Life Cycle Assessment of Marble Plate Production

Year 2018, Volume: 22 Issue: 2, 521 - 527, 15.08.2018

Zerrin Günkaya Levent Karacasulu Gülperi Evliyaoğlu Mesut Çiftçi

Abstract

Sustainable use of natural resources in the production of construction materials has become a necessity both in Europe and Turkey. Marble plate is a construction material that is frequently preferred because of its neutrality and durability for a long time. Beside these technical specifications, its environmental performance should also be considered. From this point of view, it was aimed to investigate environmental impacts generated from marble plate production by using Life Cycle Assessment methodology. The functional unit was determined as to be 1 m² of marble plate. Foreground data were obtained from a marble production plant which has a quarry in Bilecik city and background data was gathered from Ecoinvent database. The CML-IA method included in the SimaPro 8.2.0 software was used to calculate environmental impact categories. Results showed that marble quarry (the unprocessed product before the marble plate) and electricity are the main contributors to the environmental effects of the marble plate. For marble quarry, the effects of diesel and electricity are significant. Abiotic depletion potential, global warming potential, and human toxicity potential were the main environmental loads of the marble plate production. The sensitivity of the results was determined by using the data obtained from ELCD database in addition to Ecoinvent and it was seen that there is no so much difference between the results obtained by using two different databases. Additionally, environmental performance of the marble plate was compared to the ceramic tile since they are both floor covering materials and alternatives of each other. This comparison showed that fossil fuel-based abiotic depletion potential of marble plate (24.7 MJ) was higher than fossil fuel-based abiotic depletion potential of ceramic tile (0.935 MJ).  On the other hand, GWP and HTP values of the ceramic tile (7.97 kg CO₂ eq. and 1.17 kg 1,4-DB eq., respectively) is greater than GWP and HTP values of the marble plate (3.96 kg CO₂ eq. and 0.554 kg 1,4-DB eq., respectively).

Keywords

Life cycle assessment, Marble production; Building materials

References

• [1] Kulaksız, S. 2012. Doğal Taş (Mermer) Madencilik İşletme Yöntemleri. Maden Mühendisleri Odası, Afyon.
• [2] Yalçın, S. Uyanık, T. 2001. Dünya Mermer Ticaretinde Türkiye’nin Yeri. Türkiye 3. Mermer Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, 3-5 Mayıs, Afyon, 397-416.
• [3] Kacır, S. 2017. Bilecik Mermer Sektörü Raporu. Bursa Eskişehir Bilecik Kalkınma Ajansı (BEBKA).
• [4] Aciu, C., Muntean, L., Manea, D. 2011. Life Cycle Analysis of Building Materials. 11th International Scientific Conference, 2-3 June, Sofia, Bulgaria, V114-V119.
• [5] Kotaji, S., Schuurmans, A. Edwards, S. eds., 2003. Life-Cycle Assessment in Building and Construction: A state-of-the-art report, 2003. Setac.
• [6] Bribián, I. Z., Capilla, A. V., Usón, A. A. 2011. Life Cycle Assessment of Building Materials: Comparative Analysis of Energy and Environmental Impacts and Evaluation of the Eco-efficiency Improvement Potential. Building and Environment, 46, 1133-1140.
• [7] Khasreen, M. M., Banfill, P. F., Menzies, G. F. 2009. Life-Cycle Assessment and the Environmental Impact of Buildings: A Review. Sustainability, 1(3), 674-701.
• [8] Cabeza, L. F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G., Castell, A. 2014. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Energy Analysis (LCEA) of Buildings and the Building Sector: A Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 394-416.
• [9] Özkan, A., Çokaygil, Z., Tok, G., Karacasulu, L., Metesoy, M., Banar, M., Kara, A. 2016. Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Magnesia Spinel Brick Production. Sustainability, 8, 662.
• [10] Almeida, M.I., Dias, A.C., Demertzi, M., Arroja, L. 2015. Contribution to the Development of Product Category Rules for Ceramic Bricks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 92, 206–215.
• [11] Han, B., Wang, R., Yao, L., Liu, H., Wang, Z. 2015. Life Cycle Assessment of Ceramic Façade Material and Its Comparative Analysis with Three Other Common Façade Materials. Journal of Cleaner Production, 99, 86–93.
• [12] Kim, K.H. 2011. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of a Transparent Composite Façade System and a Glass Curtain Wall System. Energy and Buildings, 43, 3436–3445.
• [13] Souza, D.M., Lafontaine, M., Charron-Doucet, F., Bengoa, X., Chappert, B., Duarte, F., Lima, L. 2015. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Ceramic Versus Concrete Roof Tiles in the Brazilian Context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 89, 165–173.
• [14] Almeida, M., Dias, A.C., Arroja, L. 2011. Environmental Product Declaration in Portuguese Ceramic Tile. In Proceedings of the SIM 2011 International Conference on Sustainable Intelligent Manufacturing, 29 June–1 July, Leiria, Portugal.
• [15] Banar, M., Çokaygil, Z. 2009. Environmental Evaluation of Ceramic Floor Tiles through Life Cycle Analysis Method. In Proceedings of the Solid Waste Management Symposium in Turkey (TÜRKAY), 15–17 June, Istanbul, Turkey.
• [16] Bovea, M.D., Saura, U., Ferrero, J.L., Giner, J. 2007. Cradle to Gate Study of Red Clay for Use in the Ceramic Industry. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12, 439–447.
• [17] Koroneos, C., Dompros, A. 2007. Environmental Assessment of Brick Production in Greece. Building and Environment, 42, 2114–2123.
• [18] Nicoletti, G.M., Notarnicola, B., Tassielli, G. 2002. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Flooring Materials: Ceramic Versus Marble Tiles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 283–296.
• [19] Rouwette, R. 2010. LCA of Brick Products: Life Cycle Assessment Report E Final Report after Critical Review. Think Brick Australia J/N 107884, Energetics: Melbourne, Australia.
• [20] Boesch, M.E., Hellweg, S. 2010. Identifying Improvement Potentials in Cement Production with Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 9143–9149.
• [21] Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., Jullien, A. 2010. Environmental Impact of Cement Production: Detail of the Different Processes and Cement Plant Variability Evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 478–485.
• [22] Feiz, R., Ammenberg, J., Baas, L., Eklund, M., Helgstrand, A., Marshall, R. 2015. Improving the CO2 Performance of Cement, Part II: Framework for Assessing CO2 Improvement Measures in Cement Industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 282–291.
• [23] Güeraca, L.P., Torres, N., Juarez-Lopez, C.R. 2015. The Co-Processing of Municipal Waste in a Cement Kiln in Mexico, A Life-Cycle Assessment Approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 741–748.
• [24] Valderrama, C., Granados, R., Cortina, J.L., Gasol, C.M., Guillem, M., Josa, A. 2012. Implementation of Best Available Techniques in Cement Manufacturing: A Lifecycle Assessment Study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 25, 60–67.
• [25] Huntzinger, D.N., Eatmon, T.D. 2009. A Life-Cycle Assessment of Portland Cement Manufacturing: Comparing the Traditional Process with Alternative Technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 668–675.
• [26] Vares, S., Hakkinen, T. 2009. LCA Tool for Cement Manufacturers for System Optimization and for Environmental Reporting. Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Technologies LCA Symposium, 6 October, Espoo, Finland, pp. 122–133.
• [27] Liguori, V., Rizzo, G., Traverso, M. 2008. Marble Quarrying: An Energy and Waste Intensive Activity in the Production of Building Materials. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 108, 197-207.
• [28] Traverso, M., Rizzo, G., Finkbeiner, M. 2010. Environmental Performance of Building Materials: Life Cycle Assessment of a Typical Sicilian Marble. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(1), 104.
• [29] Borjesson, P., Gustavsson, L. 2000. Greenhouse Gas Balances in Building Construction: Wood versus Concrete from Life-cycle and Forest Land-use Perspectives. Energy Policy, 28, 575-588.
• [30] Gustavsson, L., Sathre, R. 2006. Variability in Energy and Carbon Dioxide Balances of Wood and Concrete Building Materials. Building and Environment, 41, 940-951.
• [31] Xing, S., Xu, Z., Jun, G. 2008. Inventory Analysis of LCA on Steel and Concrete-Construction Office Buildings. Energy and Buildings, 40, 1188-1193.
• [32] Asif, M., Muneer, T., Kelley, R. 2007. Life Cycle Assessment: A Case Study of a Dwelling Home in Scotland. Building and Environment, 42, 1391-1394.
• [33] Potting, J., Blok, K. 1995. Life-Cycle Covering Assessment of Four Types of Floor. Journal of Cleaner Production, 3, 201-213.
• [34] Jönsson, Å., Tillman, A. M., Svensson, T. 1997. Life Cycle Assessment of Flooring Materials: Case Study. Building and Environment, 32, 245-255.
• [35] Curran, M.A. 2012. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA.
• [36] Baumann, H., Tillman, A. 2004. The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to LCA: An Orientation in Life Cycle Assessment Methodology and Applications. Professional Publishing House, 543s.
• [37] ISO 14040:2006. International Organization for Standardization. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
• [38] ISO 14044:2006. International Organization for Standardization. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
• [39] Günkaya, Z., Özdemir, A., Özkan, A., Banar, M. 2016. Environmental Performance of Electricity Generation Based on Resources: A Life Cycle Assessment Case Study in Turkey. Sustainability, 8, 1097.