Environmental evaluation of experimental heat-treated oriented strand board

Sugahara, E. S., Dias, A. M. A., Botelho, E. C., Dias, A. M. P. G., and de Campos, C. I. (2024). “Environmental evaluation of experimental heat-treated oriented strand board,” BioResources 19(1), 732-750.

Abstract

The use of wood-based panels such as Oriented Strand Board has grown in civil construction. This follows the contemporary trend towards low environmental impact materials. However, there is a lack of relevant information about their life cycle assessment, appearing as a current and relevant research topic. Experimental panels made with Eucalyptus wood and castor oil-based polyurethane adhesive already demonstrated great physical-mechanical performance. Therefore, this study aimed to continue the evaluation of this innovative product, estimating their potential environmental impacts using life cycle assessment from a cradle-to-gate perspective and comparing the results with traditional panels and literature data. System boundaries, environmental impacts and environmental hotspots were identified using the ReCiPe H method in terms of ten impact categories. Comparing experimental (heat-treated) and traditional panels, the experimental versions performed better in most categories and showed safer behavior in categories related to human health in addition to not using paraffin, termiticide, and other organic chemicals presented in the traditional panels. Though made of different types of adhesives, the adhesive was the main environmental hotspot for both types.

Download PDF

Full Article

Environmental Evaluation of Experimental Heat-treated Oriented Strand Board

Estefani S. Sugahara,^a,b,* André Manuel Alves Dias,^b,c Edson Cocchieri Botelho,^aAlfredo Manuel Pereira Geraldes Dias,^b,c and Cristiane Inácio de Campos^a

DOI: 10.15376/biores.19.1.732-750

Keywords: Environmental impacts; Life cycle assessment; LCA; Construction industry; OSB

Contact information: a: Materials and Technology Department, UNESP, São Paulo State University, Guaratinguetá, 12516-410, Brazil; b: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, 3030-788, Portugal; c: SerQ, Innovation and Competence Forest Centre, Sertã, 6100-711, Portugal;

* Corresponding author: estefanisugahara@hotmail.com

INTRODUCTION

Due to its influence, the construction industry must play an important role in the decrease of use of natural resources, energy consumption, and waste generation. In this way, life cycle assessment (LCA; ISO 2006a,b) is a valuable method to identify systems or elements of the buildings that have negative effects on the environment, and it is recommended to be performed to positively guide the choice of better environmentally friendly solutions (Cascione et al. 2022).

Technological innovations in the construction industry are consistently related to the development and application of new materials (van de Kuilen and Dias 2011; Monteiro et al. 2015; Santos et al. 2015). Wood-based panels have been increasingly applied in building consstruction, given the existent inclination towards materials with reduced environmental impacts (Pozzer et al. 2020). These benefits include low energy consumption and low CO₂-emissions (De Windt et al. 2018).

Wood-based panels are engineered wood products made with wood glued with adhesives (Farjana et al. 2023). They are commonly used in civil construction as an affordable and adaptable alternative. The performance of the panels is greatly affected by the adhesives used in their manufacture (Lee et al. 2023). However, the frequently used adhesives are linked to worries related to the non-renewable origin, volatile organic compounds, and dangerous substances because of their toxicity and carcinogenic nature (Barbirato et al. 2019a).

Concerns are emerging regarding the environmental impacts resulting the manufacture of engineered wood products and end-of-life management as a result of the growing demand for wood-based products in the worldwide building sector (Farjana et al. 2023), which is supported by the embodied impact of biogenic carbon of timber-frame buildings (Norouzi et al. 2023).

These products have presented possibilities of increasing applications in several industrial sectors, with emphasis in civil construction and furniture industry. With this growth, it becomes an essential matter to produce new materials in a sustainable way, presenting similar properties, durability, and quality if compared with the industrial products already available in the market (de Carvalho Araújo et al. 2022).

Despite the carbon-neutral characteristic of the wood materials, they usually present a long service life and a multifunctional production chain, provoking concerns connected to their life cycle. In this sense, because of their potential challenges, it is fundamental to perform and understand the environmental aspects to handle possible issues (Garcia and Freire 2014). LCA is an effective tool to do these evaluations (Deng et al. 2023).

LCA is not only an instrument to improve the environment, but it also plays an important role in advancing competitive and sustainable growth as an instrument for industry. LCA has potential to reveal cost savings and competitive advantages, in addition to its role in saving natural resources and energy and in minimizing pollution and waste. LCA expertly supports decision-makers with scientific data and value sets and is also an essential source for eco-labeling required by consumers, NGOs, and international authorities. In this sense, new materials and products should be based on the LCA concept (Jensen et al. 1997).

LCA addresses the environmental aspects and potential environmental impacts, for example, use of resources and the environmental effects of releases, related to the functional unit of a product system through a life cycle from raw material acquisition through production, use, end-of- life treatment, recycling, and final disposal (ISO 2006).

There are numerous published studies that have assessed the environmental aspects of wood-based products applied as building materials in civil construction, such as roundwood (Dias and Arroja 2012; Kuka et al. 2019; Dias et al. 2022), structural engineered wood products (Hill and Dibdiakova 2016; Laurent et al. 2016; Scouse et al. 2020; Dias et al. 2020, 2021a), wooden floors (Dossche et al. 2018; Dias et al. 2021a,b) wooden doors (Deng et al. 2023; Wang et al. 2023), and different types of wood-based panels or products made with wood panels (Rivela et al. 2007; Benetto et al. 2009; González-García et al. 2011; Silva et al. 2013; Garcia and Freire 2014; Maoduš et al. 2016; Ferro et al. 2018; Li et al. 2019; de Carvalho Araújo et al. 2022; Farjana et al. 2023).

However, particularly related to Oriented Strand Board panels (OSB), there is a relative scarcity of relevant information across their life cycle sustainability evaluation. Most of the studies available in the literature have only focused on the performance of the wood panels in measuring their physical and mechanical properties (Werner and Richter 2007). But to manufacture sustainable construction materials, it is imperative to also assess their environmental impacts (Sugahara et al. 2023).

Buildings with frame structures generally have a more favorable impact on the environment if compared to buildings with heavy load-bearing walls, which consume more materials (Jasiołek et al. 2023). OSB panels are the most widely used wood-based panels in the light-frame wood construction (Lee et al. 2023).

The OSB production and consumption worldwide is growing, having increased approximately 24% and 26%, respectively, between the years 2016 and 2020 (FAO 2022). But despite the growth in consumption, is also notable that the traditional components of the OSB can possibly be made of harmful chemicals, and they may be questionable in terms of sustainability (Farjana et al. 2023). For example, they may incorporate formaldehyde-based adhesives that can present toxic and carcinogenic nature (Barbirato et al. 2019a). They also may contain the pyrethroid termiticide. The latter is applied in panels to improve their durability against the attack of wood decay organisms, but it can show worrisome contributions to environmental impact (Ferro et al. 2018).

The bio-based products, such as the wood-based, became a priority area because they can act as a solution for substituting materials and can also show improvements related to the biodegradability, renewability, or composability concerns of the products (Bianco et al. 2021).

In addition to the necessity for more sustainable alternative materials, it is vital to research diverse types of materials and methods to guarantee that the panels meet the requirements (structural, durability, and aesthetic), to be safely employed. Regarding this, it is imperative to study alternative lignocellulosic resources, adhesives, and techniques to assure the resistance against termite attack, replacing chemical preservatives with systems possibly less dangerous, as the heat treatment (Sugahara et al. 2022c).

Taking this scenario into account, the assessment of environmental hotspots linked to the manufacture of OSB is a contemporary and appropriate field of research presenting great relevance (Sugahara et al. 2023). In previous studies, it already has been established that experimental OSB panels made with Eucalyptus wood and castor oil-based polyurethane adhesive achieved physical-mechanical performance compatible with the EN 300 classification for OSB, presenting technical feasibility and excellent structural profile for civil construction applications (Sugahara et al. 2022b). However, there is still no LCA study that addresses the environmental performance of this type of board.

This study had the following objectives: i) to estimate the potential environmental impacts related to the experimental production of heat-treated OSB made with these alternative raw materials by using LCA methodology in a cradle-to-gate perspective, and ii) to compare the results with the environmental impacts of traditional panels and literature data. By evaluating the potential environmental impacts of this innovative solution, this study reported advances in the field presenting alternatives to contribute to the accomplishment of the global sustainability targets.

EXPERIMENTAL

This section describes the details and limitations of the LCA modelling of the OSB panels. It also defines the goals and scope, functional unit, system boundaries and the impact categories under assessment, and the phases of life cycle inventory (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and interpretation.

Goal and Scope Definition

This paper aimed to quantify the potential environmental impacts related to the experimental production of heat-treated OSB (H_OSB) made with alternative raw materials by using LCA methodology. The results were analyzed and compared with the environmental impact results of traditional panels (G_OSB) available in the software database and literature data.

To assess the experimental panels, the data were acquired via a survey of manufacturers following the ISO14040 standard (2006a), previous studies, literature review, and databases of processes available in the software (for example, Ecoinvent).

The functional unit adopted was 1 m³ of OSB, assuming a nominal density of 780 kg/m³ for experimental panel, without covering. The scope of the study was from cradle-to-gate, including the raw materials extraction and preparation, and the production of OSB panels (the construction, product use and end of life phases weren’t considered in this evaluation). For this study, the intended audience consists of researchers of OSB and raw materials, industry representatives, decision-makers, and LCA practitioners.

Table 1. Environmental Impact Category Indicators Used

The characterization factors described in the ReCiPe Midpoint (H) method was considered to conduct the assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the OSB production system. Ten environmental impact category indicators were analyzed, as described in Table 1.

For this LCA, the comparisons were made considering the limitations of impact categories, data gaps, characterization models, system boundaries, and inclusion/exclusion or differences of inputs and outputs described in the experimental section.

Case Study

The research object of this study is experimental OSB panels made with intended applications to have structural purposes in civil construction following the current European production processes available in the Ecoinvent database (Ecoinvent 3.6 2019).

The experimental OSB panels of this study were based on those produced in the work of Sugahara et al. (2022b), adopting similar materials and methods for production and heat treatment.

In this way, for the raw materials was considered the Eucalyptus ssp., a reforested wood with density of 520 kg/m³. And castor oil-based bicomponent polyurethane, that is a biodegradable adhesive with renewable origin obtained from vegetable oil (Barbirato et al. 2019a). After production, the experimental OSB was subjected to heat treatment, replacing the use of wood chemical preservatives, which can present potential toxicity (Sugahara et al. 2022c).

The LCA model applied in this study followed the procedures of the standards ISO 14040 (2006a), ISO 14044 (2006b), and EN 15804+A2 (2019), considering characterization factors reported by ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H) V1.04 / World (2010) H method. The software SimaPro (PhD with Share & Collect, release 9.1.0.7) was used to implement the LCI worldwide datasets of environmental impacts such as Ecoinvent 3, ELCD. In the next sections, the four stages of an LCA study: goal and scope definition, inventory, impact assessment, and interpretation, are detailed.

Description of the Product and System Under Assessment

The OSB assessed in this study is projected for structural uses with the physical and mechanical properties compatible with the requirements of EN 300 (2006). The items were modelled based on the OSB panels already produced in the previous work of Sugahara et al. (2022b), which meet the system boundaries of the generic OSB (G_OSB) available in the inventory of the Ecoinvent 3 database (Ecoinvent 3.6 2019). That process was used as a model for assessment and comparison in this study.

The OSB production system consists in the stages of strands manufacturing and drying, strands blending in a rotating drum with a mist of resin and wax, forming line of the mat of strands on a continuous belt conveyor with a cut-off saw, mat pressing under high temperature, and finishing (trimming and cutting) (Ecoinvent 3.6 2019).

For the experimental OSB (H_OSB), the same production system of G_OSB was considered, however, a stage of heat treatment was added after the OSB production.

The system boundaries of the OSB life cycle under study (cradle-to-gate) is presented in Fig. 1.

For the assessment of the environmental impacts of the experimental panels (H_OSB), some modifications were made to the data of the original file (G_OSB). In this context, data from secondary sources were used as a base for the LCI. These changes consisted of replacing some specific parameters of products and processes available in the software dataset from information obtained through a survey of manufacturers or previous studies and following the ISO 14040 standard (2006a). Table 2 explains the details of these modifications.

Fig. 1. System boundaries of the OSB panels

Table 2. Comments and Sources of Data/Procedures Used in the LCI

Life Cycle Inventory

The inventory of processes to model the LCA of the panels was mainly based on pre-defined processes included in the Ecoinvent database or created/adapted to the specific parameters of this work.

The Global inventory data per functional unit of the experimental heat-treated OSB (H_OSB) and a generic model of traditional panels (G_OSB) is presented in the Appendix.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section describes the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and interpretation phases of the assessment. Table 3 presents the environmental impacts obtained for each impact category per 1 m³ of H_OSB and G_OSB. To enrich the evaluation of the results, data referring to the work of Ferro et al. (2018), which also used the ReCiPe method to evaluate the environmental aspects of Brazilian OSB production, are presented as a source of literature data for comparison (named as B_OSB).

Table 3. Potential Environmental Impacts per 1 m³ of H_OSB, G_OSB, and B_OSB

The analysis of the potential environmental impacts showed that the H_OSB performed better than G_OSB in 7 of 10 impact categories (OD, POF, FE, TET, FET, HT, FD), while G_OSB performed better than H_OSB in 3 of 10 (CC, TA, ME). Comparing the 3 types of OSB (H_OSB, G_OSB, and B_OSB), it turns out that H_OSB exhibited the worst potential environmental impacts (in terms of higher values) in only one category (ME). G_OSB had the worst performance in 5 categories (OD, FE, TET, FET, FD) and B_OSB in 4 of 10 categories (CC, POF, TA, HT). Figures 2 and 3 display the relative contributions to each impact category from the main contribution factors involved in H_OSB and G_OSB cradle-to-gate life cycle.

Fig. 2. H_OSB Relative Contributions (in %) to Each Impact Category per Outstanding Contribution Factors

Fig. 3. G_OSB Relative Contributions (in %) to Each Impact Category per Outstanding Contribution Factors

To understand the detailed discussion of the impacts on each category, it is important to note that adhesives and wood species are different for both OSB types evaluated, i.e., polyurethane adhesive derived from castor oil and Eucalyptus wood for the innovative OSB (H_OSB) and Generic Softwood and MDI resin for the generic OSB (G_OSB). The contributing factors: termiticide, chemical, org., and paraffin had no influence on the analysis of H_OSB in any category, since these materials were not used in the production of H_OSB. The followed paragraphs discuss and compare the contribution of each unitary process on each environmental category:

Global warming (CC): For H_OSB, the electricity/heat (46%) was the major contribution factor, followed by adhesive (28%), wood (23%), fuels/oils (2%) and production (1%). For G_OSB the adhesive (45%) was the main contributor, followed by electricity/heat (28%), wood (12%), termiticide (6%), chemical, organic (4%), paraffin (3%), production (1%) and fuels/oils (1%).

In this category, while H_OSB had a greater influence on electricity, possibly related to the increase of the heat treatment step that does not exist in the generic panel, G_OSB had a greater influence related to the adhesive used. H_OSB and B_OSB (Ferro et al. 2018) also showed the adhesive (MDI, a petroleum-based resin) as the main factor (38%) in the climate change potential category, relating this result to the use of crude oil in its manufacturing.

The petroleum-based resins are significant polluters whose emissions influence beyond the global warming category, also the oxidant formation, acidification, eutrophication, and toxicity (Bucklin et al. 2022).

Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD): H_OSB demonstrated contribution of 80% from adhesive, 11% from production, 5% from wood, and 4% from electricity/heat. G_OSB had 86% from adhesive, 8% from production, 3% from electricity/heat, 2% from wood, and 1% from termiticide. The 3 most influential factors for B_OSB (Ferro et al. 2018) were chemicals, with 30% for paraffin and pyrethroid termiticide linked with the methane (CH₄) emitted during the production of the termiticide, wood (19%) and adhesive (15%).

Ozone formation, Human health (POF): For H_OSB, the production represents 42% of the total contribution, adhesive 23%, wood 22%, electricity/heat 9%, and fuels/oils 4%. In G_OSB, production represents 43%, adhesive 23%, wood 16%, electricity/heat 8%, paraffin 3%, and fuels/oils 3%, termiticide 2%, and chemical, organic 2%.

Comparing H_OSB and G_OSB it is notable that, despite the difference with respect to heat treatment and some other details, the impacts of adhesive, wood, and electricity/heat show same order of influence and close values. G_OSB also has the presence of paraffin, termiticide and other chemicals that are not present in H_OSB. Thus, the difference in the total potential environmental impacts per 1 m³ in kg NOx eq of H_OSB (1.03), which is smaller than that of G_OSB (1.15), is possibly attributable to the presence of these factors. For B_OSB (Ferro et al. 2018), emissions from the heat generation are responsible for 81% of the total, followed by the adhesive (7%), totaling 1.86 kg NMVOC eq.

Terrestrial acidification (TA): H_OSB exhibited a contribution of 63% from adhesive, 14% from electricity/heat, 13% from production, 9% from wood, and 1% from fuels/oils. G_OSB had 45% from adhesive, 17% from electricity/heat, 16% from production, 8% from wood, 5% from termiticide, 4% from paraffin, 3% from chemical, organic and 2% from fuels/oils. In B_OSB (Ferro et al. 2018) heat generation were responsible for 71% followed by adhesive with 12%.

Freshwater eutrophication (FE): For H_OSB, the adhesive (39%) was the major contribution factor, followed by electricity/heat (33%), wood (24%), and dust/ash (4%). In H_OSB wood (32%) was the main factor, followed by electricity/heat (31%), adhesive (27%), dust/ash (4%), termiticide (3%), chemical, organic (2%), and paraffin (1%). B_OSB (Ferro et al. 2018) presented 35% of the total contribution related to the production of chemicals (such as paraffin and pyrethroid termiticide, where pyrethroid termiticide was the leading) and the second largest contributor (25%), was the forest operations.

Marine eutrophication (ME): The adhesive was the main factor with almost all the contribution (99%) with a small representation of 1% of wood in H_OSB. For G_OSB, adhesive showed 94%, wood 4%, and termiticide 2%. However, for B_OSB (Ferro et al. 2018), 75% of the impacts were related to the emissions produced during the heat generation process and the second main contributor was the adhesive with 9%.

Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TET): In this category, H_OSB contributed 60% related to the production, followed by wood (18%), adhesive (14%), electricity/heat (6%), fuels/oils (1%), and dust/ash (1%). For G_OSB, 42% was associated with wood, being followed by production (32%), adhesive (19%), electricity/heat (3%), termiticide (2%), chemical, organic (1%), and paraffin (1%). Nevertheless, for B_OSB (Ferro et al. 2018), electricity represented more than 72% of the impacts and the adhesive (10%) was the second major contributor.

Freshwater ecotoxicity (FET): For H_OSB, adhesive (81%) exhibited large contribution, accompanied by wood (8%), electricity/heat (6%), production (3%), and dust/ash (2%). In H_OSB adhesive (66%) also was the main factor, followed by wood (19%), termiticide (5%), electricity/heat (4%), production (2%), chemical, organic (2%), dust/ash (1%), and paraffin (1%). B_OSB (Ferro et al. 2018) showed 42% related to the production of chemicals (mainly the pyrethroid termiticide) and adhesive represented 16% of the impacts.

Human carcinogenic toxicity (HT): adhesive (67%) exhibited higher contribution in H_OSB, with less influence of electricity/heat (19%), wood (9%), production (4%), and dust/ash (1%). For G_OSB, adhesive had the main contribution (82%), followed by production (13%), electricity/heat (2%), termiticide (1%), wood (1%), and chemical, organic (1%). In B_OSB (Ferro et al. 2018), the highest contribution (34%) was connected to the production of chemicals (paraffin and mostly the pyrethroid termiticide – due to air emissions of metals) and in second place was the adhesive with 17%.

Fossil resource scarcity (FD): In this category, H_OSB obtained 59% associated to electricity/heat, followed by wood (19%), adhesive (19%), and fuels/oils (3%). For G_OSB, the results demonstrated 43% to adhesive, accompanied by electricity/heat (22%), paraffin (13%), wood (10%), chemical, organic (7%), and termiticide (5%). The adhesive (48%) was the main contributor in B_OSB (Ferro et al. 2018), and the chemicals (paraffin and pyrethroid termiticide) represented 27%.

Of the ten categories considered, for H_OSB the adhesive was the main contributor in 6 (OD, TA, FE, ME, FET, and HT), in second was the production with 2 categories (POF and TET), and electricity/heat in third with 2 (CC and FD). For G_OSB adhesive also was the principal contributor in 7 of 10 categories (CC, OD, TA, ME, FET, HT, and FD), followed by wood (FE and TET) and production (POF).

The dangerous chemical pollutants in the building materials have attracted concern because they can negatively impact the human comfort, health, and productivity. Therefore, knowing the emission characteristics of construction materials and the associated health risk is a requirement for choosing the materials effectively, to build in a sustainable way (Xiong et al. 2016). The indoor VOC concentration related to the building materials plays an important role in the air quality with several scientific evidence for their adverse health effects. Thus, one of the most efficient ways to limit the dangerous emissions is by removing the main emission sources indoors; this involves identifying the source based on the understanding of chemical composition and strength of the emission (Liang et al. 2014).

It is notable that the adhesive was the main environmental hotspot in this evaluation, even with the 2 types of OSB presenting different types of adhesives (H_OSB produced with polyurethane adhesive derived from castor oil and G_OSB with MDI resin).

It is also verified that the H_OSB presented better behavior (minor total amount of potential environmental impacts) in categories related to human health (POF, HT) in addition to not using paraffin, termiticide, and other organic chemicals in its production.

According to Ferro et al. (2018), since changes in the resin type could decrease the technical properties of the panels, it is firstly mandatory to assess the effects of the bio-resins on the physic-mechanical properties of the manufactured boards. However, the technical performance of H_OSB has already been successfully evaluated in the work of Sugahara et al. (2022b) and the potential of use of the polyurethane adhesive derived from castor oil in wood panels has already been established in several other studies (Barbirato et al. 2019b, 2020; Sugahara et al. 2019, 2022a).

The heat treatment was made in H_OSB in order to avoid the use of the termiticide. By this means, the additional process in the oven to do the treatment led to an increase in electricity consumption. However, the electricity/heat was the main contributor in only 2 categories (CC and FD) in H_OSB. Additionally, the difference in the electricity consumption (in kWh), was 3,6% higher than the global inventory data of H_OSB and G_OSB (Annex section). The termiticide used in the G_OSB presented some contribution in all categories evaluated.

These are important findings that can support decision makers to make good choices in the selection of the materials. This work shows the potential of H_OSB to be less harmful to humankind and the environment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study used the LCA methodology in a cradle-to-gate perspective to quantify the potential environmental impacts related to the experimental production of heat-treated OSB panels made with Eucalyptus wood and castor oil-based polyurethane (H_OSB) and compared them with the environmental impacts of traditional panels (G_OSB) and literature data (B_OSB). The research identified the system boundaries, environmental impacts, and environmental hotspots in OSB production using the ReCiPe H method in terms of ten impact categories: global warming (CC), stratospheric ozone depletion (OD), ozone formation and human health (POF), terrestrial acidification (TA), freshwater eutrophication (FE), marine eutrophication (ME), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TET), freshwater ecotoxicity (FET), human carcinogenic toxicity (HT), and fossil resource scarcity (FD).

The following results obtained are:

The H_OSB performed better than G_OSB in 7 of 10 impact categories (OD, POF, TA, FE, ME, TET, FET, HT, FD), while G_OSB performed better than H_OSB in 3 of 10 (CC, TA, ME). Comparing the 3 types of OSB (H_OSB, G_OSB and B_OSB), H_OSB has the major potential environmental impact (in terms of higher values) in only one category (ME).
It was identified that the adhesive is the main environmental hotspot of this evaluation for both types of panels analyzed (H_OSB and G_OSB) even the panels being made of different types of adhesives (H_OSB produced with Polyurethane adhesive derived from castor oil and G_OSB with MDI resin). However, the H_OSB showed greater behavior in categories related to human health (POF, HT) in addition to not using paraffin, termiticide, and other organic chemicals present in the G_OSB.
Related to the use of heat treatment (H_OSB) instead of the termiticide (G_OSB), the electricity/heat was the main contributor in only 2 categories in H_OSB (CC and FD). Nonetheless, it presented a small increase in energy consumption (3.6%), while the termiticide used in the G_OSB showed contribution in all categories evaluated.
It is concluded that this work establishes the potential of H_OSB to be less harmful to humankind and the environment if compared to the generic ones evaluated in this research (G_OSB and B_OSB).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was financed by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brasil (CAPES), Finance Code 001 and University of Coimbra. Authors also wish to gratefully acknowledge the São Paulo State University, SerQ, FAPESP [grant number #2015/04660-0] and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) [grant numbers 306576/2020-1, 308937/2021-0] for the support during this research.

REFERENCES CITED

Barbirato, G. H. A., Fiorelli, J., Mejiaa, J., Sarasini, F., Tirillò J., and Ferrante, L. (2019a). “Quasi-static and dynamic response of oriented strand boards based on balsa wood waste,” Compos Struct 219 (January), 83-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.03.062

Barbirato, G. H. A., Lopes Junior, W. E., Oliveira, D. C. G., Nagata, E. Y., Caneppele, F. L., and Fiorelli, J. (2019b). “Thermal performance of aviary prototypes fitted with OSB panel ceiling made of balsa wood wastes,” Brazilian Journal of Biosystems Engineering 13(3), 237-249.

Barbirato, G. H. A., Lopes Junior, W. E., Hellmeister, V., Pavesi, M., and Fiorelli, J. (2020). “OSB panels with balsa wood waste and castor oil polyurethane resin,” Waste Biomass Valorization 11(2), 743-751. DOI: 10.1007/s12649-018-0474-8

Benetto, E., Becker, M., and Welfring, J. (2009). “Life cycle assessment of oriented strand boards (OSB): From process innovation to ecodesign,” Environ Sci Technol. 43(15), 6003-6009. DOI: 10.1021/es900707u

Bianco, I., Thiébat, F., Carbonaro, C., Pagliolico, S., Blengini, G. A., and Comino, E. (2021). “Life cycle assessment (LCA)-based tools for the eco-design of wooden furniture,” J. Clean. Prod. 324, article 129249. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129249.

BS EN 300 (2006). “Oriented strand boards (OSB). Definitions, classification, and specifications,” European Committee For Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.

Bucklin, O., Menges, A., Amtsberg, F., Drexler, H., Rohr, A., and Krieg, O. D. (2022). “Mono-material wood wall: Novel building envelope using subtractive manufacturing of timber profiles to improve thermal performance and airtightness of solid wood construction,” Energy Build. 254, article 111597. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111597

de Carvalho Araújo, C. K., Bigarelli Ferreira, M., Salvador, R., de Carvalho Araújo, C. K. C., Camargo, B. S., de Carvalho Araújo Camargo, S. K., de Campos, C. I., and Piekarski, C. M. (2022). “Life cycle assessment as a guide for designing circular business models in the wood panel industry: A critical review,” J. Clean. Prod. 355. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131729

Cascione, V., Roberts, M., Allen, S., Dams, B., Maskell, D., Shea, A., Walker, P., and Emmitt, S. (2022). “Integration of life cycle assessments (LCA) in circular bio-based wall panel design,” J. Clean. Prod. 344(October 2021), article 130938. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130938

Deng, N., Wang, J., Sun, J., and Cao, N. (2023). “Life cycle assessment and optimization scenario of solid wood composite doors: A case study in the east of China,” Science of the Total Environment 868, article 161494. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161494

Dias, A. C., and Arroja, L. (2012). “Environmental impacts of eucalypt and maritime pine wood production in Portugal,” J. Clean. Prod. 37, 368-376. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.056

Dias, A. M. A., Dias, A. M. P. G., Silvestre, J. D., and de Brito, J. (2020). “Comparison of the environmental and structural performance of solid and glued laminated timber products based on EPDs,” Structures 26 (October 2019), 128-138. DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.04.015

Dias, A. M. A., Dias, A. M. P. G., Silvestre, J. D., and de Brito, J. (2021a). “Comparison of environmental impacts of structurally equivalent wood-based floors,” European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 79(6), 1607-1622. DOI: 10.1007/s00107-021-01742-x

Dias, A. M. A., Santos, P. G. G., Dias, A. M. P. G., Silvestre, J. D., and de Brito, J. (2021b). “Life cycle assessment of a preservative treated wooden deck,” Wood Mater Sci Eng. 17(6), 502-512. DOI: 10.1080/17480272.2021.1897673

Dias, A. M. A. (2022). Life Cycle Assessment of Timber Structures: A Cradle-to-Grave Perspective, Thesis, Universidade Coimbra, pp. 1-315.

Dias, A. M., Machado, J. S., Dias, A. M. P. G., Silvestre, J. D., and de Brito, J.. (2022). “Influence of the wood species, forest management practice and allocation method on the environmental impacts of roundwood and biomass,” Forests 13(9), article 1357. DOI: 10.3390/f13091357

Dossche, C., Boel, V., and De Corte, W. (2018). “Comparative material-based life cycle analysis of structural beam-floor systems,” J. Clean. Prod. 194, 327-341. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.062

Ecoinvent 3.6. (2019). “Oriented strand board production RER – Process,” Dataset documentation generated by: Frank Werner. Zurich, Switzerland.

EN 15804:2012+A2 (2019). “Sustainability of construction works – Environmental product declarations – Core rules for the product category of construction products,” European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO (2022). Yearbook of Forest Products 2020.

Farjana, S. H., Tokede, O., Tao, Z., and Ashraf, M. (2023). “Life cycle assessment of end-of-life engineered wood,” Science of the Total Environment 887, article 164018. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164018

Ferro, F. S., Silva, D. A. L., Rocco Lahr, F. A., Argenton, M., and González-García, S. (2018). “Environmental aspects of oriented strand boards production. A Brazilian case study,” J. Clean. Prod. 183, 710-719. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.174

Garcia, R., and Freire, F. (2014). “Carbon footprint of particleboard: A comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG Protocol, PAS 2050 and Climate Declaration,” J. Clean. Prod. 66, 199-209. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.073

González-García, S., Gasol, C. M., Lozano, R. G., Moreira, M. T., Gabarrell, X., Rieradevall i Pons, J., and Feijoo, G. (2011). “Assessing the global warming potential of wooden products from the furniture sector to improve their ecodesign,” Science of the Total Environment 410-411, 16-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.09.059

Hill, C. A. S., and Dibdiakova, J. (2016). “The environmental impact of wood compared to other building materials,” International Wood Products Journal 7(4), 215-219. DOI: 10.1080/20426445.2016.1190166

ISO 14040 (2006). “Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

ISO 14044 (2006). “Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Jasiołek, A., Noszczyk, P., and Łątka, J. F. (2023). “Paper-based building envelopes – Thermal and environmental properties of original envelope designs,” Energy Build. 289, article 113062. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113062

Jensen, A. A., Elkington, J., Christiansen, K., Hoffmann, L., Møller, B. T., Schmidt, A., and van Dijk, F. (1997). “Life cycle assessment (LCA) – A guide to approaches, experiences and information sources,” in: European Environment Agency, Issue 6, p. 116.

van de Kuilen, J. W. G., and Dias, A. M. P. G. (2011). “Long-term load-deformation behaviour of timber-concrete joints,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings 164(2), 143-154. DOI: 10.1680/stbu.10.00021

Kuka, E., Cirule, D., Andersone, I., Miklasevics, Z., and Andersons, B. (2019). “Life cycle inventory for currently produced pine roundwood,” J. Clean. Prod. 235, 613-625. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.004

Laurent, A.-B., Menard, J.-F., Lesage, P., and Beauregard, R. (2016). “Portfolio life cycle analysis,” BioResources 11(4), 8981-9001. DOI: 10.15376/biores.11.4.8981-9001

Lee, M., Kang, E.-C., and Lee, S.-M. (2023). “Decay and termite resistance performance of structural particleboard,” 5^th International Conference on Bio-Based Building Materials, Vienna.

Li, S., Yuan, Y., Wang, J., and Guo, M. (2019). “Do novel wooden composites provide an environmentally favorable alternative for panel-type furniture?” BioResources 14(2), 2740-2758. DOI: 10.15376/biores.14.2.2740-2758

Liang, W., Wang, C., Yang, C., and Yang, X. (2014). “Volatile organic compounds in different interior construction stages of an apartment,” Build. Environ. 81, 380-387. DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.07.015

Maoduš, N., Agarski, B., Kočetov Mišulić, T., Budak, I., and Radeka, M. (2016). “Life cycle and energy performance assessment of three wall types in south-eastern Europe region,” Energy Build, 133, 605-614. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.10.014

Monteiro, S. R. S., Dias, A. M. P. G., and Lopes, S. M. R. (2015). “Bi-dimensional numerical modeling of timber–concrete slab-type structures,” Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions 48(10), 3391-3406. DOI: 10.1617/s11527-014-0407-3

Norouzi, M., Haddad, A. N., Jiménez, L., Hoseinzadeh, S., and Boer, D. (2023). “Carbon footprint of low-energy buildings in the United Kingdom: Effects of mitigating technological pathways and decarbonization strategies,” Science of the Total Environment 882, article 163490. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163490

Pozzer, T., Gauss, C., Ament Barbirato, G. H., and Fiorelli, J. (2020). “Trapezoidal core sandwich panel produced with sugarcane bagasse,” Constr Build Mater. 264, article 120718. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120718

Rivela, B., Moreira, M. T., and Feijoo, G. (2007). “Life cycle inventory of medium density fibreboard,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12(3), 143-150. DOI: 10.1065/lca2006.12.290

Santos, P. G. G. dos, de J. Martins, C. E., Skinner, J., Harris, R., Dias, A. M. P. G., and Godinho, L. M. C. (2015). “Modal frequencies of a reinforced timber-concrete composite floor: Testing and modeling,” Journal of Structural Engineering 141(11). DOI: 10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001275

Scouse, A. A., Kelley, S. S., Venditti, R. A., and McConnel, T. E. (2020). “Evaluating sustainable product alternatives by combining life cycle assessment with full-cost accounting: A highway guardrail case study,” BioResources 15(4), 9103-9127. DOI: 10.15376/biores.15.4.9103-9127.

Silva, D. A. L., Lahr, F. A. R., Garcia, R. P., Freire, F. M. C. S., and Ometto, A. R. (2013). “Life cycle assessment of medium density particleboard (MDP) produced in Brazil,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18(7), 1404-1411. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-013-0583-3

Sugahara, E., Casagrande, B., Arroyo, F., De Araujo, V., Santos, H., Faustino, E., Christoforo, A., and Campos, C. (2022a). “Comparative study of plywood boards produced with castor oil-based polyurethane and phenol-formaldehyde using Pinus taeda L. veneers treated with chromated copper arsenate,” Forests 13(7), article 1144. DOI: 10.3390/f13071144

Sugahara, E., Dias, A., Arroyo, F., Christoforo, A., Costa, M. L., Botelho, E. C., Dias, A. M. P. G., and Campos, C. (2022b). “Study of the influence of heat treatment on OSB panels produced with Eucalyptus wood in different layer compositions,” Forests 13(12), article 2083. DOI: 10.3390/f13122083

Sugahara, E., Dias, A., Botelho, E., Campos, C., and Dias, A. (2023). “Life cycle assessment of OSB panels produced with alternative raw materials,” RILEM Bookseries, pp. 959-972. Springer Science and Business Media B.V.

Sugahara, E. S., Arroyo, F. N., de Campos, C. I., Botelho, E. C., Christoforo, A. L., Costa, M. L., and Lahr, F. A. R. (2022c). “Thermal treatment of OSB panels: A systematic and bibliometric overview,” European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 80(6), 1293-1307. DOI: 10.1007/s00107-022-01849-9

Sugahara, E. S., da Silva, S. A. M., Buzo, A. L. S. C., de Campos, C. I., Morales, E. A. M., Ferreira, B. S., dos A. Azambuja, M., Lahr, F. A. R., and Christoforo, A. L. (2019). “High-density particleboard made from agro-industrial waste and different adhesives,” BioResources 14(3), 5162-5170. DOI: 10.15376/biores.14.3.5162-5170

Wang, J., Deng, N., Cao, N., Li, J., and Sun, J. (2023). “Life cycle analysis of a novel treatment method for recycling wood processing residues into the core material of wooden doors,” J. Clean, Prod. 415. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137798

Werner, F., and Richter, K. (2007). “Wooden building products in comparative LCA: A literature review,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12(7), 470-479. DOI: 10.1065/lca2007.04.317

De Windt, I., Li, W., Van den Bulcke, J., and Van Acker, J. (2018). “Classification of uncoated plywood based on moisture dynamics,” Constr. Build Mater. 158, 814-822. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.194

Xiong, J., Zhang, P., Huang, S., and Zhang, Y. (2016). “Comprehensive influence of environmental factors on the emission rate of formaldehyde and VOCs in building materials: Correlation development and exposure assessment,” Environ Res. 151, 734-741. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.09.003

Article submitted: October 27, 2023; Peer review completed: November 18, 2023; Revised version received: November 21, 2023; Accepted: November 22, 2023; Published: December 7, 2023.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.19.1.732-750

APPENDIX

Global Inventory Data per Functional Unit