treated lumber framing were approximately four times less for fossil fuel use, 1.8 times less for GHGs, 83 times less for water use, 3.5 times less for acidification, 2.5 times less for ecological impact, 2.8 times less for smog formation, and 3.3 times less for eutrophication than those for galvanized steel framing.</description><subject>Borate</subject><subject>Building products</subject><subject>Carbon sequestration</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Environmental impact</subject><subject>Feet</subject><subject>Framing</subject><subject>Galvanized steel framing</subject><subject>Galvanized steels</subject><subject>Isoptera</subject><subject>Life cycle assessment</subject><subject>Life cycle assessment (LCA)</subject><subject>Life cycle engineering</subject><subject>Smog</subject><subject>Treated lumber</subject><subject>Walls</subject><subject>Wood</subject><issn>0959-6526</issn><issn>1879-1786</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE1LxDAURYMoOI7-BCE73bQmaZq0K5HBLxhwoxs3IU1fxwxtMyYZZfz1psysdXXhce6FdxC6pCSnhIqbdb42PWy8yxmZbiwnpDxCM1rJOqOyEsdoRuqyzkTJxCk6C2FNCJVE8hl6X9oOsNmlAaxDgBAGGCN2HW6c1xGy6CFFi_vt0IDH3zZ-YOOGjfY2uBFHh1e6_9Kj_UlQiAA97rwe7Lg6Ryed7gNcHHKO3h7uXxdP2fLl8Xlxt8xMIXnMhGEcylYIqispTVVQQTognHDWCGZMwZkoOW90R2QtW0PLlrKm4lp2BbRVXczR1X43GfjcQohqsMFA3-sR3DaoSnBO6qJgibz-k6RSSlpOahJa7lHjXQgeOrXxdtB-pyhRk3W1VgfrarKuKFPJeurd7nuQPv6y4FUwFkYDrfVgomqd_WfhF6BJjik</recordid><startdate>20110401</startdate><enddate>20110401</enddate><creator>Bolin, Christopher A.</creator><creator>Smith, Stephen T.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SU</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110401</creationdate><title>Life cycle assessment of borate-treated lumber with comparison to galvanized steel framing</title><author>Bolin, Christopher A. ; Smith, Stephen T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-6c24e5d661a877c83160fe04042b62cc3426544baf0797dc15d12b84a7f3ed893</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Borate</topic><topic>Building products</topic><topic>Carbon sequestration</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Environmental impact</topic><topic>Feet</topic><topic>Framing</topic><topic>Galvanized steel framing</topic><topic>Galvanized steels</topic><topic>Isoptera</topic><topic>Life cycle assessment</topic><topic>Life cycle assessment (LCA)</topic><topic>Life cycle engineering</topic><topic>Smog</topic><topic>Treated lumber</topic><topic>Walls</topic><topic>Wood</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bolin, Christopher A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Stephen T.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of cleaner production</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bolin, Christopher A.</au><au>Smith, Stephen T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Life cycle assessment of borate-treated lumber with comparison to galvanized steel framing</atitle><jtitle>Journal of cleaner production</jtitle><date>2011-04-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>630</spage><epage>639</epage><pages>630-639</pages><issn>0959-6526</issn><eissn>1879-1786</eissn><abstract>A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment was done to identify the environmental impacts related to borate-treated lumber used as structural framing and to determine how the impacts compare to the primary alternative product, galvanized steel framing members. Borate-treated lumber may be used for framing buildings in locations of high decay or termite hazard. A model of borate-treated lumber life cycle stages was created and used to calculate inputs and outputs during the lumber production, treating, use, and disposal stages. Lumber production data are based on published sources. Primary wood preservative treatment data were obtained by surveying wood treatment facilities in the United States. Product use and disposal inventory data are based on published data and professional judgment. Life cycle inputs, outputs, and impact indicators for borate-treated lumber were quantified using life cycle assessment LCA methodologies at functional units of 1000 board feet, 100 linear feet (30.5 linear meters) of structural perimeter wall framing, and framing required for the perimeter walls of one representative home. In a similar manner, a life cycle inventory model was developed for the manufacture, use, and disposal of the primary alternative product, galvanized steel framing, and comparisons were done using an equivalent measure of 100 linear feet of structural perimeter wall framing. Impact indicator values such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil fuel use, water use, acidification, ecological toxicity, smog forming potential, and eutrophication were quantified for each of the two framing products.National normalization was done to compare the significance of the framing in a representative U.S. family home to the family’s total annual impact footprint.
If a U.S. family of three builds a 2225 square feet (207 square meters) home using borate-treated lumber for structural perimeter wall framing, the framing impact “footprint” (normalized over the use life of the structure) for GHG emissions, fossil fuel use, acidification, ecological toxicity, smog forming potential, and eutrophication each is less than one-tenth of a percent of the family’s annual overall impact. The cradle-to-grave life cycle impacts of borate-treated lumber framing were approximately four times less for fossil fuel use, 1.8 times less for GHGs, 83 times less for water use, 3.5 times less for acidification, 2.5 times less for ecological impact, 2.8 times less for smog formation, and 3.3 times less for eutrophication than those for galvanized steel framing.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.005</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0959-6526 |
ispartof | Journal of cleaner production, 2011-04, Vol.19 (6), p.630-639 |
issn | 0959-6526 1879-1786 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_864409332 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Borate Building products Carbon sequestration Ecology Environmental impact Feet Framing Galvanized steel framing Galvanized steels Isoptera Life cycle assessment Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle engineering Smog Treated lumber Walls Wood |
title | Life cycle assessment of borate-treated lumber with comparison to galvanized steel framing |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T02%3A38%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Life%20cycle%20assessment%20of%20borate-treated%20lumber%20with%20comparison%20to%20galvanized%20steel%20framing&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20cleaner%20production&rft.au=Bolin,%20Christopher%20A.&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=630&rft.epage=639&rft.pages=630-639&rft.issn=0959-6526&rft.eissn=1879-1786&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E864409332%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1777150170&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0959652610004579&rfr_iscdi=true |