Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …
Wood Research and Technology

Holzforschung

Cellulose – Hemicelluloses – Lignin – Wood Extractives

Editor-in-Chief: Salmén, Lennart

Editorial Board: Daniel, Geoffrey / Militz, Holger / Rosenau, Thomas / Sixta, Herbert / Vuorinen, Tapani / Argyropoulos, Dimitris S. / Balakshin, Yu / Barnett, J. R. / Burgert, Ingo / Rio, Jose C. / Evans, Robert / Evtuguin, Dmitry V. / Frazier, Charles E. / Fukushima, Kazuhiko / Gindl-Altmutter, Wolfgang / Glasser, W. G. / Holmbom, Bjarne / Isogai, Akira / Kadla, John F. / Koch, Gerald / Lachenal, Dominique / Laine, Christiane / Mansfield, Shawn D. / Morrell, J.J. / Niemz, Peter / Potthast, Antje / Ragauskas, Arthur J. / Ralph, John / Rice, Robert W. / Salin, Jarl-Gunnar / Schmitt, Uwe / Schultz, Tor P. / Sipilä, Jussi / Takano, Toshiyuki / Tamminen, Tarja / Theliander, Hans / Welling, Johannes / Willför, Stefan / Yoshihara, Hiroshi


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 2.579

CiteScore 2018: 2.43

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.829
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.082

Online
ISSN
1437-434X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

Effect of service life aspects on carbon footprint: a comparison of wood decking products

Lars G. F. Tellnes / Gry Alfredsen
  • Division of Forest and Forest Resources, Department of Wood Technology, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Box 115, NO-1431 Ås, Norway
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Per Otto Flæte / Lone Ross Gobakken
  • Division of Forest and Forest Resources, Department of Wood Technology, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Box 115, NO-1431 Ås, Norway
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-09-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/hf-2019-0055

Abstract

Carbon footprint over the life cycle is one of the most common environmental performance indicators. In recent years, several wood material producers have published environmental product declarations (EPDs) according to the EN 15804, which makes it possible to compare the carbon footprint of product alternatives. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of service life aspects by comparing the carbon footprint of treated wood decking products with similar performance expectations. The results showed that the modified wood products had substantially larger carbon footprints during manufacturing than preservative-treated decking materials. Replacement of modified wood during service life creates a huge impact on life cycle carbon footprint, while maintenance with oil provided a large contribution for preservative-treated decking. Hence, service life and maintenance intervals are crucial for the performance ranking between products. The methodological issues to be aware of are: how the functional unit specifies the key performance requirements for the installed product, and whether full replacement is the best modeling option in cases where the decking installation is close to the end of the required service life.

Keywords: carbon footprint; environmental product declaration (EPD); preservative-treated wood; service life; wooden decking; wood modification; wood protection

References

  • Bolin, C.A., Smith, S. (2011) Life cycle assessment of ACQ-treated lumber with comparison to wood plastic composite decking. J. Clean. Prod. 19:620–629.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bowyer, J., Fernholz, K., Howe, J., Bratkovich, S. Wood-Plastic Composite Lumber vs. Wood Decking. A Comparison of Performance Characteristics and Environmental Attributes. Report from Dovetail Partners Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2010.Google Scholar

  • Brischke, C., Rapp, A.O. (2008) Dose-response relationship between wood moisture content, wood temperature and fungal decay determined for 23 European field test sites. Wood Sci. Technol. 42:507–518.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brischke, C., Rapp, A.O. (2010) Service Life Prediction of Wooden Components – Part 1: Determination of Dose Response Functions for Above Ground Decay. Document IRG/WP 10-20439. International Research Group on Wood Protection, Stockholm, 2010.Google Scholar

  • Brischke, C., Bayerbach, R., Rapp, A.O. (2006) Decay influencing factors: A basis for service life prediction of wood and wood-based products. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 1:91–107.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • CEN (2011) EN 15978 Sustainability of construction works – assessment of environmental performance of buildings – calculation method. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium. pp. 64.Google Scholar

  • CEN (2013a) EN 335:2013. Durability of wood and wood-based products – use classes: definitions, application to solid wood and wood-based products. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium. pp. 20.Google Scholar

  • CEN (2013b) EN 15804+A1:2013. Sustainability of construction works – environmental product declarations – core rules for the product category of construction products. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium. pp. 68.Google Scholar

  • CEN (2018) EN 15804+A1+prA2:2017 consolidated document. Sustainability of construction works – environmental product declarations – core rules for the product category of construction products. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium. pp. 75.Google Scholar

  • Feifel, S., Stübs, O., Seibert, K., Hartl, J. (2015) Comparing wood–polymer composites with solid wood: the case of sustainability of terrace flooring. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 73: 829–836.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gobakken, L.R., Alfredsen, G., Brischke, C., Flæte, P.O. (2014) Levetid for tre i utendørs konstruksjoner i Norge: KlimaTre-prosjektet. [Service life of wood in outdoor constructions in Norway: The KlimaTre project]. Report from Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute 16/14: IV, 32 p [in Norwegian].Google Scholar

  • Hill, C.A. (2011) Wood modification: an update. BioResources 6:918–919.Google Scholar

  • ISO (2011) ISO 15686-1 Buildings and constructed assets – service life planning – Part 1: general principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. pp. 21.Google Scholar

  • Sandberg, D., Kutnar, A., Mantis, G. (2017) Wood modification technologies – a review. iForest 10:895–908.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Scheffer, T.C. (1971) A climate index for estimating potential for decay in wood structures above ground. Forest Prod. J. 21:25–31.Google Scholar

  • Tellnes, L.G.F. (2017) Uncertainty in life cycle assessment of preservative treated wood – copper and freshwater ecotoxicity. Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting, IRG/WP 17-50331. pp. 9.Google Scholar

  • Tellnes, L.G.F., Gobakken, L.R., Flæte, P.O., Alfredsen, G. (2014) Carbon footprint including effect of carbon storage for selected wooden facade materials. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 9:139–143.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2019-02-27

Accepted: 2019-07-29

Published Online: 2019-09-07


Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of COST FP 1407 to enable international cooperation and for funding part of the travel to present this research at the ECWM conference.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.


Citation Information: Holzforschung, 20190055, ISSN (Online) 1437-434X, ISSN (Print) 0018-3830, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/hf-2019-0055.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in