F 04 Green Materials 2

Green Alternatives:
Floors, Walls, and Ceilings
ERS 250
Greening the Campus and Community
Susan van de Merwe

Kendra Wasiluk
Sarah van de Merwe
Autumn 2004
Table of Contents
1.0 Background 4
2.0 Purpose 4
2.1 WATgreen, Greening the Campus and Green Materials 4
3.0 Objectives 6
4.0 Methodology 7
4.1 Methods 7
4.2 Literature Review 7
4.3 Expert Interviews 8
4.4 Case Studies 9
4.4.A Case Study One: Oberlin College 9
4.4.B Cast Study Two: University of British Columbia 10
4.5 Building Audit 12
4.6 Criteria 12
5.0 Results 18
5.1 Floors 18
5.2 Walls 24
5.3 Insulation 27
5.4 Ceilings 29
5.5 Wall Finishes 31
6.0 Analysis 32
6.1 Floors 32
6.2 Walls 33
6.3 Ceilings 34
6.4 Wall Finishes 35
Green Materials 2 Page 2 of 51 Fall 2004

7.0 Conclusion 35
8.0 Acknowledgments 37
9.0 Literature Cited 37
10.0 Appendices 42

We intend to create not just a place for classes but rather a building that would
help to redefine the relationship between human kind and the environmentone
that would expand our sense of ecological possibilities.
David Orr
Professor and Director of Oberlins Environmental Studies Program
1.0 Background
With the Department of Architecture vacating Environmental Studies 2 (ES-2),
there is now available space for the Department of Environment and Resource Studies
(ERS). The ERS program has the opportunity to move in and remodel part of the second
floor (and possibly third floor) into their new green home. Based on the preliminary
sketches, the plan is to erect some new offices, seminar/meeting rooms, a lecture room
and renovate some of the existing spaces (see Appendix One). We believe that the
renovation presents ERS with the opportunity to use green, rather than conventional,
building materials.
Our goal is to find the greenest materials currently available in the
marketplace. Our criteria for greenest includes the following considerations: human
health and ecological impacts, installation, maintenance, and repair, flexibility for future
renovations, cost effectiveness, and availability. We also intend to use the Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) guidelines in evaluating our proposed
material selections. It is also our intention to provide budgeting information and
delivery/manufacturing timeframes for our recommended selections.
2.0 Purpose
2.1 WATgreen, Greening the Campus, and Green Materials
The WATgreen organization and Greening the Campus movement allows
students, faculty, and staff to have the opportunity to explore ways to make the
University of Waterloo a more ecologically, socially and economically sustainable

institution. There have been several WATgreen projects completed within the past five
years that have investigated green building materials. The following projects can be
applied to our research:
Green Building Guidelines (1999)

Greening the University of Waterloo's Building Standards (April, 2000)
Green Building Materials for Residence (2000)
Contractor's Guide for Green Building Materials (2002)
These past WATgreen projects establish a baseline of knowledge that we used to
expand upon in our research. They provided useful information from key informant
interviews and analysis of building materials. Our research and recommendations will
focus on three categories of green construction materials which include: flooring, walls
and ceilings.
Other university campuses in North America are also taking initiatives to green
their campuses. Models of green buildings policies and implementation are found at
Oberlin College and the University of British Columbia. We completed case studies of
these two building and hope that the University of Waterloo will draw upon their
experiences and lesson learned. The Waterloo campus should also strive to be a model
for green buildings and act as a catalyst for other post secondary institutions.
The ERS department along with the University should take this opportunity to
demonstrate this programs breadth of knowledge and commitment to a more sustainable
environment. It is an opportunity to preserve or renew the uniqueness of the ERS
program and move ahead of other Ontario university campuses that are ahead of us in the
green building movement. ES-2 can be used as an educational tool, not only for the
university itself but for the community and other educational institutions. We personally
believe that if ERS does not utilize this opportunity for a new green home, the vision
and teachings of the program will not be reflected. We wish to be a part of a

program that strives to be a leader in Green Building construction and promotes
awareness both locally and nationally. The space could stimulate a public
consciousness for new materials and construction options that are more sustainable then
current practices. ES-2 could also be used as a case study for others when
designing/renovating their spaces on or off campus.
3.0 Objectives
Our objective is to make recommendations for greener alternatives to those
materials typically used for floors, walls, and ceilings on campus. It is our intention to
recommend products that should be implemented in the interior renovations of ES-2.
We needed to find out what the universitys building specification standards are and the
logic behind their standards. Our group also needed to determine a list of criteria that we
believe constitutes a green material.
For flooring we have broken it down into two categories: resilient flooring and
carpeting. For resilient flooring we are examining vinyl composite tile (VCT), linoleum,
cork and a rolled vinyl flooring that contains no polyvinyl chloride. In the carpet
category we are comparing the universitys standard base line and mid range priced
carpets to alternative carpets with new backing technology and recycled content. There
are new partitions slated to be constructed for offices and seminar rooms in the old studio
area of ES-2. On campus steel stud gypsum wall board (GWB) is the standard for these
types of spaces (Hartung 2004). Alternatives that we are considering are GWB with
recycled content, straw bale, and floor to ceiling re-usable wall systems. In the category
of GWB construction, we are examining different types of insulation, which include
fibreglass, foam insulation, and wet-blown cellulose. For ceilings we are comparing t-

bar ceilings and open ceilings. We are specifically focusing on the acoustic ceiling tiles
for t-bar ceilings.
4.0 Methodology
4.1 Methods
Reliability and validity of data is important for any research project. Triangulation
is a concept that promotes using three methods in order to answer a research question.
We utilized Tetralation,1 by employing the following methodologies:
1. Literature Review
2. Expert Interviews
3. Case Studies
4. Material Audit
These multiple approaches give us more than one way to arrive at a solution when
recommending green materials for ES-2.
4.2 Literature Review
Our written resources consisted of the following: internet sources (e.g. LEED,
CaBGC, USGBC, etc.) books, journals, previous WATgreen projects and manufacturers
literature. Literature reviews were utilized to improve our familiarity and credibility on
the topic of green materials, and to summarize what is already known from previous
research (Emerson 2004). Our barrier we faced in completing our literature reviews was
finding reliable primary sources. We found a lot of journals pertaining to life cycle
analysis and complex mathematical calculations for specific building materials which
were above our level of analysis for this project. When trying to acquire books from the
university libraries on the topic of green materials our group came across further
difficulties. Due to the recent relocation of the Architecture Department to Cambridge
1
TETRALATION a term developed by Kendra, Susan and Sarah which uses
four methodologies to research a topic
many of the books we were interested in were unable to be located. We tried to make
sure our internet research came from reliable sources, such as government agencies and
non-governmental organizations. It was very important that we found extensive
information regarding harmful properties of traditional construction materials, in order to
make a solid case for greener construction materials which initially may be more costly.
4.3 Expert Interviews
As part of our initial research we attended IIDEX/NeoCON Canada,2 where we
collected product information from corporate sales representatives. We also conducted
expert interviews with Rob Hartung, Patti Cook, and Ronald van de Merwe. Rob Hartung
is an Architectural Technologist employed in Plant Operations at the University of
Waterloo who has been appointed to work on the ES-2 project. Patti Cook is the Waste
Management Coordinator for the University of Waterloo and is actively involved with
WATgreen projects and greening the campus. Ronald van de Merwe is a Research
Scientist/Group Leader of Structural Analysis. We also contacted all of the manufacturers
for the products we compared, to find out pricing, availability, material composition, and
maintenance. We used expert interviews as one of our methods because we hoped to
gain practical information about green materials from people who work with them on a
regular basis. Notes of our interviews are found in Appendix Two.
4.4 Case Studies
Case studies allow for the study of ongoing or contemporary phenomena in real-
life context (Maslo 2004). We examined post-secondary education facilities that have
2
IIDEX/NeoCON Canada is the countrys largest exposition and conference for
the design and management of interior environments. IIDEX/NeoCON Canada
delivers the latest products, exceptional programming, special industry events and
unlimited networking opportunities (IIDEX/NeoCON, 2004)
constructed green buildings, including Oberlin College and the University of British
Columbia.
4.4 A - Case Study One: Oberlin College

Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies (AJLC)
The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies is situated on the
campus of Oberlin College, located in Oberlin, Ohio. This recently completed green
building is a two-storey, 13, 600 square foot education centre which was completed in
January 2000 (Green Buildings BC 2004). The overall project budget was 7.1 million
dollars or about $350 per square foot. Traditional building construction in the same area
and time period would have averaged $250 to $260 per square foot (Orr 2004).
According to case studies completed by Oberlin College (2003) and Green Buildings BC
(2004) of the AJLC Environmental Studies Building, materials selected for Oberlin
College were based on the following criteria:
Recycled or reused
Low energy to produce, use, and maintain
Locally harvested, produced and/or distributed
Supporting of creative economic structures and addressing problems in ecological
design
Products of service (materials leased from a company rather than bought outright.
When worn out, the product is returned for recycling and replaced.)
This list helped to form our criteria used to analyze recommended materials for ES-2.
From this list we addressed the principles of recycled or reused, locally produced
products, and ecological issues. The AJLC building was a newly constructed facility
which used a broad range of green building materials. We were only interested in the
materials they used for the floors, ceilings, and walls and how they are applicable for ES-
2. For the floors, carpet tile from Interface and recycled content ceramic tiles were used.

Wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council3 (FSC) was used for ceilings in atrium
and wood veneered walls throughout the space. The wood was harvested locally, in
northern Pennsylvania, which met with the criteria of locally harvested, produced, or
distributed. Acoustic panels used in the auditorium employed alternative material
technology through the use of agricultural straw waste. Problems that were encountered
on this project were the availability of recycled and reused materials as well as trying to
find green materials in an industry entrenched in traditional building methods. Lessons
learned during this project were that perseverance is required by the project team and
client to keep the end goal of a green building alive. When faced with barriers such as
budget restraints, lack of educated product manufacturers, contractors and consumers,
institutional politics, and skepticism from inside and outside the school, the design team
needs to remain positive and continue to search for new ways to break through outdated
modes of thinking.
4.4 B - Case Study Two: University of British Columbia

CK Choi Building
The CK Choi Building is located on the campus of the University of British
Columbia, located in Vancouver, BC. The 34, 445 square feet building was completed in
1996 at a cost of 6.0 million dollars. According to Green Buildings BC (2003), the
criteria set out by the design team was:
Shared vision of the project amongst all the stakeholders, overseen by the
Architects
Reused (salvaged) and recycled content materials
Recycled content gypsum wall board, recycled paper and recycled cellulose fibre were
used for the interior walls and insulation. 100% of the wood doors and frames, and 90%
3
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an independent, not for profit, non-government organisation
based in Bonn, Germany, that provides standard setting, trademark assurance and accreditation services for
companies and organisations interested in responsible forestry (Forest Stewardship Council 2003).
of the steel doors and frames, were reused from a renovated office building in downtown
Vancouver (Pieterse 2003). Implementing salvaged doors poses many challenges that
require additional co-ordination and pre-planning by the building designer and contractor.
Availability of the correct measurements, door swings, pre-purchasing, and constructing
the doorways to work with re-used frames are some of these challenges. Fire rating
labels on steel doors and frames need to be intact if it is going to pass building code
requirements for fire rated doors (Moorhouse 2004). The carpet was made of a wool-
polystyrene blend that is recyclable at the end of its life-cycle and met with the university
Facilities departments standard for durability. Greater Vancouver Regional District
(2004) summarized some of the lessons learned on the CK Choi project. They stated
them as the following:
An integrated design process allowed the design team to successfully set and
implement high environmental and social performance targets;
Reused and recycled content materials are not inferior and can be used in
institutional and commercial projects;
Additional time is required to source, evaluate, and incorporate reused and
recycled content materials; and
The decision to approach a project in this manner requires a partnership between
consultants and building owners with each recognizing both the benefits and
difficulties
There is a pre-conceived notion that green building construction is more
expensive than traditional buildings. However, the CK Choi Building was constructed
with the same dollars-per-square-foot budget as any other building on the UBC campus
(USBGC-Cascadia Chapter 2004). The CK Choi project is an example of all the
stakeholders coming together in the beginning of the design process and working to
identify the barriers and develop strategies to work through them. The common project
goal of an ecologically and socially viable building was clearly laid out at the beginning
of the project. The design teams commitment to this goal helped them stay motivated
during the problematic stages of the project until they reached final completion. For the
ES-2 building, all the stakeholders (faculty, students, administration, design team, and
community) need to come together and create their common vision and goal for a green
home.
4.5 Building Audit
We conducted an audit by walking through the existing ES-2 building,
specifically focusing on the area that is proposed to be occupied by the ERS faculty. We
used this information to identify existing materials that will be demolished, existing
materials that we need to work with, and what is proposed to be new construction. We
used the results of the audit to determine that we should focus our research on floors,
walls, and ceilings (see photos in Appendix Three).
4.6 Criteria
The following criteria were utilized in order to determine what materials that we
are going to recommend. This is a prioritized list, based on our research, of what we
believe the most important features of a green material are. The following is the list and a
brief description of our criteria:
1. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
The LEED Green Building Rating System is a voluntary, consensus-based
national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings (USGBC
2004). Using LEED as a model for our analysis allows us to make informed
decisions when recommending the greenest flooring, walls, and ceiling materials for
ES-2. There are five key categories based on sets of environmental performance
criteria. A sixth category recognizes innovative design and environmental
performance that exceeds the basic LEED requirements (CaCBG 2004). The Material
and Resource category and part of the Indoor Environmental Quality are the only
sections applicable to our topic. We are only using the general intent of the LEED
credits we selected and not trying to meet the technical details. This is the list of the
credits that are relevant to our topic.
Materials and Resources

Credit Three Resource Reuse
Can the product be reused or is it being reused from the existing building?
Credit Four Recycled Content
Does the product contain recycled content?
Credit Five Local/Regional Materials
Is the product from within 800 kilometres of Waterloo?
Credit Six Rapid Renewable Material
Is the product from a rapidly renewable resource?
Indoor Environmental Quality

Credit 4 Low Emitting Materials
Is the product considering low-emitting for volatile organic compounds.
2. Human Health and Ecological Impacts (raw-material assessment)
With individuals spending as much as 90% of their day indoors, exposure of
building occupants to biological contamination of the indoor environment is a major
health concern (Chang et al. 1995). The raw-materials components of building
products can be a major source of this contamination. Traditional construction
materials used for walls, floors, and ceilings are known to cause impacts on the health
of users in the space. We are specifically concerned with products that contain
formaldehyde, polyvinyl chloride, and support fungal growth. These items are often
referred to in the literature (see US Environmental Protection Agency 2004, Buttner
et al. 2002, Karunasena et al. 2000) as sources of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) associated with negative impacts on human health. We also wish to
minimize the use of products that are derived from fossil fuels and synthetic materials
because of their detrimental impact on the ecological environment.

2.1 Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde is a colourless yet strong smelling gas that can cause eyes,
nose, and throat irritations, wheezing and coughing, fatigue, skin rash, or trigger
allergic reactions (US Environmental Protection Agency 2004). It has been
classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a human
carcinogen (National Cancer Institute 2004) and according to Environment
Canada (2002) is considered "toxic" as defined in Section 64 of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, 1999. It is a chemical used commonly by
industry to manufacture building materials and the most significant sources of
formaldehyde are likely to be products using adhesives that contain urea-
formaldehyde resins (US Environmental Protection Agency 2004).
2.2 Polyvinyl chloride
The Architectural division of Plant Operations at the University of
Waterloo is aiming to reduce the use of building materials containing polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) (Hartung 2004). PVC is one of the most dangerous plastic
products ever created. The hazardous effects of PVC fall into many categories
which are: toxic manufacturing by-products, chlorine handling and transportation
risks, less recyclable, and the lack of full cost accounting for its use in
construction materials (Healthy Building Network 2004). Over 14 million tons of
PVCs are produced each year in North America and approximately 75% is used
in construction materials (Healthy Building Network 2004).
2.2.1 Toxic Manufacturing By-products
According to Healthy Building Network (2004), dioxin (the most potent
carcinogen), ethylene dichloride, and vinyl chloride are by-products that are
inevitably created during the production of PVC. There are numerous health
issues that arise from the release of these chemicals into the natural environment
ranging from cancers, neurological damage to bioaccumulation in the food chain
(Healthy Building Network 2004, Lundquist and Ikramuddin 1996).
2.2.2 Chlorine Handling and Transportation Risks
Lundquist and Ikramuddin (1996), states that the manufacturing of PVC is
the single largest use of chlorine. Should an accidental or intentional discharge of
chlorine occur, it could release a toxic cloud that could spread for miles,
potentially endangering millions of lives (Healthy Building Network 2004).
2.2.3 Less Recyclable
The fact that PVC is not a uniform compound and contains a multitude of
additives makes it difficult to recycle and results in lower levels of post-consumer
recycling (Healthy Building Network 2004, Lundquist and Ikramuddin 1996).
PVC can only be recycled two to three times before its quality breaks down and it
is no longer viable to be reused.
2.2.4 Full Cost Accounting
Materials containing PVC are used frequently by the construction industry
and are considered to be inexpensive and convenient. However, concerns are now
rising about the negative effects of PVC because of increased awareness and
education about green buildings practices by organizations such as The US and
Canadian Green Building Councils. The current costs of inexpensive PVC
construction materials, such as vinyl flooring, carpet backing, and door frames
does not take into account all of the human and ecological impacts. Lethal
additives which included: lead, cadmium, phthalate, and plasticizers combined
with our previously mentioned categorises (toxic by-products, chlorine, and

recycling) should be considered to understand the full cost of these materials
(Healthy Building Network 2004).
2.3 Fungal Growth
Fungal growth plays a key role in Sick Building Syndrome (SBS).4 Its
health effects include respiration problems, allergic rhinitis, watery eyes,
headache, and flu like symptoms (Karunasena et al. 2001). Fungal growths main
breeding grounds are floor surfaces, drywall and ceiling tiles as a result of
improper humidity levels and moisture (Buttner et al. 2002, Karunasena et al.
2001 and Chang et al. 1995). Buttner et al. (2002) state, the accumulation of dust
and other soils on the surface of floor materials are an environment in which
fungal growth occurs (see also Chang et al 1995). Buttner et al. (2002) adds the
three-dimensional structure of carpet provides the capacity to collect
contaminants at higher levels per unit area than hard surfaces. The high content
of cellulose fibers, found in ceiling tiles and drywall, provides an adequate
reservoir for microorganisms to multiply (Karunasena et al. 2001). Stachybotrys,
penicillium, and cladosporium are different forms of fungi related to SBS and can
colonize in cellulose containing materials (Karunasena et al. 2001). The fungi
discharge of conidia and/or mycotoxins can cause allergic responses and
infectious diseases (Buttner et al. 2002, Karunasena et al. 2001).
3. Installation, Maintenance and Repair
Ease of installation, maintenance, and repair for recommended products needs to
be considered. Plant operations are responsible for tendering the construction and the
day to day upkeep of the building. Rob Hartung (2004) brought to our attention that
4
Sick building Syndrome is term commonly used to describe the consequences of poor indoor air quality
(IAQ) (Karunasena et al. 2001).
we need to consider whether contractors know how to use alternative materials and
construction methods (i.e. straw bale). Also the custodial and maintenance staff
should be consulted with regards to working with the new materials.
4. Flexibility for Future Renovations
Building upon the 3Rs of Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle, the space created for ERS
should incorporate materials that can be re-used, relocated or re-configured for future
renovations. Traditional buildings materials that are still in good condition are often
sent to landfill because they are not designed to be re-used (i.e. gypsum wall board).
Many of these materials could be sent to recycling facilities, but this is not standard
practice in the construction and demolition industry (Moorhouse 2004).
5. Cost
Cost is generally a major barrier that clients and architect/designers struggle with
when specifying green building materials. We will be providing pricing for all the
products we recommend. However, we strongly feel this should not be the most
important criteria used in the final decision of what materials are implemented. The
budget numbers we are providing only reflect the current market prices for the
materials and are not a full cost accounting analysis of the product. We lacked the
time and resources to conduct a life cycle analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and payback
periods on the recommended materials.
6. Availability
Consideration for the manufacturing and delivery time frames is important for any
of our recommended materials. Long delivery and manufacturing timeframes can
affect the overall construction schedule and cause delays to ERSs occupancy of the
space. Also using materials that are brand new to the construction market may cause
further setbacks to the project schedule.

5.0 Results
5.1 Floors
1. Vinyl Composite Tile (VCT)
Vinyl Composite Tile is an inexpensive and durable flooring solution. Therefore,
it is one of the most commonly used flooring materials in institutional and commercial
buildings. VCT is composed mainly of limestone, vinyl resins, and pigment. Polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) is one of the main components of vinyl flooring (Jonsson et al. 1997)
and is found in the vinyl resins used to bind the limestone together in VCT (see also
Appendix Two). There are several companies that manufacture VCT, but we chose
Armstrong because one of its manufacturing plants is located in Montreal and it is one of
the standard VCT specified by the University of Waterloo. Installation of VCT is simple
and most contractors should be familiar with it. It can be installed over the existing
concrete floor (surface must be clean and smooth) in the ES-2 studio. The tiles are glued
to the floor with an adhesive. Adhesives with no/low VOCs are available and should be
used when installing this product. VCT is available in a wide range of colours and
readily available at local flooring suppliers. Maintenance of VCT is damp mopping (with
cleaning solution) and polishing. The frequency of polish application depends upon the
location (proximity to entrances) and traffic volume on the flooring (Armstrong 2004).
Strengths of VCT are it is inexpensive, durable, easy to install, familiar to contractors and
Plant Operations, readily available, and manufactured in Montreal. Weaknesses of this
product are that it is non-recyclable and contains PVC and other synthetic materials,
which are considered by us to outweigh any possible benefits of using this product.
2. Linoleum

Linoleum is a moderately priced flooring option that can be used instead of VCT
as an alternate choice in flooring. It can be placed in high traffic areas and is mainly
found in corridors, offices, and lecture rooms. This product is made from linseed oil,
pine resin, wood flour, cork powder, limestone dust, natural pigments, and jute
(University of California Santa Barbara 1999). Linoleum is primarily manufactured in
Germany, and has higher embodied energy5 because of the fossil fuel used to transport it
over seas. Installation of this product is more labour intensive then VCT and cork.
Similar to pre-mentioned products the floor surface must be clean and all bumps and
imperfections smoothed over with a skim coat. It is directly glued to the concrete sub-
floor, but the extra labour comes from having to weld each individual seam (Meech
2004). Linoleum requires regular maintenance through dry mopping and buffing the
floor surface. The amount of buffing depends on the volume of traffic the floor receives.
If the linoleum is damaged with nicks or gouges it can be repaired. Depending on the
extent of the damage you can either smooth it out with a hot iron or cut out a larger
section of the floor and replace it (Meech 2004). Although linoleum is most often
manufactured in Germany, many Canadian suppliers keep stock of the product in
Montreal and Toronto, which allows it to be readily available (Armstrong 2004). The
strengths of this product are it is moderately cheap, has a longer lifespan than VCT, it is
made from natural materials, and has low VOCs. The weaknesses are its high embodied
energy from transportation and it is labour intensive to install and maintain.
3. Cork
Cork is another alternative to the standard flooring types that are currently used
on the university campus which is also moderately priced. It is making a comeback in
5
Embodied energy is the energy needed for procuring raw materials, manufacture, transport, construction,
maintenance and repair (British Council for Offices 2000)
the architectural and design community as an alternate to carpet and other resilient types
of flooring (i.e. VCT, rolled vinyl) because of its durability, under foot comfort,
insulating and acoustical properties, and its reduced impact on the environment (Green
Resource Center 2004). It can be installed on almost any type of sub-floor that is non
susceptible to excess moisture. Most cork flooring comes from Portugal (and a few other
areas in Spain) and therefore has a high embodied energy for transportation. However,
according to the Green Resource Center (2004), with the combined low amount of energy
used to manufacture it, it uses less energy overall than any other type of resilient flooring.
Cork flooring comes from the bark of cork oak tree, which is harvested sustainably every
nine years allowing the bark to re-grow. During the time when the tree is re-generating
its protective bark, the tree is more susceptible to injury. Ground cork granules are held
together with binders that are made of phenol formaldehyde, and natural proteins (Green
resource center 2004). The formaldehyde used for cork is one that has the potential to
release less formaldehyde gas than its more toxic counterpart urea formaldehyde
(Environmental Health Center 2002). According to the Green Resource Center (2004),
cork tiles need to be acclimatized to the room where they are being installed for at least
one week prior to installation. Cork tiles are directly glued to the concrete sub-floors,
using a low VOC adhesive, and can be purchased are sold pre-finished with a sealant
(Meech 2004). Maintenance is very easy and only requires sweeping and damp mopping.
If the floor becomes scratched, it can be spot buffed or sanded and a light coat of water-
based polyurethane re-applied (Meech 2004). If properly maintained cork floors can last
over 50 years and they will increase in strength over time resisting cracking and abrasions
(Green resource center 2004). There are local distributors of cork floors and because of
the resurgence of it use it is becoming more readily available. Strengths of this material
are, it is a rapidly renewable material, little to no VOCs., almost zero waste in the
manufacturer process, harvested sustainably, can be composted at the end of its useful
life, resistant to fungal growth and fire, it is easy to install and maintain, and is durable
and has a very long lifespan. Weaknesses of this product are it is not a locally grown or
manufacturer and it contains trace amounts of phenol formaldehyde which is derived
from fossil fuels.
4. Stratica
Stratica is the most expensive resilient flooring we researched. It is a non-vinyl
polymer flooring composed of synthetic materials that contain no plasticizers or chlorine.
Its wear layer is Surlyn, a DuPont product originally used for the outer coating of golf
balls (Ackerman and Massey 2003). Specific details of the product composition are
proprietary and we were unsuccessful at gaining this information. Stratica is mainly
manufactured in Atlanta, Georgia, with two of the colour lines only be manufactured in
Coventry, England (Stratica 2004). It is a versatile product which has been used most
frequently in commercial, hospitality, and health care facilities. Stratica can be installed
over existing sub-floors, such as wood and concrete that has been appropriately prepared
(Stratica 2004). According to the Stratica (2004) website, daily use of scrubber driers
with a neutral PH cleaner is required to maintain the floor. We were unable to determine
how long Stratica is supposed to last because it is a relatively new material in the flooring
market and long-term use of it has not occurred. However, it has a 10 year limited
warranty on its top wear layer (Stratica 2004). Strengths of this product are it is readily
available, contains no PVC or plasticizers, low VOC, has the potential to be recycled, and
it is easy to maintain. Weaknesses of this product are that it is the most expensive of the
resilient floors, we do not know its longevity, there are no facilities to recycle it yet, non
local material, and we do not know what the composition of the synthetic materials is.

5. Kraus Carpet
Compared to other commercial grade nylon carpets, these fall in the low to
midrange of pricing, yet carpet is a much more costly option than resilient flooring. Two
of the standard carpets used by the University of Waterloo are manufactured by Kraus.
They are Caliber 2 and Dominator 3G (Hartung 2004). Both of these are level loop
rolled good carpets and contain no PVCs in there backing. They are manufactured in
Waterloo and the raw materials also come from Honeywell which is also located in
Waterloo. The face yarn and backing of these carpets contain no recycled content. The
representative from Kraus explained that there is no recycled content in these products,
because there is not a large amount of carpet returned for recycling. This occurs because
it is still cheaper for a client to send their used carpet to landfill, rather than back to the
manufacturer for recycling. In high traffic areas on campus and near entrances carpet is
not typically used, because it is harder to clean and wears out too quickly. Carpet is
generally used in offices, residence, small seminar rooms and at the front of lecture halls
with raised flooring (Hartung 2004). These carpets are installed using standard
construction practices and are directly glued to the concrete sub-floor (Meech 2004).
Vacuuming is the main way to clean the carpet and it takes additional effort to remove
stains. The construction of the carpet can harbour the accumulation of dust and lead to
fungal growth. The strengths of carpet are its acoustical properties, low VOC, locally
manufacturer, and comfort under-foot. The weaknesses of this product are it does not
contain any recycled content, there is little incentive to recycle it, shorter life span, can
harbour fungal growth, derived from fossil fuels, and more labour intensive to clean and
maintain.

6. Collins and Aikman (C&A) Carpet
Collins and Aikman has developed a new cushion backing, called Ethos that
contains no PVCs. Ethos is a cushion backing made from a recycled, non-chlorinated,
thermoplastic terpolymer that is safe and widely used as a laminated film in the
windshields and other types of safety glasses (C&A Floorcoverings 2004). The backing
systems contains a minimum of 96% recycled content and is recyclable disposed of. It is
manufactured in Dalton, Georgia which makes it a non local product. It is readily
available and typically has about a five week lead time. Currently it is only available in
six foot wide rolled goods, but will be available in carpet tiles in early 2005. The
installation of this carpet is somewhat different to most carpets as it has a peel and stick
type of installation, which makes it less labour intensive to install. This also ensures that
a low VOC adhesive is used, because it is applied by C&A and not left to the contractor
to purchase. It has similar strengths and weaknesses to the other carpets, with the
exceptions that it does contain recycled content in the face yarn and backing and it is a
non local product.
Flooring
Human Health and Ecological
LEED
Criteria Impacts Costs
(check here is a point for using it)
(check here means this is a problem)
Resilient MR 3 MR 4 MR 5 MR 6 IE4 F FF PVC SM FG
Flooring
$1.40 to
VCT Tile 9 9 9 9 9 $1.60/sqft
installed
$3.75 to
Linoleum
9 9 $4.75/sqft
installed
$3.75 to
Cork 9 9 9 9 $6.75/sqft
installed
$8.00 to
Stratica 9 9 9 $10.00/sqft
installed

Carpet
Kraus Caliber $17.00/sqft
2 9 9 9 9 supply only
$21.00 to
Kraus
Dominator 3G 9 9 9 9 $22.00/sqft
supply only
C&A $20-21/sqft
Explorer 9 9 9 9 9 supply only
C&A $23-24/sqft
Topography 9 9 9 9 9 supply only
Must be installed with a low or no VOC adhesive to maintain this credit
Legend
MR Materials and Resources (LEED) IE Indoor Environmental Quality (LEED)
F Formaldehyde FF derived from Fossil Fuels
PVC contains Polyvinyl Chloride SM synthetic materials
FG supports fungal growth
5.2 Walls
1. Steel stud gypsum wall board (GWB)
Steel stud gypsum wall board (GWB) is the most commonly used wall
construction for non-residential applications. GWB is made from gypsum and is held
together between layers of paper on both sides. Although gypsum is a non-renewable
resource it is available in abundant supply. However, there are numerous environmental
impacts associated with the open-pit practices that are used to mine this material
(PWGSC 2003). The deposits of gypsum can be found throughout Canada, but there are
large mining operations in the Great Lakes region. The steel studs and gypsum can be
purchased at any local building supplier. For the experienced contractor, it is easy to
install, but can it is labour intensive to hang, tape and sand the GWB to prepare it to
receive the wall finish. It the most economical way to construct a wall, but its lack
durability, as it can require frequent patching and repainting. GWB that is unpainted is
recyclable (i.e. scraps from a jobsite), but it most often ends up in a landfill. GWB that
have received a wall finish is not recyclable when it is demolished. Strengths of this

product are that it is readily available, inexpensive, approve by the Ontario Building
Code, and familiar to contractors (Moorhouse 2004). Weaknesses of this product are it
can only be used once and then goes to landfill, it not flexible, and it can be damaged
easily.
2. Steel stud GWB with recycled content
This type of construction is identical to the one previously listed, with the
exception that the GWB can contain recycled content in the paper and gypsum.
According to PWGSC (2003), desulphogypsum (DSG) is a non-mined form of gypsum
being created by some manufacturers. It is a clean by-product from processes used in
thermal electrical generating stations. GWB with recycled content has a marginal
increase in its costs, but all the other costs associated with this form of construction
remain the same.
3. Straw bale construction
Infill style straw bale construction uses a post and beam framework. The post and
beam framework can be built from wood, steel, or concrete (Jaccaci and Bodzin 1996,
PATH Technology Inventory 2004, Wanek 2004). Straw bales are built around the frame
and covered with wire mesh and plastered with stucco to create the wall (Fisher 2004).
Straw bale walls exhibit good indoor air quality especially when used with natural
plaster. This type of wall also has good sound qualities, fire, and pest resistance. Straw
is available in abundance across Ontario and can be purchased from any farm interested
in selling it for extra profit. The Ontario Straw Bale Building Coalition website
(www.strawbalebuilding.ca) is a good source of information about suppliers, contractors,
architects, and engineers who are familiar with using this type of construction. Strengths
of this type of construction are it is well insulated, good acoustics, simple construction
(for those who have learned how to use it), renewable resource, low maintenance, does
not require painting, and is economical (Jaccaci and Bodzin 1996, PATH Technology
Inventory 2004, Wanek 2004). Weaknesses of this type of construction are it is a re-
emerging type of construction that people are hesitant to use because of lack of
education. It has not been granted wide-spread approval by the Ontario Building Code
and its use must be approved on a case by case basis (Moorhouse 2004). This may also
deter people from using it. Another downfall is that the walls require a larger footprint
(wall thickness) than traditional GWB construction. This would not be an efficient use of
floor space where demand for useable space is already high.
4. KI Genius Wall System
Genius Wall, by KI, is a moveable, reconfigurable floor-to-ceiling wall system.
The system has a higher acoustical rating than standard drywall construction. The wall
system is only 3.5 thick, which is less than standard drywall construction. Power, voice,
and data wiring and outlets can be incorporated into the walls, and are easily accessible
and allow for flexibility to relocate or re-route power. Doors and glazing are also fully
integrated into the system. Using a 10x10 office as an example, KI would take
approximately two days to install, with little disruption to people in the working near the
construction area (KI 2004). With drywall there is the nuisance of dust, smell and noise.
The wall panels are installed on a ceiling track and they all have their own integrated
floor tracks. If any surface skins become damaged, they can easily be removed and
replaced with a new skin. Most of the Genius wall systems are manufactured in Green
Bay, WI, but the doors and wood components (certified wood!!) are manufactured in
Montreal. According to the KI (2004), the Genius walls can generate LEED points in
several categories, including building reuse, construction waste management, resource
reuse, recycle content, certified wood, low-emitting materials, daylight and views, and
innovation in design. Strengths of this product are that it minimizes construction waste
as the walls are 99% reusable, meets many of the LEED criteria, reduces inconvenience
during installation and re-configuration, you can take it with you if you move to another
building/space, uses less floor space, technology is incorporated into the walls and is
easily accessible, and has excellent acoustical properties. Weaknesses of this product are
it has a six to eight week lead time and must be ordered early in the design process, and
the initial cost of the product is nearly double what a GWB office would cost. However,
it is over the long-term that the benefits of reusable walls will be realized through future
renovations/reconfigurations.
5.3 Insulation
1. Fibreglass
Fibreglass is considered a risk by some because of the insulation fibres ability to
become airborne and be inhaled similar to asbestos (Sustainable Sources 2004).
Fibreglass insulation is made from melted glass spun into a matt of fibres, and can
contain up to 40% post-consumer recycled glass (Sustainable Energy Development
Office 2004, NAIMA 2004). Additional strengths of fibreglass are it is available at any
local building store and it is widely used by many contractors as it is in-expensive, easy
to install, and has good thermal properties (MacDonald 2004, NAIMA 2004, Sustainable
Energy Development 2004). Weaknesses of this insulation are it is non-recyclable at the
end of its life-cycle, it can affect the respiratory health of humans using the space, and
cause irritation to the contractors installing it. Fibreglass insulation is also susceptible to
moisture and fungal growth.
2. Air Krete Foam Insulation
Air Krete is the only manufacturer of cementious foam insulation. It is made
from magnesium oxide, derived from sea water and cement that creates foam which is
blown into the wall cavity. The product is mixed on-site by licensed Air-Krete installers,
and it is fireproof, non-toxic, provides excellent acoustical performance and insulation,
and does not shrink or settle like other insulation products (Buildinggreen Inc. 1997, Air
Krete 2004, and Sustainable Sources 2004). According to the Sustainable Sources
(2004), this type of insulation is considered the most benign from an indoor air quality
standpoint. This product does not contain any formaldehyde and carcinogenic fibres.
At the end of its life, Air Krete can be spread over soil with no pre-treatment and act as a
soil nutrient (Air Krete 2004). Weaknesses of this product are that are only a few
licensed installers, and it is more expensive than other forms of insulation.
3. Wet-blown Cellulose
Wet-blown cellulose insulation is made from recycled newsprint, borax, and
boracic acid. The last two ingredients are natural materials that are added as fire
retardant and also to prevent infestation of insects and rodents. It is blown into the open
wall in a wet spray before the wall can be closed up. Weaknesses of this product are the
drying time required before you can close up the wall, and the insulation can settle over
time and cause a reduction in its performance (Sustainable Sourcebook 2004, Sustainable
Energy Development Office 2004). We had difficulty finding information about local
sources and installers of wet-blown cellulose.

Walls
LEED Human Health and Ecological Impacts
Criteria Costs
(check here is a point for using it) (check here means this is a problem)
Products MR 3 MR 4 MR 5 MR 6 F FF PVC FG (based on a
typical office
10x10 door,
walls and
glazing)
Traditional
Steel Stud
$100 to $130
Gypsum Wall 9 lineal foot
Board
(GWB)
Steel Stud
with
Recycled 9 9 $?? lineal foot
Content
(GWB)
$2.00 to
Straw Bale 9 9 9 $4.00/bale
System
Floor to
Ceiling
Wall
KI $230 to $260
Genius 9* 9 9 lineal foot
Insulation
$.20/sqft
Fibreglass 9 9 9 9 9 installed
Air-krete $.50 and
Foam 9 9 up/sqft
insulation installed
Wet-blown $.40/sqft
Cellulose 9 9 9 installed
* For future renovations these products were be reused
Legend
5.4 Ceilings
1. Open
We considered deleting ceilings altogether, and leaving it as an open ceiling to
reduce the amount of materials needed for the project. However we considered that more
material would be required for higher wall partitions and there would be an increase the
volume of air-conditioned space (University of California Santa Barbara 1999). We also
think there is a misconception that open ceilings are less expensive and less maintenance
than t-bar ceilings. The additional considerations with open ceilings are how to hide the
wiring and painting of awkward spaces and ductwork (Moorhouse 2004). Also we
consulted with the Lighting Group, who felt their proposed lighting system required a flat
reflective ceiling surface which currently does not exist in the old studio area of ES-2.
2. T-bar Ceiling with Acoustic Ceiling Tiles
Acoustic ceiling tiles are comprised of mineral fibre, gypsum, starch, paper fibre,
perlite, silica, styrene acrylic polymer, and phenolic resin (Chang et al. 1995). The
standard acoustic ceiling tile used on campus is by Armstrong, style 755 Fissured
(Hartung 2004). It is a square edge lay in tile that is simple to install. It is one of the
most economical tiles offered by Armstrong. It has approximately 43% recycled content
and is recyclable at the end of its useful life. This tile could support fungal growth, if
there are fluctuations in humidity or water leaks onto the ceiling. It is manufactured in
Marietta, PA. We looked at three alternatives within the Armstrong line, for their
improved performance environmentally and acoustically. We stayed with Armstrong
because they have a reclamation program for their ceiling tiles, and retrieve them at no
cost to the client for recycling. Also, the university has a relationship with this company.
These alternatives we considered are Fine Fissured, Cirrus, and Ultima. Fine fissured is
closest in price to the standard tile, but it has a higher recycled content (up to 52%) and
more humidity and mould resistance. The next step up is Cirrus, which has 72% recycled
content, better humidity and mould resistance and a nicer aesthetic. It is manufactured in
Pensacola, FL. The Rolls Royce of ceiling tiles is Ultima with its clean white lines,
smooth surface, improved acoustic performance, and humidity and mould control. It

contains 66% recycled content and is manufactured in Pensacola, FL. (Armstrong
Technical Support 2004).
Ceilings
Criteria LEED Human Health and Ecological Impacts
Costs
Products MR 3 MR 4 MR 5 MR 6 F FF PVC FG
Open 9 9 $0
T-bar
$1.75 to
Armstrong
Fissured 755 9 9 9** 9 $2.07/sqft
installed
$1.82 to
Armstrong
Fine Fissured 9 9 9** $2.15/sqft
installed
$3.25 to
Armstrong
Cirrus 9 9** $3.57/sqft
installed
$3.38 to
Armstrong
Ultima 9 9** $3.71/sqft
installed
** Ceiling tiles contain cornstarch which is a rapidly renewable material
Legend
5.5 Wall Finishes
1. Paint
The University of Waterloo currently uses Glidden Life Master as their standard
paint (Hartung 2004). This is a non VOC paint and one of Gliddens premier quality
paints. We investigated alternative brands of non VOC paint and found that they all were
of similar quality. The main difference was in the cost per gallon of paint. The only
limitation is with the Benjamin Moore Eco-spec paint, that only allows for it to be tinted
pastel and light colours to maintain the no VOC rating (Benjamin Moore 2004).
Pittsburgh Paints, Pure Performance and Gliddens, Life Master can be tinted any colour
(Pittsburgh Paint 2004, Glidden 2004). We limited our research on paint alternatives as
we felt our research on wall construction was leading us away from using GWB
construction, which requires a lot of painting. Our recommendations will require
minimal amounts of painting.
Wall Finishes
Criteria LEED Human Health and Ecological Impacts
Costs
Products MR 3 MR 4 MR 5 MR 6 IE4 F FF PVC FG (retail cost)
Paints
Glidden Life $43.00/
Master 9 9 9 gallon
Benjamin
$32.00/
Moore 9 9 gallon
Eco-spec
Pittsburgh
$30.00
Paint Pure 9 9 9 gallon
Performance
Legend
6.0 Analysis
Our recommendations for the new construction in ES-2 are based on our ranked
order criteria of: LEED, human and ecological impacts, installation maintenance and
repair, flexibility, cost, and availability. We are recommending cork as the greenest
solution for flooring, floor to ceiling re-usable walls for the partitions, and a t-bar ceiling
with Armstrong Fine Fissured acoustic ceiling tiles. The following is our reasoning
behind our decisions and also suggestions for materials that are our second or third
choice.
6.1 Floors
Cork fulfills three of the LEED credits, a rapidly renewable resource, contains
recycled content and is a low-emitting VOC material. It does not contain any PVC, it
inherently anti-fugal and its main components are natural rather than synthetic materials.
However, cork does use phenol formaldehyde in the binder that holds it together. When
compared to the other alternatives we analyzed, we came to the conclusion that it is of
one the only sustainably harvested floorings and has the longest lifespan. Cork is
versatile product and can be used as an alternative to carpet or any other types of resilient
floor. When it comes to cost it falls in the mid-range of the flooring options we
considered. Linoleum was a close competitor, but because it is much harder to clean and
maintain and has a shorter life expectancy than cork, it is our second option. VCT
although cheap and easy to install, the ecological impact of it is far greater because it
cannot be recycled and contains PVC. Stratica was not selected because technology does
not currently exist to recycle it, it is mainly composed of synthetic materials, and it is the
most expensive of the resilient flooring. We consider carpet to be the least desirable
option, because of its high expense, its reliance on fossil fuels, it requires more
maintenance, and can wear out faster than resilient floors. Therefore, we feel cork should
be used for any new flooring installed in ES-2.
6.2 Walls
We are recommending a floor-to-ceiling reusable wall system for the new
partitions being built in ES-2. The specific system we looked at is KI-Genuis wall. This
system meets three of the LEED credits, reusable product, recycled content, and low
emitting materials. Based on the finishes selected, it could also use certified wood. The
wall thickness has a smaller footprint than gypsum or straw bale walls, is easy to
reconfigure, and is flexible for future changes. One of the downsides to this product is
that it may contain trace amounts of PVC in some of the trim pieces used to hold the
walls together. It is also more expensive than traditional wall construction, but it is 99%
reusable. It is the long-term cost of ownership that is less than traditional walls. With
each renovation in the future, the system will pay for itself. We are also recommending
this type of wall so that the ERS department can get bare bones of the space
constructed for occupancy, but continue to have the ability to adapt the space over the
next two to three years as other green strategies are implemented. Our group is hesitant
to recommend using straw bale as information about its use in an assembly occupancy
(which all buildings on campus are) is very limited with regard to building code and fire
codes. It was also difficult to get costing information about straw bale construction. If
more information emerges in the near future, we would recommend this option as a more
cost-effective solution than KI-Genius. Steel stud gypsum wall board construction is our
last choice because we believe it is an unsustainable method of constructing walls.
Gypsum mining is detrimental to the environment, walls cannot be reused, and most of
the wallboard goes to landfill. If cost becomes the determining factor in the decision
making process for the type of wall construction, and traditional gypsum walls are the
choice, we strongly recommend that recycled content GWB be specified. Also we feel
the insulation used in the GWB walls should be Air Krete, because it will increase the
sustainability of the wall.
6.3 Ceilings
We recommend a t-bar ceiling be installed where there currently is an open
ceiling in the old studio area of ES-2. As previously discussed in the results (Section 5.4)
we feel an open ceiling was not the greenest solution. Of the four ceiling tiles we looked
at, we feel that the Armstrong Fine Fissured tile was the best option overall. It offers
better moisture and humidity properties than the standard tile specified at the university
and it is only about $0.07 to $0.08 more expensive per square foot. The tile is
manufactured within the boundary we set for local goods, contains up to 52% recycled
content and is recyclable. The Ultima and Cirrus tiles, although they have higher

recycled content, are prohibitively expense and are manufactured in Pensacola FL. We
feel these negatives factors far outweigh the increase in recycled content.
6.4 Wall Finishes
We briefly explored the topic of paint and the three eco-brands we considered,
we only noticed a difference in the price per gallon. We did not do a detailed analysis to
ensure that the VOC levels from all three paints were the same. The university could
potentially save money by using Pittsburgh Paint, which based on retail prices, is $10 less
per gallon. However, we do not know if the university receives a discounted price for
their bulk purchasing of Glidden paint.
7.0 Conclusion
The purpose of this project was to determine the greenest materials for floors,
walls and ceilings for the new construction in ES-2. In our methodology we employed
literature reviews, expert interviews, case studies and a building audit. By using these
methods, we gained insights about ecological and human impacts of construction
materials which led us to generate our criteria to compare different alternatives. Case
studies and key informant interviews aided in narrowing down our focus and helped to
create our list of materials to research.
The limits of our project include the lack of user input and that we only
considered the new construction planned for the old studio area. When using the LEED
credits, we only took the general intent of the credit because to actually achieve the point
it is the cumulative effect of all the materials in the space. In the human health and
ecological impacts criteria, we stated that a product derived from fossil fuels was
negative. If the product uses fossil fuel as its main component, we checked it off on our
chart. However, if a sub-component of a material was derived from fossil fuel (i.e. an

adhesive or chemical component), we did not consider the product to be derived from
fossil fuels. A barrier we faced when completing our case studies, is the most of the
green buildings on other campuses were brand new buildings and not retrofits. Another
obstacles in attempting to look at other universities green buildings, was the majority of
information about their greenness focused on energy efficiency and not the specific
interior materials.
A future study we think other WATgreen projects could focus on is how to
implement straw bale construction in a building on campus. Also detailed life-cycle and
cost benefit analysis of traditional materials vs. greener materials could be conducted.
Education for everyone on campus and within the community to raise awareness and
encourage green building practices is another topic a future student team could look at.
This and the past WATgreen project we reviewed (see Section 2.1) along with the
recommendations from the other ERS 250 groups this semester, should not only be
implemented in a building for ERS, but for any building constructed or renovated on
campus.
The next steps for greening the ES-2 building involve, finalizing the layout of the
space, creating a list of priorities for implementing all the project recommendations,
creating a master project schedule, determining a project budget, fundraising to increase
the budget, raising awareness of the project on campus and in the community, and
remaining enthusiastic and positive through any barriers or negative feedback.

8.0 Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge the following people:
Dr. Paul Kay, for answering our almost daily questions, helping us to scope out our topic
and narrow its focus and suggesting we settle our disputes by wagering rib dinners.
Rob Hartung, of Plant Operations, shared his expertise about architectural services at the
University of Waterloo. Rob was also helpful in passing along information about green
materials being considered at the university.
Patti Cook, Waste Management Co-ordinator, for reassuring our group that we were on
the right track and providing us with contacts in Plant Operations.
Ronald van de Merwe, Research Scientist/Group Leader of Structural Analysis, for

providing a chemical analysis for some of the materials we were considering
recommending.
Jonathan Evans, Business Manager Xen Magazine, for editing our spelling mistakes and
grammatical blunders.
Rick Meech, owner of ERM Flooring Inc., for sharing his expertise about all flooring
pricing, maintenance, installation and repair.
Andrew Moorhouse, Construction/Project Manager, for helping us with budget and

construction information.
9.0 Literature Cited

Ackerman, F., R. Massey. 2003. The economics of phasing out PVC. Global
Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University.
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Economics_of_PVC.pdf [Accessed Nov. 3,
2004]
Air Krete. 2004. Innovative Concepts in Energy Conservation: Cementitious Foam
Insulation. Air Krete. http://www.airkrete.com/Characteristics&Benefits.htm
Armstrong. 2004. General Product Maintenance. Armstrong.

http://www.armstrong.com/commflooringna/maint_main.html [Accessed Nov. 20,
2004]
Armstrong. 2004. Technical Support line. 1-877-ARMSTRONG
Benjamin Moore. 2004. Interior Products: Green Building Products.

http://www.benjaminmoore.com/wrapper_pg3.asp?L=prod&K=intprods&groupid
=28 [Accessed Nov. 20, 2004]
British Council for Offices. 2000. BCO guide to best practices. British Council for
Offices. http://www.bco-officefocus.com/EECost/ [Accessed Nov. 22, 2004]
Buildinggreen, Inc. 1997. Air Krete: Foam without plastic. Environmental Building
News 6(7): http://www.buildinggreen.com/products/air_krete.cfm [Accessed Nov.
10, 2004]
Buttner, M., P. Cruz-Perez, L. Stetzenbach, P. Garrett. 2002. Measurement of airborne

fungal spore dispersal from three types of flooring materials. Aerobiologia 18:1-
11.
Canadian Green Building Council (CaGBC). March 2004. LEED TrainingWorkshop

Manual. Canadian Green Building Council. Toronto p.
Chang, J., K. Foarde, D. Vanosdell. 1995. Growth Evaluation of Fungi on Ceiling Tiles.
Atmospheric Environment 29(17):2331-2337.
C&A Floorcoverings. 2004. Floorcovering evolved. www.ethosfloor.com [Accessed

Oct. 31, 2004]
Emerson, Ainslee. Oct 7, 2004. Literature Reviews. ERS 250 Greening the Campus
and Community, University of Waterloo, Waterloo.
Environment Canada. 2002. Assessment Report- Formaldehyde in Canadian

Environmental Protection Act Registry. Environment Canada
http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/psap/final/formaldehyde.cfm [Updated
Nov. 17, 2004] [Accessed Nov. 17, 2004]
Environmental Health Center. 2002. IAQ Fact Sheet: Formaldehyde. National Safety
Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.nsc.org/ehc/indoor/formald.htm
[Accessed Nov. 22, 2004]
Fischer, T. 2004. Straw bale construction: An Overview. AIA Environmental Design

Collaborative. Charlottesville, VA. http://www.cstone.net/edc/edc/sbarticle.htm
[Accessed Oct. 11, 2004]
Forest Stewardship Council. 2003. About FSC. Forest Stewardship Council. Bonn,
Germany. http://www.fsc.org/fsc/about [Accessed Nov. 18, 2004]
Glidden. 2004. Painting 101.

http://www.glidden.com/glbTST_n/NUSGLI/productfinder/interior.jsp [Accessed
Nov. 20, 2004]
Greater Vancouver Regional District. 2004. CK Choi Building. The Sustainable Region
Initiative: Greater Vancouver Regional District.
http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/sustainability/casestudies/ckchoi.htm [Accessed Nov. 18,
2004]
Green Buildings BC. 2004. Case Study Series: Adam Joseph Lewis Center for
Environmental Studies. Green Buildings BC.

http://www.greenbuildingsbc.com/new_buildings/case_studies/Adam_Joseph.pdf
Green Resources Center. 2004. Fact Sheet: Cork Flooring. Green Resource Center.
http://www.greenresourcecenter.org/materialssheets/corkflooring.php [Accessed
Nov. 22, 2004]
Hartung, R. November 1, 2004. Design and Construction Services: Plant Operations

University of Waterloo. Waterloo, ON. Personal Interview.
Healthy Building Network. 2004. PVC Plastic. Healthy Building Network.

http://www.healthybuilding.net/pvc/ [Accessed Nov. 17, 2004]
IIDEX/Neocon Canada. 2004. Welcome Page.

http://www.iidexneocon.com/welcome.php [accessed Oct 26, 2004]
Jaccaci A. and S. Bodzin. 1996. New Pioneering in Straw Bale Building. Home Energy
Magazine. http://hem.dis.anl.gov./eehem/96/960712.html [Accessed Oct. 11,
2004]
Jonsson, A., A-M Tillman, T. Svensson. 1997. Life cycle assessment of flooring
materials: case study. Building and Environment 32(3):245-255.
Karunasena, E., N. Markham, T. Brasel, J. Cooley, D. Straus. 2000. Evaluation of

fungal growth on cellulose-containing and inorganic ceiling tile. Mycopathologia
150:91-95.
KI. 2004. Genius Architectural Walls. KI. www.ki.com [Accessed Nov. 9, 2004]
Lundquist, P. and A. Ikramuddin. 1996. PVC: The Most Toxic Plastic. The Green
Guide. 23: http://www.thegreenguide.com/issue.mhtml?i=23 [Accessed Nov. 17,
2004]
MacDonald, Mott. October 2004. Alternatives to Glass Mineral Wool. Competition

Commission. Victory House, Brighton, UK. http://www.competition-
commission.org.uk/inquiries/current/superglass/glass_wool_report.pdf [Accessed
Nov 10, 2004]
Maslo, Dennis. Oct 21, 2004. Case Study Reserach. ERS 250 Greening the Campus
and Community, University of Waterloo, Waterloo.
Meech, Rick. Nov. 22, 2004. ERM Flooring, Woodbridge, ON. Personal Conversation.
Moorhouse, Andrew. Nov 19, 2004. Project/Construction Manager, Toronto, ON.

Personal Conversation
National Cancer Institute. 2004. Formaldehyde and Cancer: Questions and Answers.
Cancer Facts 3.8. National Cancer Institute. http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_8.htm
[Updated: July 30, 2004] [Accessed Nov.17, 2004]
North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA). 2004. Insulation and
the Environment. http://www.naima.org/pages/benefits/environ/environ.html
Oberlin College. 2003. Materials: Adam Joseph Learning Center Homepage. Oberlin
College. http://www.oberlin.edu/ajlc/systems_materials_1.html [Accessed Nov.
13, 2004]
Orr, David. 2004. Can educational institutions learn? The creation of the Adam Joseph
Lewis Center at Oberlin College. In, Peggy F. Bartlett and Geoffrey W. Chase,
eds., Sustainability on Campus: Stories and Strategies for Change, pp.159-175.
Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
PATH Technology Inventory. 2004. Straw-Bale Construction. Toolbase Services.

http://www.toolbase.org/tertiaryT.asp?DocumentID=2040&CategoryID=1400
[Accessed Oct. 11, 2004]
Pieterse, Ian. Fall 2003. CK Choi Institute for Asian Studies, University of British
Columbia. Completed for, ARCH 684 Advanced Studies in Canadian Sustainable
Design. University of Waterloo. Waterloo, ON.
http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/architecture/faculty_projects/terri/sustain_casestudie
s/CKchoi.pdf [Accessed Nov. 13, 2004]
Pittsburgh Paints. 2004. Interior Designer Network.

http://www.ppg.com/ppgaf/pittsburgh/decorator/index.htm [Accessed Nov. 20,
2004]
Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). 2003. Environmentally

Responsible Construction and Renovation Handbook: Gypsum Wallboard.
PWGSC. http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/rps/aes/content/ercr_handbook_appenda12-
e.html#sd2 [Accessed Nov. 22, 2004]
Stratica. 2004. http://www.stratica.com/us/stratica.asp [Accessed Nov. 22, 2004]
Sustainable Energy Development Office. 2004. Insulation. Government of Western

Australia. http://www1.sedo.energy.wa.gov.au/pages/typesins.asp [Accessed
Nov. 24, 2004]
Sustainable Sources. 2004. Sustainable Building Sourcebook.

http://www.greenbuilder.com/sourcebook/Insulation.html [Accessed Nov.10,
2004]
University of California Santa Barbara. 1999. The Greening of Bren Hall: Donald Bren
School of Environmental Science & Management. University of California.
http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/about/GrennBern.pdf [Accessed Nov. 20, 2004]

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Sources of Indoor Air Pollution
Formaldehyde. US Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html [Updated: Oct. 13, 2004] [Accessed Oct.
11, 2004]
US Green Building Council (USGBC). 2004. Leadership in Energy and Environmental

Design. http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/LEED_main.asp [Accessed Oct. 26, 2004]
US Green Building Council Cascadia Chapter. 2004. CK Choi Building. Cascadia

Region Green Building Council.
https://www.usgbc.org/chapters/cascadia/choi.pdf [Accessed Nov. 9, 2004]
Wanek, C. 2004. Straw Bale Home Construction. El Paso Solar Energy Association. El
Paso, TX. http://www.epsea.org/straw.html [Accessed Oct. 11, 2004]

Appendix One
Old Studio Area

Proposed new
layout/our area of focus
ES-2 Building
2nd floor
University of Waterloo

Appendix Two
Patti Cook 2:30pm Thursday October 14, 2004
WATgreen Office, Davis Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo ON
This was an informal meeting to run our many ideas past her and get her feedback. Patti
also provided us with key contacts in Plant Operations so that we could obtain AutoCAD
drawings of the space and talk to the architectural staff who would be working on ES-2.
Rob Hartung 1:30pm Monday November 1, 2004

Plant Operations, GSC 201, University of Waterloo, Waterloo ON
1. Does the Green Campus Building Committee still exist?

You should ask Patti Cook. It is not related to Plant Operations
2. Have green building materials been used in other projects on campus?

Kraus carpets are used in most buildings except for areas where there are raised
floors in which they use carpet tile made by interface. Interface is also used in one of the
residence building. Interface is widely known as a green company. Plant Operations
are currently doing investigation on other Interface products which are more
environmentally friendly and contain no PVC. The carpets that are bought are rolled good
carpets since it is less expensive then carpet tile. Stratica, a new non PVC flooring, is
soon to be tested in South Campus Hall.
3. What are the most realistic materials that can be it into ES?
Realistically it depends on how much the faculty wants and has to spend. We
discussed ceilings and Rob suggested that we ask ourselves the question, Do they even
want ceilings? Could an open ceiling be cheaper and less material than putting in a
ceiling?
4. If there was not a push for green materials in this renovation, what would
typically be specified?
The push for materials (environmental or not) either comes from the client
(department doing the renovation) or people who have sensitivities to certain products
and therefore, other materials have to be used in order not to affect them. Green materials
are often more expensive initially and when departments are constructing spaces that will
only be used for a short period of time (lab spaces, temp. offices etc.) cost is the leading
factor as to what is specified.
5. What green material are you aware of/familiar with (specifically ceilings,
floorings, and walls)?
Stratica is a new type of flooring without PVC which is currently being
introduced in south campus hall, in the orientation center.

Appendix Two continued
6. Do plant operations have any current standards for green building materials?
No set standards, but the staff is trying more often to implement in a project, as a
substitution for traditional materials when they cost the same. There is some of resistance
to change to new materials. Another issues the fact of the expense of green material due
to the fact that it is usually more expensive then standard materials used today.
7. Should the ES-2 project be implemented in stages or all at once? Is it cheaper to

do it all at once?
It depends on circumstance of the situation and what they want to implement and
budget.
8. How are budgets developed for construction projects on campus? Is there

standards costing/budgets for all projects?
The faculty puts in a requisition on what work they want to get done. The
architectural services in Plant Operations calculate a preliminary budget based on
standard pricing for that type of work to get done. Architectural services meets with the
department to talk about the budget and then adjusts the design/scope of the project to
what the faculty has to spend.
9. Where is there a lack of information about green materials (relating to floors,

walls, and ceilings)?
Plant operations, contractors, and most departments on campus.
Comments
When doing projects at the university, Plant Operations wants to use the same
materials for maintenances reasons. If they introduce new green materials, education is
need by the maintenance staff in order to maintain it and more equipment and products
may be required to clean it.
When doing larger projects, they use a general contractor in order to limit the
universitys liability. Many contractors used by the university may no be aware of green
materials or how to install alternative types of construction. The university does not want
to educate these individuals about green materials; therefore, it is a challenge to get
contractors in who know how to do it.
Projects which are under 2,500 dollars do not need three competitors prices when
deciding the material to buy. However, if it exceeds 2,500 dollars you need three
competitors prices when deciding what materials to use. Therefore, when deciding what
materials to utilize, it is hard to pick a product (green material) which is more expensive
then regular (non-green materials).

Ronald van de Merwe, 4:30pm Thursday November 11, 2004
Conference Call
Mr. van de Merwe did an Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on some of the
materials we were initially looking at. We only discussed two of these materials in our
paper, so we are only including the pictures/graphs from these two.
EDS is a type of x-ray that shoots an electron beam off the sample. When the electron
beam hits the sample there is a lots of energy that comes off of the sample. The sample is
coated with gold to insulate and charge the sample. Different elements have their own
characteristic energy patterns and it allows him to determine the elements present in the
sample. The images he provided are photographs using a scan electron microscope of the
samples and the spectrum diagrams of the elemental properties. This is only an elemental
analysis and we cannot tell what the specific compounds are in the materials. From an
environmental perspective we could look at the results and see if any elements that are
bad for the environment such as lead, cadmium, and heavy metals.
VCT
From the pictures we can see that VCT is a composite of different materials with
a mixture of course particles and finer particles in between. There are sets of images that
show the internal structure of VCT at increasing magnification.
The spectrum diagram show that there it titanium, chlorine, magnesium, calcium
and oxygen. The titanium could be colour, but it is also often used as a whitener
The chlorine is more likely associated with the bond material that holds together the
larger stone. The large stones are more associated with the magnesium, calcium and
oxygen which is the limestone that is a main component of VCT.
From these results, we decided to do further investigation on VCT, the binder
used in it and chlorine.
Vinyl Composite Tile.

Fractured Surface
Magnification- 50X

Vinyl Composite Tile-

Fractured Surface
Magnification- 200X
Vinyl Composite Tile-

Fractured Surface
Magnification- 1,000X


STRAW
The interesting feedback about the straw came from the spectrum diagram and the picture
of the internal structure. If you look inside the straw itself you see a whole bunch of
fibres. Straw is a complex type of fibrous structure that is similar to wood. He suggested
that we should further investigate the fire retardant properties of straw and straw bale
construction. If wood burns easily then why would straw not burn as easily? We should
understand the logic behind assertions that straw bale construction is more fire proof than
wood stud GWB construction.
S tra w F ra g m e n t
M a g n ific a tio n - 1 0 0 X

Straw Internal Structure

Magnification- 200X
Magnification- 1,000X

Appendix Three
Former Architecture
Studio
Future ERS Home
Top left- Entrance

Bottom left- Corridor
and offices
Open ceiling and

Walls/ Windows of
ES-2
Duct Work
Concrete Block
Gypsum Wall
board

Appendix Three continued
Wall to be
demolished in ES-2
Steel stud frame

Gypsum Wall board
Flooring of ES-2
Kraus Carpet
Concrete Floor

F 04 Green Materials 2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

F 04 Green Materials 2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Green Alternatives:

Floors, Walls, and Ceilings

Susan van de Merwe

2.1 WATgreen, Greening the Campus and Green Materials 4

Green Materials 2 Page 2 of 51 Fall 2004

9.0 Literature Cited 37

Green Materials 2 Page 3 of 51 Fall 2004

With the Department of Architecture vacating Environmental Studies 2 (ES-2),

Our goal is to find the greenest materials currently available in the

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) guidelines in evaluating our proposed

material selections. It is also our intention to provide budgeting information and

delivery/manufacturing timeframes for our recommended selections.

The WATgreen organization and Greening the Campus movement allows

University of Waterloo a more ecologically, socially and economically sustainable

applied to our research:

Green Building Guidelines (1999)

These past WATgreen projects establish a baseline of knowledge that we used to

demonstrate this programs breadth of knowledge and commitment to a more sustainable

environment. It is an opportunity to preserve or renew the uniqueness of the ERS

and teachings of the program will not be reflected. We wish to be a part of a

Green Materials 2 Page 5 of 51 Fall 2004

designing/renovating their spaces on or off campus.

recommend products that should be implemented in the interior renovations of ES-2.

believe constitutes a green material.

of GWB construction, we are examining different types of insulation, which include

Green Materials 2 Page 6 of 51 Fall 2004

for t-bar ceilings.

We utilized Tetralation,1 by employing the following methodologies:

recommending green materials for ES-2.

4.2 Literature Review

difficulties. Due to the recent relocation of the Architecture Department to Cambridge

non-governmental organizations. It was very important that we found extensive

information regarding harmful properties of traditional construction materials, in order to

4.3 Expert Interviews

As part of our initial research we attended IIDEX/NeoCON Canada,2 where we

collected product information from corporate sales representatives. We also conducted

is an Architectural Technologist employed in Plant Operations at the University of

Scientist/Group Leader of Structural Analysis. We also contacted all of the manufacturers

maintenance. We used expert interviews as one of our methods because we hoped to

regular basis. Notes of our interviews are found in Appendix Two.

4.4 Case Studies

4.4 A - Case Study One: Oberlin College

College were based on the following criteria:

Green Materials 2 Page 9 of 51 Fall 2004

distributed. Acoustic panels used in the auditorium employed alternative material

find green materials in an industry entrenched in traditional building methods. Lessons

budget restraints, lack of educated product manufacturers, contractors and consumers,

4.4 B - Case Study Two: University of British Columbia

The CK Choi Building is located on the campus of the University of British

criteria set out by the design team was:

Availability of the correct measurements, door swings, pre-purchasing, and constructing

Facilities departments standard for durability. Greater Vancouver Regional District

them as the following:

There is a pre-conceived notion that green building construction is more

(USBGC-Cascadia Chapter 2004). The CK Choi project is an example of all the

4.5 Building Audit

We conducted an audit by walking through the existing ES-2 building,

walls, and ceilings (see photos in Appendix Three).

brief description of our criteria:

1. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

The LEED Green Building Rating System is a voluntary, consensus-based

national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings (USGBC

criteria. A sixth category recognizes innovative design and environmental