Dynamic accounting of greenhouse gas emissions from cascading utilisation of wood waste
Open accessAbstract
Cascading utilisation of post-consumer wood waste has recently gained increasing attention in the European Union, aiming for a society in which the resource's properties are optimized through sequential uses. To date, material utilisation of wood waste has been limited to particleboard production, with additional niche alternatives being restricted by quality requirements for wood waste. In this consequential life cycle assessment focusing on post-consumer wood collected at Danish recycling centres, Global Warming Potential (GWP) impacts from quality-driven choices for cascading management of wood waste were compared with those from handling mixed wood waste qualities. GWPs were modelled by considering the dynamic profile of greenhouse gas emissions (including biogenic carbon dioxide) for two time horizons (100 and 500 years). The robustness of the results was tested by varying modelling assumptions with respect to electricity system, wood sourcing and associated rotation period, and impacts from indirect land use changes. The results demonstrated that valuing quality over quantity in wood waste management can ensure larger GWP savings, especially if recycling applications have a long lifetime and/or substitute energy-intensive products; such results were confirmed under all scenario analyses. Inclusion of land use changes credited land-intensive products. More cascade steps of the wood waste resource ensured larger savings; however, assumptions on the electricity mix, on the source of the wood alongside the choice of the time horizon for GWP greatly influenced the results on cascading management.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Other authors demonstrated that contaminant and concentration levels vary significantly according to wood waste type and source, confirming the high variability of the material and the necessity of its characterization before material sorting.
“Other authors demonstrated that contaminant and concentration levels vary significantly according to wood waste type and source, confirming the high variability of the material and the necessity of its characterization before material sorting [9].”
From Classification of waste wood categories according to the best reuse using FT-NIR spectroscopy and chemometrics (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Germany the third class is sent for incineration.
“On the contrary, in Germany the third class is sent for incineration [9].”
From Classification of waste wood categories according to the best reuse using FT-NIR spectroscopy and chemometrics (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
The supplied passages and retrieved text identify the paper but do not address how Germany treats a third class of wood waste. Searches for Germany, class III, and incineration found no passage that verifies the claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe recycling potential of waste wood is still low because of contaminants in wood products, which limits its recycling or reuse.
“The recycling potential of waste wood is still low because of the presence of contaminants in wood products, which limits considerably its recycling or reuse [9].”
From Classification of waste wood categories according to the best reuse using FT-NIR spectroscopy and chemometrics (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
No passage in our copy matched the claim. Searches for contaminants, contaminated waste wood, and recycling potential also returned no passages, so the copy does not establish whether contaminants limit waste-wood recycling or reuse. (LLM, conf=0.69)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFaraca, Tonini and Astrup demonstrated that rating quality instead of quantity in wood waste management (sorting, separation, collection) could ensure substantial savings from GWP.
“Their study demonstrated that rating quality instead of quantity in wood waste management (sorting, separation, collection) could ensure substantial savings from GWP (global warming potential).”
From Circular Economy of Construction and Demolition Wood Waste—A Theoretical Framework Approach (2022) · cites this paper as [50]
The available passages contain the title and keywords, including GWP and quality, but no findings about prioritising quality over quantity in wood-waste sorting, separation or collection. Searches for those terms and for GWP savings found no passage that addresses the claimed result. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDeveloping new materials from wood waste recycling reduces GHG emissions substantially.
“Several studies suggested that developing new materials from wood waste recycling reduces GHG emissions substantially [48,50].”
From Circular Economy of Construction and Demolition Wood Waste—A Theoretical Framework Approach (2022) · cites this paper as [50]
The passages retrieved from our indexed copy that discuss GWP savings are labelled Abstract; the remaining passages are bibliographic metadata. Searches for wood-waste recycling, GHG emissions, and GWP savings did not yield a full-text passage that can verify the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.68)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 88
- Authors
- Faraca, G., Tonini, D., & Astrup, T. F.
- Affiliations
- Technical University of Denmark (DK)
- European Commission (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Faraca, Giorgia
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 651
- Issue
- Pt 2
- Pages
- 2689-2700
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2896825955
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 4.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- orbit.dtu.dk
- Licence
- Locations
- The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Miljøstyrelsen
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Agricultural and Food Sciences
- Keywords
- greenhouse gas emissions, global warming potential, consequential life cycle assessment, indirect land use change, wood recycling, particleboard, electricity mix, time horizon, wood waste management
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
