Journal of Cleaner Production 177 (2018) 387e397

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Comparative LCA of wood waste management strategies generated

from building construction activities
Md. Uzzal Hossain, Chi Sun Poon*
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The management of a large amount of wood waste generated from construction activities is a challenging
Received 22 July 2017 issue. However, wood waste is an inherently renewable resource that can be recycled and utilized for the
Received in revised form production of green products and renewable energy. In order to minimize the environmental impacts
22 December 2017
and to provide a scientific basis for the decision-making process on the wood waste management sys-
Accepted 26 December 2017
tems, a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach was employed in this study to evaluate the potential
Available online 28 December 2017
management systems from an environmental point of view. Three alternative scenarios, including the
recycling and reusing of wood waste to produce organic polymer based particleboard, cement-bonded
Keywords:
Building construction activities
particleboard and energy were compared with the current disposal strategy (landfill disposal), with
Energy consumption the functional unit of 1 tonne of wood waste within a cradle-to-grave system boundary. The LCA results
Greenhouse gases emission showed that significant reductions of environmental impacts were observed for the production of
Life cycle assessment particleboard (scenario 1) and wood-cement composite (scenario 2) from wood waste compared to that
Wood waste of using virgin wood. However, the results also showed that scenario 3 (energy generation from bio-fuel
derived from wood waste) was the best strategy, as this technology reduces more than 1 tonne of CO2 eq
greenhouse gases compared to the energy generation from coal. The analysis conducted in this study can
serve as guidelines to design a sustainable and resource-efficient wood waste management system.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The construction industry consumes a huge amount of resources
and disposes a considerable amount of waste to the environment.
Sustainable management of construction waste is paramount
important in order to minimize resource consumption, increase
recycling, and reduce the related environmental impacts. According
to the Hong Kong Environment Protection Department (HKEPD),
over 66,000 tonnes per day of construction and demolition waste
were generated in 2015. Among them, about 1000 tonnes per day of
wood waste were generated in Hong Kong. Thus, the management
of such large amount of waste has become a serious concern due to
the shortage of waste disposal outlets in Hong Kong (HKEPD, 2017).
However, building construction waste can be reused as a raw ma-
terial for the manufacturing of secondary materials/products
(Rodrigues et al., 2013). For example, recycled aggregates from
concrete waste (Butera et al., 2015; Hossain et al., 2016b), bio-fuel
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cecspoon@polyu.edu.hk (C.S. Poon).
from wood waste (Dahlbo et al., 2015; Hossain et al., 2016a), sec-
ondary steel from steel scraps (Dahlbo et al., 2015; Mercante et al.,
2012), other materials including plastics, papers, glass, aluminium,
etc. (Mercante et al., 2012; Hossain et al., 2017b).
Wood waste contributes to a significant portion of the total
building construction waste (Poon et al., 2001). There is an
increasing concern on the wood-based products especially on the
environmental impacts of the production, use and disposal of the
wooden items/goods at the end of their service life (Sathre and
Gonzalez-Garcia, 2014). Wood is considered as a versatile renew-
able resource with high potential of impacts mitigation (Hoglmeier
et al., 2017). Wood waste is a secondary resources that can be
reused for wood products and energy production (Kim and Song,
2014; Ratajczak et al., 2015; Bergeron, 2014). Virgin raw materials
can be replaced by recycled wood that can reduce the associated
cost and externalities for logging, transportation, and disposal (Kim
and Song, 2014; Jungmeier et al., 2002). Several major wood waste
management options have been identified which include recycling
for wood composites, particleboard production and bio-fuel pro-
duction (Ruisheng et al., 2014). In addition, landfilling of the wood
waste is the most commonly applied management method in many

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.233
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
388 Md.U. Hossain, C.S. Poon / Journal of Cleaner Production 177 (2018) 387e397
Abbreviation
AWC American Wood Council
CBP Cement-bonded particleboard
CLCD Chinese Life Cycle Database
CLP China Light and Power
ESF Energy saving factor
GHGs Greenhouse gases
GHGSF GHGs saving factor
GWP Global warming potential
HKEPD Hong Kong Environment Protection Department
ISO International Organization for Standardization
Kg Kilogram
Km Kilometer
parts of the world including Hong Kong, which is undoubtedly a
non-sustainable practice that results in substantial environmental
impacts as well as wastage of an enormous amount of landfilling
space (Tsang et al., 2007). But due to the limited downstream re-
cyclers of wood waste, as well as lack of appropriate government
policy, landfilling is still the prevailing practice for wood waste
management in Hong Kong.
Several studies have demonstrated that the use of recycled
wood is technically feasible for particleboard production (Yang
et al., 2007; Varga et al., 2004; Erlandsson and Sundquist, 2014).
These studies have focused on assessing the characteristics of
particleboard produced from recycled wood chips, and found
comparable mechanical properties (e.g., bending strength, internal
bonding strength, thickness swelling, etc.) compared to particle-
board produced with virgin wood. Besides, the production of
cement-bonded particleboard (CBP) produced with recycled wood
from construction activities was found to be technical feasible
(Wang et al., 2016a,b; Kruger et al., 2009; Werner and Richter,
2007). These studies demonstrated that CBP produced from recy-
cled wood met the standards on mechanical performance (e.g.,
flexural strength of >9 MPa) and manifested excellent noise
reduction and low thermal conductivity which suggested the po-
tential applications of the CBP as lightweight acoustic and thermal
insulating materials. Wood residues are also suitable for wood
pellets production that can be burned directly as a fuel to provide
thermal energy in the relevant industries (Magelli et al., 2009). In
addition, wood waste generated from building construction activ-
ities are also suitable for wood pellets production, and can be used
as a fuel to substitute coal for reducing environmental impacts
(Hossain et al., 2016a).
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a well-established technique
specified in international standards (ISO, 2006a,b), and it has been
widely used to assess the environmental impacts in waste man-
agement systems (Clavreul et al., 2012). A few LCA studies have
been published on the biomass to energy generation; for example,
power generation from direct biomass burning in China (Wang
et al., 2015), US (Nuss et al., 2013), and France (Perilhon et al.,
2012). Although several LCA studies have also confirmed that
wood pellets from fresh and recycled wood waste can be used for
sustainable energy generation (Reed et al., 2012; Hossain et al.,
2016a, 2017a; Zhang et al., 2010; Katers et al., 2012), few LCA
studies have been conducted on the environmental implications of
the particleboard production (Silva et al., 2013; Wilson, 2010b;
Merrild and Christensen, 2009; Rivela et al., 2006a).
In addition, several LCA studies have been conducted on wood
waste management and utilizations, especially on wood residues
from fresh wood processing (Nuss et al., 2013; Carpenter et al.,
kWh Kilowatt-hour
LCA Life cycle assessment
LCI Life cycle inventory
MJ Megajoule
MPa Megapascals
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PB Particleboard
R Recycled wood
TRADA Timber Research and Development Association
T WP Total amount of wood pellets
T WW Total amount of wood waste
UF Urea formaldehyde
Uf Unit fuel
V Virgin wood
2013). Mercante et al. (2012) assessed the environmental impacts
of construction and demolition waste management systems in
Spain, where different recovered materials (e.g., metals, aggregates,
plastics and wood) were used to replace primary materials, where
wood chips from primary softwood were replaced by secondary
wood. Bais-Moleman et al. (2017) assessed the potential of
cascading use of woody biomass in different utilizations for
reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs) emission based on 28 member
states of the European Union. Morris (2016) studied the potential
recycling and utilizations of wood waste, and the study considered
a few recycling options, such as recycled wood products to wood
pulp for papermaking, and direct burning to energy generation as a
substitute of natural gas boiler fuel. However, other alternative
feasible techniques, such as particleboard production, wood com-
posites and bio-fuel (instead of direct burning) production has not
been considered.
Therefore, this study aimed to assess the environmental per-
formance of wood waste management systems comparatively, us-
ing a case study in Hong Kong. The study provided the
comprehensive evaluation of different alternative options to reduce
environmental impacts, and resource-efficient solutions for wood
waste management systems that can be used in decision making
processes, especially for high-density and compact cities, like Hong
Kong.
In order to evaluate the environmental impacts, four manage-
ment scenarios, including (i) particleboard production, (ii) cement-
bonded particleboard production, (iii) bio-fuel production towards
energy generation, and (iv) landfilling (current management
method in Hong Kong), were assessed based on environmental
performance. In addition, the mentioned products and energy
generation were compared with conventional products produced
with virgin materials and the conventional fossil fuel.
2. Methodology
2.1. Study method
Life cycle assessment (LCA), a well recognized environmental
impacts assessment method (ISO, 2006a), was applied in this study
in order to make sound decision on wood waste management
systems. LCA has been rapidly adopted in various systems and
waste management systems as a decision support tool (e.g., Bais-
Moleman et al., 2017; Morris, 2016; Mercante et al., 2012). Ac-
cording to ISO (2006b), there are four main steps included in an LCA
study, including (1) defining goal and scope of the study, (2)
developing life cycle inventory, (3) assessing environmental im-
pacts, and (4) interpreting the results.
 Md.U. Hossain, C.S. Poon / Journal of Cleaner Production 177 (2018) 387e397
2.2. Goal and scope of study
The goal of this study was to assess and compare the environ-
mental impacts of wood waste management generated from
building construction activities using different alternative man-
agement scenarios in Hong Kong. Three alternative scenarios were
designed and compared with the reference scenario (landfill
disposal) in this study with the reference flow of 1 t of wood waste.
These scenarios include:
Scenario 1. Environmental impacts of polymer based particle-
board produced from recycled wood waste in lieu of virgin sources
(recycling factory located in Hong Kong but particleboard factory
located in Guangdong province, China),
Scenario 2. Cement-based particleboard (CBP) production with
recycled wood waste in lieu of virgin sources (recycling factory
located in Hong Kong but CBP particleboard factory located in
Guangdong province, China),
Scenario 3. Energy generation from bio-fuel produced with
recycled wood waste in lieu of coal (recycling factory located in
Hong Kong and the fuel is used in Hong Kong), and
Scenario 4. (reference scenario) Landfilling wood waste (current
practice in Hong Kong) including transport.
2.3. System boundary, process description and life cycle inventory
The system boundaries for different scenarios described above is
shown in Fig. 1. The details of each scenario with different con-
siderations are described in Sub-Sections 2.3.1e2.3.4. In this study,
a cradle-to-grave system boundary is considered.
2.3.1. Description of Scenario 1
In this scenario, wood waste is collected by 30 t trucks from
building construction sites to a local wood waste recycling and
processing site. Based on the volume of the trucks and carrying
capacity, the input value for transport was calculated by multi-
plying the mass of the materials transported by the distance by the
transport correction factor. The correction factor for wood waste
was 6, calculated based on Marca (2010) and Mercante et al. (2012).
The wood wastes are then stored in a dry facility, and a forklift truck
is used for on-site handling. An electric hammer mill is used to
crush the wood waste into smaller and uniform particles, and then
sorted and screened to achieve the designated size (2e20 mm)
(Yang et al., 2007; Rivela et al., 2006b). The chip is then packaged
and stored in a dry place.
Wood chips are then transport to particleboard manufacturing
sites (as no particleboard manufacturer is available in Hong Kong
currently, the study used the distance to the nearest manufacturer
in Guangdong Province, mainland China). The chips are dried to a
moisture content of less than 10% (usually 5e7%) (Kouchaki-
Penchah et al., 2016; Kim and Song, 2014). Relatively little energy
is needed for drying the chips produced from wood waste, as the
moisture content of wood waste (formwork) is normally less than
11% in Hong Kong (Hossain et al., 2016a). According to Kim and
Song (2014), about 5.63 l residual fuel oil is needed to dry 1 t of
wood waste to achieve the desired moisture content of wood chips
for particleboard production, when the moisture content of wood
waste is about 11%. The dried chip is then mixed with a water
resistant adhesive binder (usually urea formaldehyde) for produc-
ing the particleboard. The chips are then placed into a designated
frame, and then an individual mat is formed. A conventional hot
press is used to join the different layers, and a control bar is used to
control the size. Paraffin wax is also added to provide water
389
resistance, and to control the swelling caused by temporary wet-
ting. After cooling and finishing, the particleboard is stored in a dry
place, where the temperature and humidity is suitably controlled
(Rivela et al., 2006b).
The data for the fuel and electricity consumption, and trans-
portation for the particleboard production is shown in Table 1. The
transport data regarding the collection of wood waste to the
recycling site, and the energy and fuel consumption data for wood
waste processing to wood chip production were collected as first
hand data from a local wood waste recycling factory. The compo-
sition of the particleboard is given in Table 2. Temporary (biomass)
carbon storage of particleboard has been explained by several
studies (e.g., Garcia and Freire, 2014; Kim and Song, 2014). How-
ever, carbon storage in particleboard is excluded from this study, as
it is assumed that it would be similar for both the recycled and
virgin wood materials.
2.3.2. Description of Scenario 2
Cement-bonded particleboard (CBP) is a cement-based wood
composite consisting of small wood particles and a mineral
bonding agent (normally Ordinary Portland cement). The density of
composite boards can vary. For the production of CBP, a lower
amount of wood particles (20e30% by weight) are used with the
use of a relatively low pressure and temperature during production
(Botti, 2012).
The wood waste collection system has already been explained at
2.3.1. The collected wood wastes are reduced to flakes by using a
drum-knife flaking machine. After passing through a hammer mill,
the wood particles are screened (TRADA, 2014). The granulated
wood waste having particle sizes ranging from 0.3e2.36 mm and
2.36e5 mm are considered as fine aggregates and coarse aggre-
gates, respectively, and are mixed with OPC and water to produce
the CBP. A small amount of accelerator (about 2% accelerator by the
weight of cement) is added to the wet mix to accelerate cement
setting. The materials are homogeneously mixed by a mechanical
mixer, and then compressed in moulds (Wang et al., 2016a). The
mould materials are required to pass through a heated chamber at
70
Ce80
C, and the produced particleboard is further dried after
demoulding before shipment.
The data regarding the fuel and electricity consumption, and
transportation for CBP production is shown in Table 3. According to
Wang et al. (2016a), the optimal density of CBP production with
wood waste is about 1540 kg/m3 that have a 28 day flexural
strength of 12.9 MPa which meets the standard requirement of
9 MPa (ISO, 1987). The moisture content of the final product is
about 7e9% (Eternit, 2008). The composition of CBP produced from
wood waste is given in Table 4.
2.3.3. Description of Scenario 3
Wood waste generated from construction sources can be a good
source of renewable energy generation. According to our previous
study, wood waste from construction activities is suitable for bio-
fuel (wood pellets) production (Hossain et al., 2016a). In addition,
bio-fuel produced from wood wastes is a good source of energy for
co-firing with fossil fuels due to its high energy density (Zhang
et al., 2010).
As the energy intensive industries (e.g., cement production and
power generation) consume huge amounts of coal in Hong Kong,
the use of bio-fuel from waste materials can be considered as a good
potential source for reducing environmental impacts. Based on the
technical analysis, the previous study estimated that about 0.9 t
wood pellets can be produced from 1 t of wood waste generated
from the construction activities. In the process of wood pellets
production, no extra energy is required for drying the waste
(moisture content is about 10%). A comparative analysis of the key
390 Md.U. Hossain, C.S. Poon / Journal of Cleaner Production 177 (2018) 387e397

Fig. 1. System boundaries of wood waste management for different scenarios considered in this study.
 Md.U. Hossain, C.S. Poon / Journal of Cleaner Production 177 (2018) 387e397 391

Table 1
Life cycle inventory (LCI) data for particleboard production.

Materials/transports/processes Unit Sources of

upstream data

Recycled wood collection and processing

Wood waste transport to wood waste recycling plant 43 km by 30 t trucks, a CLCD (2010d)
On-site handling in wood waste recycling plant Diesel: 2.7 l/t wood waste CLCD (2010c)
Wood waste processing (e.g. crushing and sizing) to produce smaller wood chip Electricity: 95 kWh/t wood chip CLP (2014); CLCD
(2010b)
Wood chip transport to particleboard production site 27 km by 30 t trucks; 128 km by inland barge (diesel CLCD (2010d);
powered); 34 km by 30 t trucks CLCD (2010a)
Wood chip drying Residual fuel oil: 5.63 l/t wood chip, b Deru and
Torcellini (2007)
Fresh wood collection and processing
Fresh wood (pine and eucalyptus) transport from nearby areas to manufacturing site 250 km by 30 t trucks, d CLCD (2010d)
Fresh wood processing (preparation of wood chip, e.g., Electricity: 118 kWh/t wood chip, and CLCD (2010b); CLCD (2010c)
chipping and flaking, screening, etc.) diesel: 19 MJ/t wood chip, c
Wood chip drying (fresh) Residual fuel oil: 29.46 l/t wood chip, b Deru and Torcellini (2007)
Other materials
UF resin Referring to database Wilson (2010a)
UF resin transport to manufacturing sites 250 km by 30 t trucks, d CLCD (2010d)
Paraffin Referring to database Ecoinvent (2013a)
Particleboard manufacturing
Production processing (e.g. board shaping, resin Electricity: 52 kWh, and natural gas: CLCD (2010b); Deru and Torcellini (2007)
metering and blending, pressing, etc.) 664 MJ per m3 particleboard, c
Finishing process and on-site handling Electricity: 30 kWh, and diesel: 1.3 l per CLCD (2010b); CLCD (2010c)
m3 particleboard, c
a
Hossain et al. (2016a).
b
Kim and Song (2014).
c
Kouchaki-Penchah et al. (2016).
d
Zhang (2013).

Table 2 2.3.4. Description of Scenario 4 (reference scenario)

Raw materials for particleboard production (adopted from Kim and Song, In Scenario 4, the present study assessed the environmental
2014; Rivela et al., 2006b).
impacts of per functional unit of wood waste disposal of at landfills,
Materials Proportion (%) which is the current method of wood waste management in Hong
Wood chip 90.54 Kong. Wood waste is transported from building construction sites
UF resin 9.09 to off-site sorting facilities, and then to landfill sites after sorting.
Paraffin 0.28 Wood waste can also be transported directly from building sites to
Ammonium sulphate 0.09
landfill sites. Therefore, the average transport distance of wood
Finished particleboard (1 m3) 100 waste from the waste generation sites to landfill sites (about 53 km)
has been adopted based on our previous study (Hossain et al.,
2016a). Based on the volume of the trucks and their loading ca-
parameters for energy generation from wood waste and coal is pacity, the input value for transport was calculated by multiplying
shown Table 5 (adopted from Hossain et al., 2016a). the mass of the materials transported by the transport correction
From Table 5, it can be seen that it is possible to save about factor. The factor was 6 (calculated based on the Marca (2010), and
3.36 MJ of non-renewable energy (considered as energy saving Mercante et al. (2012)). CLCD database was used to model the
factor, ESF) and reduce 0.27 kg CO2 eq GHGs emissions (considered transport distance by trucks (CLCD, 2010d), and the Ecoinvent
as GHGs saving factor, GHGSF) for 1 kWh of heat generation due to database was used for upstream data of wood waste disposal of at
the use of wood pellets to substitute coal. Based on the above landfill sites (Ecoinvent, 2013b).
findings, the total environmental impact saving or energy reduc-
tion for turning 1 t wood waste to bio-fuel and using it as a sub-
2.4. Impact assessment and interpretation
stitute fuel (Scenario 3) can be estimated using Equations (1) and
(2).
Based on the relative importance and global concern, two
environmental impact categories, namely global warming potential
(GWP100) and non-renewable energy consumption were in this
ESF  TWP  ðTWW  0:9Þ
Non  renewable energy saving ðMJÞ ¼ study. It is noted that the studied scenarios were modeled with
Uf
SimaPro 8.1.0 software, and impacts were assessed by using
(1) IMPACT 2002 þ method (Jolliet et al., 2003). Finally, the environ-
mental impacts for four scenarios studied were compared, and the
environmental implications based on the reference functional unit
GHGSF    TWP  ðTWW  0:9Þ were discussed. The study assumed there would be similar envi-
GHGs saving ðkg CO2 eqÞ ¼ (2)
Uf ronmental impact due to dust emission for virgin and recycled
wood processing, as the dust production was not assessed during
where ESF represents the energy saving factor, GHGSF represents the wood crushing (both recycled and virgin wood). A sensitivity
GHGs saving factor, TWP represents the total amount of wood pellets analysis was also performed for the studied scenarios due to
used, TWW represents the wood waste utilized, and Uf represents varying transport distances of the wood waste from the generation
the unit fuel. sites to the processing site.
392 Md.U. Hossain, C.S. Poon / Journal of Cleaner Production 177 (2018) 387e397

Table 3
LCI data for CBP production.

Materials/transports/processes Unit Sources of

upstream data

Recycled wood collection and processing

Wood waste transport to wood waste recycling plant 43 km by 30 t trucks, a CLCD (2010d)
On-site handling in wood waste recycling plant Diesel: 2.7 l/t wood waste CLCD (2010c)
Wood waste processing (e.g. crushing and sizing) to produce smaller wood aggregates Electricity: 95 kWh/t wood chip CLP (2014); CLCD
(2010b)
Wood aggregates transport to particleboard production site 27 km by 30 t trucks; 128 km by inland barge; CLCD (2010d);
23 km by 30 t trucks CLCD (2010a)
Wood aggregates drying Residual fuel oil: 5.63 l/t wood chip, b Deru and
Torcellini (2007)
Fresh wood collection and processing
Fresh wood (pine and eucalyptus) transport from nearby areas to manufacturing site 250 km by 30 t trucks, d CLCD (2010d)
Fresh wood processing (preparation of wood aggregates, e.g., chipping and flaking, screening, etc.) Electricity: 118 kWh/t wood aggregates; and CLCD (2010b);
diesel: 19 MJ/t wood aggregates, c CLCD (2010c)
Wood aggregates drying (fresh wood) Residual fuel oil: 30 l/t wood aggregates, b Deru and
Torcellini (2007)
Other materials
Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) production Referring to database CLCD (2010e)
OPC transport to CBP manufacturing site 59 km by 30 t trucks CLCD (2010d)
Accelerator (CaCl2) Referring to database Ecoinvent
(2013c)
Manufacturing process
Production processing (e.g. materials mixing by mechanical mixer, uniformly spreading over substrate Referring to following reference Eternit (2008)
boards by spreading machine, pressing and conditioning, drying, etc.)
a
Hossain et al. (2016a).
b
Kim and Song (2014).
c
Kouchaki-Penchah et al. (2016).
d
Zhang (2013).

Table 4
Composition of cement-bonded particleboard (adopted from Wang et al.,
2016a; Eternit, 2008).

Materials Proportion (%)

OPC 67
Wooden aggregates 24
Accelerator (CaCl2) 1
Ground product wastes 8

Finished particleboard (1 m3) 100%

Table 5
Comparative analysis of energy generation from wood waste.

Key characteristics Unit Amount

Moisture content (wood waste) % 10

Moisture content (coal)
Energy content (wood pellets)
Energy content (coal)
Wood waste to wood pellets production ratio
Input
Wood pellets (with 80% thermal conversion efficiency)
Coal (with 90% thermal conversion efficiency)
Total energy requirements (for wood pellets)
Total energy requirements (for coal)
Output
Energy generation (heat)
Total GHGs emission (for wood pellets)
Total GHGs emission (for coal)
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Findings of Scenario 1
The LCA results of Scenario 1 (1 m3 particleboard production) is
shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The results of the total GHGs emission and
non-renewable energy consumption have been compared for
particleboard produced with secondary wood (recycled wood
Fig. 2. Process contributions to GWP impact for particleboard production.
% 13
MJ/kg 19.87
MJ/kg 21.76
e 0.9
waste) with wood from virgin sources. From Fig. 2, it can be seen
kg 0.226 that about 295 kg CO2 eq GHGs emission was associated with the
kg 0.184 production of 1 m3 of particleboard with recycled wood waste,
MJ 1.17 whereas about 313 kg CO2 eq GHGs emission was associated with
MJ 4.53
the same amount of particleboard production from virgin wood. For
kWh 1 both processes, UF resin had the highest contribution to the total
Kg CO2 eq 0.06 emission, followed by the manufacturing process which included
Kg CO2eq 0.33 wood chip production, finishing, wood collection and transport,
wood chip drying, etc. Similarly, about 5756 MJ of non-renewable
energy consumption was associated with particleboard produced
with recycled wood waste, whereas about 6760 MJ was associated
with the production of 1 m3 particleboard with virgin wood (Fig. 3).
For the particleboard production, there is no significant differ-
ence on raw materials consumption, energy uses and chemical
dosages between the manufacturing process with recycled or virgin
wood, except the drying process as the drying is necessary to
render the moisture content to less than 10% for improving process
efficiency and board quality (Kim and Song, 2014). In addition,
 Md.U. Hossain, C.S. Poon / Journal of Cleaner Production 177 (2018) 387e397 393

Although the environmental impacts of particleboard production

may significantly be influenced by the technology use, wood chip
drying, fuel and energy consumption, upstream data energy gen-
eration and transportation, etc., it can be seen that the LCA results
are comparable in different studies.

3.2. Findings of Scenario 2

Based on the collected LCI data and other considerations, the

Fig. 3. Process contributions to non-renewable energy consumption for particleboard
production.
significant differences are associated with the transport of the two
types of wood materials. It can be seen from Fig. 2 that about 6%
lower GHGs emission is associated with particleboard produced
with recycled wood than produced with virgin wood. Similarly,
about 15% lower non-renewable energy consumption is associated
with particleboard production from recycled wood waste (Fig. 3).
Virgin wood collection, chip production and drying largely
increased GHGs emission and energy consumption for particle-
board production (Table 6). For example, about 112 kg eq GHGs
emission was associated with these processes for virgin wood,
whereas it was about 94 kg eq for recycled wood (in which about
14% was contributed by recycled wood chip transport to the
particleboard production site). The results indicate that virgin wood
processing induced about 16% higher GHGs emission than recycled
wood processing (Fig. 2).
A comparison of the selected impact categories per kg of
particleboard production by different studies is shown in Table 7.
comparative LCA results of CBP production with recycled and fresh
wood is shown Figs. 4 and 5. About 1295 kg eq GHGs is associated
with for producing 1 m3 of CBP with recycled wood which is
slightly lower (about 12 kg eq GHGs) than producing CBP from
virgin wood. This is because wood aggregates contributed only 5%
of the total GHGs emission, whereas 57% is contributed by ordinary
Portland cement (OPC), 37% is by the production processes, and 1%
by the use of a chemical accelerator. In addition, there is almost no
difference associated with the use of recycled and virgin materials
for the production processes except the use of different wood
materials, thus the saving is only associated with recycled wood
processing and transportation.
Similarly, about 14,839 MJ of non-renewable energy consump-
tion is associated with the production of 1 m3 CBP with virgin
wood, which is slightly higher (about 4%) than the CBP production
with recycled wood. For CBP production with recycled wood, about
50% of the total energy is related with the production process, 42%
by OPC, 7% by wood aggregates, and 1% by others. For CBP pro-
duction with virgin wood, the corresponding contributions are 48%,
40%, 11% and 1%, respectively. According to the composition of CBP,
a comparatively lower amount of wood aggregates is used, and thus
a lower saving is observed for CBP production with recycled wood.
A comparative analysis of CBP production with virgin (V) and
recycled wood (R) aggregates is shown in Table 8.
So far, only one LCA study, Eternit (2008) demonstrated the
energy consumption and GHGs emission of cement-bonded parti-
cleboard (for Environmental Product Declaration). The study found

Table 6
Comparative contribution analysis for particleboard production.

Processes GHGs emission (%) Energy consumption (%)

PB (recycled wood) PB (virgin wood) PB (recycled wood) PB (virgin wood)

Wood collection & transport 12.91 15.64 11.19 11.78

Wood chip production 13.79 16.46 13.43 14.48
Wood chip transport 4.35 0.00 3.34 0.00
Wood chip drying 0.70 3.51 3.36 15.25
UF resin 38.36 36.20 35.78 30.47
Wax 0.53 0.49 2.02 1.72
Production processing 21.76 20.53 23.44 19.96
Finishing 7.60 7.17 7.44 6.34
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table 7
Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of particleboard production.

Study Location System boundary Sources of wood material Global warming potential Non-renewable energy
(kg CO2 eq/kg) consumption (MJ eq/kg)

AWC (2013) Canada Cradle-to-gate Virgin 0.44 9.22

Puettmann et al. (2013) USA Cradle-to-gate Virgin 0.50 10.07
Wilson (2010b) USA Cradle-to-gate Virgin 0.53 11.05
Kouchaki-Penchah et al. (2016) Iran Gate-to-gate Virgin 0.66 8.04
Silva et al. (2013) Brazil Cradle-to-gate Virgin 0.53 e
Ecoinvent (2013d) Global Cradle-to-gate Virgin 0.66 11.25
This study China Cradle-to-gate Virgin 0.49 10.56
This study Hong Kong-China Cradle-to-gate Recycled 0.46 8.99
394 Md.U. Hossain, C.S. Poon / Journal of Cleaner Production 177 (2018) 387e397

For example, GHGs emission (about 840 kg eq and 849 kg GHGs for
recycled wood and virgin wood, respectively) and non-renewable
energy consumption (about 9244 MJ and 9636 MJ for recycled
wood and virgin wood, respectively) were observed for producing 1
tonne of CBP in this study.

3.3. Findings of Scenarios 3 and 4

A detailed description of wood waste management through

Scenario 3 has been presented in Section 2.3.3. The factors of car-
bon emission and energy consumption used in this study for 1 kWh
Fig. 4. Process contributions to GHGs emissions for CBP production.
heat generation from wood pellets produced from recycled wood
and coal (Scenario 3) are consistent with other studies (Table 9). It is
noted that mentioned factors are highly dependent on local
transport and energy consumption values. Hence, differences are
observed among the studies for different geographical regions.
By using equations (1) and (2), it has been estimated that about
13,381 MJ of non-renewable energy consumption and about
1075 kg CO2 eq of GWP impacts can be saved after deducting the
associated induced impacts (e.g. due to wood waste collection,
processing, wood pellets production and use) for managing 1 t
wood waste through bio-fuel production and use.
For Scenario 4 (described in Section 2.3.4), it has been estimated
that about 96 kg CO2 eq of GHGs emission (in which 77% is asso-
ciated with transport, and 23% with processing) and 1478 MJ of
Fig. 5. Contributions to non-renewable energy consumption for CBP production. non-renewable energy consumption (in which 81% is associated
with transport, and 19% with processing) is associated with 1 t
wood waste disposal of at landfills.
Table 8
Comparative contribution analysis for CBP production.
3.4. Comparative analysis of different wood waste management
Processes GHGs emission (%) Energy
strategies
consumption (%)

CPB (R) CBP (V) CPB (R) CPB (V)

A comparative environmental assessment of wood waste man-
Wood collection & transport 1.61 2.10 2.47 3.02 agement (per functional unit) by different scenarios is shown in
Wood aggregates production 1.71 2.21 2.96 3.70 Table 10. According to Kim and Song (2014), about 0.8 t particle-
Wood aggregates transport 0.47 0.00 0.63 0.00
board can be produced with 1 tonne of wood waste. With the same
Wood aggregates drying 0.09 0.47 0.74 3.89
Ordinary Portland cement 57.61 57.07 41.56 39.86 assumptions and considerations, about 26 kg CO2 eq GHGs emis-
Accelerator 1.17 1.16 1.24 1.19 sion with about 1500 MJ non-renewable energy consumption can
Production processing 37.34 36.99 50.40 48.34 be saved for 1 t wood waste valorization and utilization to produce
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
particleboard instead of using virgin wood.
In addition, the particleboard can be recycled up to 16 times
after use (until the recovered material was less than 1 kg), and the
that about 7160e14,520 MJ of non-renewable energy was recovery rate of wood waste is 0.68 according to Kim and Song
consumed and emitted about 865e1181 kg CO2 eq GHGs for the (2014). By taking this end-of-life scenario of particleboard recy-
production of 1 tonne of CBP from virgin wood and OPC in Germany cling, it is estimated that about 44 kg CO2 eq GHGs emission with
(excluding carbon fixation). Although the energy consumption and about 2511 MJ non-renewable energy consumption can be saved by
GHGs emission are heavily influenced by local energy sources and substituting virgin wood by recycled wood. Therefore, the total
carbon emission factors (e.g., for OPC and electricity), the results saving can reach 70 kg CO2 eq GHGs emission with about 4011 MJ
obtained in this study were consistent with the mentioned study. non-renewable energy consumption for Scenario 1.

Table 9
Comparison of environmental impacts of energy generation.

Study Location Heating systems Sources of fuel Global warming potential Non-renewable energy consumption
(kg CO2 eq/kWh heat) (MJ eq/kWh heat)

Hansson et al. (2015) Canada CHP plant Virgin wood 0.036e0.072 e

Hansson et al. (2015) Sweden CHP plant Virgin wood 0.018 e
Ghafghazi et al. (2011) Canada District heating Virgin wood 0.039 0.208
Ecoinvent (2013e) EU District/Industrial Virgin wood 0.047 0.675
Padilla-Rivera et al. (2017) Canada Not specified Virgin wood 0.012 e
Buchholz et al. (2017) US Small-scale Virgin wood 0.135 e
Hossain et al. (2016a) Hong Kong Industrial boilers Recycled wood 0.06 1.17
Buchholz et al. (2017) US Small-scale Coal 0.414 e
Hossain et al. (2016a) Hong Kong Industrial boilers Coal 0.33 4.53
Ecoinvent (2013f) EU District/Industrial Coal 0.486 4.1
 Md.U. Hossain, C.S. Poon / Journal of Cleaner Production 177 (2018) 387e397 395

Table 10 waste into value-added products and their utilization locally is the
Environmental impacts of different management scenarios. most beneficial, as it reduces the long distance supply chain and its
Scenario GHGs emission Non-renewable energy associated impacts. Therefore, much higher savings are observed
(kg CO2 eq/t) consumption (MJ eq/t) for Scenario 3. Similarly, higher saving can also be found for
Scenario 1 / 70 / 4011 Scenarios 1 and 2. An example of GHGs emission for Scenario 1 is
Scenario 2 / 29 / 1450 given in Fig. 6, if the recovered wood is used locally. The figure
Scenario 3 / 1075 / 13381 shows that about 13 kg CO2 eq GHGs can be saved for producing
Scenario 4 96 1478
1 m3 particleboard from wood waste in Hong Kong compared to the
production in China (as transporting recycled wood chips to China
is associated with high energy consumption and emissions),
Based on the composition and quality of the wood waste, the whereas it is about 38 kg CO2 eq GHGs emission/m3 for particle-
study estimated that about 3.7 t CBP can be produced from 1 t of board production from virgin wood in China and then imported to
wood waste (Scenario 2). According to the assessment results of Hong Kong.
CBP production from recycled and virgin wood, it is estimated that
about 29 kg CO2 eq GHGs emission, and about 1450 MJ of non-
3.5. Sensitivity analysis
renewable energy consumption can be saved for substituting vir-
gin wood with recycled wood waste generated from construction
As various data sets for different processes and assumptions are
activities for the production of CBP.
inevitably needed to carry out a comprehensive LCA study, its re-
The production of bio-fuel derived from wood waste and use in
sults can be affected by various uncertainties (Beccali et al., 2010).
the energy driving industry (e.g. cement plants, power plants, etc.)
In a waste LCA study, uncertainty can be assessed by selection of
as a substitute of coal for energy generation can result in substantial
impact assessment methods, sensitivity analysis and contribution
environmental benefits (Scenario 3). Based on the considerations
analysis (Clavreul et al., 2012). In addition to the upstream LCI data
(described in Section 3.4), it can be estimated that more than a
and impact assessment method, the transport distance of waste
tonne of CO2 eq GHGs emission and about 13 GJ non-renewable
materials can significantly influence the outcomes of a LCA study
energy consumption can be saved for substituting coal with bio-
(Cellura et al., 2011; Clavreul et al., 2012). It has already been
fuel produced from recycled wood waste. The bio-fuel from wood
mentioned that the average transport distance of wood waste from
waste can be locally produced and used in Hong Kong, and hence, a
the waste generation sites to the processing plant/landfill sites was
shorter transportation distance. This can also save the considerable
considered in this study. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was car-
impacts due to the import of coal.
ried out to assess the uncertainty associated with wood waste
On the basis of the system boundary and considerations taken in
transport distance on GHGs emission of the studied management
this study for wood waste landfilling in Hong Kong (Scenario 4), it
systems. A sensitivity analysis due to variation of (±) 20% transport
was estimated that a higher amount of GHGs emission and non-
distance was considered, and the results were then compared with
renewable energy consumption is associated with per functional
the base case in this study. It is expected that the variation of
unit of wood waste management through landfill disposal. In
transport distance would not be much higher as Hong Kong has a
addition to the other emissions, wood waste landfilling consumes a
small geographic area. The results of sensitivity analysis are shown
significant amount of landfill space which is very important for a
in Table 11. The results demonstrated that most of the scenarios
land-scarce city like Hong Kong.
were affected by the varying transport distances compared to the
Therefore, it can be concluded that Scenario 3 is the best
base case results (shown in Table 10). About 6%, 34%, 2% and 16%
available option for wood waste management in Hong Kong, fol-
higher savings were observed for Scenarios 1, 2, 3 and 4, respec-
lowed by Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively, in terms of
tively, when a 20% lower transport distance was considered. But a
environmental impacts and resource recovery. In contrast, Scenario
similar increase in transport distance would cause about 19%, 24%,
4 can be considered as the worst but it is the prevailing practice for
2% and 15% higher GHGs emissions for Scenarios 1, 2, 3 and 4,
wood waste management in Hong Kong.
respectively. Scenario 2 was highly affected among other alterna-
According to different studies, the first three scenarios are
tives as the variation was about 24%e34%. However, considerable
technically feasible for utilizing wood waste generated from con-
savings were still observed for wood waste recycling and utiliza-
struction activities (Kim and Song, 2014; Hossain et al., 2016a,
tions in producing secondary products or fuel compared to Scenario
2017a; Wang et al., 2016a,b). The resource conversion of wood
4, even with a 20% higher transport distance (Table 11).

Fig. 6. Comparative GHGs emission of particleboard production.

396 Md.U. Hossain, C.S. Poon / Journal of Cleaner Production 177 (2018) 387e397
Table 11
Sensitivity analysis for the varying wood waste transport distance.
Scenario Transport distance (20%)
Scenario 1 74
Scenario 2 39
Scenario 3 1096
Scenario 4 81
3.6. Policy implications
Given the environmental benefits for the recycling of waste
wood and its potential reuse and utilizations in producing different
products (based on the quality of the wood waste), it is essential to
formulate and introduce specific guidelines and policies. For
example, the requirement of mandatory on-site sorting of timber
waste from construction sites or banning the disposal of wood
wastes at landfills. Increase in landfill charging of construction
waste and wood waste can also be considered. Also, government
procurement policy on recycled materials derived from waste can
be made more proactive to provide incentives for the recycling
industry. Moreover, this study mainly focused on the different
alternative strategies of wood waste management based on the
environmental performance. It would be valuable to assess the
economic feasibility of the different scenarios studied for effective
comparisons. But more funding and administrative supports are
necessary to facilitate such detailed studies.
4. Conclusions
This study comparatively evaluated the GHGs emission and non-
renewable energy consumption of wood waste management
systems using four different scenarios, including Scenario 1 (parti-
cleboard production), Scenario 2 (cement-bonded particleboard
production), Scenario 3 (energy generation), and Scenario 4 (land-
filling) by LCA techniques. The results show that bio-fuelw (derived
from wood waste) substitution for coal and waste to energy gener-
ation is the best available option, whereas the landfilling of wood
waste (prevailing strategy in Hong Kong) is the worst practice, as this
scenario is associated with high GHGs emission (about 96 kg CO2 eq)
and energy consumption (about 1.5 GJ) with high land-resource
consumption. The results also showed that the first two scenarios
have environmental benefits in reducing GHGs emissions and energy
consumption. For example, about 70 kg and 29 kg CO2 eq GHGs
emissions can be saved for the management of 1 tonne of wood waste
through Scenarios 1 and Scenario 2, respectively. The wood waste can
be utilized through different scenarios based on the quality of wood
waste. For example, the good quality wood waste can be preferen-
tially used through Scenario 1, while the lower quality of wood waste
can be used for Scenarios 2 and 3. The utilization of recycled products
locally conveyed the most environmental benefits. The sensitivity
analysis results showed that Scenarios 1, 2 and 4 are highly affected
by varying the transport distance compared to the base case, but
considerable savings are still observed for reusing the wood waste
through the scenarios studied, even with a 20% higher transport
distance. However, it is important to strengthen the relevant policy
for wood waste recycling and consensus among different stake-
holders regarding the benefits in terms of environmental impacts,
resource savings and landfill avoidance, which are very important for
a resource-scarce city like Hong Kong.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank The Hong Kong Polytechnic Univer-
sity (Project of Strategic Importance) for funding support.
Transport distance (þ20%) Variations compared to base case (%)
57 6 to 19
22 34 to 24
1058 ±2
110 16 to 15
References
AWC, 2013. Environmental product declaration-particleboard. In: North American
Structural and Architectural Wood Products. American Wood Council (AWC),
Canada.
Bais-Moleman, A.L., Sikkema, R., Vis, M., Reumerman, P., Theurl, M.C., Er, K.H., 2017.
Assessing wood use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of wood product
cascading in the European Union. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2017.04.153.
Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Iudicello, M., Mistrett, M., 2010. Life cycle assessment of
Italian citrus-based products. Sensitivity analysis and improvement scenarios.
J. Environ. Manag. 91, 1415e1428.
Bergeron, F.C., 2014. Assessment of the coherence of the Swiss waste wood man-
agement. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 91, 62e70.
Botti, A., 2012. A Sustainable Approach to Materials and Construction Systems:
Engineered Timber. Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Archi-
tecture, University of Edinburgh, UK.
Buchholz, T., Gunn, J.S., Saah, D.S., 2017. Greenhouse gas emissions of local wood
pellet heat from northeastern US forests. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2017.09.062.
Butera, S., Christensen, T.H., Astrup, T.F., 2015. Life cycle assessment of construction
and demolition waste management. Waste Manag. 44, 196e205.
Carpenter, A., Jambeck, J.R., Gardner, K., Weitz, K., 2013. Life cycle assessment of
end-of-life management options for construction and demolition debris. J. Ind.
Ecol. 17 (3), 396e406.
Cellura, M., Longo, S., Mistretta, M., 2011. Sensitivity analysis to quantify uncertainty
in Life Cycle Assessment: the case study of an Italian tile. Renew. Sustain. En-
ergy Rev. 15, 4697e4705.
Clavreul, J., Guyonnet, D., Christensen, T.H., 2012. Quantifying uncertainty in
LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manag. 32,
2482e2495.
CLCD, 2010a. Bulk cargo shipping (2500 t)eCNeAP. In: Chinese Life Cycle
Database Version 0.8. Sichuan University; IKE Environmental Technology
CO., Ltd.
CLCD, 2010b. Electricity generation, China Southern grid. In: Chinese Life Cycle
Database Version 0.8. Sichuan University; IKE Environmental Technology Co.,
Ltd.
CLCD, 2010c. Fuel combustion-DieseleCNeAP. In: Chinese Life Cycle Database
Version 0.8. Sichuan University; IKE Environmental Technology CO., Ltd.
CLCD, 2010d. Heavy-duty diesel truck transportation (30t)eCNeAP. In: Chinese Life
Cycle Database Version 0.8. Sichuan University; IKE Environmental Technology
CO., Ltd.
CLCD, 2010e. Cement production (dry method)eCNeAP. In: Chinese Life Cycle
Database Version 0.8. Sichuan University; IKE Environmental Technology CO.,
Ltd.
CLP, 2014. Sustainability Report 2014, the China Light and Power (CLP) (Hong Kong).
Dahlbo, H., Bache
r, J., La
€htinen, K., Jouttija
€rvi, T., Suoheimo, P., Mattila, T., Sironen, S.,
Myllymaa, T., Sarama €ki, K., 2015. Construction and demolition waste man-
agementea holistic evaluation of environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod.
107, 333e341.
Deru, M., Torcellini, P., 2007. Source Energy and Emission Factors for Energy Use in
Buildings. Technical Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA.
Ecoinvent, 2013a. Paraffin production (RoW). In: Ecoinvent System Processes, Swiss
Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
Ecoinvent, 2013b. Treatment of waste wood, untreated, sanitary landfill (waste
treatment), CH. In: Ecoinvent System Processes, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle
Inventories.
Ecoinvent, 2013c. Calcium chloride production, Solvay process (RoW). In: Ecoinvent
System Processes, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
Ecoinvent, 2013d. Particleboard production, for indoor use, from virgin wood (GLO).
In: Ecoinvent System Processes, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
Ecoinvent, 2013e. Heat production, hardwood chips from forest (RoW). In: Ecoin-
vent System Processes, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
Ecoinvent, 2013f. Heat production, at hard coal industrial furnace (RoW). In:
Ecoinvent System Processes, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.
Erlandsson, M., Sundquist, J., 2014. Environmental Consequences of Different
Recycling Alternatives for Wood Waste. IVL Swedish Environmental Research
Institute Ltd.
Eternit, A.G., 2008. Environmental Product Declaration (Cement-bonded Particle
Boards). Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. and PE International, Germany.
Garcia, R., Freire, F., 2014. Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between
ISO/TS 14067, GHG protocol, PAS 2050 and climate declaration. J. Clean. Prod.
66, 199e209.
 Md.U. Hossain, C.S. Poon / Journal of Cleaner Production 177 (2018) 387e397
Ghafghazi, S., Sowlati, T., Sokhansanj, S., Bi, X., Melin, S., 2011. Life cycle assessment
of baseeload heat sources for district heating system options. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 16, 212e223.
Hansson, J., Martinsson, F., Gustavsson, M., 2015. Greenhouse gas performance of
heat and electricity from wood pellet value chainsebased on pellets for the
Swedish market. Biofuel. Bioprod. Bioref. 9, 378e396.
HKEPD, 2017. Environmental protection department (HKEPD). In: Monitoring of
Solid Waste in Hong Kong; Waste Statistics for 2015. Hong Kong Government.
Hoglmeier, K., Weber-Blaschke, G., Richter, K., 2017. Potentials for cascading of
recovered wood from building deconstructionda case study for south-east
Germany. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 117, 304e314.
Hossain, M.U., Leu, S.Y., Poon, C.S., 2016a. Sustainability analysis of pelletized bio-
fuel derived from recycled wood product wastes in Hong Kong. J. Clean. Prod.
113, 400e410.
Hossain, M.U., Poon, C.S., Lo, I.M.C., Cheng, J.C.P., 2016b. Comparative environmental
evaluation of aggregate production from recycled waste materials and virgin
sources by LCA. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 109, 67e77.
Hossain, M.U., Poon, C.S., Lo, I.M.C., Cheng, J.C.P., 2017a. Comparative LCA on using
waste materials in the cement industry: a Hong Kong case study. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 120, 199e208.
Hossain, M.U., Wu, Z., Poon, C.S., 2017b. Comparative environmental evaluation of
construction waste management through different waste sorting systems in
Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 69, 325e335.
ISO, 1987. Cement-bonded Particleboards e Boards of Portland or Equivalent
Cement Reinforced with Fibrous Wood Particles. International Standard ISO
8335, p. 1987(E).
ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040: Environmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment, Prin-
ciples and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044: Environmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment, Life
Cycle Impact Assessment. International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva.
Jungmeier, G., Werner, F., Jarnehammar, A., Hohenthal, C., Richter, K., 2002. Allo-
cation in LCA of wood-based products, Part 1 methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 7 (5), 290e294.
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., 2003. IMPACT
2002þ: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 8 (6), 324e330.
Katers, J.F., Snippen, A.J., Puettmann, M.E., 2012. Life cycle inventory of wood pellet
manufacturing and utilization in Wisconsin. For. Prod. J. 62 (4), 289e295.
Kim, M.H., Song, H.B., 2014. Analysis of the global warming potential for wood
waste recycling systems. J. Clean. Prod. 69, 199e207.
Kouchaki-Penchah, H., Sharifi, M., Mousazadeh, H., Zarea-Hosseinabadi, H.,
Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., 2016. Gate to gate life cycle assessment of flat pressed
particleboard production in Islamic Republic of Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 112,
343e350.
Kruger, E.L., Adriazola, M., Matoski, A., Iwakiri, S., 2009. Thermal analysis of
woodecement panels: heat flux and indoor temperature measurements in test
cells. Construct. Build. Mater. 23 (6), 2299e2305.
Magelli, F., Boucher, K., Bi, H.T., Melin, S., Bonoli, A., 2009. An environmental impact
assessment of exported wood pellets from Canada to Europe. Biomass Bio-
energy 33 (3), 434e441.
Marca, F.L., 2010. Optimization of C&D waste management by the application of life
cycle assessment (LCA) methodology: the case of the municipality of Rome,
Italy. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 129, 497e508.
Mercante, I.T., Bovea, M.D., Ibanez-Fores, V., Arena, A.P., 2012. Life cycle assessment
of construction and demolition waste management systems: a Spanish case
study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 232e241.
Merrild, H., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Recycling of wood for particle board produc-
tion: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste
Manag. Res. 27, 781e788.
Morris, J., 2016. Recycle, bury, or burn wood waste biomass? LCA answer depends
on carbon accounting, emissions controls, displaced fuels, and impact costs.
J. Ind. Ecol. 1e13.
Nuss, P., Gardner, K.H., Jambeck, J.R., 2013. Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA)
of construction and demolition (C&D) derived biomass and U.S. Northeast
forest residuals gasification for electricity production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47
(7), 3463e3471.
397
Padilla-Rivera, A., Barrette, J., Blanchet, P., Thiffault, E., 2017. Environmental per-
formance of eastern Canadian wood pellets as measured through life cycle
assessment. Forests 8 (352), 1e18.
Perilhon, C., Alkadee, D., Descombes, G., Lacour, S., 2012. Life cycle assessment
applied to electricity generation from renewable biomass. Energy Proc. 18,
165e176.
Poon, C.S., Yu, A.T.W., Ng, L.H., 2001. On-site sorting of construction and demolition
waste in Hong Kong. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 32 (2), 157e172.
Puettmann, M., Oneil, E., Wilson, J.B., 2013. Cradle to Gate Life Cycle Assessment of
U.S. Particleboard Production. CORRIM, USA.
Ratajczak, E., Bidzinska, G., Szostak, A., Herbec, M., 2015. Resources of post-
consumer wood waste originating from the construction sector in Poland.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 97, 93e99.
Reed, D., Bergman, R., Kim, J.W., Taylor, A., Harper, D., Jones, D., Knowles, C.,
Puettmann, M.E., 2012. Cradle-to-gate life-cycle inventory and impact assess-
ment of wood fuel manufacturing from hardwood flooring residues in the
South eastern United States. For. Prod. J. 62 (4), 280e288.
Rivela, B., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2006b. Life cycle inventory of
particleboard: a case study in the wood sector. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2,
106e113.
Rivela, B., Moreira, M.T., Munoz, I., Rieradevall, J., Feijoo, G., 2006a. Life cycle
assessment of wood wastes: a case study of ephemeral architecture. Sci. Total
Environ. 357, 1e11.
Rodrigues, F., Carvalho, M.T., Evangelista, L., De Brito, J., 2013. Physicalechemical
and mineralogical characterization of fine aggregates from construction and
demolition waste recycling plants. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 438e445.
Ruisheng, N., Shi, C.W.P., Tan, H.X., Song, B., 2014. Avoided impact quantification
from recycling of wood waste in Singapore: an assessment of pallet made from
technical wood versus virgin softwood. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 447e457.
Sathre, R., Gonzalez-Garcia, S., 2014. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Wood-based
Building Materials. Wood head Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1533/
9780857097729.2.311.
Silva, D.A.L., Lahr, F.A.R., Garcia, R.P., Freire, F.M.C.S., Ometto, A.R., 2013. Life cycle
assessment of medium density particleboard (MDP) produced in Brazil. Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1404e1411.
TRADA, 2014. Panel Guide Version 4. Timber Research and Development Associa-
tion (TRADA), Wycombe, UK.
Tsang, D.C.W., Hu, J., Liu, M.Y., Zhang, W., Lai, K.C.K., Lo, I.M.C., 2007. Activated
carbon produced from waste wood pallets: adsorption of three classes of dyes.
Water Air Soil Pollut. 184, 141e155.
Varga, M., Alpar, T.L., Nemeth, G., 2004. General waste handling and recycling in
particleboard production. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 24, 6e15.
Wang, C., Zhang, L., Chang, Y., Pang, M., 2015. Biomass direct-fired power generation
system in China: An integrated energy, GHG emissions, and economic evalua-
tion for Salix. Energy Pol. 84, 155e165.
Wang, L., Chen, S.S., Tsang, D.C.W., Poon, C.S., Shih, K., 2016a. Value-added recycling
of construction waste wood into noise and thermal insulating cement-bonded
particleboards. Construct. Build. Mater. 125, 316e325.
Wang, L., Chen, S.S., Tsang, D.C.W., Poon, C.S., Shih, K., 2016b. Recycling contami-
nated wood into eco-friendly particleboard using green cement and carbon
dioxide curing. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 861e870.
Werner, F., Richter, K., 2007. Wooden building products in comparative LCA. A
literature review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12 (7), 470e479.
Wilson, J.B., 2010a. Life-cycle inventory of formaldehyde-based resins used in wood
composites in terms of resources, emissions, energy and carbon. Wood Fiber
Sci. 42, 125e143.
Wilson, J.B., 2010b. Life-cycle inventory of particleboard in terms of resources,
emissions, energy and carbon. Wood Fiber Sci. 42, 90e106.
Yang, T.H., Lin, C.J., Wang, S.Y., Tsai, M.J., 2007. Characteristics of particleboard made
from recycled wood-waste chips impregnated with phenol formaldehyde resin.
Build. Environ. 42, 189e195.
Zhang, J., 2013. Life Cycle Carbon Measurement of Hong Kong Construction Mate-
rials: Cement, Concrete and Plywood. M. Phil Thesis. the Hong Kong University
of Science and Technology University, Hong Kong.
Zhang, Y., Mckechnie, J., Cormier, D., Lyng, R., Mabee, W., Ogino, A., Maclean, H.L.,
2010. Life cycle emissions and cost of producing electricity from coal, natural
gas, and wood pellets in Ontario, Canada. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 538e544.