Life-Cycle Assessment of Lightweight Partitions in Residential Buildings

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of service conditions on lightweight partitions in residential buildingsusing life-cycle assessments (LCAs). Three alternative service conditions were included as follows: light/moderate, standard, and intensive. LCAs were conducted for pairwise comparisons among three types of lightweight partitions: gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks. The functional unit considered was 1 m² of a partition, and the building’s lifespan was 50 years. In light/moderate conditions, the replacement rate for all three partitions was zero times during the building’s lifespan. In standard conditions, the replacement rate for gypsum board and autoclaved aerated blocks was one time during the building’s lifespan, and for hollow concrete blocks, it was zero times. In intensive conditions, the replacement rate for gypsum board was four times during the building’s lifespan, that for autoclaved aerated blocks was two times, and that for hollow concrete blocks was zero times. The six ReCiPe2016 methodological options were used to estimate environmental damage using a two-stage nested analysis of variance. The results showed that, in light/moderate and standard conditions, gypsum board was the best alternative, while in intensive conditions, hollow concrete blocks were the best alternative. In conclusion, the choice of lightweight partitions should be made while taking the service conditions in residential buildings into account.

Full text

Citation: Pushkar, S. Life-Cycle
Assessment of Lightweight Partitions
in Residential Buildings. Buildings
2024,14, 1704. https://doi.org/
10.3390/buildings14061704
Academic Editor: Adrian Pitts
Received: 20 April 2024
Revised: 30 May 2024
Accepted: 5 June 2024
Published: 7 June 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the author.
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/).
buildings
Article
Life-Cycle Assessment of Lightweight Partitions in
Residential Buildings
Svetlana Pushkar
Department of Civil Engineering, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel; svetlanap@ariel.ac.il
Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of service conditions on lightweight
partitions in residential buildingsusing life-cycle assessments (LCAs). Three alternative service
conditions were included as follows: light/moderate, standard, and intensive. LCAs were conducted
for pairwise comparisons among three types of lightweight partitions: gypsum board, autoclaved
aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks. The functional unit considered was 1 m
2
of a partition,
and the building’s lifespan was 50 years. In light/moderate conditions, the replacement rate for all
three partitions was zero times during the building’s lifespan. In standard conditions, the replacement
rate for gypsum board and autoclaved aerated blocks was one time during the building’s lifespan, and
for hollow concrete blocks, it was zero times. In intensive conditions, the replacement rate for gypsum
board was four times during the building’s lifespan, that for autoclaved aerated blocks was two times,
and that for hollow concrete blocks was zero times. The six ReCiPe2016 methodological options were
used to estimate environmental damage using a two-stage nested analysis of variance. The results
showed that, in light/moderate and standard conditions, gypsum board was the best alternative,
while in intensive conditions, hollow concrete blocks were the best alternative. In conclusion, the
choice of lightweight partitions should be made while taking the service conditions in residential
buildings into account.
Keywords: gypsum board; autoclaved aerated blocks; hollow concrete blocks; life-cycle assessment;
lightweight partitions; service conditions; residential buildings
1. Introduction
1.1. The Life-Cycle of Buildings and the Concept of Stewart Brand
The building sector is among the main sectors contributing to global greenhouse
gas emissions, resource use, and waste generation [
1
]. The combination of a life-cycle
assessment (LCA) and a life-cycle cost assessment (LCCA) allows for the optimal choice
between the best environmental alternative and the best economic alternative in buildings
and building-related industries and sectors (including construction products, construction
systems, and civil engineering constructions) [
2
]. Goulouti et al. [
3
] noted that, despite the
widespread use of the concepts of an LCA and LCCA, uncertainty in the service life of
building elements significantly affects the outcomes of LCAs and LCCAs.
According to Stewart Brand [
4
], buildings can be divided into six layers (i.e., the Site,
Structure, Skin, Services, Space Plan, and Stuff), and each layer has a different lifespan.
Pushkar [
5
], based on Brand’s concepts, showed that an LCA is highly dependent on the
service life of each layer of a building. In addition, in a comprehensive review, Silva et al. [
6
]
noted that ignoring human behavior in a building can lead to erroneous predictions of the
service life of buildings and their components.
In this context, we hypothesize that the lifespan of non-load-bearing interior structures
in a building could significantly differ from the whole building’s lifespan.
Buildings 2024,14, 1704. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061704 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 2 of 18
1.2. Interior Partitions
Referring to Addis and Schouton [
7
], Mateus et al. [
8
] noted that the development of
frame construction contributes to the active use of non-load-bearing interior structures in
buildings. As a result, they adapted the study by Addis and Schouton [
7
] and showed that
the environmental impact from the use of materials in the non-structural building elements
of a typical house over a period of 60 years is distributed as follows: interior partitions,
41%; floor finishes, 18%; suspended ceilings, 14%; and windows/doors, 12%. Reducing
the environmental damage from interior partitions is an urgent task; therefore, this study
focused on a critical analysis of the literature on the LCA and LCCA of non-load-bearing
internal partitions in buildings over the last 17 years.
1.3. LCA without Replacing Interior Partitions during the Entire Life of the Building
Pushkar [
9
] conducted an LCA and LCCA to compare five building materials used in
the construction of the interior walls of an office building in Israel: cellular blocks, silicate
blocks, gypsum blocks, concrete blocks, and plasterboard. Samani et al. [
10
] used an LCA
and LCCA to compare five advanced sandwich-structured composites for prefabricated
housing in Portugal. Ferrández-García et al. [
11
] studied the LCA and LCCA of ten alterna-
tives or variants for five common lightweight partitions in Spain: gypsum plasterboard,
hollow clay bricks, hollow concrete blocks, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks, and gypsum
blocks. Atienza and Ongpeng [
12
] used an LCA and LCCA to compare four partitions,
namely, hollow concrete blocks, gypsum drywall, foamed concrete, and foamed geopoly-
mer walls, in the Philippines. Ortiz et al. [
13
] conducted an LCA and LCCA for two rooms
with two partitions for wet areas and three partitions for common areas of a building to
optimize the environmental and economic performance of a student residence in Spain.
Ip and Miller [
14
] used an LCA to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions of interior
hemp–lime wall construction in the UK. Rivas-Aybar et al. [
15
] conducted an LCA to
evaluate a new hemp-based building material in Australia. They showed that hemp-based
boards exhibited lower greenhouse gas emissions than those of gypsum board, which is
commonly used to make lightweight partitions in residential and office buildings. Boškovi´c
and Radivojevi´c [
16
] showed that hemp–lime concrete has environmental benefits because
it uses renewable raw materials and can capture CO
2
from the atmosphere in Serbia.
Condeixa et al. [
17
] used an LCA to assess the environmental impact of interior walls made
of ceramic bricks and sand–cement mortar in a traditional house in Brazil.
1.4. Assumption about the Possible Replacement of Interior Partitions during the Building Lifespan
Broun and Menzies [
18
] used an LCA to compare three partitions—bricks from clay,
hollow concrete blocks, and traditional timber frames—in the UK. The environmental
impacts of these types of partition wall systems were assessed based on a projected 50-year
lifespan under normal conditions of service.
Mateus et al. [
8
] conducted an LCA and LCCA to compare ten innovative lightweight
sandwich membrane partitions with two common partitions, namely, a heavyweight
conventional masonry partition wall and a lightweight reference plasterboard partition
wall, in Portugal. The authors suggested that the innovative partitions are suitable for
housing, high-rise office buildings, and retail stores that require frequent changes in space.
Condeixa et al. [
19
] explored the life-cycle of interior wall systems through a compari-
son of masonry and drywall in residential buildings in Brazil. In this context, Condeixa
noted that the lifespan of a drywall system is 20 years; therefore, a building is likely to
undergo an average of four major renovations over its lifespan.
Valencia-Barba et al. [
20
] used an LCA to analyze 44 interior partition walls in residen-
tial buildings in Spain. The authors suggested that the changing needs of buildings and
building occupants may affect the service life of interior partitions.

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 3 of 18
1.5. Replacement of Interior Partitions during the Building Lifespan
Buyle et al. [
21
] studied two assemblies of interior partitions—conventional and
demountable—using an LCA and LCCA. The conventional interior partitions included
four wall types: clay brick masonry, sand–lime brick masonry, a drywall–metal frame
structure, and a drywall–wood frame structure. The demountable interior partitions
included three wall types: wood box walls, cross-shaped metal frames, and combined
L-shaped metal frames. These seven interior partition types had a 60-year lifespan with a
refurbishment every 15 years and partial replacement every 30 years.
Schneider-Marin et al. [
22
] conducted an LCA of interior walls (i.e., gypsum boards) in
office buildings. The authors determined that the service life of gypsum boards in an office
is 20 years due to changes in users or other reasons, whereas the service life of a building is
50 years.
Recently, Urlainis et al. [
23
] analyzed the influence of occupancy conditions (i.e.,
light, moderate, standard, and intensive) on the service life predictions of three typical
lightweight partition types used in residential buildings in Israel (gypsum board partitions,
autoclaved concrete block partitions, and hollow concrete block partitions). They showed
that the service life predictions for gypsum board, autoclaved concrete block, and hollow
concrete block partitions in light/moderate conditions were 47, 72, and 118 years; those
in standard conditions were 27, 32, and 86 years; those in intensive conditions were 11,
18, and 38 years, respectively. The authors also conducted LCCAs of gypsum, autoclaved,
and hollow lightweight partitions for a building lifespan of 50 years and showed that in
light/moderate conditions, the best alternative was gypsum board partitions, and the worst
alternative was hollow concrete block partitions, while in intensive conditions, the best
alternative was hollow concrete block partitions, and the worst alternative was gypsum
board partitions. However, a limitation of this study was the lack of an LCA.
1.6. Importance of Conducting This Study
A critical review of the literature showed an important trend, namely, the lifespan
of interior partitions in buildings can be significantly less than the lifespan of a building.
Ignoring the replacement phase in LCAs and LCCAs of building partitions can lead to
erroneous environmental and economic conclusions. It should also be noted that running
an LCA and LCCA in parallel allows builders to arrive at a balanced solution.
1.7. Research Gap
When studying the influence of occupancy conditions on the lifespan of lightweight
partitions, Urlainis et al. [
23
] performed only an LCCA. Therefore, an LCA is necessary
to make a balanced decision. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of
occupancy conditions on the lifespan of lightweight partitions in residential buildings in
Israel using an LCA.
2. Materials and Methods
Figure 1presents a methodological scheme for the environmental assessment of the
studied options for lightweight partitions.

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 4 of 18
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18
Figure 1. Scheme of the methodology. The abbreviations I/A, H/A, E/A, I/A, H/A, and E/A refer to
the methodological options of ReCiPe and are described in Section 2.1.3.
2.1. LCA Method
2.1.1. Functional Unit, System Boundaries, and Data Sources
An LCA includes a definition of the functional unit (FU), building lifespan, and sys-
tem boundaries, a complete life-cycle inventory (LCI), and a life-cycle impact assessment
(LCIA) [24]. The FU is the unit of collection for all input and output data.
The FU was an area of 1 m
2
for each partition alternative. The building’s lifespan was
50 years. The system boundaries included all materials/processes examined in the analy-
sis. A complete LCA of lightweight partitions includes the following stages: (i) design, (ii)
production and installation, (iii) usage, and (iv) end of life [25]. The following is a descrip-
tion of these stages:
(i) Design stage: Figure 2 shows the studied alternatives for lightweight partitions: gyp-
sum board, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks, and hollow concrete blocks. The al-
ternatives were designed to meet local standards [26–29].
(ii) Production and installation stage: This stage involves acquiring the appropriate raw
materials and transporting them to a manufacturing plant, followed by manufactur-
ing the alternatives, transporting them to a construction site, and installing them in a
building. The Ecoinvent v3.2 database installed on the SimaPro v9.1 software plat-
form was used to model this stage [30]. Table 1 shows the Ecoinvent v3.2 products
and processes used.
Tab l e 1. Data sources used to model the production stage of gypsum board, autoclaved aerated
concrete blocks, and hollow concrete blocks.
Material/Process Ecoinvent v3.2 Data
Gypsum board Gypsum board, at plant/CH
Glass wool Glass wool mat/CH
Steel sheet Galvanized steel sheet, at plant/RNA
Autoclaved aerated block Autoclaved aerated block, at plant/CH
Cement mortar Cement mortar, at plant/CH
Hollow concrete block Lightweight concrete block, at plant/CH
ReCiPe + p-value interpretation: assessing the best alternative
Database review
Estimating of replacement rates and and input of materials and processes
ReCiPe(H/A): evaluating of environmental impacts
ReCiPe (I/A, H/A, and E/A; I/A, H/A, and E/A): analysis of environmental damage
Gypsum board Autoclaved aerated blocks Hollow concrete blocks
Literature review
Figure 1. Scheme of the methodology. The abbreviations I/A, H/A, E/A, I/A, H/A, and E/A refer
to the methodological options of ReCiPe and are described in Section 2.1.3.
2.1. LCA Method
2.1.1. Functional Unit, System Boundaries, and Data Sources
An LCA includes a definition of the functional unit (FU), building lifespan, and system
boundaries, a complete life-cycle inventory (LCI), and a life-cycle impact assessment
(LCIA) [24]. The FU is the unit of collection for all input and output data.
The FU was an area of 1 m
2
for each partition alternative. The building’s lifespan
was 50 years. The system boundaries included all materials/processes examined in the
analysis. A complete LCA of lightweight partitions includes the following stages: (i) design,
(ii) production and installation, (iii) usage, and (iv) end of life [
25
]. The following is a
description of these stages:
(i)
Design stage: Figure 2shows the studied alternatives for lightweight partitions:
gypsum board, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks, and hollow concrete blocks. The
alternatives were designed to meet local standards [26–29].
(ii)
Production and installation stage: This stage involves acquiring the appropriate raw
materials and transporting them to a manufacturing plant, followed by manufacturing
the alternatives, transporting them to a construction site, and installing them in a
building. The Ecoinvent v3.2 database installed on the SimaPro v9.1 software platform
was used to model this stage [
30
]. Table 1shows the Ecoinvent v3.2 products and
processes used.
According to the Ecoinvent v3.2 data, gypsum board involves the production of the
board (including drying) from natural gypsum. Glass wool involves the transportation
of raw materials, melting, fiber formation and collection, hardening, and curing. Steel
sheets involve the extraction of limestone, lime production, the exploration, mining, and
processing of iron ore and coal, transportation, primary processes, casting, hot strip milling,
a cold-milling complex, and a galvanizing line. Autoclaved aerated blocks involve raw
materials, their transport to the finishing plant, the energy for the autoclaving process,
and the packaging. Cement mortar involves raw material provision and mixing, cement
production, and packing. Hollow concrete blocks involve the raw materials, their transport
to the finishing plant, air-drying, and packing [30].

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 5 of 18
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18
Transportation Lorry transport; Euro 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 mix; 22 t total weight
Installation energy (coal) Hard coal/ES
Installation energy (natural gas) Natural gas/ES
Installation energy (PV) PV/CH
Figure 2. Sections of the studied partition alternatives.
According to the Ecoinvent v3.2 data, gypsum board involves the production of the
board (including drying) from natural gypsum. Glass wool involves the transportation of
raw materials, melting, fiber formation and collection, hardening, and curing. Steel sheets
involve the extraction of limestone, lime production, the exploration, mining, and pro-
cessing of iron ore and coal, transportation, primary processes, casting, hot strip milling,
a cold-milling complex, and a galvanizing line. Autoclaved aerated blocks involve raw
materials, their transport to the finishing plant, the energy for the autoclaving process,
and the packaging. Cement mortar involves raw material provision and mixing, cement
production, and packing. Hollow concrete blocks involve the raw materials, their
transport to the finishing plant, air-drying, and packing [30].
The transportation of the alternatives to a building site was modeled considering the
appropriate distances for the local Israeli context: a distance of 50 km for glass wool, au-
toclaved aerated blocks, hollow concrete blocks, and cement mortar, and a distance of 100
km for gypsum board and steel sheets.
The installation was modeled according to the approach used in a study by Fer-
rández-García et al. [11], in which they conducted LCAs of 10 partition alternatives that
are commonly used in Spain. Among the 10 alternatives analyzed, the authors analyzed
gypsum board, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks, and hollow concrete blocks. There-
fore, we adapted the installation data of these partition alternatives from the study pre-
sented by Ferrández-García et al. [11]. The energy consumption of a 24.1 kW crane moving
the materials/components of the partition alternatives from the ground to the appropriate
floor was calculated, assuming that the actual installation/placement would be performed
manually. Table 2 shows the energy consumption data for Israel for the three lightweight
partition types, assuming that the electricity was generated from the following combina-
tion of energy sources: 69% natural gas, 29% coal, and 8% solar energy [31].
Figure 2. Sections of the studied partition alternatives.
Table 1. Data sources used to model the production stage of gypsum board, autoclaved aerated
concrete blocks, and hollow concrete blocks.
Material/Process Ecoinvent v3.2 Data
Gypsum board Gypsum board, at plant/CH
Glass wool Glass wool mat/CH
Steel sheet Galvanized steel sheet, at plant/RNA
Autoclaved aerated block Autoclaved aerated block, at plant/CH
Cement mortar Cement mortar, at plant/CH
Hollow concrete block Lightweight concrete block, at plant/CH
Transportation Lorry transport; Euro 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 mix; 22 t total weight
Installation energy (coal) Hard coal/ES
Installation energy (natural gas) Natural gas/ES
Installation energy (PV) PV/CH
The transportation of the alternatives to a building site was modeled considering
the appropriate distances for the local Israeli context: a distance of 50 km for glass wool,
autoclaved aerated blocks, hollow concrete blocks, and cement mortar, and a distance of
100 km for gypsum board and steel sheets.
The installation was modeled according to the approach used in a study by Ferrández-
García et al. [
11
], in which they conducted LCAs of 10 partition alternatives that are
commonly used in Spain. Among the 10 alternatives analyzed, the authors analyzed
gypsum board, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks, and hollow concrete blocks. Therefore,
we adapted the installation data of these partition alternatives from the study presented
by Ferrández-García et al. [
11
]. The energy consumption of a 24.1 kW crane moving the
materials/components of the partition alternatives from the ground to the appropriate
floor was calculated, assuming that the actual installation/placement would be performed
manually. Table 2shows the energy consumption data for Israel for the three lightweight
partition types, assuming that the electricity was generated from the following combination
of energy sources: 69% natural gas, 29% coal, and 8% solar energy [31].
(iii)
Usage stage: This includes the replacement of an alternative based on its expected
service life. Based on [
32
], Urlainis et al. [
23
] predicted the service life of the gypsum
board, autoclaved aerated concrete blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under four
service conditions: light, moderate, standard, and intensive. The authors defined
these conditions across a range of negative occupancy-related factors that can lead to
damage to the partitions and, therefore, require their replacement.

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 6 of 18
Six occupancy-related negative factors (
µ
) were non-ownership, poor maintenance,
high residential density, the presence of young children, the presence of domestic animals,
and the density of furniture. The service conditions were “light” (
µ
= 0), “moderate”
(
2 > µ≥1
), “standard” (4 >
µ≥
2), and “intensive” (
µ≥
4). Following this gradation,
Urlainis et al. [
23
] calculated the service life for gypsum board, autoclaved aerated concrete
blocks, and hollow concrete blocks.
Table 2. Data used to model the installation stage of gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and
hollow concrete blocks.
Material/Component
Energy Consumption (kWh/m2)1
Gypsum Board Autoclaved Aerated
Block
Hollow Concrete
Block
Gypsum board 0.0234 - -
Glass wool 0.0338 - -
Steel sheet 0.0037 - -
Autoclaved aerated block
- 0.0160 -
Cement mortar - 0.0103 0.0103
Hollow concrete block - - 0.1490
1
Energy consumption on building site per 1 m
2
of alternative partition (kWh/m
2
) (based on Ferrández-García
et al. [11]).
In this study, we used the service life of each of the three partition options and
estimated their replacement rate over the 50-year life of a building. Table 3provides the
expected service life and resulting replacement rates for partitions over a 50-year building
lifespan under light or moderate, standard, and intensive service conditions.
Table 3. Expected service life and corresponding replacement rates for three different service conditions.
Alternative
Service Conditions
Light or Moderate Standard Intensive
Service Life
(Years) 1
Replacement
Rate
Service Life
(Years) 1
Replacement
Rate
Service Life
(Years) 1
Replacement
Rate
Gypsum board 47 0 27 1 11 4
Autoclaved aerated block >50 0 32 1 18 2
Hollow concrete block >50 0 >50 0 38 0
1Expected service life of partitions (based on Urlainis et al. [23]).
To account for the replacement of a failed partition, the production and installation
step for a new partition was repeated using the data in Tables 1and 2, respectively; the step
was repeated one or several times according to the corresponding replacement rate from
Table 3.
(iv)
End-of-life stage: This stage involves the demolition and transportation of materi-
als/components to a disposal site. The contribution of this stage to the overall LCA
of the considered alternatives was reported as being negligible by Ferrández-García
et al. [
11
]. Therefore, the end-of-life stage was excluded from the system boundaries
considered here.
2.1.2. Life-Cycle Inventory: Inputs of Materials and Processes
Table 4shows the inputs of materials, components, and processes for a complete LCI
for gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks.

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 7 of 18
Table 4. Inputs of materials and processes for the LCIs for (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved aerated
blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Material/Process
Service Conditions
Light or Moderate Standard Intensive
123123123
Gypsum board (kg) 24 - - 48 - - 120 - -
Glass wool (kg) 1.5 - - 3 - - 7.5 - -
Steel sheet (kg) 2.4 - - 4.8 - - 12 - -
Autoclaved aerated block (kg) - 50 - - 100 - - 150 -
Cement mortar (kg) - 32 32 - 64 32 - 96 32
Hollow concrete block (kg) - - 165 - - 165 - - 165
Transportation (t/km) 2.7 4.1 9.9 5.4 8.2 9.9 13.6 12.3 9.9
Installation energy (coal) (kWh) 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.05
Installation energy (natural gas) (kWh) 0.04 0.07 0.16 0.08 0.13 0.16 0.21 0.24 0.16
Installation energy (PV) (kWh) 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02
Note: 1, gypsum board; 2, autoclaved aerated blocks; and 3, hollow concrete blocks.
2.1.3. Life-Cycle Impact Assessment
The LCIA ReCiPe2016 method was used to evaluate the use of materials and processes
when comparing the alternatives [
33
]. ReCiPe2016 includes a midpoint and six methodolog-
ical options. The ReCiPe2016 midpoint includes quantitative assessments of environmental
impacts, but the results of their interpretation are uncertain; the six methodological options
of ReCiPe2016 involve expert assessments of the midpoint results, which greatly facilitate
their interpretation [34].
The ReCiPe2016 midpoint method includes 19 environmental impacts, such as global
warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, ionizing radiation, ozone formation (human
health), ozone formation (terrestrial ecosystem), fine particulate matter formation, terrestrial
acidification, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and
freshwater ecotoxicity. In this study, we focused on four of them: global warming potential,
ozone formation, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and fine particulate matter formation. These were
chosen because gypsum board, autoclaved aerated concrete, and hollow blocks had the
greatest association with these impacts [
30
]. This was confirmed in the study presented by
Silva et al. [
35
] who assessed the environmental impacts of a range of building materials,
such as concrete, mortar, gravel, steel, and ceramics. The authors concluded that global
warming, fine particulate matter formation, ozone formation, and terrestrial ecotoxicity
are the major impacts associated with direct emissions and the combustion of fossil fuels
during the production of these products.
The six ReCiPe2016 methodological options include three time horizons of pollution
prospects: individualist (I: short, 20 years), hierarchist (H: long, 100 years), and egali-
tarian (E: infinite, 1000 years) [
36
]. These three time perspectives, I, H, and E, nest into
two weighting sets: average (I/A, H/A, and E/A) and particular (I/I, H/H, and E/E). The
two weighting sets then nest into the ReCiPe results for the alternatives. Recently, Tang
et al. [37] used the same ReCiPe methodology to estimate meat patty analogs.
2.2. Statistics
Figure 3shows the design framework of the six methodological options of ReCiPe2016.
This design framework permits the use of a two-stage nested analysis of variance to
compare the two primary sampling units, where each primary sampling unit contains
two subunits and each subunit contains three individual subunits [
38
]. Recently, this
statistical approach was applied to compare two building LCAs [39].

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 8 of 18
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18
two subunits and each subunit contains three individual subunits [38]. Recently, this sta-
tistical approach was applied to compare two building LCAs [39].
Figure 3. Design of the statistical analysis.
2.3. p-Value Analysis
The p-values were evaluated according to three-valued logic: “it seems to be positive”
(i.e., there seems to be a difference between two alternatives), “it seems to be negative”
(i.e., there does not seem to be a difference between two alternatives), and “judgment is
suspended” regarding the difference between two alternatives [40,41].
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Environmental Impacts
3.1.1. Light or Moderate Service Conditions
Figure 4 shows the four examined environmental impacts of gypsum board, auto-
claved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under light or moderate service condi-
tions.
Hollow concrete blocks are the worst alternative and have the greatest environmental
impacts. Gypsum board and autoclaved aerated blocks resulted in much lower environ-
mental impacts.
Hollow concrete blocks are the most environmentally harmful due to their high ce-
ment content. Cement production is known to include a high-temperature firing process
(1500 °C) with very high emissions of CO2, NOx, DCB, and PM2.5, which lead to high
global warming potential, ozone formation, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and fine particulate
maer formation, respectively [42]. This is especially true in the case of Israel, where elec-
tricity generation involves a large share of fossil fuels (69% natural gas and 23% coal) and
a small share of PV (8%) [31]. In other countries, such as Italy, where electricity production
comes from a smaller share of fossil fuels (50% natural gas and 5% coal) and a larger share
of renewable energy (9% photovoltaic, 16% hydro, 7% wind, and 8% bioenergy and
waste), the impact of cement production is smaller [43]. Moreover, the cement calcination
process is a source of additional CO2 emissions [42].
Gypsum board is produced using much less energy due to its low-temperature firing
process. In Israel, the gypsum production process occurs at a temperature of approxi-
mately 200 °C [44]. Autoclaved aerated blocks contain 90–95% sand and 5–10% limestone
powder [44]. Sand mining is a process with a low environmental impact, contributing 1–
2% of the total concrete-related CO2 emissions [45]. Thus, these two partition alternatives
have a much smaller environmental impact than that of hollow concrete blocks.
I/A H/A E/A I/I H/H E/E E/A H/A I/A I/I H /H E/E
Average
weighting set
Particular
weighting set
Average
weighting set
Particular
weighting set
ReCiPe2016 result of alternative 1 ReCiPe2016 result of alternative 2
Primary
sam pling uni ts,
ReCiPe2016
effect
of three
perspectives
Subunits,
two types of
weighting
procedures
Individual
subunits, six
methodological
options
Figure 3. Design of the statistical analysis.
2.3. p-Value Analysis
The p-values were evaluated according to three-valued logic: “it seems to be positive”
(i.e., there seems to be a difference between two alternatives), “it seems to be negative”
(i.e., there does not seem to be a difference between two alternatives), and “judgment is
suspended” regarding the difference between two alternatives [40,41].
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Environmental Impacts
3.1.1. Light or Moderate Service Conditions
Figure 4shows the four examined environmental impacts of gypsum board, autoclaved
aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under light or moderate service conditions.
Hollow concrete blocks are the worst alternative and have the greatest environmental
impacts. Gypsum board and autoclaved aerated blocks resulted in much lower environ-
mental impacts.
Hollow concrete blocks are the most environmentally harmful due to their high cement
content. Cement production is known to include a high-temperature firing process (1500
◦
C)
with very high emissions of CO
2
, NOx, DCB, and PM2.5, which lead to high global warming
potential, ozone formation, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and fine particulate matter formation,
respectively [
42
]. This is especially true in the case of Israel, where electricity generation
involves a large share of fossil fuels (69% natural gas and 23% coal) and a small share of
PV (8%) [
31
]. In other countries, such as Italy, where electricity production comes from a
smaller share of fossil fuels (50% natural gas and 5% coal) and a larger share of renewable
energy (9% photovoltaic, 16% hydro, 7% wind, and 8% bioenergy and waste), the impact of
cement production is smaller [
43
]. Moreover, the cement calcination process is a source of
additional CO2emissions [42].
Gypsum board is produced using much less energy due to its low-temperature firing
process. In Israel, the gypsum production process occurs at a temperature of approximately
200
◦
C [
44
]. Autoclaved aerated blocks contain 90–95% sand and 5–10% limestone pow-
der [
44
]. Sand mining is a process with a low environmental impact, contributing 1–2% of
the total concrete-related CO
2
emissions [
45
]. Thus, these two partition alternatives have a
much smaller environmental impact than that of hollow concrete blocks.
In light or moderate service conditions, all three alternatives last 50 years without
needing to be replaced (Table 3). Therefore, this is the expected result. Non-obvious results
were expected for standard and intensive service conditions. This is because drywall
and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks require repeated replacement over the life of the
building, whereas hollow concrete blocks do not require replacement (Table 3).
However, even in the case of light to moderate service conditions, based on the ReCiPe
midpoint results, it appears to be impossible to determine the best of two alternatives:
gypsum board and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks. This is because gypsum board is a

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 9 of 18
better alternative in terms of global warming potential and the impact on ozone generation,
while autoclaved aerated concrete blocks are a better alternative in terms of terrestrial
ecotoxicity and fine particulate matter production. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the
environmental damage from lightweight partitions using the six methodological options of
the ReCiPe method. This assessment is presented in Section 3.2.
It should be noted that in light and moderate service conditions, according to the
economic assessment by Urlainis et al. [
23
], the most expensive option for partitions turned
out to be hollow concrete blocks (38.4 dollars/m
2
), while gypsum board and autoclaved
aerated blocks had a lower price of 23.4 and 32.6 dollars/m2, respectively.
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18
Figure 4. Light or moderate service conditions: environmental impacts of (1) gypsum board, (2)
autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
In light or moderate service conditions, all three alternatives last 50 years without
needing to be replaced (Table 3). Therefore, this is the expected result. Non-obvious results
were expected for standard and intensive service conditions. This is because drywall and
autoclaved aerated concrete blocks require repeated replacement over the life of the build-
ing, whereas hollow concrete blocks do not require replacement (Table 3).
However, even in the case of light to moderate service conditions, based on the ReC-
iPe midpoint results, it appears to be impossible to determine the best of two alternatives:
gypsum board and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks. This is because gypsum board is
a beer alternative in terms of global warming potential and the impact on ozone genera-
tion, while autoclaved aerated concrete blocks are a beer alternative in terms of terrestrial
ecotoxicity and fine particulate maer production. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the
environmental damage from lightweight partitions using the six methodological options
of the ReCiPe method. This assessment is presented in Section 3.2.
It should be noted that in light and moderate service conditions, according to the
economic assessment by Urlainis et al. [23], the most expensive option for partitions
turned out to be hollow concrete blocks (38.4 dollars/m2), while gypsum board and auto-
claved aerated blocks had a lower price of 23.4 and 32.6 dollars/m2, respectively.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Global warming potential
kg CO
2
-eq
Inst all ation
Trans port
Cement mortar
Hollow concrete block
Autoclaved aerated bl ock
Steel sheet
Glass wool
Gypsum board
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Ozone formation
kg NO
×
eq
1 2 3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
kg 1,4-DCB
1 2 3
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Fine particulate matter formation
kg PM2.5 eq
Figure 4. Light or moderate service conditions: environmental impacts of (1) gypsum board, (2) auto-
claved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
3.1.2. Standard Service Conditions
Figure 5shows the four examined environmental impacts of gypsum board, auto-
claved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under standard service conditions.
Under standard service conditions, the predicted service life of gypsum board is
27 years, that of autoclaved aerated blocks is 32 years, and that of hollow concrete blocks is
86 years [
23
]. As a result, over the 50-year planned life of the building, the gypsum board
and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks would need to be replaced once, but the hollow
blocks would not (Table 3). Since there is no need for their replacement under standard
service conditions, all four impacts associated with hollow concrete blocks remained the
same (Figure 5) as those under light and moderate service conditions (Figure 4).

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 10 of 18
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18
3.1.2. Standard Service Conditions
Figure 5 shows the four examined environmental impacts of gypsum board, auto-
claved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under standard service conditions.
Figure 5. Standard service conditions: environmental impacts of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved
aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Under standard service conditions, the predicted service life of gypsum board is 27
years, that of autoclaved aerated blocks is 32 years, and that of hollow concrete blocks is
86 years [23]. As a result, over the 50-year planned life of the building, the gypsum board
and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks would need to be replaced once, but the hollow
blocks would not (Table 3). Since there is no need for their replacement under standard
service conditions, all four impacts associated with hollow concrete blocks remained the
same (Figure 5) as those under light and moderate service conditions (Figure 4).
However, under standard service conditions, all four environmental impacts associ-
ated with gypsum board and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks (Figure 5) were approx-
imately doubled compared with their estimates under light or moderate service condi-
tions (Figure 4).
3.1.3. Intensive Service Conditions
Figure 6 shows the four examined environmental impacts of gypsum board, auto-
claved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under intensive service conditions.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Global warming potential
kg CO2-eq
Instal lation
Trans port
Cement mortar
Hollow concret e block
Autoclaved aerated block
Steel sheet
Glass wool
Gypsum board
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Ozone f ormation
kg NO× eq
1 2 3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
kg 1,4-DCB
1 2 3
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Fine particulate matter formation
kg PM2.5 eq
Figure 5. Standard service conditions: environmental impacts of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved
aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
However, under standard service conditions, all four environmental impacts associ-
ated with gypsum board and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks (Figure 5) were approxi-
mately doubled compared with their estimates under light or moderate service conditions
(Figure 4).
3.1.3. Intensive Service Conditions
Figure 6shows the four examined environmental impacts of gypsum board, auto-
claved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under intensive service conditions.
Under intensive service conditions, the predicted service life of gypsum board is
11 years, that of autoclaved aerated blocks is 18 years, and that of hollow concrete blocks
is 38 years [
23
]. Thus, according to Urlainis et al. [
23
], over the 50-year planned life of the
building, the gypsum board would be replaced four times, autoclaved aerated concrete
blocks would be replaced two times, and hollow concrete blocks would not be replaced at
all. Thus, under intensive service conditions, all four environmental impacts associated
with hollow concrete blocks were the same (Figure 6) as those under light and moderate
service conditions (Figure 4) and standard service conditions (Figure 5).
However, the impacts associated with gypsum board increased significantly, especially
with regard to global warming potential and ozone formation. For these impacts, gypsum
board is the worst alternative. This is mainly due to an increase in the share of sheet steel,
as steel production is an energy-intensive process [46]. Early publications in the literature
reported its influence on global warming potential, ozone formation, abiotic depletion, and
human toxicity [47].

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 11 of 18
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18
Figure 6. Intensive service conditions: environmental impacts of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved
aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Under intensive service conditions, the predicted service life of gypsum board is 11
years, that of autoclaved aerated blocks is 18 years, and that of hollow concrete blocks is
38 years [23]. Thus, according to Urlainis et al. [23], over the 50-year planned life of the
building, the gypsum board would be replaced four times, autoclaved aerated concrete
blocks would be replaced two times, and hollow concrete blocks would not be replaced
at all. Thus, under intensive service conditions, all four environmental impacts associated
with hollow concrete blocks were the same (Figure 6) as those under light and moderate
service conditions (Figure 4) and standard service conditions (Figure 5).
However, the impacts associated with gypsum board increased significantly, espe-
cially with regard to global warming potential and ozone formation. For these impacts,
gypsum board is the worst alternative. This is mainly due to an increase in the share of
sheet steel, as steel production is an energy-intensive process [46]. Early publications in
the literature reported its influence on global warming potential, ozone formation, abiotic
depletion, and human toxicity [47].
Thus, the three lightweight partitions varied in their rankings from the lowest impact
(first) to a moderate impact (second) to the highest impact (third) for the different impact
types (Table 5).
0
20
40
60
80
100
Global warming potential
kg CO
2
-eq
Installation
Trans port
Cement mortar
Hollow concret e block
Autocl aved aerated bl ock
Steel sh eet
Glass wool
Gypsum board
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Ozone formation
kg NO
×
eq
1 2 3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
kg 1,4-DCB
1 2 3
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Fine particulate matter formation
kg PM2.5 eq
Figure 6. Intensive service conditions: environmental impacts of (1) gypsum board, (2) autoclaved
aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Thus, the three lightweight partitions varied in their rankings from the lowest impact
(first) to a moderate impact (second) to the highest impact (third) for the different impact
types (Table 5).
Table 5. Ranking of the three lightweight partitions for global warming potential (GWP), ozone
formation (OF), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), and fine particulate matter production (FPMP).
Alternative GWP OF TE FPMF
Gypsum board 3rd 3rd 2nd 2nd
Autoclaved aerated blocks 2nd 1st 1st 1st
Hollow concrete blocks 1st 2nd 3rd 3rd
This confirms the previously stated assumption that it is necessary to assess the
environmental damage from lightweight partitions using the six methodological options
of ReCiPe.
3.2. Environmental Damage: Six Methodological Options
3.2.1. Light or Moderate Service Conditions
Figure 7shows the results of the six methodological options of ReCiPe for gypsum
board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under light or moderate
service conditions.

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 12 of 18
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18
Table 5. Ranking of the three lightweight partitions for global warming potential (GWP), ozone
formation (OF), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), and fine particulate maer production (FPMP).
Alternative GWP OF TE FPMF
Gypsum board 3rd 3rd 2nd 2nd
Autoclaved aerated blocks 2nd 1st 1st 1st
Hollow concrete blocks 1st 2nd 3rd 3rd
This confirms the previously stated assumption that it is necessary to assess the en-
vironmental damage from lightweight partitions using the six methodological options of
ReCiPe.
3.2. Environmental Damage: Six Methodological Options
3.2.1. Light or Moderate Service Conditions
Figure 7 shows the results of the six methodological options of ReCiPe for gypsum
board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under light or moderate
service conditions.
Figure 7. Light or moderate service conditions: environmental damage from the use of (1) gypsum
board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
For all six methodological options of ReCiPe, gypsum board is the most preferable
alternative, causing the least environmental damage. Hollow concrete blocks are the most
harmful alternative and cause the greatest damage to the environment. Autoclaved aer-
ated blocks are an intermediate alternative between the above extremes.
Table 6 shows that there was a significant difference between each pair of partition
alternatives compared.
Table 6. Light or moderate service conditions: p-values of pairwise comparisons of the studied par-
tition alternatives.
Alternative Gypsum Board Autoclaved Aerated Blocks Hollow Concrete Blocks
Gypsum board X 0.0025 0.0005
Autoclaved aerated blocks X 0.0011
Hollow concrete blocks X
When applying the impact assessment level, it was not possible to identify the beer
of the two options (gypsum board or autoclaved aerated blocks) (Figure 4). In contrast,
using the six methodological options of ReCiPe to assess the level of environmental
I/A H/A E/A I/I H/H E/E
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1
2
3
1
2
3
Average
weighting set
Particular
weighting set
Environmental damage (Pt)
Methodological options of the ReCiPe method
Light or moderate service conditions
Figure 7. Light or moderate service conditions: environmental damage from the use of (1) gypsum
board, (2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
For all six methodological options of ReCiPe, gypsum board is the most preferable
alternative, causing the least environmental damage. Hollow concrete blocks are the most
harmful alternative and cause the greatest damage to the environment. Autoclaved aerated
blocks are an intermediate alternative between the above extremes.
Table 6shows that there was a significant difference between each pair of partition
alternatives compared.
Table 6. Light or moderate service conditions: p-values of pairwise comparisons of the studied
partition alternatives.
Alternative Gypsum Board Autoclaved Aerated
Blocks
Hollow Concrete
Blocks
Gypsum board X 0.0025 0.0005
Autoclaved aerated blocks X 0.0011
Hollow concrete blocks X
When applying the impact assessment level, it was not possible to identify the better
of the two options (gypsum board or autoclaved aerated blocks) (Figure 4). In contrast,
using the six methodological options of ReCiPe to assess the level of environmental damage
caused by the use of the partition alternatives indicated that gypsum board was the most
environmentally friendly option in Israel (Figure 7and Table 6). This alternative has also
proven to be cost-effective for Israel [23].
The environmental and economic assessment of the gypsum board alternative was
previously reported by Ferrandez-García et al. [
11
] for Spain. Ferrandez-García et al. [
11
]
analyzed interior partitions only under light or moderate service conditions.
In contrast, in addition to light or moderate service conditions, the present study ex-
tended the environmental assessment of the partitions to two additional service conditions:
standard (Section 3.2.2) and intensive (Section 3.2.3).
3.2.2. Standard Service Conditions
Figure 8shows the results of the six methodological options of ReCiPe for gypsum
board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under standard service
conditions.

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 13 of 18
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18
damage caused by the use of the partition alternatives indicated that gypsum board was
the most environmentally friendly option in Israel (Figure 7 and Table 6). This alternative
has also proven to be cost-effective for Israel [23].
The environmental and economic assessment of the gypsum board alternative was
previously reported by Ferrandez-García et al. [11] for Spain. Ferrandez-García et al. [11]
analyzed interior partitions only under light or moderate service conditions.
In contrast, in addition to light or moderate service conditions, the present study ex-
tended the environmental assessment of the partitions to two additional service condi-
tions: standard (Section 3.2.2) and intensive (Section 3.2.3).
3.2.2. Standard Service Conditions
Figure 8 shows the results of the six methodological options of ReCiPe for gypsum
board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under standard service con-
ditions.
Figure 8. Standard service conditions: environmental damage from the use of (1) gypsum board, (2)
autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Gypsum board continued to be the best alternative with the least environmental im-
pact across all six methodological options. However, autoclaved aerated blocks and hol-
low concrete blocks changed their positions according to the methodological options. Hol-
low concrete blocks are beer than autoclaved aerated concrete blocks for I/A, H/A, I/I,
and H/H, while autoclaved aerated concrete blocks are beer than hollow concrete blocks
for E/A and E/E.
Thus, the consideration of different time horizons (short: I/I and I/A, long: H/H and
H/A, or infinite: E/E and E/A) of living emissions may change the preferability between
the considered options. Similar results were revealed for two alternatives to flat roof tech-
nologies: ribbed slabs with concrete blocks were environmentally beer than ribbed slabs
with autoclaved aerated blocks for I/A, H/A, I/I, and H/H, while ribbed slabs with auto-
claved aerated blocks were environmentally beer than ribbed slabs with concrete blocks
for E/A and E/E [48].
Moreover, similar variability in the selection of the most environmentally friendly
alternative with different methodological options of Eco-indicator 99 (the predecessor of
ReCiPe2016) has been identified in other industries [49,50]. For example, Cordella et al.
[49] compared two beer packaging options: boles and kegs. The authors found that kegs
are more environmentally friendly than boling for E/E and H/H, while boling is more
environmentally friendly than kegs for I/I. Cordella et al. [49] concluded that every meth-
odological option has a different time horizon, normalization factors, and weighting and,
as a result, can lead to different results.
I/A H/A E/A I/I H/H E/E
0
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
1
2
3
Average
weighting set
Particular
weighting set
Environmental damage (Pt)
Methodological options of the ReCiPe method
Standard service conditions
Figure 8. Standard service conditions: environmental damage from the use of (1) gypsum board,
(2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
Gypsum board continued to be the best alternative with the least environmental
impact across all six methodological options. However, autoclaved aerated blocks and
hollow concrete blocks changed their positions according to the methodological options.
Hollow concrete blocks are better than autoclaved aerated concrete blocks for I/A, H/A,
I/I, and H/H, while autoclaved aerated concrete blocks are better than hollow concrete
blocks for E/A and E/E.
Thus, the consideration of different time horizons (short: I/I and I/A, long: H/H
and H/A, or infinite: E/E and E/A) of living emissions may change the preferability
between the considered options. Similar results were revealed for two alternatives to flat
roof technologies: ribbed slabs with concrete blocks were environmentally better than
ribbed slabs with autoclaved aerated blocks for I/A, H/A, I/I, and H/H, while ribbed
slabs with autoclaved aerated blocks were environmentally better than ribbed slabs with
concrete blocks for E/A and E/E [48].
Moreover, similar variability in the selection of the most environmentally friendly
alternative with different methodological options of Eco-indicator 99 (the predecessor
of ReCiPe2016) has been identified in other industries [
49
,
50
]. For example, Cordella
et al. [
49
] compared two beer packaging options: bottles and kegs. The authors found that
kegs are more environmentally friendly than bottling for E/E and H/H, while bottling is
more environmentally friendly than kegs for I/I. Cordella et al. [
49
] concluded that every
methodological option has a different time horizon, normalization factors, and weighting
and, as a result, can lead to different results.
Table 7shows that gypsum boards differed significantly from autoclaved aerated
concrete blocks and hollow concrete blocks.
Table 7. Standard service conditions: p-values of pairwise comparisons of the studied partition
alternatives.
Alternative Gypsum Board Autoclaved Aerated
Blocks
Hollow Concrete
Blocks
Gypsum board X 0.0027 0.0065
Autoclaved aerated blocks X 0.0622
Hollow concrete blocks X
However, a judgment on whether there is a significant difference between autoclaved
aerated concrete blocks and hollow concrete blocks is suspended until more information
becomes available.

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 14 of 18
Urlainis et al. [
23
] revealed that gypsum board is the most economical choice in
standard service conditions in Israel. However, the authors noted that the mechanical
performance of gypsum board is significantly lower than that of concrete blocks and
aerated concrete blocks. Thus, it was concluded that gypsum board is not a good solution
under standard service conditions.
3.2.3. Intensive Service Conditions
Figure 9shows the results of the six methodological options of ReCiPe for gypsum
board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under intensive service
conditions.
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18
Table 7 shows that gypsum boards differed significantly from autoclaved aerated
concrete blocks and hollow concrete blocks.
Table 7. Standard service conditions: p-values of pairwise comparisons of the studied partition al-
ternatives.
Alternative Gypsum Board Autoclaved Aerated Blocks Hollow Concrete Blocks
Gypsum board X 0.0027 0.0065
Autoclaved aerated blocks X 0.0622
Hollow concrete blocks X
However, a judgment on whether there is a significant difference between autoclaved
aerated concrete blocks and hollow concrete blocks is suspended until more information
becomes available.
Urlainis et al. [23] revealed that gypsum board is the most economical choice in stand-
ard service conditions in Israel. However, the authors noted that the mechanical perfor-
mance of gypsum board is significantly lower than that of concrete blocks and aerated
concrete blocks. Thus, it was concluded that gypsum board is not a good solution under
standard service conditions.
3.2.3. Intensive Service Conditions
Figure 9 shows the results of the six methodological options of ReCiPe for gypsum
board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks under intensive service con-
ditions.
Figure 9. Intensive service conditions: environmental damage from the use of (1) gypsum board, (2)
autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
For all six methodological options of ReCiPe, hollow concrete blocks are the most
preferable alternative with the least environmental damage. Gypsum board is the most
harmful alternative and causes the greatest damage to the environment. Autoclaved aer-
ated blocks are an intermediate alternative between the above extremes.
Table 8 shows that there was a significant difference between each pair of partition
alternatives compared.
I/A H/A E/A I/I H/H E/E
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1
2
3
1
2
3
Average
weighting set
Particular
weighting set
Environmental damage (Pt)
Methodological options of the ReCiPe method
Intensive service conditions
Figure 9. Intensive service conditions: environmental damage from the use of (1) gypsum board,
(2) autoclaved aerated blocks, and (3) hollow concrete blocks.
For all six methodological options of ReCiPe, hollow concrete blocks are the most
preferable alternative with the least environmental damage. Gypsum board is the most
harmful alternative and causes the greatest damage to the environment. Autoclaved aerated
blocks are an intermediate alternative between the above extremes.
Table 8shows that there was a significant difference between each pair of partition
alternatives compared.
Table 8. Intensive service conditions: p-values of pairwise comparisons of the studied partition
alternatives.
Alternative Gypsum Board Autoclaved Aerated
Blocks
Hollow Concrete
Blocks
Gypsum board X 0.0105 0.0011
Autoclaved aerated blocks X 0.0017
Hollow concrete blocks X
When the ReCiPe midpoint method was applied, it was not possible to identify the
better alternative because the three partition alternatives’ rankings from best (lowest impact)
to worst (highest impact) changed with the different impact types (Figure 5). In contrast,
using the six methodological options of the ReCiPe method showed that hollow concrete
blocks are the most environmentally friendly alternative when compared with gypsum
board and autoclaved aerated blocks (Figure 9and Table 8).
Previously, from an LCCA of gypsum board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hol-
low concrete blocks in Israel, Urlainis et al. [
23
] found that hollow concrete blocks are
the most economical choice in intensive service conditions. The authors concluded that

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 15 of 18
this is due to the better resilience of hollow concrete blocks than that of other types of
lightweight partitions.
4. Conclusions
In this study, an LCA was used to examine three lightweight partition types—gypsum
board, autoclaved aerated blocks, and hollow concrete blocks—in a residential building
under three service conditions (light/moderate, standard, and intensive). The environ-
mental impact assessment was performed using the ReCiPe midpoint method and the
six methodological options of ReCiPe.
It was concluded that (1) the service conditions influence the selection of the best
lightweight partition in terms of environmental damage, and (2) the environmental impact
assessment of lightweight partitions depends on the choice between the ReCiPe mid-
point and the six methodological options of ReCiPe. In particular, the following results
were obtained:
•
Light/moderate and standard service conditions: The ReCiPe midpoint results showed
gypsum board to be the best alternative with the least global warming potential and
ozone generation impact, while autoclaved aerated blocks were the best alternative
with the least terrestrial ecotoxicity and fine particulate matter production. The results
for the six methodological options of ReCiPe showed that gypsum board was the most
environmentally friendly alternative.
•
Intensive service conditions: The ReCiPe midpoint results showed that hollow concrete
blocks produced the least global warming potential, while autoclaved aerated concrete
blocks caused the least ozone generation, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and fine particulate
matter production. The results for the six methodological options of ReCiPe showed
that hollow concrete blocks were the most environmentally friendly alternative.
This study highlights that “use conditions” have a strong influence on the selection of
the most environmentally friendly lightweight partitions in residential buildings.
5. Limitations of This Study
A main limitation of this study was the analysis of conventional lightweight partitions
made from natural raw materials without the inclusion of recycled/waste materials. In
particular, in the present study, traditional Portland cement was used in the production
of partitions from autoclaved aerated blocks. Portland cement could be replaced with
blended “green” cements. In these cements, part of the clinker is replaced by waste from
other industries, such as fly ash and slag from coal-fired power plants and iron production
in furnaces [
42
]. The use of blended cements can significantly reduce the environmental
impact of conventional lightweight partitions.
An additional limitation of the present study is the lack of a sensitivity analysis, which
leads to uncertainty in LCA studies. The main sensitivity factor is the LCIA method. In this
study, we used the ReCiPe method. However, different LCIA methods (IMPACT 2002+,
TRACI 2.1, Ecological Scarcity 2013) produce different LCA results. This is because different
LCIA methods use different numbers of impacts and assign different normalization and
weighting factors to them [
51
]. Thus, using methods other than ReCiPe may result in
different preferences for lightweight partitions. An additional sensitivity factor is the service
life of the whole building. Different LCA studies consider different building lifespans (from
50 to 90 years) [
52
]. In this study, the life expectancy is 50 years. However, a 90-year lifespan
analysis may lead to other more significant replacement rates for lightweight partitions
that may change the selection of the best options.
6. Future Research Directions
Future research directions could build on the following recently proposed innovations:
replacing traditional Portland cement with blended “green” cements and adding up to
25% wood ash to partitions [
53
], incorporating phase change materials into lightweight
partitions in hot Mediterranean climates [
54
], and replacing lightweight partitions in large

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 16 of 18
public housing complexes [
55
]. In addition, environmental analyses of partitions can benefit
from applied sensitivity analyses in relation to different LCIA methods and the extended
life-cycle of a building.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Publicly available data sets were analyzed in this study. The data can
be found here: https://www.usgbc.org/projects (USGBC Projects Site) (accessed on 10 April 2024)
and http://www.gbig.org (GBIG Green Building Data) (accessed on 10 April 2024).
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Munaro, M.R.; Tavares, S.F. A review on barriers, drivers, and stakeholders towards the circular economy: The construction
sector perspective. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2023,8, 100107. [CrossRef]
2.
Cabeza, L.F.; Rincón, L.; Vilariño, V.; Pérez, G.; Castell, A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of
buildings and the building sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014,29, 394–416. [CrossRef]
3.
Goulouti, K.; Padey, P.; Galimshina, A.; Habert, G.; Lasvaux, S. Uncertainty of Building Elements’ Service Lives in Building LCA
& LCC: What Matters? Build. Environ. 2020,183, 106904.
4.
Brand, S. How Buildings Learn: What Happens after They’re Built; Viking Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994; 243p,
ISBN 978-0-670-83515-7.
5.
Pushkar, S. Application of Life Cycle Assessment to various building lifetime shearing layers: Site, Structure, Skin, Services,
Space, and Stuff. J. Green Build. 2015,10, 198–214. [CrossRef]
6.
Silva, A.; de Brito, J.; Thomsen, A.; Straub, A.; Prieto, A.J.; Lacasse, M.A. Causal Effects between Criteria That Establish the End of
Service Life of Buildings and Components. Buildings 2022,12, 88. [CrossRef]
7.
Addis, W.; Schouton, J. Principles of Design for Deconstruction to Facilitate Reuse and Recycling; CIRIA: London, UK, 2004;
ISBN 9780860176077.
8.
Mateus, R.; Neiva, S.; Bragança, L.; Mendonça, P.; Macieira, M. Sustainability assessment of an innovative lightweight building
technology for partition walls—Comparison with conventional technologies. Build. Environ. 2013,67, 147–159. [CrossRef]
9.
Pushkar, S. Design of Sustainable Buildings—Implementation of Multi-Objective Optimization. Ph.D. Thesis, Technion—IIT,
Haifa, Israel, 2007.
10.
Samani, P.; Mendes, A.; Leal, V.; Guedes, J.M.; Correia, N. A sustainability assessment of advanced materials for novel housing
solutions. Build. Environ. 2015,92, 182–191. [CrossRef]
11.
Ferrández-García, A.; Ibáñez-Forés, V.; Bovea, M.D. Eco-efficiency analysis of the life cycle of interior partition walls: A comparison
of alternative solutions. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,112 Pt 1, 649–665. [CrossRef]
12.
Atienza, E.M.; Ongpeng, J.M.C. Environmental Impact and Cost Comparison of Different Partition Walls. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2022,
94, 691–696.
13.
Ortiz, O.; Pasqualino, J.C.; Díez, G.; Castells, F. The environmental impact of the construction phase: An application to composite
walls from a life cycle perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010,54, 832–840. [CrossRef]
14.
Ip, K.; Miller, A. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hemp–lime wall constructions in the UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012,69,
1–9. [CrossRef]
15.
Rivas-Aybar, D.; John, M.; Biswas, W. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of a Novel Hemp-Based Building Material. Materials
2023,16, 7208. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Boškovi´c, I.; Radivojevi´c, A. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hemp-lime concrete wall constructions in Serbia: The impact
of carbon sequestration, transport, waste production and end of life biogenic carbon emission. J. Build. Eng. 2023,66, 105908.
[CrossRef]
17.
Condeixa, K.; Haddad, A.; Boer, D. Life Cycle Impact Assessment of masonry system as inner walls: A case study in Brazil.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2014,70, 141–147. [CrossRef]
18.
Broun, R.; Menzies, G.F. Life cycle energy and environmental analysis of partition wall systems in the UK. Proc. Eng. 2011,21,
864–873. [CrossRef]
19.
Condeixa, K.; Qualharini, E.; Boer, D.; Haddad, A. An Inquiry into the Life Cycle of Systems of Inner Walls: Comparison of
Masonry and Drywall. Sustainability 2015,7, 7904–7925. [CrossRef]
20.
Valencia-Barba, Y.E.; Gómez-Soberón, J.M.; Gómez-Soberón, M.C.; Rojas-Valencia, M.N. Life cycle assessment of interior partition
walls: Comparison between functionality requirements and best environmental performance. J. Build. Eng. 2021,44, 102978.
[CrossRef]
21.
Buyle, M.; Galle, W.; Debacker, W.; Audenaert, A. Sustainability assessment of circular building alternatives: Consequential LCA
and LCC for internal wall assemblies as a case study in a Belgian context. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,218, 141–156. [CrossRef]
22.
Schneider-Marin, P.; Harter, H.; Tkachuk, K.; Lang, W. Uncertainty Analysis of Embedded Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Using BIM in Early Design Stages. Sustainability 2020,12, 2633. [CrossRef]

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 17 of 18
23.
Urlainis, A.; Paciuk, M.; Shohet, I.M. Service Life Prediction and Life Cycle Costs of Light Weight Partitions. Appl. Sci. 2024,
14, 1233. [CrossRef]
24.
ISO 14040; Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework. International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
25.
ISO 13315-1; Environmental Management for Concrete and Concrete Structures, Part. 1: General Principles. International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.
26. SI 5 Part 1; Concrete Blocks: Blocks for Walls. The Standards Institution of Israel: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2003. (In Hebrew)
27. SI 268; Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Masonry Units. The Standards Institution of Israel: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2017. (In Hebrew)
28. SI 1490 Part 1; Gypsum Partitions and Linings: Boards. The Standards Institution of Israel: Tel Aviv, Israel, 1997. (In Hebrew)
29. SI 1920 Part 2; Plaster: The Plastering System at the Site. The Standards Institution of Israel: Tel Aviv, Israel, 2002. (In Hebrew)
30. PRéConsultants. SimaPro, version 9.1. 0.35; PRéConsultants: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2019.
31.
Israeli Electricity Sector—Annual Report 2021. Available online: www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/dochmeshek/he/Files_
Netunei_hashmal_THE%20ELECTRICITY%20AUTHORITY%20_ANNUAL%20REPORT_2021.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2024).
32.
ISO 15686-2:2012; Buildings and Constructed Assets—Service Life Planning Part 2: Service Life Prediction Procedures. Interna-
tional Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.
33.
Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Elshout, P.M.F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.; Zijp, M.; Hollander, A.; van Zelm, R.
ReCiPe2016: A harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017,22,
138–147. [CrossRef]
34.
Goedkoop, M.; Spriensma, R. The Eco-Indicator 99—A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment; PRéConsultants:
Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2001.
35.
Silva, F.B.; Reis, D.C.; Mack-Vergara, Y.L.; Pessoto, L.; Feng, H.; Pacca, S.A.; Lasvaux, S.; Habert, G.; John, V.M. Primary Data
Priorities for the Life Cycle Inventory of Construction Products: Focus on Foreground Processes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020,25,
980–997. [CrossRef]
36. Thompson, M.; Ellis, R.; Wildavsky, A. Political cultures. In Cultural Theory; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1990.
37.
Tang, M.; Miri, T.; Soltani, F.; Onyeaka, H.; Al-Sharify, Z.T. Life Cycle Assessment of Plant-Based vs. Beef Burgers: A Case Study
in the UK. Sustainability 2024,16, 4417. [CrossRef]
38.
Picquelle, S.J.; Mier, K.L. A practical guide to statistical methods for comparing means from two-stage sampling. Fish. Res. 2011,
107, 1–13. [CrossRef]
39.
Pushkar, S.; Yezioro, A. Life Cycle Assessment Meeting Energy Standard Performance: An Office Building Case Study. Buildings
2022,12, 157. [CrossRef]
40.
Hurlbert, S.H.; Lombardi, C.M. Final collapse of the Neyman-Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neoFisherian.
Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2009,46, 311–349. [CrossRef]
41.
Hurlbert, S.H.; Lombardi, C.M. Lopsided reasoning on lopsided tests and multiple comparisons. Aust. N. Z. J. Stat. 2012,54,
23–42. [CrossRef]
42.
Van den Heede, P.; De Belie, N. Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and ‘green’concretes:
Literature review and theoretical calculations. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2012,34, 431–442. [CrossRef]
43.
Italy 2023 Energy Policy Review. Available online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/71b328b3-3e5b-4c04-8a22-3ead575
b3a9a/Italy_2023_EnergyPolicyReview.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2024).
44.
Soroka, I. Building Materials—Properties and Uses Part I; Copyright © 1988 by I. Soroka; The Cement Foundation, Ministry of
Industry and Commerce and the Technion Research and Development Foundation Ltd.: Haifa, Israel, 1989. (In Hebrew)
45.
Celik, K.; Meral, C.; Gursel, A.P.; Mehta, P.K.; Horvath, A.; Monteiro, P.J.M. Mechanical properties, durability, and life-cycle
assessment of self-consolidating concrete mixtures made with blended portland cements containing fly ash and limestone powder.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015,56, 59–72. [CrossRef]
46.
Conejo, A.N.; Birat, J.-P.; Dutta, A. A review of the current environmental challenges of the steel industry and its value chain.
J. Environ. Manag. 2020,259, 109782. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Liang, T.; Wang, S.; Lu, C.; Jiang, N.; Long, W.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, R. Environmental impact evaluation of an iron and steel plant
in China: Normalized data and direct/indirect contribution. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,264, 121697. [CrossRef]
48. Pushkar, S. Life Cycle Assessment of Flat Roof Technologies for Office Buildings in Israel. Sustainability 2016,8, 54. [CrossRef]
49.
Cordella, M.; Tugnoli, A.; Spadoni, G.; Santarelli, F.; Zangrando, T. LCA of an Italian lager beer. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008,13,
133–139. [CrossRef]
50.
Laleman, R.; Albrecht, J.; Dewulf, J. Life cycle analysis to estimate the environmental impact of residential photovoltaic systems
in regions with a low solar irradiation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011,15, 267–281. [CrossRef]
51.
Buyle, M.; Braet, J.; Audenaert, A. Life Cycle Assessment in the Construction Sector: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013,
26, 379–388. [CrossRef]
52.
Dani, A.A.; Roy, K.; Masood, R.; Fang, Z.; Lim, J.B.P. A Comparative Study on the Life Cycle Assessment of New Zealand
Residential Buildings. Buildings 2022,12, 50. [CrossRef]
53.
Pedreño-Rojas, M.A.; Porras-Amores, C.; Villoria-Sáez, P.; Morales-Conde, M.J.; Flores-Colen, I. Characterization and performance
of building composites made from gypsum and woody-biomass ash waste: A product development and application study. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2024,419, 135435. [CrossRef]

Buildings 2024,14, 1704 18 of 18
54.
Figueiredo, A.; Silva, T.; Gonçalves, M.; Samagaio, A. Application of Novel Phase Change Material Constructive Solution for
Thermal Regulation of Passive Solar Buildings. Buildings 2024,14, 493. [CrossRef]
55.
Diana, L.; Passarelli, C.; Polverino, F.; Pugliese, F. A Decision Framework for the Regeneration Awareness of Large-Sized Public
Housing Using a Building Transformability Assessment: A Test Case in Italy (Latina). Buildings 2024,14, 148. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.