ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Life Cycle Assessment of the Construction and Demolition Waste Recovery Process.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective recovery of materials from construction and demolition waste (CDW) remains a major problem and a real challenge in terms of implementing the circular economy. In many countries, this waste is landfilled due to the lack of modern technological lines for its recovery and recycling, including the sorting of materials suitable for reuse. Understanding the environmental impact of the CDW treatment process is important as it constitutes the final stage of building life cycle assessment and the basis for eco-design of construction processes. In addition, the recovered materials can be used as raw materials for construction, thereby closing the waste loop and aligning with the circular economy concept. The purpose of this study is to compare the environmental impact of three different CDW recovery technologies in order to identify the optimal option. The analysis was performed using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, SimaPro 8.1 software, and the Ecoinvent v3.8 database. 1 Mg of processed CDW was adopted as the functional unit. It was found that the process of recovering materials from CDW allows for sorting over 13% of materials for recycling and approx. 40% of raw materials for reuse (stone aggregates). The conducted analyses showed that all three installations exert a negative impact on the environment. Solution No. 2 had the lowest total environmental impact (15.96 Pt) under the assumptions and datasets used in this study, presenting average electricity and fuel consumption and average weight of sorted materials for recycling. Installation No. 3, which sorts the largest volume of materials for recycling, also used the most electricity; therefore, it could not be considered as the solution with the minimal overall environmental impact. The research revealed that the treatment of CDW in a crusher, applied at all installations, is the process stage resulting in the greatest environmental pressure (16.92 Pt). The high level of sorted recyclable waste enabled a relatively low carbon footprint for processes No. 2 and No. 3, 18.7 and 17.6 kg CO
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.