Resources, Conservation & Recycling 147 (2019) 157–168

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

A LCA study to investigate resource-efficient strategies for managing T

post-consumer gypsum waste in Lombardy region (Italy)
S. Pantinia,b, , M. Giuratoa, L. Rigamontia,b
⁎

a
Politecnico di Milano, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133, Milano, Italy
b
MatER Resource Centre, c/o LEAP, via Nino Bixio 27/c, 29121, Piacenza, Italy

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study aimed at evaluating environmental sustainable solutions for managing the gypsum waste in Lombardy
Gypsum waste region (Italy), based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. Primary data and information related to
Plasterboards gypsum waste flows, recovery technologies and end-market of recycled materials were gathered to depict the
Recycling whole recycling chain and to build up a life cycle inventory dataset specific for the geographical context under
Recycled gypsum
study. The LCA analysis of the current scenario allowed to identify strength and weak points of the regional
Waste management
system: up to date, most impacts are related to the recovery of gypsum waste by mixing with other mineral
Environmental assessment
construction and demolition waste, which appeared as the prevalent option. Different alternative scenarios were
hence analyzed by considering that all the gypsum waste is recycled in dedicated plants and by analyzing
different end-uses of the recycled material. The focus was placed on four major sectors for which the use of
recycled gypsum is technically feasible: plasterboard manufacturing, cement industry, disinfection of sewage
sludge, and agriculture. For each analyzed end-use scenario, the potential market demand in Lombardy region as
well as the technical requirements of the recycled gypsum were evaluated as key points in the LCA. Results from
the impact assessment were used to provide recommendations for the regional government to move towards a
more resource-efficient waste management.

1. Introduction et al., 2016; Jiménez-Rivero and García-Navarro, 2017a).

Gypsum-based waste belongs to the construction and demolition
waste (CDW) category which is one of the largest fractions generated in
the European Union (34.7% of totally generated waste in EU-28;
Eurostat, 2014). However, gypsum waste (GW) significantly differs
from the other CDW from both quantitative and qualitative point of
view, which implies that different strategies and practices should be
applied for its proper management and recycling. Despite the low
generation level (0.2% - 0.4% by weight of total CDW, Jiménez-Rivero
and García-Navarro, 2017a), GW is nowadays receiving increasing at-
tention as confirmed by the development of research projects and in-
itiatives aimed at enhancing gypsum recycling (Bauer, 2012; CRI, 2010;
GtoG Project, 2013a, b; GtoG Project, 2015; WRAP, 2008). This is be-
cause it is fully recyclable with little economic effort (CRI, 2010;
Geraldo et al., 2017; Jiménez-Rivero and García-Navarro, 2017a;
Pedreno-Rojas et al., 2019). Indeed, it can be easily turned into a va-
luable secondary material (i.e. recycled gypsum - RG) by means of re-
cycling processes, allowing to close the loop of natural resources and to
meet the circular economy targets (Erbs et al., 2018; Jiménez-Rivero
Despite its great potentialities, most of GW in EU is currently
landfilled or recovered by mixing with other mineral CDW fractions.
Besides the loss of valuable resources, gypsum landfilling entails po-
tentially high emission of sulfates leached out by GW; moreover, hy-
drogen sulfide and greenhouse gas can be emitted due to degradation
processes occurring within the landfill body if GW is not placed in
mono-cells. Gypsum recovery with other mineral CDW fractions allows
to divert waste from landfills but it is recognized as a low-grade option.
Indeed, it reduces the quality and technical properties of mixed re-
cycled aggregates that are mainly intended to be used as unbound
materials in road sub-base and base layers or in fillings: the main issues
concern the potential swelling of layers containing gypsum due to hy-
dration processes and the leaching of sulfates. Due to these issues, the
Italian legislation regulating the use of recycled aggregates in civil and
road construction works (Ministerial Circular n. 5205/2005) limits the
maximum content of GW in recycled aggregates between 0.4% and
0.6% by weight depending on final end-uses (see Table S1 in the
Supplementary Material). Hence, if the amount of generated GW in-
creases in the next future, as supposed, this practice should be restricted

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sara.pantini@polimi.it (S. Pantini).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.019
Received 5 December 2018; Received in revised form 9 April 2019; Accepted 17 April 2019
Available online 07 May 2019
0921-3449/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Pantini, et al.
to avoid the production and the placement on the market of recycled
aggregates that do not comply with the legislative quality criteria.
Moreover, enhancing the GW recycling allows to introduce a valuable
secondary material on the market that can be used in different sectors,
thus preserving natural resources. The most relevant applications of RG,
which were investigated and compared in this study, include:
- Construction sector: RG as raw material in the manufacturing of new
plasterboards;
- Cement sector: RG as additive to the clinker for retarding the setting
time of cement;
- Sewage sludge treatment: RG as additive for the chemical stabili-
zation of sewage sludge and the production of an organic-rich fer-
tilizer;
- Agriculture: RG as a soil amendment.
So far, most of available studies addressed the chemical and phy-
sical properties of RG compared to natural gypsum (NG), and/or
evaluated the technical feasibility and the effects of using RG in the
production of new construction materials, such as Portland cement
(Chandara et al., 2009; Suarez et al., 2016), plasters (Erbs et al., 2018;
Geraldo et al., 2017; Pedreno-Rojas et al., 2019), ceramic blocks
(Godinho-Castro et al., 2012), plasterboards (Jiménez-Rivero and
García-Navarro, 2017b; Papailiopoulou et al., 2018), in terms of quality
of resulting products.
Geraldo et al. (2017) and Erbs et al. (2018) have performed ex-
tensive experimental activities demonstrating that the recycling process
of gypsum did not alter the chemical characteristics of new building
components even after several cycles. Each recycling cycle included
crushing, milling, calcination and the preparation of new pastes with
25%, 50%, 75% and 100% RG content (Erbs et al., 2018). They con-
cluded that the incorporation of GW in large quantities is technically
feasible in the manufacture of new plasters. Similar findings were
achieved by Pedreno-Rojas et al. (2019); in their study, the effect of the
heating process on the properties of new plasters containing different
types and content of RG was analyzed. Their results confirmed that it
was possible to substitute 100% of commercial gypsum with GW from
plasterboards without any heating treatment, while ensuring good
performances of final products.
Chandara et al. (2009) tested the setting time and mechanical
properties of Portland cement made with natural and recycled gypsum,
demonstrating that RG can totally replace NG without lowering the
cement strength and with a small decrease in the setting time.
In contrast, Jiménez-Rivero and García-Navarro (2017b) tested
gypsum plasterboards with different content of RG (17–28%) and found
out that 86% of samples met the mechanical requirements for plaster-
boards (type A), highlighting the need for further investigations on
higher RG incorporation rates.
Papailiopoulou et al. (2018) investigated the potential effects of RG
addition into the manufacturing process of plasterboards through full-
scale industrial trials, with a gradual increase of the RG amount up to a
technically feasible maximum, set at 30% by weight in feedstock; they
proved that the 30% introduction is feasible even without permanent
process-adjustment.
Gypsum can also be used in agriculture as a fertilizer and as a soil
amendment, as it provides calcium and sulfur, that are essential plant
nutrients, as well as it improves other soil characteristics (soil structure,
permeability, compaction, compressive strength…). Kuttah and Sato
(2015) defined the state-of-the-art of the effects of adding natural or
recycled gypsum to subgrade soil to improve its physical and me-
chanical performance; the effect of gypsum addition to soil is different
for each analyzed properties and strictly dependent on soil texture and
gypsum content. In the review of Ndukwe and Yuan (2016), the po-
tential use of recycled plasterboards as a compost-bulking agent was
158
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 147 (2019) 157–168
discussed, highlighting the advantages and possible drawbacks. In-
vestigations of the use of RG as stabilizing agent in sewage sludge
treatment were not found in literature. According to the literature re-
view, the use of RG in plasterboards and cement appears favorable
compared to the use in compost/agriculture (Butera et al., 2011), as it is
still in its infancy stage and it needs for further research.
The aim of this study is the evaluation of the environmental im-
pacts/benefits associated with different solutions for managing and
recycling GW in Lombardy region (Italy), by means of the Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA). LCA results, coupled with sensitivity analyses, were
used to support local authorities in identifying the most effective ac-
tions to improve the sustainability and resource-efficiency of the GW
management system. LCA has been widely used as a decision support
tool for enhancing the sustainability of waste management solutions
(Coelho and Lange, 2018; De Meester et al., 2019; Lam et al., 2018;
Rigamonti et al., 2013) but very few LCA studies comparing alternative
recycling options of GW in large scale systems are nowadays available
(Butera et al., 2011). This study presents a comprehensive and deep
investigation on different strategies for managing end-of-life gypsum
products, also adding some practical applications and novel aspects
compared to the literature studies recently published on the same topic
(Jiménez-Rivero et al., 2016; Marcinkowski, 2018; Pedreno-Rojas et al.,
2019; Suárez et al., 2016).
The first step of the analysis implies the definition of waste and
material flows within the analyzed system; thus, the amount of gypsum-
base waste (European Waste Catalogue (EWC) code 170802) generated
at regional scale, the actual recycling level and the current practices
and technologies were evaluated (sections 2 and 3.2). Primary data on
GW recycling processes were collected through interviews and site
visits; the quality and actual end-uses of RG were considered in the
evaluation of the type and amount of avoided primary resources. This
allowed to define a region-specific inventory and to embrace the local
peculiarities in the environmental assessment. Alternative scenarios
representing different uses of the RG were also evaluated to identify
possible improvements of the system, from which a best-case scenario
was modelled (sections from 3.3 to 3.5 and 4.3).
2. Quantification of the gypsum waste and its management in
Lombardy
One major issue with GW is the lack of official and reliable data on
the amount of waste generated and recycled at national (and regional)
level. The only data available refer to some specific European countries
(Italy not included) and were recently presented in the Life + GtoG
project supported by the Gypsum Industry (GtoG Project, 2013a, b;
Jiménez-Rivero et al., 2015).
To achieve a reliable quantification of the GW generation and re-
cycling rates in Lombardy region, raw data from the mandatory en-
vironmental declarations (MUD - Modello Unico di Dichiarazione
Ambientale) annually submitted by waste treatment operators to the
regional agency for the environmental protection (ARPA Lombardia)
were elaborated. Results from MUD data analysis revealed that
20,988 tonnes of source-separated GW were managed within the re-
gional system. Hence, summing the amount of GW exported to other
surrounding Italian regions (10,417 tonnes), a total GW generation of
31,405 tonnes in 2014 was estimated. It appears very low compared to
the total mineral fraction of CDW that accounts for roughly 7 million
tonnes (excavated soils excluded - Borghi et al., 2018). Moreover, dif-
ferently from other mineral CDWs that were mainly treated within the
region (up to 95% of the total generated CDW), a significant export of
GW was detected: only 67% of the generated GW was treated within the
regional plants. This result may indicate a plausible under-capacity of
the management system for this specific waste. Looking at the mass
flow of GW in the regional system, reported in Table 1, the material
S. Pantini, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 147 (2019) 157–168

Table 1
Amount of gypsum-based waste (EWC 170802) managed in Lombardy region in 2014 (source: elaboration of MUD data provided by ARPA Lombardia).
Waste code Storage (1) Recycling by mixing with CDW (2 A) Recycling in dedicated plants (2B) Disposal* (3) Totally managed (1 + 2 A+2B+3)

170802 2,951 t 17,696 t 97 t 244 t 20,988 t

* It includes waste landfilling and other disposal operations.

recovery is the most applied operation (84.8% of the total treated GW1)
while only 1.1% of GW is directly landfilled. The remaining 14.1% is
stocked within transfer stations without being subjected to any further
treatment.
To define the adopted methods/technologies for recycling GW in
the region, the largest 20 facilities treating this kind of waste were
interviewed. The analysis revealed that only 1 plant was in operation in
the region able to perform a dedicated treatment. In all the others re-
cycling plants, the GW was mixed with other mineral CDW materials
(i.e. EWC codes 1701, 170302, 170904) to produce recycled ag-
gregates.
3. Application of the Life Cycle Assessment methodology
3.1. Goal and scope definition
ILCD 2011 method (EC-JRC, 2011) for the environmental impact as-
sessment and the CED (Cumulative Energy Demand) method
(Frischknecht et al., 2007) to quantify the energy performance of each
scenario. The assessment covered all ILCD impact categories with the
exclusion of land use and ionizing radiations due to the lack of primary
data and also to lack of a general consensus on the related character-
ization methods. In addition, ad hoc indicators for quantifying the
consumption or saving of natural mineral resources (i.e. sand, gravel
and natural gypsum) were developed to capture all relevant material
flows within the analyzed system; in fact, some specific material re-
sources, i.e. the mineral ones, are unmapped flows in the ILCD method
since characterization factors are missing. The proposed indicators were
computed by summing the flows returned by the life cycle inventory
(LCI) and were reported in terms of kg of sand/gravel and gypsum
consumed or saved by the system, as explained in Borghi et al. (2018).

3.2. Baseline scenario: description and inventory

The goal of this LCA was to evaluate benefits and weak points of the
current management of GW in Lombardy region. The final aim was to
In the baseline scenario it was assumed that all the GW was sent to
find out the most appropriate strategies that local government may
CDW plants and mixed with other mineral CDW to produced recycled
adopt to improve the system’s performances.
aggregates (RAs). This scenario represents well the current situation for
The methodological approach is consistent with other LCA studies
recycling GW in Lombardy region, where only a very small percentage
dealing with waste management systems (e.g. Blengini and Garbarino,
of GW was subjected to a dedicated treatment (Table 1). The average
2010; Biganzoli et al., 2015; Borghi et al., 2018; Butera et al., 2011;
consumptions of energy and materials and the output of the recovery
Coelho and Lange, 2018). The system boundaries include all the re-
process are reported in Table 2. Data were derived from the largest
levant stages from the waste management at the working site to the
CDW recycling facilities operating in the region (previously presented
production of new materials and/or to the release of any residues as
in Borghi et al., 2018). Transportation of RAs is limited to the nearby
final emissions to the environment. The impacts associated to the waste
area (15 km), due to the low selling price of these materials, whereas
generation due to construction and demolition activities were excluded
natural aggregates are transported for a longer distance (40 km), as
following the “zero burden assumption” (Ekvall et al., 2007); this
resulted from the analysis of 198 quarry sites operating in the region.
means that the waste enters the regional management systems without
RAs appeared of low/medium quality and were mainly used as un-
any burdens. To solve the multi-functionalities of the system, i.e. the
bound aggregates in low grade applications (embankments, fillings,
processing of waste and the production of new materials, the method of
road sub-bases). Moreover, their market demand was extremely vari-
system expansion was applied, by including the avoided primary pro-
able depending on local factors, mainly availability and price of virgin
ductions due to material recovery from waste (EC-JRC, 2010;
natural aggregates. Indeed, the real market demand was included in the
Finnveden et al., 2009).
calculation of the actual amount of avoided primary materials. Thus, a
A baseline scenario and some alternatives scenarios were defined. In
replacement coefficient between RAs and natural resources of 1 kg:
all of them, the GW was regarded as post-consumer gypsum waste
0.617 kg was considered for the whole region (see Borghi et al., 2018
coming from construction and demolition sites as available data refer to
for a more detailed explanation).
this flow (Table 1); in fact, the elaboration of MUD data included only
the GW generated in the region, where there is no plasterboard man-
3.3. Alternative scenarios: description and inventory
ufacturing plant. Moreover, GW was regarded as plasterboard since,
according to Eurostat data (2014), more than 97% of the sold volume of
The alternative scenarios (AS), depicted in Fig. 1, represent possible
gypsum building materials in Italy corresponded to plasterboard ma-
improvements of the current regional GW management system. In all of
terials. The geographical and temporal boundaries of the foreground
them, it was modelled that all the GW was sent to dedicated recycling
system cover the current conditions in Lombardy region (Italy) with
plants and they differ in the application of the gypsum powder re-
reference to the 2014. In the baseline scenario all the GW is recovered
covered thanks to the dedicated recycling process:
with mineral CDW; in this case, the functional unit was 1 tonne of GW
mixed with CDW, whose representative composition include 0.3% by
- Scenario AS1: the RG is used in the construction sector as raw ma-
mass of GW (Borghi et al., 2018). In the alternative scenarios, that re-
terial in the manufacturing of new plasterboards;
present the focus of this paper, different strategies for recycling the GW
- Scenario AS2: the RG is used in the cement sector as additive to the
to obtain RG as secondary material are included: hence, in all the
clinker for retarding the setting time of cement;
analyzed alternative scenarios, the functional unit was 1 tonne of GW
- Scenario AS3: the RG is used in sewage sludge treatment as additive
that is recycled in dedicated plants.
for the chemical stabilization of the sewage sludge and the pro-
The LCA was performed with the software SimaPro 8.3, using the
duction of an organic-rich fertilizer;
- Scenario AS4: the RG is used in agriculture as a soil amendment.
1
Considering the total generated GW in the region, the actual recycling rate
of the GW is 57.7%. In order to be able to treat all the GW generated in the region, it was

159
 S. Pantini, et al.

Table 2
Inventory data for the modelling of the baseline scenario (i.e. mixing with mineral CDW) and the alternative scenarios (i.e. dedicated GW recycling).
Baseline scenario* Alternative scenarios

Recycling plant 86.1% plants fueled by diesel and 13.9% stationary plants powered by electricity 100% stationary plants powered by electricity
Mass balance of the recycling process (referring to 100% inlet waste) Recycled aggregates: 99.4%; Recycled gypsum: 83.9% (dev.st. 2.7%);
Ferrous metals: 0.13%; Ferrous metals: 0.02%;
Wood**: 0.23%; Paper/cardboard: 15.2% (dev.st. 2.6%);
Plastics**: 0.01%; Losses: 0.88% (dev.st. 0.3%)
Recyclable waste**: 0.06%;
Unrecoverable waste to landfill: 0.17%
Energy requirements Electricity: 0.157 kW h/t; Electricity: 6.11 kW h/t;
Fuel (diesel): 0.586 l/t Fuel (diesel): 0.44 l/t
Auxiliary material supply Water: 1.343 l/t; None
Steel (maintenance): 0.02 kg/t
Recycled product Mixed recycled aggregates Recycled gypsum
End-uses of recycled product Restoration/fillings Plasterboard manufacturing (AS1)

160
Embankment/road sub-bases Concrete production (AS2)
Sewage sludge treatment (AS3)
Agriculture (AS4)
Avoided products and corresponding replacement coefficients Natural soil (NS) →1 kg (RA) : 0.617 kg (NS) Table 3 for the use of recycled gypsum
Primary steel → 1 kg (Fe metals): 0.802 kg (primary steel)*** Primary steel → 1 kg (Fe metals): 0.881 kg (primary steel)***
Virgin pulp from thermomechanical process → 1 kg (recycled pulp): 0.822 kg (virgin pulp)
Raw material extraction Fuel (diesel) consumption for NS: 0.39 l/t Sections from 3.3.1 to 3.3.4
Raw material processing None for NS Sections from 3.3.1 to 3.3.4
Raw material transport 40 km for NS Table 3

* data from Borghi et al. (2018).

** not included in the LCA system boundaries, as reported in Borghi et al. (2018).
*** in the alternative scenarios ferrous metals are already suitable for steelmaking. Conversely, in the baseline scenario a sorting step is included.
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 147 (2019) 157–168
S. Pantini, et al.
Fig. 1. Gypsum waste (GW) management in the alternative scenarios (AS). T = transportation.
assumed that three recycling plants will be in operation with the same
technologies, efficiencies and energy/material requirements of the one
already existing in the region (treatment capacity ≈ 14,000 t/y). The
two new plants were supposed to be located in the provinces of Milan
and Bergamo corresponding to the regional areas with the highest GW
generation rate (the existing one is located in the province of Cremona).
Consequently, the average transport distance for the delivery of the GW
to the recycling plants was estimated based on the GW pattern pro-
duction in the region and assuming the proximity criterion: it resulted
in 37 km.
Primary data on the mass balance, the quality of output materials
and the transport distances related to the already existing GW recycling
plant were collected during a site visit (Tables from S2 to S6 in the
Supplementary Material). In this plant, the GW, after the removal of
ferrous metals (e.g. anchoring screws), is subjected to a primary
grinding in a knife mill. The fine fraction is conveyed to the collection
point of the RG; the oversize fraction is sent to a secondary roller mill
and then to a vibrating sieve which separates the gypsum fine powder
from the larger-size fraction mainly composed of cardboard/paper. The
latter is sent to a tertiary roller mill allowing the physical detachment of
the residual gypsum powder from the cardboard/paper, which is fur-
ther processed in a secondary vibrating sieve. The overall mass balance
and the main features of the GW recycling plant are reported in Fig. 1
and in Table 2: these data were used to model the recycling process in
all the alternative scenarios. The recovery efficiency of the process
(83.9%) appeared slightly lower than previous studies (Butera et al.,
2011; Ndukwe and Yuan, 2016).
The paper waste was assumed to be destined to paper factories due
to its high quality (see Table S3 in the Supplementary Material): here it
is processed avoiding the production of primary pulp. The ferrous
metals were assumed as input materials for the production of secondary
steel that can be used in substitution of primary steel. The replacement
coefficients between secondary and primary materials related to paper
and metals recycling were derived from literature and are reported in
Table 2. The sub-sections from 3.3.1 to 3.3.4 describe the use of the RG
in the different alternative scenarios. Depending on the specific use of
the RG, the type and the amount of the avoided primary material was
assessed as well as the transport distances of both recycled and avoided
products to final destinations (Table 3) considering the plants locations
161
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 147 (2019) 157–168
across the region (more details in Table S5 of the Supplementary Ma-
terial). Moreover, the potential market demand of the RG for each
analyzed sector was estimated as this aspect could limit the replace-
ment of primary materials.
3.3.1. AS1 scenario: use of RG in plasterboards manufacturing
In the AS1 scenario, the RG is used as raw material in the manu-
facturing of new plasterboards. The avoided primary material is natural
gypsum (NG) and the replacement coefficient between RG and NG was
computed based on the content of calcium sulphate dihydrate [CaSO4
*2H2O] in the two materials, which appears as the main technical
property for this specific application (Papailiopoulou et al., 2018;
WRAP, 2008). The particle size of RG (0.07–8 mm) is already suitable
for the use in the manufacturing process (dimension below 15 mm is
required according to the GtoG guidelines on RG quality criteria - GtoG
project, 2015) and in line with previous researches (Jiménez-Rivero
and García-Navarro, 2017b; Papailiopoulou et al., 2018). As concerns
the composition of RG, data from the chemical analyses carried out by
the existing plant over 1 year of experimental campaigns were con-
sidered (Table S6 in the Supplementary Material). Data related to NG
were instead derived from literature (GtoG project, 2015). Based on the
average content of [CaSO4 *2H2O] in RG and NG, the replacement
coefficient resulted in 1 kgRG : 0.881 kgNG.
The modelling of avoided impacts from NG savings was based on
primary data collected at the only existing regional gypsum quarry site.
The extraction process implies the consumption of 0.34 l/tNG of diesel by
the hammer excavator and mechanical shovels. For the processing of NG,
the electricity consumption associated to first shredding and secondary
milling machines were considered as the only steps needed to achieve
dimension below 15 mm (total energy consumption: 2.4 kW h/t).
The survey revealed that there are not plasterboards manufacturing
plants in Lombardy region. This means that the RG produced in the
regional plants shall be transported along a quite long distance (i.e.
253 km, Table 3). Likewise, the transport of NG occurs for 283 km by
assuming the avoided extraction of gypsum from the same quarry site in
Lombardy.
Finally, to evaluate if this sector may fulfill the potential supply of
RG in the region, the amount of NG needed for the production of
plasterboard panels in the closest Italian manufacturing plant
S. Pantini, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 147 (2019) 157–168

Destination of the recycled gypsum (RG) in each alternative scenario with the indication of the avoided primary material, the replacement coefficient, the average transport distances and the market demand of primary
Table 4

Potential market demand of RG

Minimum and maximum values of the system parameters (i.e.
RC = replacement coefficient; T = transportation) considered in the sensitivity
analyses.
6,680 tb- 26,718 tc Replacement coefficient Transport distance

Alternative scenario RC min RC max T min T max

58,573 td
35,392 ta

35,525 te

AS1 0.784 0.948 GR: 158 km –

GN: 250 km
AS2 0.969 0.998 GR: 49 km GR: 106 km
GN: 140 km GN: 152 km
AS3 0.87 0.93 GR: 54 km GR: 96 km
Market demand of primary material

GN: 130 km GN: 76 km

AS4 0.367 – – GR: 90 km
Lime: 110 km

(production capacity ≈ 125,000 t/y) was estimated. The total gypsum

demand was evaluated at roughly 118,000 t/y based on the assumption
that 95% of the raw materials in new plasterboards is gypsum (Jiménez-
117,974 t
133,590 t

14,166 te
52,716 t

Rivero et al., 2016). Even if a part of it may be covered by the use of

flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum, the demand of RG results much
higher than the maximum RG available in the region (≈26,000 t/y,
calculated considering a total GW generation of 31,405 tonnes in 2014
and a recovery efficiency of 83.9%). Moreover, the recommended
253 km; NG: 283 km

48 km; Lime: 63 km
82 km; NG: 152 km
87 km; NG: 142 km

maximum content of RG at 30% in new plasterboards to meet the

quality standards of final products (GtoG project, 2015; Jiménez-Rivero
and García-Navarro, 2017b; Papailiopoulou et al., 2018) is also sa-
tisfied.
Transport

RG:
RG:
RG:
RG:

3.3.2. AS2 scenario: use of RG as set retarder in cement

In the AS2 scenario, the RG is used as additive in cement produc-
tion. The avoided primary material is NG and the replacement coeffi-
0.882 kg (NG)
0.991 kg (NG)

cient between RG and NG was computed based on the purity of those

0.40 kg (lime)
Replacement coefficient

0.90 kg (NG)

materials, in terms of absence of organic carbon (purity = 100 -

TOC%). TOC in the RG is mainly due to the presence of residual paper;
it is indeed regarded as a “limiting parameter” by the cement manu-
facturers since it can negatively affect the setting time and the final
(RG):
(RG):
(RG):
(RG):

characteristics of the cement. In the case of NG, 100% purity was

1 kg
1 kg
1 kg
1 kg

considered while an average value of 99.15% was assumed for RG

(based on data presented by GtoG Project, 2015). Thus, in the AS2
scenario a replacement coefficient of 1 kgRG : 0.991 kgNG was as-
Avoided primary material

sumed. The modeling of the avoided production of NG is the same as

by applying the RG dosage provided by the sewage sludge treatment plant.
Natural Gypsum (NG)

described for the AS1 scenario. Transport distances of RG and NG were

estimated considering the location of the 5 cement plants in the region
(see Table S5 in the Supplementary Material): average values are re-
ported in Table 3.
About the potentiality of this sector to absorb all the RG produced in
Lime

the region, it should be considered that the cement production in

NG
NG

assumed RG addition at 20% of total gypsum in cement.

current RG addition at 5% of total gypsum in cement.

Lombardy region was around 4.17 Mt in 2014 implying a total gypsum

demand of 170,935 t (gypsum dosage: 0.041 t per tonne of cement), of
which 37,346 tonnes of FGD gypsum and 133,590 tonnes of NG (esti-
Plasterboards manufacturing

mations from national data presented by AITEC, 2014). Currently, the

Sewage sludge treatment
Agriculture (adjust pH)
Cement manufacturing

addition of RG is limited at 5% of NG supply to avoid technical pro-

blems during the production process; thus, the estimated actual demand
of RG (6,679 t/y) from this sector results lower than the potential RG
limitation at 30% for RG addition.
Destination

supply. The viability of using the entire RG produced in the region as set
retarder in cement depends on the technical feasibility of adding RG at
20%, which should be further investigated.
and secondary materials.

high uncertain data.

3.3.3. AS3 scenario: use of RG in sewage sludge treatment plants

Alternative scenario

In the AS3 scenario, the RG is used as additive for treating sewage

sludge. In this case, no restrictions exist for the dosage of the RG as long
as the final product (regarded as an organic fertilizer) has a CaO content
of at least 15% by dry weight (Italian decree on fertilizers D. Lgs. 105/
Table 3

2010). Chemical analysis on RG samples have demonstrated the tech-

AS1
AS2
AS3
AS4

d
b
a

nical viability of using it in agriculture, since it complies with the limit

c

162
S. Pantini, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 147 (2019) 157–168

Fig. 2. Contribution analysis of the alternative scenario AS3.

values for metal content in inorganic soil improvers set by the Italian
legislation (see Table S4 in the Supplementary Material).
The avoided primary material is NG and the replacement coefficient
between RG and NG was estimated based on the dosage of the two
materials provided by a sewage sludge treatment plant (NG = 13.5% vs
RG = 15%, of sludge weight). An average value of 1 kgRG : 0.9 kgNG
was thus obtained for the replacement. Regarding the avoided primary
production of NG, since this application implies that the NG is further
milled below dimension of 3 mm, the electricity consumption of a ter-
tiary milling machine (3.0 kW h/t) was added in the NG processing step
(differently from the AS1 and AS2 scenarios).
An average distance of 87 km between the GW recycling plants and
all the regional plants treating the sewage sludge to produce a fertilizer
called “gessi di defecazione” (D.Lgs. 75/2010) was estimated. The
transport distance of NG was instead 142 km (Table 3).
Finally, considering the annual amount of treated sewage sludge in
the region (390,487 t in 2014), the estimated RG demand was
58,573 tonnes, much higher than the maximum RG available in the
region.
3.3.4. AS4 scenario: use of RG in agriculture
In the AS4 scenario, the RG is used in agriculture to improve soil
properties. This is a widespread problem in the agricultural soils of the
provinces of Varese, Como, Milano and Pavia (DUSAF, 2010) due to
crop uptakes and intensive use of fertilizers. The avoided primary ma-
terial is the agricultural lime; the ecoinvent process “lime production,
milled, loose [GLO]” was used for the quantification of the avoided
impacts. The replacement coefficient between RG and lime was com-
puted based on the content of calcium oxide [CaO]. The typical value of
92% CaO was considered for the lime while the average value of 37%
was assumed for RG as obtained from the chemical analysis carried out
by the GW recycling plant.
The market demand was estimated by assuming an average dosage
of 2.5 t/ha of lime and 5,670 ha of agricultural areas to be treated in the
region (≈0.5% of total agricultural areas); however, the estimated
demand of lime (Table 3) as well as the transport distances appear
highly uncertain due to the computational assumptions.
3.4. Sensitivity analyses
Sensitivity analyses were performed on the alternative scenarios by
changing one per time the replacement coefficient and the transport
distances of RG and NG between the minimum and maximum values
returned by the inventory phase. A summary of investigated parameters

Table 5
Comparison of the environmental and energetic impacts between the baseline scenario and the alternative scenarios (with the exclusion of the benefits from paper
recycling), expressed per tonne of GW recycled (waste transportation excluded).
*
Unit Baseline scenario AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4

Global warming kg CO2 eq/t −1.06 2.5 −1.7 −1.5 −10.9

Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq/t 4.80E-08 3.33E-07 −5.64E-07 −3.52E-07 −1.95E-07
Human toxicity, no cancer CTUh/t 1.90E-07 2.22E-07 −8.62E-07 −5.61E-07 −3.76E-06
Human toxicity, cancer CTUh/t 4.70E-06 7.60E-07 6.52E-07 6.58E-07 7.75E-08
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq/t 4.30E-04 1.39E-03 −1.34E-03 −6.91E-04 −1.50E-02
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq/t −1.74E-07 1.07E-02 −1.86E-02 −8.73E-03 −3.12E-02
Acidification mol H+ eq/t 6.60E-03 1.60E-02 −7.88E-03 −5.31E-03 −8.05E-02
Terrestrial eutrophication mol N eq/t 2.80E-03 3.83E-02 −6.19E-02 −2.76E-02 −1.22E-01
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq/t 2.90E-02 2.65E-04 1.16E-04 −2.12E-04 −4.56E-03
Marine eutrophication kg N eq/t −1.80E-03 3.57E-03 −5.58E-03 −2.50E-03 −1.45E-02
Freshwater eco-toxicity CTUe/t 66.6 19.3 −8.1 −3.6 −58.8
Water resource depletion m3 water eq/t 1.90E-02 2.41E-02 2.86E-02 1.23E-02 −1.12E-02
Mineral & fossil resource depletion kg Sb eq/t −8.10E-05 −4.61E-06 −2.32E-04 −1.42E-04 −4.45E-04
Energetic indicator (CED) MJ eq/t −14.5 42.6 −31.8 −26.7 −226.3
Natural resources consumption:
Sand and gravel indicator kg/t −622.1 – – – –
Natural gypsum indicator kg/t – −740 −831 −755 –

* Results from Borghi et al., 2018.

163
S. Pantini, et al.
Fig. 3. Results from the sensitivity analysis on the replacement coefficient for the analyzed alternative scenarios AS1-AS4.
is shown in Table 4. A narrow range was detected for the replacement
coefficient (RC), due to the homogeneity of RG in terms of composition
and quality. The variation of RC was below 12% for all scenarios. The
largest variability is instead associated with transportation (T) which is
recognized as a key parameter influencing the LCA outcome of similar
systems (Blengini and Garbarino, 2010; Borghi et al., 2018;
Marcinkowski, 2018); the difference with respect to the average value
assumed in each alternative scenario may reach up to 40%. Results
from the sensitivity analyses allow to understand to what extent the
main system parameters and assumptions may influence the LCA out-
come.
3.5. Best-case scenario for the GW management
A best-case scenario, aimed at optimizing the environmental and
energetic performances of the regional GW management system has
been defined based on the following criteria:
- Environmental profile of each scenario as resulted from the impact
assessment
- Quality of input data and uncertainty related to the modelling
- Potential/existing technical limitations related to the use of the RG
- Current/future market demand of the RG in the region for each
sector
The alternative end-uses of the RG were scored according to their
performance (3 = high; 2 = medium; 1 = poor) and considering an
equal weight for each criterion. The final scores were used to define the
best-case scenario for the GW management in the region.
164
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 147 (2019) 157–168
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Comparison between the baseline scenario and the alternative scenarios
Results from the impact assessment indicate that the recycling of the
GW in dedicated plants is much more beneficial than its recovery by
mixing with other CDW, for all the applications considered in the al-
ternative scenarios (Tables S7-S11 in the Supplementary Material).
Indeed, the current system modelled in the baseline scenario generates
additional burdens to the environment, as all impact indicators present
positive values. Conversely, the production and use of RG provide
benefits for most impact categories, which are, however, mainly as-
cribed to the recycling of the cardboard/paper separated during the GW
treatment process. The contribution analysis, shown in Fig. 2 and re-
lated to the AS3 scenario, demonstrates that paper recycling accounts
for 97–99% to the total impacts/benefits due to the large avoided im-
pacts associated with the production of thermomechanical primary
pulp (saved product). The only exception is the natural resources con-
sumption indicator for which the benefits mostly arises from the use of
the RG.
To better appreciate the environmental implications related to the
different end-uses of the RG, the impacts were calculated by excluding
the benefits associated to the cardboard/paper recycling and the im-
pacts from waste transportation: results are shown in Table 5.
From this comparison, it was found that the worst environmental
performances are associated with the use of the RG in the manu-
facturing of new plasterboards: this is manly ascribed to the non-
existence of plasterboards manufacturers in the region, leading to long
transport distances of the RG whose impacts cannot be compensated by
the benefits from using the RG in substitution of the NG. Hence, if paper
S. Pantini, et al.
Fig. 4. Results from the sensitivity analysis on the transport distances of secondary and primary materials for the analyzed alternative scenarios AS1-AS4.
recycling is not considered, the GW recycling generates impacts higher
than those from its recovery in CDW facilities (baseline scenario) for
some impact categories (e.g. global warming, photochemical ozone
formation, CED), when the RG is used in plasterboards production. The
highest environmental benefits are instead associated to the use of the
RG in agriculture (AS4), with values up to 7 times higher compared to
AS2/AS3 scenarios (e.g. global warming, CED). This is mainly due to
the avoided energy consumptions for lime production, whose impacts
are much greater than the ones from the extraction and processing of
NG. AS2 and AS3 scenarios present good environmental profiles, with
most indicators negative in sign, looking as more beneficial options
compared to GW mixing in CDW recycling plants. However, it should
be kept in mind that, if paper recycling is not considered, the entity of
the benefits from AS2 and AS3 scenarios are not high enough to com-
pensate the impacts from GW transportation (see Tables S9 and S10);
this can only be achieved when the RG is used as a soil improver in
agriculture (AS4 - Table S11).
4.2. Results from the sensitivity analyses
The effect of the replacement coefficient on the impact assessment
was quantified focusing on the gypsum recycling step (as all other steps
remain unchanged). Results are shown in Fig. 3 for the most relevant
impact categories; raw data can be found in Table S12 of the Supple-
mentary Material. Despite the low variability of the replacement coef-
ficient (Table 5), it may significantly affect the LCA results, especially in
the AS1 scenario: for instance, the global warming varies from +2.7
kgCO2eq/t in the AS1 scenario to +1.2 kgCO2eq/t in the scenario with
the maximum replacement coefficient (AS1_RCmax) and to +5.0
kgCO2eq/t when the replacement is minimized (AS1_RCmin). Similar
165
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 147 (2019) 157–168
trends can be observed for the ozone depletion and the energetic in-
dicator; the natural resources consumption indicator is instead less
impacted (−658 kg/t in the AS1_RCmin scenario and −795 kg/t in the
AS1_RCmax). Variations in all impact categories are below 20% for the
AS2 and AS4 scenarios (with the exception of the ozone depletion in-
dicator) and between 20–40% for the AS3 scenario.
As concern the sensitivity analysis on transport distances of recycled
and primary products, results are presented in Fig. 4 and in Table S13.
The influence of this parameter on the system’s performance is relevant
for most impact categories in the AS1, AS2 and AS3 scenarios. The
observed trend and the magnitude of the impact variation significantly
differ compared to the previous analysis (Fig. 3); in particular, in-
creasing transport distances has upset the environmental performances
of the system in the AS2 and AS3 scenarios. The AS3 scenario is the
most sensitive to the variation of transport distances: indeed, when
transportation is maximized in AS3_Tmax, the impact indicators change
in sign, turning from benefits to additional burdens for the system (e.g.
global warming varies from -1.28 kgCO2eq/t in AS3 to +3.69
kgCO2eq/t in AS3_Tmax). This effect can be also observed for the AS2
scenario but it is limited to the global warming impact category (-1.50
kgCO2eq/t in AS2 to +0.24 kgCO2eq/t in AS2_Tmax) and the energetic
indicator (-30 MJ/t in AS2 to + 1.0 MJ/t in AS2_Tmax). In general, the
variations in the impact assessment are lower in the AS2 scenario
compared to those of the AS3 scenario. The latter may achieve the
worst environmental profile when transportation is maximized in
AS3_Tmax.
Variations up to 100% in impacts can be observed in the AS1 sce-
nario; however, the minimization of transport distance is still not en-
ough to achieve net benefits from the GW recycling and the use of the
RG in the production of new plasterboards. In the AS4 scenario, the
S. Pantini, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 147 (2019) 157–168

maximization of transport distances of RG and lime leads to a small

decrease in the environmental benefits, i.e. 16% in the global warming,

Total without paper recycling

7% in the particulate matter and 13% in the energetic indicator, but a
net impact is determined in the ozone depletion impact category (from
-2.1E-7 kgCFC-11eq/t in AS4 to +1.3E-7 kgCFC-11eq/t in AS4_Tmax).
Hence, the results from the sensitivity analyses further confirm the
outcomes of the impact assessment: the use of the RG in the agricultural

−6.21E-07

−3.18E-03

−6.93E-03

−1.21E-03
sector still appears as the most beneficial option from both the en-

4.99E-07

6.05E-07

6.67E-03

1.98E-02

7.42E-04

1.05E-02
7.93E-05

−529
vironmental and energetic point of view, even if the variability asso-

−0.2

−18
5.5
ciated with the replacement coefficient and the transport distances is
included. However, the uncertainties related to transportation and
market are higher for the AS4 scenario and should be considered in the
definition of a feasible best-case scenario.

−1.44E-05
−5.13E-05
−1.06E-05

−4.45E-03
−161.5

−1348

−3924
−0.22
−0.74
−1.44
−2.77
−0.12
−0.28

−529
Total

0.22
4.3. Performances of the best-case scenario

The classification of different alternative scenarios was based on the

Paper recycling
criteria presented in section 3.5. The AS1 scenario was excluded due the

−1.49E-05
−5.06E-05
−1.12E-05

−4.53E-03
nonexistence of plasterboard manufacturing plants in the region at the

−161.4

−1354

−3906
current state and in the next future. The final scores, presented in Table

−0.21
−0.74
−1.43
−2.79
−0.12
−0.28

0.21
S14, were used to define the best-case scenario. None of the alternatives

0
is best across all criteria; for instance, the agricultural use of the RG in
AS4 performs the best from an environmental point of view (score = 3)
but it shows the lowest score from a technical point of view (score = 1);

Ferrous metals recycling

this is because when the RG is destined to the agriculture it must
comply with the requirements set for calcium inorganic fertilizer by the
Italian legislation (D. Lgs. 105/2010) and shown in Table S4 of the
Environmental and energetic impacts related to the management of 1 t of GW in the regional system in the best-case scenario.

Supplementary Materials. Based on the chemical analysis carried out by

−7.36E-05
−5.35E-04
−7.51E-04
−1.58E-03
−3.23E-04
−1.52E-04

−4.80E-06
1.40E-08
1.32E-08
6.90E-07

2.94E-03
the existing recycling plant, 2 out of 7 RG samples did not satisfy the
−0.2

minimum SO3 content required for agricultural gypsum (35% dry

−2
9.6
mass); thus, there is a possible limitation in the use of the RG in the

0
agricultural sector. No limitations exist for the use in sewage sludge
treatment AS3 (score = 3) whereas the RG is expected to satisfy the
existing quality criteria (TOC below 1.5%) for its use in cement pro-
Gypsum recycling

duction (score = 2) based on literature values (GtoG project, 2015).

Regarding the market conditions in the region, the best score was as-
−3.85E-07
−1.74E-06
−2.27E-07
−5.62E-03
−1.90E-02
−3.05E-02
−6.90E-02
−1.23E-03
−7.38E-03

−2.68E-04
signed to the sewage sludge treatment sector (AS3) since its potential 6.95E-03
−4.50

−33.1

−529
−93
market demand of the RG (Table 4) is much higher than the supply of
the RG in the region. For the cement sector (AS2) a medium score was
assumed due to the low dosage of the RG currently applied in the region
and the need of investigating the feasibility of increasing RG percen-
Transport

8.69E-07
1.11E-06
1.43E-07
2.51E-03
2.62E-02
2.43E-02
9.04E-02
3.44E-04
8.28E-03

6.14E-04
3.52E-04

tages. Also in the case of the agricultural sector (AS4), a medium score
4.52

29.0

was assigned since the recognition of the RG as a new fertilizer requires

77
0

an approval process by the Italian Ministry of the Environment and,

hence, longer times are expected before its possible placement on the
market.
kg NMVOC eq/t
kg CFC-11 eq/t

kg PM2.5 eq/t

Since the different alternatives reach similar scores at the end of the
m3 water eq/t
mol H+ eq/t
kg CO2 eq/t

mol N eq/t

evaluation process, the best-case scenario was defined by considering

kg Sb eq/t
kg N eq/t
kg P eq/t

MJ eq/t
CTUh/t
CTUh/t

CTUe/t

an equal weight for each destination (AS1 excluded) as depicted in

Unit

kg/t

Figure S1.
The results of the impact assessment on the best-case scenario are
reported in Table 6 and are referred to 1 tonne of GW managed in the
region. The contribution of each step to the total impact is also shown.
If the large benefits generated from paper recycling are not regarded
Natural resources consumption (gypsum)

(last column in Table 6), the system will achieve some little advantages
Mineral & fossil resource depletion

only in 7 out of the 15 indicators, such as those for the global warming
Photochemical ozone formation

(-0.2 kgCO2eq/t), the particulate matter (-3.18E-3 kgPM2.5eq/t), the

energetic impact (-18 MJeq/t) and the natural resources consumption
Human toxicity, no cancer

Freshwater eutrophication

Energetic indicator (CED)

Terrestrial eutrophication

Water resource depletion

Human toxicity, cancer

(-529 kgCO2eq/t). In the other 8 categories, the system will generate

Freshwater eco-toxicity
Marine eutrophication

additional burdens to the environment; however, it represents an im-

Particulate matter
Ozone depletion
Global warming

provement compared to the baseline scenario (Table S7 in the Sup-

Acidification

plementary Material). The overall performance of the best-case scenario

can be further enhanced by promoting the use of RG in the agriculture,
Table 6

but some considerations about the time-horizon and the future market
conditions should be included in the evaluation of its feasibility.

166
S. Pantini, et al.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
This study investigated the current management of gypsum waste as
implemented in Lombardy Region (Italy) in 2014 from a life cycle
perspective. The final aim was to outline the weaknesses of the regional
system and to compare alternative recycling strategies in order to
identify feasible actions allowing to move towards a more sustainable
GW management.
The waste flow analysis pointed out the deficiency of the regional
GW management system that can be solved by increasing the capacity
of GW treatment plants (e.g., by building new dedicated GW recycling
plants or by revamping existing plants). Indeed, at the current state,
there is only one GW recycling plant in the region and GW is mostly
(99.5%) recycled in CDW facilities.
The impact assessment highlighted the better environmental per-
formance of dedicated GW recycling, for all the analyzed end-uses of
RG, compared to that of mixing GW with CDW. In fact, while mixing
with CDWs generates additional burdens to the environment, recycling
GW in dedicated facilities leads to significant savings. These are,
however, mainly ascribed to the recovery of paper: for instance, paper
recycling contributes more than 95% to the total impact for the global
warming impact category.
When excluding the benefits from paper recycling, the comparison
among alternative end-uses of the RG suggests that the plasterboards
production is the least viable option due to the nonexistence of man-
ufacturing plants in the regional territory: this leads to long transport
distances of both secondary (253 km) and avoided primary products
(283 km) that cannot be balanced by the benefits from the RG use in
substitution of natural gypsum. The best environmental and energetic
profile is instead associated to the use of the RG in the agricultural
sector. In this application, the most extensive benefits can be attained
thanks to the avoided production of lime with only few exceptions
(freshwater eutrophication, water resource depletion and natural re-
source consumption). For instance, the global warming saving from the
agricultural use of RG is 7 times greater than the one generated from
the use of RG as additive in cement production. The superiority of RG
application in agriculture was also confirmed by the sensitivity analyses
for most impact categories. However, some uncertainties related to the
modelling assumptions, the real market conditions and the technical
limitations may weaken the feasibility of this scenario in a short-time
horizon.
Taking into consideration for the environmental, technical and
economic criteria, a realistic best-case scenario was built up by con-
sidering that the RG supply is equally destined to the cement produc-
tion, to the sewage sludge treatment and to the agriculture. In this
scenario, the environmental profile of the GW management system
results more sustainable compared to the baseline scenario. But little
benefits may be achieved and in few impact categories if paper re-
cycling is not carried out, as the impacts from waste transportation
cannot be always compensated from the low savings associated to the
avoided production of NG.
Hence, the outcomes of this LCA study were used to formulate the
following recommendations for the regional government to further
improve the management and recycling of GW:
- Optimizing the GW management system through a strategic locali-
zation of future GW recycling plants in order to minimize transport
distances of both waste and secondary materials;
- Promoting the recycling of GW in dedicated plants and the adoption
of adequate technologies able to achieve high-quality RG and to
separate cardboard/paper sufficiently pure to be destined to paper
factories;
- Sustaining the development of current (i.e. cement production,
sludge treatment) and new (i.e. agriculture) markets for the RG. In
particular, the use of the RG in the agricultural sector should be
incentivized since it provides the highest environmental benefits
167
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 147 (2019) 157–168
among potential RG applications and it guarantees an adequate
margin able to compensate for any increased impacts in case of
longer waste transportation distances, even in the case that the
paper is not recovered from the GW recycling process.
Acknowledgments
The study was supported by Regione Lombardia. We thank ANPAR,
ANCE, ARPA Lombardia, and the managers of the contacted recycling
plants, quarries and manufacturers for the technical support and for
having supplied primary data for the LCA.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.
019.
References
AITEC, (Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica Cemento), 2014. Annual Report 2014,
Italian Language. available at:. . http://www.aitecweb.com/Portals/0/pub/
Repository/Area%20Economica/Pubblicazioni%20AITEC/Relazione_Annuale_2014.
pdf.
Bauer, C., 2012. Gypsum recycling in PlaNYC 2030: spaces for government intervention.
Master Thesis Science in Urban Planning. Columbia University Available at: file:///
C:/Internet%20Download/Bauer_Thesis.pdf.
Biganzoli, L., Falbo, A., Forte, F., Grosso, M., Rigamonti, L., 2015. Mass balance and life
cycle assessment of the waste electrical and electronic equipment management
system implemented in Lombardy Region (Italy). Sci. Total Environ. 524-525,
361–375.
Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E., 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy): the
role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable mix. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1021–1030.
Borghi, G., Pantini, S., Rigamonti, L., 2018. Life cycle assessment of non-hazardous
construction and demolition waste (CDW) management in Lombardy region (Italy). J.
Clean. Prod. 184, 815–825.
Butera, S., Møller, J., Christensen, T.H., 2011. LCA of recycling options for gypsum from
construction and demolition waste. Proceedings of Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium.
Chandara, C., Azizli, K.A.M., Ahmad, Z.A., Sakai, E., 2009. Use of waste gypsum to re-
place natural gypsum as set retarders in Portland cement. Waste Manage. 29,
1675–1679.
Coelho, L.M.G., Lange, L.C., 2018. Applying life cycle assessment to support en-
vironmentally sustainable waste management strategies in Brazil. Resour. Conserv.
Recy. 128, 438–450.
CRI, 2010. Construction recycling initiative- CRI. Position Paper: Gypsum Recycling in
the National Capital Region. Available at: http://www.cricouncil.com/wp-content/
uploads/2011/03/CRI-Final-Report-July-6-10.pdf.
De Meester, S., Nachtergaele, P., Debaveye, S., Vos, P., Dewulf, J., 2019. Using material
flow analysis and life cycle assessment in decision support: a case study on WEEE
valorization in Belgium. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 142, 1–9.
DUSAF (Destinazione d’Uso dei Suoli Agricoli e Forestali), 2010. Report: Uso Del Suolo in
Regione Lombardia. Italian Language. Available at:. . http://www.ersaf.lombardia.
it/upload/ersaf/pubblicazioni/I%20dati%20Dusaf%20ed.%202010_13383_392.pdf.
Ekvall, T., Assefa, G., Bjorklund, A., Erikson, O., Finnveden, G., 2007. What life cycle
assessment does and does not to do in assessment of waste management. Waste
Manag. 27, 989–996.
Erbs, A., Nagalli, A., de Carvalho, K.Q., Mymrin, V., Passig, F.H., Mazer, W., 2018.
Properties of recycled gypsum from gypsum plasterboards and commercial gypsum
throughout recycling cycles. J. Clean. Prod. 183, 1314–1322.
European Commission (EC), JRC (Joint Research Center), 2010. ILCD Handbook: General
Guide for Life Cycle Assessment and Detailed Guidance. (accessed on November
2016. http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/ILCD-Handbook-General-guide-for-
LCA-DETAILED-GUIDANCE-12March2010-ISBN-fin-v1.0-EN.pdf.
European Commission (EC), JRC (Joint Research Center), 2011. Recommendations for
Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European Context – Based on Existing
Environmental Impact Assessment Models and Factors. (accessed on November
2016. http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/ILCD-Recommendation-of-methods-
for-LCIA-def.pdf.
Eurostat, 2014. Waste Statistics. Disponibile Su. (accessed on April 2017). http://ec.
europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Waste_statistics.
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., 2009.
Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Mang. 91, 1–21.
Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H.J., Doka, G., Dones, R., Hischier, R., Hellweg,
S., Humbert, S., Margni, M., Nemecek, T., Spielmann, M., 2007. Implementation of
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. Ecoinvent Report No. 3. Swiss
Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Geraldo, R.H., Pinheiro, S.M.M., Silva, J.S., Andrade, H.M.C., Dweck, J., Gonçalves, J.P.,
Camarini, G., 2017. Gypsum plaster waste recycling: a potential environmental and
industrial solution. J. Clean. Prod. 288–300.
S. Pantini, et al.
Godinho-Castro, A.P., Testolin, R.C., Janke, L., Corrêa, A.X.R., Radetski, C.M., 2012.
Incorporation of gypsum waste in ceramic block production: proposal for a minimal
battery of tests to evaluate technical and environmental viability of this recycling
process. Waste Manage. 32, 153–157.
GtoG Project, 2013a. Life+ Gypsum to Gypsum Project, Eurogypsum, LIFE11 ENV/BE/
001039, From Production to Recycling: a Circular Economy for the European Gypsum
Industry With the Demolition and Recycling Industry.
GtoG Project, 2013b. Life+ Gypsum to Gypsum Project, Eurogypsum, LIFE11 ENV/BE/
001039, DA1 Report: Inventory of Current Practices.
GtoG Project, 2015. Life+ Gypsum to Gypsum Project, Eurogypsum, LIFE11 ENV/BE/
001039, DC2 Report: Quality Criteria for Recycled Gypsum; Technical and
Toxicological Parameters.
Jiménez-Rivero, A., García-Navarro, J., 2017a. Best practices for the management of end-
of-life gypsum in a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 1335–1344.
Jiménez-Rivero, A., García-Navarro, J., 2017b. Characterization of quality recycled
gypsum and plasterboard with maximized recycled content. Mater. Construcc. 67,
1–10.
Jiménez-Rivero, A., Bàez, A., García-Navarro, J., 2015. Gypsum waste: differences across
ten European Countries. Int. J. Sustain. Policy Pract. 11, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.
18848/2325-1166/CGP/v11i04/55358. ISSN 2325-1166.
Jiménez-Rivero, A., Sathre, R., García-Navarro, J., 2016. Life cycle energy and material
flow implications of gypsum plasterboard recycling in the European Union. Resour.
Conserv. Recy. 108, 171–181.
Kuttah, D., Sato, K., 2015. Review on the effect of gypsum content on soil behavior.
168
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 147 (2019) 157–168
Transp. Geotech. 4, 28–37.
Lam, C.-M., Yu, I.K.M., Hsu, S.-C., Tsang, D.C.W., 2018. Life-cycle assessment on food
waste valorization to value-added products. J. Clean. Prod. 199, 840–848.
Marcinkowski, A., 2018. Environmental efficiency of industrial symbiosis - LCA case
study for gypsum exchange. Multidisciplinary Aspects of Production Engineering 1,
793–800.
Ndukwe, I., Yuan, Q., 2016. Drywall (Gyproc Plasterboard) recycling and reuse as a
compost-bulking agent in Canada and North America: a review. Recycling 2016 (1),
311–320. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling1030311.
Papailiopoulou, N., Grigoropoulou, H., Founti, M., 2018. Techno-economic impact as-
sessment of recycled gypsum usage in plasterboard manufacturing. J.
Remanufacturing 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13243-018-0062-x.
Pedreno-Rojas, M.A., Flores-Colen, I., De Brito, J., Rodriguez-Linan, C., 2019. Influence of
the heating process on the use of gypsum wastes in plasters: mechanical, thermal and
environmental assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 215, 444–457.
Rigamonti, L., Falbo, A., Grosso, M., 2013. Improvement actions in waste management
systems at regional level: the case of Lombardia. Waste Manag. Res. 31, 946–953.
Suárez, S., Roca, X., Gasso, S., 2016. Product-specific life cycle assessment of recycled
gypsum as a replacement for natural gypsum in ordinary Portland cement: applica-
tion to the Spanish context. J. Clean. Prod. 117, 150–159.
WRAP, 2008. Technical Report: Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard. Downloaded at:. .
http://europeanparliamentgypsumforum.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Life-
Cycle-Assessment-of-Plasterboard1.pdf.