Life cycle assessment of ACQ-treated lumber with comparison to wood plastic composite decking

A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment was done to identify the environmental impacts related to alkaline copper quaternary (ACQ)-treated lumber used for decking and to determine how the impacts compare to the primary alternative product, wood plastic composite (WPC) decking. A model of ACQ-treated lumber life cycle stages was created and used to calculate inputs and outputs during the lumber production, treating, use, and disposal stages. Lumber production data are based on published sources. Primary wood preservative treatment data were obtained by surveying wood treatment facilities in the United States. Product use and disposal inventory data are based on published data and professional judgment. Life cycle inventory inputs, outputs, and impact indicators for ACQ-treated lumber were quantified using functional units of 1000 board feet and per representative deck (assumed to be 320 square feet (30 square meters) of surface decking material) per year of use. In a similar manner, an inventory model was developed for the manufacture, use, and disposal of the primary alternative product, WPC. Impact indicator values, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, fossil fuel use, water use, acidification, smog forming potential, ecological toxicity, and eutrophication were quantified for each of the two decking products. National normalization was done to compare the significance of a representative deck surface per year of use to a family's total annual impact footprint. If an average U.S. family adds or replaces a deck surfaced with ACQ-treated lumber, their impact footprint for GHG emissions, fossil fuel use, acidification, smog forming potential, ecological toxicity, and eutrophication releases each is less than one-tenth of a percent of the family's annual impact. ACQ-treated lumber impacts were fourteen times less for fossil fuel use, almost three times less for GHG emissions, potential smog emissions, and water use, four times less for acidification, and almost half for ecological toxicity than those for WPC decking. Impacts were approximately equal for eutrophication. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.