minerals
Article
Environmental Evaluation of Gypsum Plasterboard Recycling
Karin Weimann 1, *, Christian Adam 1 , Matthias Buchert 2 and Juergen Sutter 2






Citation: Weimann, K.; Adam, C.;
Buchert, M.; Sutter, J. Environmental
Evaluation of Gypsum Plasterboard
Recycling. Minerals 2021, 11, 101.
https://doi.org/10.3390/min11020101
Academic Editor: Carlos
Hoffmann Sampaio
Received: 23 December 2020
Accepted: 15 January 2021
Published: 21 January 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Minerals 2021, 11, 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11020101
1 Division Thermochemical Residues Treatment and Resource Recovery (FB 4.4), Bundesanstalt für
Materialforschung und -Prüfung (BAM), Unter den Eichen 87, D-12205 Berlin, Germany;
christian.adam@bam.de
2 Division Resources & Transport, Oeko-Institute, Rheinstrasse 95, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany;
m.buchert@oeko.de (M.B.); j.sutter@oeko.de (J.S.)
* Correspondence: karin.weimann@bam.de
Abstract: Gypsum is widely used in the construction sector, and its worldwide consumption has
been increasing for several decades. Depending on the lifetime of the used gypsum products, an
increase of gypsum in construction and demolition waste follows. Especially against the background
of a circular economy, the recycling of waste gypsum is of growing importance. However, the use
of recycled gypsum only makes sense if it is environmentally friendly. Therefore, an evaluation of
the environmental impacts of industrial-scale processing for the recycling of post-consumer gypsum
waste was conducted. The evaluation was performed with an established life cycle assessment
software. Original data provided by the industry and complementary data from a database for
life cycle assessments were used for the calculations. Two scenarios for recycled gypsum with
different transportation distances were calculated. These results were compared with the results of
the environmental evaluation of gypsum derived from coal-fired power plants (FGD gypsum) and
natural gypsum. The results showed that the utilization of recycled gypsum can be environmentally
advantageous compared to the use of natural gypsum or FGD gypsum, especially in the impact
categories of land transformation and resource consumption (abiotic depletion potential). For most
environmental impact categories, the specific transportation distances have a strong influence.
Keywords: gypsum plasterboards; gypsum waste; recycled gypsum; environmental evaluation; LCA
1. Introduction
The use of secondary building materials can meet the requirements of sustainability
in several ways: the extended time availability of primary raw materials and, thereby, the
protection of natural resources, as well as the conservation of landfill sites. Depending on
the respective circumstances, other environmental impacts like the emission of greenhouse
gases could also be reduced [1]. Due to the large quantities of required raw materials
and, also, the high volumes of construction and demolition waste (CDW), the reuse of
waste from the building sector is of high importance for the reduction of waste masses
in general and, also, for a circular economy [2,3]. Accordingly, many studies have been
conducted to perform life cycle assessments (LCA) for several aspects of the building
material cycles [2,4].
There are already established procedures to recycle and reuse mineral waste materials
in civil construction. Due to the large amounts and the material properties of concrete and
concrete waste, several studies have been performed to use crushed concrete as environ-
mentally friendly recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) [5]. These recycling procedures are
already applied in practice [1]. Furthermore, various approaches have been made to find
new procedures and applications for the reuse of different CDW components. Colman et al.
investigated the use of the sand fraction from the CDW pieces as an additive in mortar
production [6]. Due to material properties like elevated water absorption or contamina-
tions, this sand fraction can usually not be used as an RCA. The authors found the material
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/minerals
s 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 13

Minerals 2021, 11, 101 2 of 13

mortar production [6]. Due to material properties like elevated water absorption or con-
taminations, this sand fraction can usually not be used as an RCA. The authors found the
material suitable for mortars and determined that even the gypsum residues in this frac-
suitable for mortars and determined that even the gypsum residues in this fraction did not
tion did not affect the mechanical properties of the new mortars.
affect the mechanical properties of the new mortars.
In a study from Azevedo et al., solid waste from the red ceramic industry was used
In a study from Azevedo et al., solid waste from the red ceramic industry was used
for geopolymer synthesis [7]. It was found that this waste has a great potential to be used
for geopolymer synthesis [7]. It was found that this waste has a great potential to be used
as the raw material for obtaining ceramic roof tiles by means of geopolymeric reactions.
as the raw material for obtaining ceramic roof tiles by means of geopolymeric reactions.
Amaral et al. worked on a methodology for the partial replacement of natural sand in
Amaral et al. worked on a methodology for the partial replacement of natural sand in
mortars by ornamental stone-processing waste [8]. They used a mathematical model for
mortars by ornamental stone-processing waste [8]. They used a mathematical model for
the calculation of an optimal particle size contribution. The results indicated a possibility
the calculation of an optimal particle size contribution. The results indicated a possibility
to produce eco-friendly
to producemortars from that
eco-friendly waste.
mortars fromMarvila et al. developed
that waste. Marvila et al. a mixture
developed of a mixture of
gypsum plaster and rock
gypsum waste
plaster andforrock
the waste
repairs forofthe
historical
repairs of buildings
historical [9]. This investiga-
buildings [9]. This investigation
tion showed promising results in renderings to repair the studied buildings,
showed promising results in renderings to repair the studied buildings, namely when namely when 25%
25% of the sand ofwas replaced
the sand was by rock waste.
replaced by rock waste.
In recent years, Ingypsum as a building
recent years, gypsum material
as a building has attracted
material attention.
has attracted It has been It has been
attention.
widely used inwidely
constructions in the last decades, and its consumption
used in constructions in the last decades, and its consumption has has increased in increased in
many countries. Figure
many 1 showsFigure
countries. the development
1 shows theofdevelopment
the gypsum of consumption
the gypsuminconsumption
Germany in Germany
and the U.S. since
and 1900.
the U.S.These
sincenumbers include
1900. These gypsum
numbers that arises
include gypsum as side
thatproduct
arises asfrom
side product from
coal-fired power plants (FGD gypsum). Between 2000 and 2019, the quantity
coal-fired power plants (FGD gypsum). Between 2000 and 2019, the quantity of FGD of FGD gyp-
sum was aboutgypsum
seven million tons each
was about sevenyear in Germany
million tons each [10]. In in
year 2019, the contained
Germany [10]. Inquan-
2019, the contained
tity of FGD gypsum in the U.S. was 22.9 million tons [11]. The
quantity of FGD gypsum in the U.S. was 22.9 million tons [11]. estimated global production
The estimated global
of gypsum in 2019 was 140ofmillion
production gypsum tons [12]. Accordingly,
in 2019 was 140 million a rise
tonsof[12].
gypsum waste (GW)
Accordingly, a rise of gypsum
in CDW is expected
waste in the upcoming
(GW) in CDW is years,
expectedandin thetheimportance
upcomingof gypsum
years, and recycling is a of gypsum
the importance
growing issue recycling
[13,14]. Currently,
is a growing theissue
gypsum demand
[13,14]. Currently,is covered (at least
the gypsum 60%) isbycovered
demand FGD (at least 60%)
gypsum in Germany.
by FGDThe natural
gypsum in gypsum
Germany. deposits fulfil gypsum
The natural the remaining
depositsgypsum demand
fulfil the remaining gypsum
[10]. Due to the national[10].
demand climate
Dueprotection goalsclimate
to the national and theprotection
related shutdown
goals and ofthe
coal-fired
related shutdown of
power plants, the FGD gypsum
coal-fired supply the
power plants, willFGD
decrease
gypsum significantly
supply willin the future.significantly
decrease Addition- in the future.
ally, the available extractionthe
Additionally, areas will not
available be approved
extraction areas will duenot
to nature conservation
be approved rea- conservation
due to nature
sons. Therefore, the recycling
reasons. of gypsum
Therefore, waste is aofcontribution
the recycling gypsum waste to solving future gypsum
is a contribution to solving future
demand problems.gypsum demand problems.

(a) (b)
Figure 1.Figure
Gypsum consumption
1. Gypsum in Germany
consumption (a) and the
in Germany (a) USA (b)USA
and the in Mt/a
(b) [15–17].
in Mt/a [15–17].

Gypsum
Gypsum is suitable is suitable for
for closed-loop closed-loop
recycling due to recycling
its chemicaldue to its chemical
composition. composition. It
It con-
sists mainly of consists
calcium mainly ofthe
sulfate in calcium
form of sulfate
three in the formphases
crystalline of three crystalline
with phases with varying
varying hydra-
hydration
tion levels: calcium levels: CaSO
dihydrate, calcium
4.2Hdihydrate,
2O (calcium CaSO 4 ·2Hdihydrate,
sulfate 2 O (calcium sulfate called
typically dihydrate, typically
gypsum), CaSO4 (anhydrite), and calcium sulfate hemihydrate, CaSO4 0.5H2O (bassanite).CaSO4 ·0.5H2 O
called gypsum), CaSO 4 (anhydrite), and calcium sulfate hemihydrate,
While gypsum(bassanite). While
and anhydrite aregypsum andoccurring
naturally anhydriteminerals,
are naturally occurring
calcium sulfateminerals,
hemihy-calcium sulfate
drate can be produced by dehydration in the thermal treatment of gypsum at a tempera- of gypsum at
hemihydrate can be produced by dehydration in the thermal treatment
a temperature range between ◦ C and 180 ◦ C (Equation (1)). This reaction, called
125 (1)).
ture range between 125 °C and 180 °C (Equation This reaction, called calcination, is
Minerals 2021, 11, 101 3 of 13

calcination, is reversible and, in contact with water calcium sulfate hemihydrate, is again
transformed into calcium sulfate dihydrate in an exothermal reaction (Equation (2)) [14,18].

125◦ C – 180◦ C
CaSO4 ·2H2 O > CaSO4 ·0.5H2 O + 1.5H2 O (1)

Hydration
CaSO4 ·0.5H2 O + 1.5H2 O > CaSO4 ·2H2 O + Energy (2)

Hemihydrate and anhydrite can be found in various crystalline structures or modi-

fications. These modifications have differing material characteristics that allow various
technical applications, according to their particular material properties [19,20]. Most of the
gypsum products are used in the construction industry. While gypsum can be applied in
cement production to adjust the setting time, its main application area is usage for interior
fittings in buildings. Besides its utilization in plaster, decorative elements, or screeds, a
large proportion of gypsum is installed in the form of drywalls, wallboards, and, especially,
gypsum plasterboards [14,21]. In many countries, gypsum plasterboards are of particular
importance, because they make up the highest amount of used gypsum in buildings [3,22].
Approximately 734,000 tons of gypsum plasterboard waste was generated in the year 2015
in Northern Europe alone [23].
The reversibility of the hydration and dehydration of calcium sulfate dihydrate (see
Equations (1) and (2)) is comparably easy to proceed. This is essential for the recycling
of gypsum waste. In general, the recycling of GW can be divided into two main stages:
the collecting and preparation of GW and the calcination. An important factor for the
usability of recycled gypsum is also the quality, especially the purity of the GW [24,25].
The separation of the GW from the rest of the CDW is also appropriate for another reason:
sulfates are unwanted in other secondary building materials (particularly in recycled
concrete aggregates) and should be minimized in these waste materials for quality reasons
as well [26,27]. Therefore, the demolition, the selective dismantling, has to be carried out
carefully [28].
In this context, the recycling of gypsum plasterboard waste (GPW) is advantageous,
because plasterboards are comparatively easy to dismantle and to collect separately so that
impurities can be minimized or almost completely avoided [14,21,28]. Gypsum plaster-
boards consist of gypsum embedded between cardboards. In the recycling process, these
two materials have to be separated.
Accordingly, a number of studies have been conducted to investigate the recycling
of GW and GPW in the last several years. Many investigations focused on the calcination
process. Different temperatures and holding times and, also, the material properties of
the recycled gypsum were investigated. Ahmed et al. produced a recycled gypsum plas-
ter from GW at a temperature range of 130–160 ◦ C [29]. A paper from Brazil described
the building material properties of recycled gypsum plaster waste after calcination at
~150 ◦ C [30]. Camarini et al. tested recycled gypsum after calcination at temperatures
between 120 ◦ C and 200 ◦ C [13]. The building material properties of the recycled gypsum
in these investigations were of good quality. Camarini et al. also determined the energy
consumption and found the process environmentally advantageous. The properties of
recycled gypsum from gypsum plasterboards after up to five recycling cycles were inves-
tigated by Erbs et al. [3,22]. The tests showed that the reversibility of gypsum hydration
enabled the generation of recycled gypsum in three cycles without losses in the building
material properties.
The environmental impacts of gypsum recycling have also been investigated. Pantini
et al. investigated strategies for the recycling of GW in a specific region in Italy [31]. The
authors evaluated the environmental impacts of gypsum recycling in four scenarios on a
theoretical basis. The study found out that the transporting distances have a significant
influence on environmental impacts in the investigated system. A study about the recycling
of gypsum plasterboards in Sweden also concluded the importance of the sorting accuracy
and an optimization of the transporting distances for the support of gypsum recycling [32].
Minerals 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 13

Minerals 2021, 11, 101 4 of 13

recycling [32]. Pedreno-Rojas et al. compared the environmental impacts of the natural
gypsum production and the production of recycled gypsum from pre-consumer gypsum
Pedreno-Rojas et al. compared the environmental impacts of the natural gypsum produc-
waste in Spain. The LCA evaluated the processing for natural and recycled gypsum, in-
tion and the production of recycled gypsum from pre-consumer gypsum waste in Spain.
cluding calcination, but without transport. The results showed significantly lower envi-
The LCA evaluated the processing for natural and recycled gypsum, including calcination,
ronmental impacts from the production of recycled gypsum [33]. Another LCA in Spain,
but without transport. The results showed significantly lower environmental impacts from
conducted by Suarez et al., also compared recycled and natural gypsum. In this investi-
the production of recycled gypsum [33]. Another LCA in Spain, conducted by Suarez et al.,
gation, the results for recycled gypsum were also lower in all impact categories. However,
also compared recycled and natural gypsum. In this investigation, the results for recycled
the low transport distances (seven km) influenced these results [34].
gypsum were also lower in all impact categories. However, the low transport distances
This paper focusses on recycling GPW and the environmental impacts resulting from
(seven km) influenced these results [34].
the related handling and processing in Germany. The recycling process was evaluated on
This paper focusses on recycling GPW and the environmental impacts resulting from
the industrial scale, and the assessment included real transportation distances as well [21].
the related handling and processing in Germany. The recycling process was evaluated on
This evaluation filled the gap between gypsum recycling on a lab scale and the validation
the industrial scale, and the assessment included real transportation distances as well [21].
of theevaluation
This transportation andgap
filled the gypsum recycling
between gypsum under real conditions.
recycling Furthermore,
on a lab scale the re-
and the validation
sults were derived from the recycling of post-consumer GPW and with regards to
of the transportation and gypsum recycling under real conditions. Furthermore, the results recycled
gypsum that meets
were derived from thethe comparably
recycling ofhigh-quality
post-consumerstandards
GPW andfor gypsum that are
with regards to required
recycled
from the German gypsum industry [24,25,35].
gypsum that meets the comparably high-quality standards for gypsum that are required
from the German gypsum industry [24,25,35].
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methodsevaluation was performed to calculate the ecological effects of
This environmental
the production of recycled
This environmental gypsumwas
evaluation from post-consumer
performed gypsum
to calculate plasterboard
the ecological waste
effects on
of the
an industrial scale. The evaluation included a comparison with data
production of recycled gypsum from post-consumer gypsum plasterboard waste on an from the extraction
of natural gypsum
industrial scale. The and the use ofincluded
evaluation FGD gypsum. To clarify
a comparison the data
with influence
from ofthetransportation
extraction of
for the evaluation
natural gypsum and of the
the use
production of recycled
of FGD gypsum. To gypsum,
clarify thetwo calculations
influence with different
of transportation for
transportation
the evaluation of distances were conducted.
the production of recycled Accordingly, four model with
gypsum, two calculations scenarios were
different de-
trans-
signed.
portation distances were conducted. Accordingly, four model scenarios were designed.
The environmental
environmentalevaluation
evaluationwas
wasbased
basedononthe international
the international standard
standard forfor
lifelife
cycle as-
cycle
sessments ISO 14040/44 [36,37]. The calculation of material flows and energy
assessments ISO 14040/44 [36,37]. The calculation of material flows and energy consump- consumption
was carried
tion out with
was carried outUmberto (Umberto
with Umberto NXT universal,
(Umberto IFU Institut
NXT universal, IFUfuer Umwelttechnik,
Institut fuer Um-
Hamburg, Germany),
welttechnik, Hamburg,a Germany),
software fora life cycle assessments
software for life cycle [38].
assessments [38].

2.1. Investigated
2.1. Investigated Recycling
Recycling Process
Process
The processing
The processing ofof the
the gypsum
gypsum plaster
plaster waste
waste was
was carried
carried out
out in
in the
the stationary
stationary gypsum
gypsum
recycling plant of a medium-sized company. The objective of the processing is the
recycling plant of a medium-sized company. The objective of the processing is the removal removal
of impurities,
of impurities, as
as well
well as
as the
the separation
separation of
of gypsum
gypsum from
from cardboard
cardboard and
and paper.
paper. AA simplified
simplified
flowchart of
flowchart of the
the recycling
recycling process
process is
is shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 2.
2.

Figure 2. Simplified flowchart for gypsum recycling in a stationary gypsum recycling

recycling plant.
plant.

After presorting with an excavator and/or manually, the gypsum waste is fed into
the system. In the first sorting step, ferrous metals are removed by a magnetic separator,
Minerals 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 13

Minerals 2021, 11, 101 5 of 13

After presorting with an excavator and/or manually, the gypsum waste is fed into
the system. In the first sorting step, ferrous metals are removed by a magnetic separator,
followed by
followed by various
various comminution
comminution stages.
stages. During
During thethe comminution,
comminution, predominantly
predominantly shear shear
forces are used to separate the gypsum from the cardboard and paper.
forces are used to separate the gypsum from the cardboard and paper. Due to the limit for Due to the limit for
TOC (total
TOC (total organic
organic carbon)
carbon) in
in recycled
recycled gypsum,
gypsum, the the removal
removal of of paper
paper fibers
fibers is
is of particular
particular
importance. Furthermore,
Furthermore,different
differentgrain
grain sizes cancan
sizes be be
generated
generated andand
separated in the
separated insub-
the
sequent classification
subsequent stage.
classification stage.
It is of fundamental importance for the environmental evaluation of a processing processing to to
account. The proportions of the waste fractions
take all wastes or residues into account. fractions inin gypsum
gypsum
recycling depend
recycling dependon onthe
theacceptance
acceptancecriteria
criteriaofof
thethe operating
operating company
company and,and, accordingly,
accordingly, the
the quality
quality of input
of the the input material.
material. Therefore,
Therefore, largelarge differences
differences in theinamount
the amount of waste
of waste ma-
materials
terialsprocessing
after after processing are possible.
are possible. In the
In the present
present case,
case, theinput
the inputmaterial
material (predominantly
(predominantly
used gypsum plasterboards from constructionconstruction sites)
sites) usually
usually originated
originated from
from the
the selective
selective
dismantling of buildings. Accordingly, only a few unsuitable materials
dismantling of buildings. Accordingly, only a few unsuitable materials had to be re- had to be removed.
Depending
moved. Dependingon the specific input material,
on the specific aboutabout
input material, 2% to2% 3%toof3%the
of material
the materialoccurred
occurred as
waste
as wasteafter presorting
after and and
presorting magnetic separation.
magnetic The removed
separation. The removedpaperpaper
and cardboard waste
and cardboard
amounted
waste amountedbetween 10% and
between 10%17%and of17%theofinput material.
the input Correspondingly,
material. Correspondingly, the the
output
outputof
recycled
of recycledgypsum
gypsum ranged
rangedfrom 80%
from 80%to 88%.
to 88%.

2.2. Settings for

2.2. Settings for the
the Environmental
Environmental Evaluation
Evaluation
The
The scope of this research wastotoinvestigate
scope of this research was thethe
investigate environmental impacts
environmental of the
impacts produc-
of the pro-
tion of RC-gypsum
duction of RC-gypsum in comparison withwith
in comparison natural gypsum
natural and and
gypsum FGDFGD
gypsum. Therefore,
gypsum. the
Therefore,
functional unit was 1-t gypsum.
the functional unit was 1-t gypsum.
The system boundaries were fixed with regards to the comparability of the examined
The system boundaries were fixed with regards to the comparability of the examined
gypsum types. For recycled gypsum from gypsum plasterboard waste, they included the
gypsum types. For recycled gypsum from gypsum plasterboard waste, they included the
following steps (see also Figure 3):
following steps (see also Figure 3):
• the transportation of GPW (from construction sites or collection points) to the recy-
• the transportation of GPW (from construction sites or collection points) to the recy-
cling plant,
cling plant,
• the recycling process,
• the recycling process,
• transportation to the gypsum plant,
• transportation to the gypsum plant,
• drying process, and
• drying process, and
• transportation to the costumer.
• transportation to the costumer.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. System
System boundaries
boundaries for
for the
the evaluation
evaluation of
of RC-gypsum.
RC-gypsum. Sf*:
*Sf: Substitute
Substitute fuel.
fuel.

Recycled gypsum usually has a moisture content

content of
of 3–5%.
3–5%. For the use of
of recycled
recycled
gypsum as a secondary raw material in gypsum production, the material has to be dried.
The energy consumption during this drying process is included in the environmental
evaluation. The drying of the material before calcination is also necessary for natural
Minerals 2021, 11, 101 6 of 13

gypsum and FGD gypsum and part of the respective calculations. The different moisture
contents of the investigated gypsum types (natural gypsum 1%, recycled gypsum 3–5%,
and FGD gypsum 8–10%) affect the energy consumption of the processing and, accordingly,
influence the results of the environmental evaluation [21]. The drying is performed after
transportation to the gypsum producers and before calcination.
Besides the drying step, the production phase, including calcination, and the utiliza-
tion phase are not part of this environmental evaluation in all four scenarios.
The system boundaries for the calculations of the environmental impacts from the pro-
duction of natural gypsum were similarly determined. They included the following steps:
• recovery of natural gypsum from the deposits,
• transportation to the gypsum plant,
• the drying process,
• transportation to the costumer,
• transportation to a landfill after the use phase, and
• landfilling.
The system boundaries for the production of FGD gypsum were similarly determined.
They included the following steps:
• transportation to the gypsum plant,
• the drying process,
• transportation to the costumer,
• transportation to a landfill after the use phase, and
• landfilling.
In contrast to RC-gypsum, the system boundaries of natural and FGD gypsum include
the steps of transportation to a landfill after the use phase and landfilling. These steps
are not necessary for RC-gypsum, because in this scenario, a recirculation of the material
is included.

2.3. Life Cycle Inventory

The data collection for the inventory analyses was conducted in cooperation with
recycling companies and equipment manufacturers. Accordingly, the used data were taken
from industrial-scale productions. Further data were primarily taken from the life cycle
inventory (LCI) database ecoinvent v 3.1 [39].
The geographical frame of the evaluation is Germany. Therefore, relevant datasets for
Germany (such as the German electricity mix) were used. Further data for the calculations
(e.g., for auxiliary materials in the production) were also taken, as far as possible, related to
production in Germany.
The transportation distances were assessed on the basis of the known average values
for the different existing routes and our own estimations.
Natural gypsum:
• transportation to the gypsum plant: 20 km
• transportation from the gypsum manufacturer to the costumer/construction site:
200 km
• transportation to a landfill after the use phase: 30 km FGD gypsum
• transportation of the GPW (from construction sites or collection points) to the recy-
cling plant

2.4. Applied Impact Categories

With regards to already existing studies and further recommendations, the seven
impact categories shown in Table 1 were chosen [3,40,41]
Minerals 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13
Minerals 2021, 11, 101 7 of 13

Table 1. Impact categories and related units.

Table 1. Impact categories and related
Impact units.
Category Unit
Global warming potential (GWP) kg CO2 equivalents
Impact Category Unit
Acidification potential (AP) kg SO2 equivalents
Global warming potentialpotential
Eutrophication (GWP) kg COkg2 equivalents
PO4 equivalents
Acidification
photochemical potential
ozone (AP)
creation potential (POCP) kg SO equivalents
kg 2ethylene equivalents
Eutrophication
abiotic depletionpotential
potential (ADPelem.) kg PO4kg equivalents
Sb equivalents
photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) kg ethylene equivalents
land use transformation points
abiotic depletion potential (ADPelem. ) kg Sb equivalents
Land use, total
land use transformation pointspoints
Land use, total points
Consistent with international practice, the impact category global warming potential
was evaluated using the CO2 equivalents (100 years) with regards to the Intergovernmen-
Consistent with international practice, the impact category global warming potential
tal Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) [42]. The impact categories’ acidification potential
was evaluated using the CO2 equivalents (100 years) with regards to the Intergovernmental
(AP), eutrophication potential (EP), photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP, sum-
Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) [42]. The impact categories’ acidification potential (AP),
mer smog), and abiotic depletion potential (ADPelem.) were calculated with the characteri-
eutrophication potential (EP), photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP, summer
zation factors given in the impact assessment model CML 2015 method [43].
smog), and abiotic depletion potential (ADPelem. ) were calculated with the characterization
Land usage and the threat to nature and the biodiversity were perceived using the
factors given in the impact assessment model CML 2015 method [43].
ecosystem damage potential (EDP) with the categories land transformation and total land
Land usage and the threat to nature and the biodiversity were perceived using the
use [44,45].
ecosystem damage potential (EDP) with the categories land transformation and total land
use [44,45].
3. Results
3. Results
The results of the calculations are subdivided into the seven investigated impact cat-
egories.
TheThe specific
results figures
of the map theare
calculations results of each scenario
subdivided into the divided into the values
seven investigated for
impact
each
categories. The specific figures map the results of each scenario divided into the values in-
specific step: processing, transportation, and landfilling. The step processing for
cludes the drying
each specific step: of the gypsum
processing, but, also, the
transportation, extraction
and for The
landfilling. natural
stepgypsum andincludes
processing the as-
sociated
the dryingupstream impactsbut,
of the gypsum from the
also, theapplied materials
extraction and gypsum
for natural energy. Transportation in-
and the associated
cludes the impacts
upstream associated upstream
from impacts
the applied as well.and
materials Regarding
energy.the step landfilling,
Transportation the usethe
includes of
machines
associatedand the upstream
upstream impacts
impacts as well.ofRegarding
diesel and,the
e.g.,step
lubricating oil influence
landfilling, the use ofthe results
machines
as
andwell.
the upstream impacts of diesel and, e.g., lubricating oil influence the results as well.

3.1. Global
3.1. Global Warming
Warming Potential
Potential (GWP)
(GWP)
In the
In the impact
impact category
category forfor climate
climate change,
change, FGD
FGD gypsum
gypsum shows
shows the
the highest
highest environ-
environ-
mental impacts,
mental impacts, resulting
resulting from
from transportation,
transportation, landfilling,
landfilling, and
and drying.
drying. TheThe outcomes
outcomes for
for
recycled gypsum in comparison to natural gypsum are dependent on
recycled gypsum in comparison to natural gypsum are dependent on the transportationthe transportation
distances. The
distances. The emissions
emissions are
are related
related to
to the
the diesel
diesel consumption
consumption during
during transportation
transportation and
and
landfilling. The results for the four scenarios are shown in Figure
landfilling. The results for the four scenarios are shown in Figure 4. 4.

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Results
Results for
for the
the global
global warming
warming potential.
potential. *eq.:
eq.*: equivalents
equivalents
Minerals 2021,
Minerals2021, 11,
11,xx101
FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13
Minerals 2021,11, FOR PEER REVIEW 8 8ofof1313

3.2. Acidification Potential (AP)

3.2.
3.2.Acidification
AcidificationPotential
Potential(AP)
(AP)
Figure 5 presents the results of the impact category acidification for the investigated
Figure
Figure5 5presents
presentsthetheresults
resultsofofthe
theimpact
impactcategory
categoryacidification
acidificationfor
forthe
theinvestigated
investigated
scenarios. The electricity for the processing of recycled gypsum has a significant input to
scenarios.
scenarios.TheTheelectricity
electricityfor
forthe
theprocessing
processingofofrecycled
recycledgypsum
gypsumhas hasaasignificant
significantinput
inputtoto
the acidification potential, due to the lignite-based generation of electricity in Germany.
the
theacidification
acidificationpotential,
potential,due duetotothe
thelignite-based
lignite-basedgeneration
generationofofelectricity
electricityininGermany.
Germany.
The AP of FGD gypsum is between the two RC-gypsum scenarios and is particularly in-
The
TheAP APofofFGD
FGD gypsum
gypsum is between
is between thethe
twotwo
RC-gypsum
RC-gypsum scenarios and and
scenarios is particularly in-
is particularly
fluenced by the diesel used in the landfilling procedure and the transportation.
influenced
fluenced by the
by the diesel
diesel used used in the
in the landfilling
landfilling procedure
procedure andand
thethe transportation.
transportation.

Figure 5. Results for the acidification potential.

Resultsfor
Figure5.5.Results
Figure forthe
theacidification
acidificationpotential.
potential.

3.3. Eutrophication
3.3.Eutrophication Potential
EutrophicationPotential (EP)
Potential(EP)
(EP)
3.3.
In
InFigure
Figure6,6,the
theresults
resultsforforthe
thecalculations
calculationsofofthe
theeutrophication
eutrophicationpotential
potentialareareshown.
shown.
In Figure 6, the results for the calculations of the eutrophication potential are shown.
This
Thisimpact
impactcategory
categoryisisdominated
dominatedby bythe
theuse
useof
ofelectricity
electricityfor
forthe
theprocessing
processingand,
and,also,
also,by
by
This impact category is dominated by the use of electricity for the processing and, also, by
the
thehigh
high proportion
proportion of lignite-based
lignite-based resources
resourcesininthe
theGerman
Germanelectricity
electricitymix.
mix.Compared
Compared to
the high proportion of lignite-based resources in the German electricity mix. Compared
to natural
natural gypsum
gypsum andand FGD
FGD gypsum,
gypsum, both
both scenarios
scenarios for recycled
for recycled gypsum
gypsum showshow a signifi-
a significantly
to natural gypsum and FGD gypsum, both scenarios for recycled gypsum show a signifi-
higherhigher
cantly eutrophication potential.
eutrophication potential.
cantly higher eutrophication potential.

Figure 6.6.Results
Figure6. for
Resultsfor the
forthe eutrophication
theeutrophication potential.
eutrophicationpotential.
potential.
Figure Results
3.4.Photochemical
3.4. PhotochemicalOzone
OzoneCreation
CreationPotential
Potential(POCP)
(POCP)
3.4. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)
Theimpact
The impactcategory
categoryphotochemical
photochemicalozone
ozonecreation
creationpotential
potential isisalso
alsodominated
dominatedby bythe
the
The impact
emissions causedcategory photochemical
by transportation
transportation and ozone creation potential is also dominated by the
emissions caused by and landfilling.
landfilling.Unlike
Unlikeininthethecategory
categoryglobal
globalwarming
warm-
emissions
potential, caused
thethe by transportation
scenarios forfor and landfilling. Unlike
RC-gypsum in the category globaland
warm-
ing potential, scenarios RC-gypsumoutperform
outperformthe thescenarios
scenarios forfor natural
natural and FGD
FGD
ing potential,
gypsum (see the scenarios
Figure 7). for
AlthoughRC-gypsum
the outperform
emissions linked the
to scenarios
the energy for natural
consumption and FGD
during
gypsum (see Figure 7). Although the emissions linked to the energy consumption during
gypsum (see Figure 7). Although the emissions linked to the energy consumption during
Minerals 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13
Minerals 2021, 11, 101 9 of 13
Minerals 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13

the processing of RC-gypsum are higher than those resulting from the processing of nat-
ural
the and
the FGD gypsum,
processing
processing the overall
of RC-gypsum
RC-gypsum are POCP
arehigher for
higherthan RC-gypsum
thanthose shows
thoseresulting from
resulting a the
frombetter performance.
processing
the of natural
processing of nat-
and and
ural FGDFGD
gypsum, the overall
gypsum, POCP
the overall for RC-gypsum
POCP shows
for RC-gypsum a better
shows performance.
a better performance.

Figure 7. Results for the photochemical ozone creation potential.

Figure 7.
Figure Resultsfor
7. Results forthe
thephotochemical
photochemicalozone
ozone creation
creation potential.
potential.
3.5. Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADPelem.)
3.5. Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADPelem. )
3.5. This impact
Abiotic category
Depletion represents
Potential the
(ADPelem.) use of abiotic elements and is dominated by the
This impact
consumption of category
natural represents
gypsum and therelated
the use of depletion
abiotic elements and is dominated
potential by the
This impact
consumption of category
natural represents
gypsum and the
the use of abiotic
related elements
depletion and(see
potential (see
Figure 8). Other
is dominated
Figure 8). by the
Other
resources,
consumptionlike of
metals,
naturalaregypsum
negligible.
andTherefore,
the related the ADPelempotential
depletion of transports
(see and landfilling
Figure 8). Other
resources,
are like metals,
comparatively are negligible.
low and Therefore,
are summarized for usetheinADP of transports and landfilling
elem8.
Figure
resources, like metals,
are comparatively loware
andnegligible. Therefore,
are summarized the in
for use ADP elem of transports and landfilling
Figure 8.
are comparatively low and are summarized for use in Figure 8.

Figure
Figure8.8.Results
Resultsfor
forthe
theeutrophication
eutrophicationpotential.
potential.
Figure 8. Results for the eutrophication potential.
3.6.Ecological
3.6. EcologicalDamage
DamagePotential
Potential(EDP):
(EDP):LandLandUse
UseTransformation
Transformation
Theimpact
3.6. The impact
Ecological category
category
Damage land(EDP):
land
Potential transformation
transformation
Land Use is ismainly
mainlyinfluenced
Transformationinfluencedbybythe theuse
useofofnear-
near-
naturalforests
natural forestsduring
during the
the quarrying
quarrying of
ofnatural
natural gypsum,
gypsum, whose
whose extraction
extractionsites in Germany
sites in Ger-
The impact category land transformation is mainly influenced by the use of near-
are often
many located
areforests in the areas
often during
located of old
in quarrying
the areasbeech
of forests (seeforests
Figure (see
9). Renaturation measures can-
natural the of old beech
natural gypsum, whose Figure 9). Renaturation
extraction sites in Ger-
not compensate
measures for the ecological damage completely. The values calculated for landfilling
many arecannot often compensate
located in thefor the ecological
areas damage
of old beech completely.
forests The values
(see Figure calculated
9). Renaturation
are
for derived
landfilling from converting
are compensate
derived fromforother areas
converting into landfill
otherdamage sites.
areas into landfill sites.
measures cannot the ecological completely. The values calculated
for landfilling are derived from converting other areas into landfill sites.
Minerals 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13
Minerals
Minerals 2021,
2021, 11,
11, x101
FOR PEER REVIEW 10
10 of
of 13
13

Figure 9. Results for land use transformation (ecosystem damage potential (EDP)).
Figure
Figure 9.
9. Results
Resultsfor
forland
landuse
usetransformation
transformation (ecosystem
(ecosystem damage
damage potential
potential (EDP)).
(EDP)).
3.7. Ecological Damage Potential (EDP): Land Use, Total
3.7. Ecological
3.7. EcologicalDamage
DamagePotential
Potential (EDP):
(EDP): Land
Land Use,
Use, Total
Total
In contrast to the impact category “land transformation”, which contains changes in
In contrast
In contrast to to the
the impact
impact category
category “land
“land transformation”,
transformation”, which
which contains
contains changes
changes in in
the quality of land after usage, the category “land use, total” stands for the complete land
the quality of land after usage, the category “land use, total” stands
the quality of land after usage, the category “land use, total” stands for the complete land for the complete land
use (Figure 10). The values for recycled gypsum caused by processing are comparatively
use (Figure
use (Figure 10).10). The
The values
valuesfor for recycled
recycled gypsum
gypsum caused
caused by by processing
processing areare comparatively
comparatively
higher. This is mainly due to the use of lignite-based electricity and the related usage of
higher. This
higher. This isis mainly
mainly due due toto the
the use
use of
of lignite-based
lignite-based electricity
electricity and
and the
the related
related usage
usage ofof
lignite mining sites. As a result of the land usage for landfilling and the land use caused
lignite mining
lignite mining sites.
sites. As
Asaaresult
result ofof the
the land
land usage
usage forfor landfilling
landfilling and
and the
the land
land use
use caused
caused
by upstream chains from the production of landfill sealings, the total land use of natural
by upstream
by upstream chainschains from
from thethe production
production of of landfill
landfill sealings,
sealings, the
the total
total land
land use
use of
of natural
natural
gypsum
gypsum isishigher
higher than
thanforfor
bothbothrecycled
recycledgypsum
gypsum scenarios. The The
scenarios. totaltotal
land land
use for
usetheforpro-
the
gypsum is higher than for both recycled gypsum scenarios. The total land use for the pro-
duction
productionof FGD
of gypsum
FGD gypsumis in the
is in same
the range
same as
range for
asthe
for RC
the 200
RC scenario.
200 scenario.
duction of FGD gypsum is in the same range as for the RC 200 scenario.

Figure
Figure10.
10.Results
Resultsfor
forland
landuse,
use,total
total(EDP).
(EDP).
Figure 10. Results for land use, total (EDP).
4.4.Discussion
Discussion
4. Discussion
Theevaluation
The evaluationofofthetheenvironmental
environmental impacts
impacts of of
thethe recycling
recycling of gypsum
of gypsum wastewaste
on anon
an The evaluation
industrial scale of the environmental
shows—in comparison impacts
to the of the recycling
results for naturalofand
gypsum
FGD waste on an
gypsum—a
industrial scale shows—in comparison to the results for natural and FGD gypsum—a pre-
industrial scale shows—in
predominantly positive butcomparison to the
differentiated results for natural and FGD gypsum—a pre-
picture.
dominantly positive but differentiated picture.
dominantly positive
Thecalculations but
calculations for differentiated
for RC
RC 100 picture.
The 100 gypsum
gypsumdisplayed
displayedthe thebest
bestresults
resultsinin
the following
the following five (of
five
seven)Theimpact
calculations for RC
categories: 100 AP,
GWP, gypsum
POCP, displayed
land use the best results inand
transformation, theland
following
use five
(total).
(of seven) impact categories: GWP, AP, POCP, land use transformation, and land use (to-
(of
RCseven)
200200 impactshowed
gypsum categories: GWP,
better AP,than
results POCP, land and
natural use transformation,
FGD gypsum inand
the land use (to-
categories of
tal). RC gypsum showed better results than natural and FGD gypsum in the categories
tal).
POCP RCand
200land
gypsum showed better results
use transformation than natural and
and overperformed FGD
natural gypsum
gypsum ininthethe categories
categories of
of POCP and land use transformation and overperformed natural gypsum in the catego-
of
APPOCP anduse
and land land use transformation
(total). Furthermore, the andresults
overperformed
for RC 200 natural
gypsumgypsum in thecategory
in the impact catego-
ries of AP and land use (total). Furthermore, the results for RC 200 gypsum in the impact
ries of APwere
of GWP and better
land usethan(total). Furthermore,
for FGD gypsum. the results for
Regarding theRC 200 gypsum potential,
eutrophication in the impactthe
impacts of RC 100 gypsum and RC 200 gypsum were larger than those of natural and
Minerals 2021, 11, 101 11 of 13

FGD gypsum. This can be explained by the German electricity mix, which included a
comparatively higher proportion of lignite-based electricity. The extraction of natural
gypsum is the most influential parameter in the impact category ADPelem. . Therefore, the
resulting value for natural gypsum is several times higher than the values for RC-gypsum
and FGD gypsum, which are approximately at the same level.
The results show that transport distances and landfilling have a significant influence
on the calculation results of the impact categories of GWP, AP, POCP, and land use total.
This can mainly be explained by the environmental effects of diesel consumption. Another
factor is the avoiding of landfilling as a result of gypsum recycling in the corresponding
scenarios. Furthermore, it is important that the input flows of FGD gypsum and gypsum
waste into the respective system boundaries are unencumbered, due to their origins as
by-products. The use of secondary raw materials and the related waste reductions have a
calculable positive effect on the results of environmental evaluations.
Previous studies have stated that the environmental impacts generated by GPW
recycling are clearly lower than the comparative values in all inventory categories. Several
authors from Spain, the country with the largest gypsum production in the European
Union, came to this result [13,33,34]. Compared to these studies, it must be stated that the
results of our calculations seem to be not so straightforward. Besides the use of different
calculation methodologies, this can be explained by several facts. On one hand, these
studies calculated their tests with considerably shorter transportation distances, which
affected the results, especially by avoiding emissions due to diesel consumption. On the
other hand, in our study, post-consumer GPW was recycled, which means, that—compared
to the recycling of pre-consumer gypsum—this material contains more impurities, and
greater efforts during processing are necessary. Furthermore, in Germany, the quality
standards for recycled gypsum that must be met are comparatively higher. This study
showed that the recycling of post-consumer gypsum is feasible and can be environmentally
advantageous. However, the importance of a good presorting accuracy on the construction
sites should be emphasized. Therefore, good communication between the demolition
contractor and gypsum recycling company is required to keep the amount of occurring
waste materials low.
The development of new sources for gypsum is a further important element for
future gypsum production. Therefore, the authors are going to investigate the usability
of synthetic gypsums from industrial wastes (e.g., phosphogypsum or gypsum from food
production) and, also, from gypsum fiberboards. An environmental evaluation of the
different investigated recycled gypsum types will also be an important part of that work.
Since the electricity mix in Germany will change due to the planned shutdown of coal-
fired power plants, it can be expected that the environmental impacts related to electricity
consumption will decrease. In the upcoming years, the share of renewable energy in the
German energy mix should lead to a better performance of recycled gypsum in the impact
categories EP, AP, and, also, GWP.

5. Conclusions
Working towards greater resource efficiency in the construction sector is essential for
addressing global issues such as slowing climate change and moving towards a circular
economy. Therefore, the recycling of building materials is of particular importance. Based
on the findings of this evaluation, it can be stated that the recycling of post-consumer GPW
from the construction industry is feasible. Furthermore, although the meeting of high-
quality standards is essential, the procedure, including comparatively long transporting
distances, can be environmentally advantageous compared to the investigated natural and
FGD gypsum scenarios.
Especially in Germany, where a replacement of FGD gypsum in the upcoming years
will be required, recycled gypsum is of increasing importance. The results presented in this
study showed that GPW recycling on an industrial scale can be eco-friendly. Additionally,
the need for a substitute for FGD gypsum is expected to lead to further GW recycling
Minerals 2021, 11, 101 12 of 13

facilities and, accordingly, to a development of transport logistics and a related reduction

of transport distances. Furthermore, the expected changes in the German electricity mix
will make the recycling of GW even more environmentally friendly.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.W. and C.A.; methodology, K.W., M.B., and C.A.; data
curation, J.S. and M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, K.W.; writing—review and editing, K.W.,
C.A., and M.B.; project administration, M.B.; and funding acquisition, M.B. and K.W. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Federal Environmental Agency (UBA), grant number
FKZ 3715343200.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to a confidentiality agreement with a
company that provided some of the original data.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Nadja Schuetz and Holger Alwast.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Serres, N.; Braymand, S.; Feugeas, F. Environmental evaluation of concrete made from recycled concrete aggregate implementing
life cycle assessment. J. Build. Eng. 2016, 5, 24–33. [CrossRef]
2. Ghaffar, S.H.; Burman, M.; Braimah, N. Pathways to circular construction: An integrated management of construction and
demolition waste for resource recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118710. [CrossRef]
3. Rivero, A.J.; Sathre, R.; Navarro, J.G. Life cycle energy and material flow implications of gypsum plasterboard recycling in the
European Union. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 108, 171–181. [CrossRef]
4. Zhang, C.B.; Hu, M.; Dong, L.; Gebremariam, A.; Miranda-Xicotencatl, B.; Di Maio, F.; Tukker, A. Eco-efficiency assessment of
technological innovations in high-grade concrete recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 649–663. [CrossRef]
5. Jin, R.Y.; Chen, Q.; Soboyejo, A. Survey of the current status of sustainable concrete production in the US. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2015, 105, 148–159. [CrossRef]
6. Colman, C.; Bulteel, D.; Rémond, S.; Zhao, Z.; Courard, L. Valorization of Fine Recycled Aggregates Contaminated with Gypsum
Residues: Characterization and Evaluation of the Risk for Secondary Ettringite Formation. Materials 2020, 13, 4866. [CrossRef]
7. Azevedo, A.R.G.; Vieira, C.M.F.; Ferreira, W.M.; Faria, K.C.P.; Pedroti, L.G.; Mendes, B.C. Potential use of ceramic waste as
precursor in the geopolymerization reaction for the production of ceramic roof tiles. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 29, 101156. [CrossRef]
8. Amaral, L.F.; Delaqua, G.C.G.; Nicolite, M.; Marvila, M.T.; de Azevedo, A.R.G.; Alexandre, J.; Vieira, C.M.F.; Monteiro, S.N.
Eco-friendly mortars with addition of ornamental stone waste—A mathematical model approach for granulometric optimization.
J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119283. [CrossRef]
9. Marvila, M.T.; Azevedo, A.R.G.; Barroso, L.S.; Barbosa, M.Z.; de Brito, J. Gypsum plaster using rock waste: A proposal to repair
the renderings of historical buildings in Brazil. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 250, 118786. [CrossRef]
10. German Building Material Association (BBS). The Demand for Primary and Secondary Raw Materials in the Mineral and Building
Materials Industry in Germany up to 2035; German Building Material Association (BBS): Berlin, Germany, 2019.
11. ACAA—American Coal Ash Association. ACAA 2019 Survey Results and Production & Use Charts. Available online: https:
//www.acaa-usa.org/publications/productionusereports.aspx (accessed on 8 January 2021).
12. Hohmann, M. Fördermenge von Gips in Ausgewählten Ländern. Statista. Available online: https://de.statista.com/ (accessed
on 8 January 2021).
13. Camarini, G.; Lima, K.D.D.; Pinheiro, S.M.M. Investigation on gypsum plaster waste recycling: An eco-friendly material. Green
Mater. 2015, 3, 104–112. [CrossRef]
14. Geraldo, R.H.; Pinheiro, S.M.M.; Silva, J.S.; Andrade, H.M.C.; Dweck, J.; Gonçalves, J.P.; Camarini, G. Gypsum plaster waste
recycling: A potential environmental and industrial solution. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 288–300. [CrossRef]
15. German Building Material Association (bbs). Annual Reports (Aufgaben, Themen und Ziele—Jahresberichte der Baustoffindus-
trie). Available online: https://www.baustoffindustrie.de/downloads (accessed on 11 September 2020).
16. US Geological Survey (USGS). Gypsum Statistics. Available online: https://www.usgs.gov (accessed on 10 September 2020).
17. German Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt). Statistical Yearbooks (Statistische Jahrbücher). Available online:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Querschnitt/Jahrbuch/_inhalt.html (accessed on 11 September 2020).
18. Stawski, T.M.; Van Driessche, A.E.S.; Ossorio, M.; Rodriguez-Blanco, J.D.; Besselink, R.; Benning, L.G. Formation of calcium
sulfate through the aggregation of sub-3 nanometre primary species. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 1–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Singh, N.B.; Middendorf, B. Calcium sulphate hemihydrate hydration leading to gypsum crystallization. Prog. Cryst. Growth
Charact. Mater. 2007, 53, 57–77. [CrossRef]
20. Association of the German Gypsum Industry (Bundesverband der Gipsindustrie e.V.). Gips-Datenbuch; Association of the German
Gypsum Industry: Berlin, Germany, 2013.
Minerals 2021, 11, 101 13 of 13

21. Buchert, M.; Sutter, J.; Alwast, H.; Schuetz, N.; Weimann, K. Life cycle assessment of gypsum plasterboard recycling. In Umwelt-
forschungsplan; FKZ 3715 34 320, Report; German Environment Agency: Dessau, Germany, 2017.
22. Erbs, A.; Nagalli, A.; de Carvalho, K.Q.; Mymrin, V.; Passig, F.H.; Mazer, W. Properties of recycled gypsum from gypsum
plasterboards and commercial gypsum throughout recycling cycles. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 1314–1322. [CrossRef]
23. EU-Recycling—Editorial Staff. Gipsrecycling: Noch etliche Steine im Weg. EU-Recycling 2015. Available online: https://eu-
recycling.com/Archive/9575 (accessed on 8 January 2021).
24. The British Standards Institution (BSI). PAS 109:2013: Specification for the Production of Reprocessed Gypsum from Waste Pasterboards,
2nd ed.; BSI Standards Limited: London, UK, 2013.
25. Association of the European Gypsum Industry (Eurogypsum). FGD Gypsum—Quality Characteristics and Analytical Methods;
Eurogypsum: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
26. Rahman, M.M.; Bassuoni, M.T. Thaumasite sulfate attack on concrete: Mechanisms, influential factors and mitigation. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2014, 73, 652–662. [CrossRef]
27. Vegas, I.; Ibañez, J.A.; Lisbona, A.; De Cortazar, A.S.; Frías, M. Pre-normative research on the use of mixed recycled aggregattes in
unbound road sections. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 2674–2682. [CrossRef]
28. Weimann, K.; Matyschik, J.; Adam, C.; Schulz, T.; Linß, E.; Mueller, A. Optimization of demolition/dismantling of buildings for
the recovery and treatment of building materials considering the reduction of harmful substances (in particular sulphates) in
the recycled building material and aspects of life-cycle analyses. In Umweltforschungsplan; FKZ 3709 33 317, Report; German
Environment Agency: Dessau, Germany, 2012.
29. Ahmed, A.; Ugai, K.; Kamei, T. Investigation of recycled gypsum in conjunction with waste plastic trays for ground improvement.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 208–217. [CrossRef]
30. Cordon, H.C.F.; Cagnoni, F.C.; Ferreira, F.F. Comparison of physical and mechanical properties of civil construction plaster and
recycled waste gypsum from Sao Paulo, Brazil. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 22, 504–512. [CrossRef]
31. Pantini, S.; Giurato, M.; Rigamonti, L. A LCA study to investigate resource-efficient strategies for managing post-consumer
gypsum waste in Lombardy region (Italy). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 147, 157–168. [CrossRef]
32. Johansson, P.; Brander, L.; Bok, G. Solutions for reducing gypsum board waste to landfil. In Progress of Recycling in the Built
Environment, Lisbon, Portugal, 11./12.10.2020; RILEM: Paris, France, 2018.
33. Pedreno-Rojas, M.A.; De Brito, J.; Flores-Colen, I.; Pereira, M.F.C.; Rubio-de-Hita, P. Influence of gypsum wastes on the workability
of plasters: Heating process and microstructural analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 29, 1–11. [CrossRef]
34. Suarez, S.; Roca, X.; Gasso, S. Product-specific life cycle assessment of recycled gypsum as a replacement for natural gypsum in
ordinary Portland cement: Application to the Spanish context. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 117, 150–159. [CrossRef]
35. Association of the German Gypsum Industry (Bundesverband der Gipsindustrie e.V.). Initital Assssment for Recycling Facilities, Quality
Management, Quality Characteristics and Analytical Methods; Association of the German Gypsum Industry: Berlin, Germany, 2016.
36. DIN-Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. EN ISO 14044: Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and
Guidelines; Beuth Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2018.
37. DIN-Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. EN ISO 14040: Umweltmanagement—Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—
Principles Unad Framework; Beuth Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2019.
38. IFU. Umberto—Software for Life Cycle Assessment; IFU: Hamburg, Germany, 2016.
39. Ecoinvent. Database Ecoinvent Data v3.1—Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Data; Ecoinvent Centre: St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2014.
40. European Commission. ILCD-Handbook: General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment—Detailed Guidance; Institute for Environment and
Sustainability, Joint Research Centre: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
41. European Commission. Commission Recommendation on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life
cycle environmental performance of the products and organizations. Annex II: Product Environmental Footprint (PEF). In Official
Journal of the European Union; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2013; Volume 56.
42. IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner,
G.K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
43. CML—Department of Industrial Ecology. Database CML-IA; Leiden University, Institute of Environmental Sciences: Leiden, The
Netherlands, 2015.
44. Koellner, T.; Scholz, R.W. Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment—Part 2: Generic characterization factors
for local species diversity in central Europe. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008, 13, 32–48.
45. Koellner, T.; Scholz, R.W. Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment—Part 1: An analytical framework for pure
land occupation and land use change. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2007, 12, 16–23.