Cited by 8Environmental Impact and SustainabilityLife Cycle Costing AnalysisAccounting and Financial Management

Environmental full cost accounting of alternative materials used for railroad ties: Treated-wood and concrete case study

Open access
Herrera Diaz, Maria A., Scouse, Adam, Kelley, Stephen S.·2022·Journal of Cleaner Production

Abstract

Environmental full-cost accounting (FCA) is a novel analytical framework that describes ecological and human health impacts of products and processes using financial measures. These impacts are generally considered to be external to the cost of the product, and are not traditionally reflected in the sales price of the product or service. FCA methodology provides a novel framework to analyze product alternatives from an inclusive perspective considering economic, societal, and environmental impacts. In this work, researchers use the FCA methodology to compare a series of chemically treated wooden and concrete railroad crossties. For all products analyzed in the study, production of the treatment chemicals and the crosstie, use, and disposal stages were included along with mass of emissions, and associated health and environment costs. This FCA allows for a comparison of alternatives products and insight into the implications of final disposal. Two alternative end of life (EOL) scenarios were explored, e.g., energy recovery where the chemically treated wood is burned for energy production, and disposal in a landfill. This work shows that the EOL scenario for treated crossties play a dominate role when defining environmental and social costs. This contrasts with concrete crossties, where the production stage is the main contributor. Wood treatment utilizing copper-chrome-arsenic (CCA) represents a worst case EOL scenario due to high costs associated with atmospheric emissions of arsenic and CO2. Finally, depending on how biogenic CO2 is treated, concrete or furfuryl alcohol treated wood had the lowest environmental price.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132536

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most of the works of literature are based on end-of-life waste management practices.

    “Most of the works of literature are based on end-of-life waste management practices [33][34][35][36][37]; hence, there is a gap to explore for a theoretical framework that abridges six life cycle stages and CE for wood waste management.”

    From Circular Economy of Construction and Demolition Wood Waste—A Theoretical Framework Approach (2022) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Introduction describes life-cycle assessment as covering stages from raw-material extraction through end-of-life disposal, but does not say that most literature focuses on end-of-life waste management. The Conclusions discuss this paper’s two end-of-life scenarios, not the focus of the literature overall. Searches for prior studies focused on end-of-life management and for the claimed literature gap found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Abbati de Assis, C., Gonzalez, R., Kelley, S., Jameel, H., Bilek, T., Daystar, J., Handfield, R., Golden, J., Prestemon, J., Singh, D., 2017. Risk management consideration in the bioeconomy. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 6 (3), 246-256. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1765. · DOI
  2. Bolin, C.A., Smith, S., 2011a. Life cycle assessment of ACQ-treated lumber with comparison to wood plastic composite decking. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (6-7), 620-629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.004. · DOI
  3. Bolin, C.A., Smith, S.T., 2011b. Life cycle assessment of pentachlorophenol-treated wooden utility poles with comparisons to steel and concrete utility poles. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (5), 2475-2486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2011.01.019. · DOI
  4. Bolin, C.A., Smith, S.T., 2013a. Life cycle assessment of CCA-treated wood highway guard rail posts in the US with comparisons to galvanized steel guard rail posts. J. Transport. Technol. 3 (1), 58-67. https://doi.org/10.4236/jtts.2013.31007. · DOI
  5. Bolin, C.A., Smith, S.T., 2013b. Life cycle assessment of creosote-treated wooden railroad crossties in the US with comparisons to concrete and plastic composite railroad crossties. J. Transport. Technol. 3 (2), 149-161. https://doi.org/10.4236/ jtts.2013.32015. · DOI
  6. Budelmann, H., Holst, A., Wachsmann, A., 2012. Durability related life-cycle assessment of concrete structures: mechanisms, models, implementation. In: Life-Cycle and Sustainability of Civil Infrastructure Systems -Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering. IALCCE, pp. 75-86, 2012, 2004.
  7. Cardon, L., L, J.W., Groote, M. De, Ragaert, K., Kopeeka, J., Koster, R., 2011. Challenges For Bio-Based Products In Sustainable Value Chains, vol. 10, pp. 1077-1080, 8.
  8. Cheremisinoff, N.P., Rosenfeld, P.E., 2010. Air pollution from wood treatment. Handb. Pollut. Prev. Clean. Prod. 2, 83-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-096446- 1.10004-8. · DOI
  9. Daystar, J., Treasure, T., Reeb, C., Venditti, R., Gonzalez, R., Kelley, S., 2015. Environmental impacts of bioethanol using the NREL biochemical conversion route: multivariate analysis and single score results. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 6 (3), 246-256. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1553. · DOI
  10. Donatello, S., Moons, H., Wolf, O., 2017. Revision of EU Ecolabel criteria for furniture products. In: Final Technical Report. https://doi.org/10.2760/59027. · DOI
  11. Durao, V., Silvestre, J.D., Mateus, R., De Brito, J., 2019. Economic valuation of life cycle environmental impacts of construction products -a critical analysis. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 323 (1) https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012147. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Epstein, P.R., Buonocore, J.J., Eckerle, K., Hendryx, M., Iii, B.M.S., Heinberg, R., Clapp, R.W., May, B., Reinhart, N.L., Ahern, M.M., Doshi, S.K., Glustrom, L., 2011. Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632. 2010.05890.x, 1219, 73-98. · DOI
  13. Gustavsson, L., Pingoud, K., Sathre, R., 2006. Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution: comparing concrete-and wood-framed buildings. Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Glob. Change 11 (3), 667-691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006- 7207-1. · DOI
  14. Hagedorn, T., 2019. Emissions and external environmental costs from the perspective of differing travel purposes. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247233. · DOI
  15. Hargis, C.W., Chen, I.A., Devenney, M., Fernandez, M.J., Gilliam, R.J., Thatcher, R.P., 2021. Calcium Carbonate Cement: A Carbon Capture, Utilization,and Storage (CCUS) Technique, pp. 1-12.
  16. Ibach, R.E., 2010. Chapter 14 Wood Preservation. ISO14040, 2006. Environmental management life cycle assessment requirements and guidelines. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00648130. · DOI
  17. Jasinski, D., Meredith, J., Kirwan, K., 2015. A comprehensive review of full cost accounting methods and their applicability to the automotive industry. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 1123-1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.040. · DOI
  18. Kalbar, P.P., Birkved, M., Nygaard, S.E., Hauschild, M., 2017. Weighting and aggregation in life cycle assessment: do present aggregated single scores provide correct decision support? J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (6), 1591-1600. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12520. · DOI
  19. Khasreen, M.M., Banfill, P.F.G., Menzies, G.F., 2009. Life-cycle assessment and the environmental impact of buildings: a review. Sustainability 1 (3), 674-701. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su1030674. · DOI
  20. Lan, K., Yao, Y., 2019. Integrating life cycle assessment and agent-based modeling: a dynamic modeling framework for sustainable agricultural systems. J. Clean. Prod. 238, 117853 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117853. · DOI
  21. Lippke, B., Puettmann, M., Oneil, E., 2019. Effective Uses of Forest-Derived Products to Reduce Carbon Emissions, pp. 1-8. September.
  22. Lodge, J.P., 2017. Benefit-cost analysis of air-pollution control, 16. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0004-6981(82)90103-2. Issue · DOI
  23. McMahon, C.K., Woolson, E.A., Bush, P.B., 1986. How much arsenic is released when cca treated wood is burned? For. Prod. J. 36 (11-12), 45-50.
  24. Nestler, F.H.M., 1974. The Characterization of Wood Preserving Creosote by Physical and Chemical Methods of Analysis. US Department of Agriculture, pp. 1-33.
  25. Pillai, R.G., Gettu, R., Santhanam, M., Rengaraju, S., Dhandapani, Y., Rathnarajan, S., Basavaraj, A.S., 2019. Service life and life cycle assessment of reinforced concrete systems with limestone calcined clay cement (LC3). Cement Concr. Res. 118, 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.11.019. March 2018. · DOI
  26. Possan, E., Felix, E.F., Thomaz, W.A., 2016. CO 2 uptake by carbonation of concrete during life cycle of building structures. J. Build. Pathol. Rehabil. 1 (1), 1-9. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s41024-016-0010-9. · DOI
  27. Pries, M., Mai, C., 2013. Treatment of wood with silica sols against attack by wood- decaying fungi and blue stain. Holzforschung 67 (6), 697-705. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/hf-2012-0133. · DOI
  28. Romanov, V., Soong, Y., Carney, C., Rush, G.E., Nielsen, B., O'Connor, W., 2015. Mineralization of carbon dioxide: a literature review. ChemBioEng. Rev. 2 (4), 231-256. https://doi.org/10.1002/cben.201500002. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Roth, I.F., Ambs, L.L., 2004. Incorporating externalities into a full cost approach to electric power generation life-cycle costing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.200 4.03.016, 29, 2125-2144. · DOI
  30. Saca, N., Dimache, A., Radu, L.R., Iancu, I., 2017. Leaching behavior of some demolition wastes. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 19 (2), 623-630. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10163-015-0459-7. · DOI
  31. Sandberg, D., Kutnar, A., Mantanis, G., 2017. Wood modification technologies -a review. IForest 10 (6), 895-908. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor2380-010. · DOI
  32. Sathre, R., González-García, S., 2013. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of wood-based building materials. Eco-Effic. Construct. Build. Mater.: Life Cycle Assess. (LCA) Eco- Label. Case Stud. 311-337. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857097729.2.311. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Sterman, J.D., Siegel, L., Rooney-Varga, J.N., 2018. Comment on "Does replacing coal with wood lower CO 2 emissions? Dynamic lifecycle analysis of wood bioenergy". Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (12) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf203. · DOI
  34. Stook, K., Tolaymat, T., Ward, M., Dubey, B., Townsend, T., Solo-Gabriele, H., Bitton, G., 2005. Relative leaching and aquatic toxicity of pressure-treated wood products using batch leaching tests. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (1), 155-163. https://doi.org/ 10.1021/es0493603. · DOI
  35. Tae, S., Baek, C., Shin, S., 2011. Life cycle CO 2 evaluation on reinforced concrete structures with high-strength concrete. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 31 (3), 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.07.002. · DOI
  36. USEPA, 1992. Contaminants and Remedial Options at Wood Preserving Sites, pp. 1-152 papers3://publication/uuid/0F6AEC65-5FEA-4E41-9F51-4FD3D39F3C33.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Herrera Diaz, M. A., Scouse, A., & Kelley, S. S.
Affiliations
North Carolina State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Cleaner Production
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-09
Volume
364
Pages
132536
ISSN
0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4282825554
Cited by
8
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Energy (EE0008809)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Life Cycle Costing Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting and Financial Management
Keywords
treated wood, furfuryl alcohol, end-of-life scenarios, landfilling, energy recovery, arsenic emissions, biogenic CO2

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review