SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi Part C: Tasarım ve Teknoloji / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3

An EPD-Based Comparative Assessment of the Fossil Global Warming Potential of Wood-Based Materials Used in Furniture Production

Mobilya Üretiminde Kullanılan Ahşap Esaslı Malzemelerin Fosil Küresel Isınma Potansiyelinin EPD Tabanlı Karşılaştırmalı Değerlendirmesi

Sadık Akşar(Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi)0000-0003-0583-4197
Pages
1342–1354
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study demonstrates that sustainable material selection in the furniture sector requires verified, current, and methodologically harmonised EPD data.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study compares the cradle-to-gate (A1–A3) fossil global warming potential (GWP-fossil) of five wood-based products used in furniture production: kiln-dried and planed sawn timber, raw particleboard, melamine-faced particleboard, raw medium-density fibreboard (MDF), and lacquered MDF.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To improve methodological consistency, manufacturer-specific EPDs issued in 2021 for products from the same manufacturer and compliant with EN 15804+A2 were selected.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study demonstrates that sustainable material selection in the furniture sector requires verified, current, and methodologically harmonised EPD data.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ahşap esaslı kompozitler · Yaşam Döngüsü Değerlendirmesi (YDD) · Çevresel Ürün Beyanı (EPD)

Abstract

This study compares the cradle-to-gate (A1–A3) fossil global warming potential (GWP-fossil) of five wood-based products used in furniture production: kiln-dried and planed sawn timber, raw particleboard, melamine-faced particleboard, raw medium-density fibreboard (MDF), and lacquered MDF. To improve methodological consistency, manufacturer-specific EPDs issued in 2021 for products from the same manufacturer and compliant with EN 15804+A2 were selected. All results weret harmonised to a declared unit of 1 m³, and only the A1–A3 GWP-fossil indicator was evaluated. The values were 101.00 kg CO₂e/m³ for sawn timber, 147.00 kg CO₂e/m³ for raw particleboard, 222.48 kg CO₂e/m³ for melamine-faced particleboard, 379.00 kg CO₂e/m³ for raw MDF, and 492.55 kg CO₂e/m³ for lacquered MDF. Sawn timber had the lowest value, whereas lacquered MDF was approximately 4.88 times higher. Differences between untreated and surface finished product pairs indicate the contribution of resin use, fibre preparation, hot pressing, and finishing processes to fossil greenhouse-gas emissions. Nevertheless, the findings are limited to one manufacturer, one impact indicator, and product-category-specific EPD/PCR conditions. The study demonstrates that sustainable material selection in the furniture sector requires verified, current, and methodologically harmonised EPD data.

Özet

Bu çalışma, mobilya üretiminde yaygın olarak kullanılan beş ahşap esaslı ürünün beşikten kapıya (A1–A3) fosil küresel ısınma potansiyelini (GWP-fosil) EPD verileri üzerinden karşılaştırmaktadır. İncelenen ürünler kurutulmuş ve planyalanmış masif kereste, ham yonga levha, melamin kaplı yonga levha, ham MDF ve lake MDF’dir. Karşılaştırılabilirliği artırmak amacıyla aynı üreticiye ait, 2021 yılında yayımlanmış ve EN 15804+A2 standardına uygun üreticiye özgü EPD’ler seçilmiş; sonuçlar 1 m³ deklarasyon birimine dönüştürülmüştür. Yalnızca A1–A3 GWP-fosil göstergesi değerlendirilmiştir. GWP-fosil değerleri masif kereste için 101,00; ham yonga levha için 147,00; melamin kaplı yonga levha için 222,48; ham MDF için 379,00 ve lake MDF için 492,55 kg CO₂e/m³ olarak belirlenmiştir. Masif kereste en düşük değeri gösterirken lake MDF’nin değeri yaklaşık 4,88 kat daha yüksektir. Ham ve yüzey işlemi görmüş ürün çiftleri arasındaki farklar, reçine kullanımı, lif hazırlama, sıcak presleme ve yüzey bitirme süreçlerinin fosil kaynaklı emisyonlarla ilişkisini ortaya koymaktadır. Bununla birlikte sonuçlar tek üretici, tek etki göstergesi ve ürün gruplarına özgü EPD/PCR koşullarıyla sınırlıdır. Bulgular, mobilya sektöründe malzeme seçiminin doğrulanmış, güncel ve metodolojik açıdan uyumlu EPD verileri üzerinden gerçekleştirilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akşar, S. (2026). An EPD-Based Comparative Assessment of the Fossil Global Warming Potential of Wood-Based Materials Used in Furniture Production. Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi Part C: Tasarım ve Teknoloji, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3, 1342–1354. https://doi.org/10.29109/gujsc.1935943

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (58)

  1. Cabeza L. F., Rincón L., Vilariño V., Pérez G. and Castell A., Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29: 394-416, (2014).
  2. Röck M., Ruschi Mendes Saade M., Balouktsi M., Nygaard Rasmussen F., Birgisdottir H., Frischknecht R., Habert G., Lützkendorf T. and Passer A., Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Applied Energy, 258: 114107, (2020).
  3. Kristák L. and Réh R. Application of wood composites. Applied Sciences, 11: 3479, (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083479
  4. Ramesh M., Rajeshkumar L., Sasikala G., Balaji D., Saravanakumar A., Bhuvaneswari V. and Bhoopathi R., A critical review on wood-based polymer composites: Processing, properties, and prospects. Polymers, 14: 589, (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14030589
  5. Ge S., Hui O., Ye H., Shi Y., Sheng Y. and Peng W. High-performance and environmentally friendly acrylonitrile butadiene styrene/wood composite for versatile applications in furniture and construction. Advanced Composites and Hybrid Materials, 6: 1-13, (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42114-023-00628-1
  6. Nakano K., Ando K., Takigawa M. and Hattori N. Life cycle assessment of wood-based boards produced in Japan and impact of formaldehyde emissions during the use stage. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23: 957-969, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1343-6
  7. Costa D., Serra J., Quinteiro P. and Dias A. Life cycle assessment of wood-based panels: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140955, (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140955
  8. Kloepffer W. Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13: 89-95, (2008). https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2008.02.376
  9. Finkbeiner M., Schau E., Lehmann A. and Traverso M. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 2: 3309-3322, (2010). https://doi.org/10.3390/su2103309
  10. Otero M., Garnica T., Montilla S., Conde M. and Tenorio J. Analysis of sectoral environmental product declarations as a data source for life cycle assessment. Buildings, 13: 3032, (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings131230
  11. Asdrubali F., Grazieschi G. and Gandola D. The role of environmental product declarations in the decarbonization of building materials and components. Energies, 18: 1308, (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/en18051308
  12. Senseney C., Harvey J., Butt A. and Meijer J. Recommendations for cradle-to-gate environmental product declarations (EPD) in ‘Buy Clean’ procurement based on CDOT’s experience. Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, 3: 035006, (2023). https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/acf06d
  13. Sun X., He M. and Li Z. Novel engineered wood and bamboo composites for structural applications: State-of-art of manufacturing technology and mechanical performance evaluation. Construction and Building Materials, 249: 118751, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118751
  14. Ichim M., Muresan E. and Codau E. Natural-fiber-reinforced polymer composites for furniture applications. Polymers, 16: 3113, (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16223113
  15. Khan M., Deviatkin I., Havukainen J. and Horttanainen M. Environmental impacts of wooden, plastic, and wood-polymer composite pallet: A life cycle assessment approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26: 1607-1622, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01953-7
  16. Gardner D., Han Y. and Wang L. Wood–plastic composite technology. Current Forestry Reports, 1: 139-150, (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-015-0016-6
  17. Ye H., Wang Y., Yu Q., Ge S., Fan W., Zhang M., Huang Z., Manzo M., Cai L., Wang L. and Xia C. Bio-based composites fabricated from wood fibers through self-bonding technology. Chemosphere, 132436, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132436
  18. Ferdosian F., Pan Z., Gao G. and Zhao B. Bio-based adhesives and evaluation for wood composites application. Polymers, 9(2): 70, (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym9020070
  19. Fan Q., Zhang X., Chen C., Hao X., Liu Z., Ou R. and Wang Q. Biomimetic versatile wood hybrids with gradient structure towards lightweight, high strength, fire-retardant, and deterioration-resistant materials. Composites Part B: Engineering, 280: 111483, (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2024.111483
  20. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. Geneva: ISO, (2006).
  21. Keoleian G. The application of life cycle assessment to design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1: 143-149, (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-6526(93)90004-U
  22. Kiemel S., Rietdorf C., Schutzbach M. and Miehe R., ''How to simplify life cycle assessment for industrial applications—A comprehensive review, Sustainability, 14: 15704, (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315704
  23. Pacana A., Siwiec D., Bednárová L. and Petrovský J. Improving the process of product design in a phase of life cycle assessment (LCA). Processes, 11: 2579, (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11092579
  24. Chang D., Lee C. and Chen C. Review of life cycle assessment towards sustainable product development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 83: 48-60, (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.050
  25. Da Luz L., Francisco A., Piekarski C. and Salvador R. Integrating life cycle assessment in the product development process: A methodological approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192: 323-338, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.022
  26. Burgess A. and Brennan D. Application of life cycle assessment to chemical processes. Chemical Engineering Science, 56: 2589-2604, (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(00)00511-X
  27. Sahoo K., Bergman R., Alanya-Rosenbaum S., Gu H. and Liang S. Life cycle assessment of forest-based products: A review. Sustainability, 11: 4722, (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174722
  28. Pacana A. and Siwiec D. Procedure for aggregating indicators of quality and life-cycle assessment (LCA) in the product-improvement process. Processes, 12: 811, (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12040811
  29. Siwiec D. and Pacana A. Life cycle-based product sustainability assessment employing quality and cost. Sustainability, 17: 3430, (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083430
  30. Rebitzer G., Ekvall T., Frischknecht R., Hunkeler D., Norris G., Rydberg T., Schmidt W. P., Suh S., Weidema B. P. and Pennington D. W. Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment International, 30: 701-720, (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005
  31. Caduff M., Huijbregts M., Koehler A., Althaus H. and Hellweg S. Scaling relationships in life cycle assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18: 393-406, (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12122
  32. Palumbo E., Soust-Verdaguer B., Llatas C. and Traverso M. How to obtain accurate environmental impacts at early design stages in BIM when using environmental product declarations: A method to support decision-making. Sustainability, 12: 6927, (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176927
  33. Marsh E., Allen S. and Hattam L. Tackling uncertainty in life cycle assessments for the built environment: A review. Building and Environment, 223: 109941, (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109941
  34. Ciupan E., Ciupan C., Campean E., Stelea L., Policsek C., Lungu F. and Jucan D. Opportunities of sustainable development of the industry of upholstered furniture in Romania: A case study. Sustainability, 10: 3356, (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093356
  35. Yang Y., Yue X., Li C., El-Bahy Z. M., Melhi S., Thabet H. K., Duan X., Ma N. L., Yang Y., Lam S. S. and Peng W. Formaldehyde-free high-strength low-density wood biocomposites via corrugation and self-bonding of wooden cell. Advanced Composites and Hybrid Materials, 7: 129, (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42114-024-00940-4
  36. Ramesh P., Mohit H. and Selvan V. Environmental impact of wood-based biocomposites using life cycle assessment methodology. Wood Polymer Composites, Springer, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1606-8_13
  37. Bovea M. and Vidal R. Materials selection for sustainable product design: A case study of wood-based furniture eco-design. Materials & Design, 25: 111-116, (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2003.09.018
  38. Coloma M., Akizu-Gardoki O. and Lizundia E. Beyond ecodesign: Internationalized markets enhance the global warming potential in the wood furniture sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134795, (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134795
  39. Huang Y., Lin Q., Fu F., Lin L. and Yu W. Scalable high-performance wood-based composites prepared by hydro-mechanical treatment. Composites Part B: Engineering, 111041, (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.111041
  40. Ali F., Rehman F., Hadi R., Raza G., Khan N., Ibrahim F., Aziz F., Amin M., Khalil B., Mahwish M., Bashir S., Ali A. and Hussain M. Environmental sustainability assessment of wooden furniture produced in Pakistan. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 84: e253107, (2022). https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.253107
  41. Akpan E., Wetzel B. and Friedrich K. Eco-friendly and sustainable processing of wood-based materials. Green Chemistry, 23: 2198-2232, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1039/d0gc04430j
  42. Lee T., Pu’ad N., Selimin M., Manap N., Abdullah H. and Idris M. An overview on development of environmentally friendly medium-density fibreboard. Materials Today: Proceedings, 29: 52-57, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.679
  43. Huang Y., Jiang K., He Y., Hu J., Dyer K., Chen S., Akinlabi E., Zhang D., Zhang X., Yu Y., Yu W. and Xu B. A natural lignification inspired super-hard wood-based composite with extreme resilience. Advanced Materials, (2025). https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202502266
  44. Yang Y., Kang X., Yang Y., Ye H., Jiang J., Zheng G., Wei K., Ge S., Lam S., Hui O., Chen X. and Peng W. Research progress in green preparation of advanced wood-based composites. Advanced Composites and Hybrid Materials, 6: 1-17, (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42114-023-00770-w
  45. Krišťák L., Réh R., Barbu M.-C. and Tudor E. M. Advances in wood-based composites. Polymers, 17(8): 1104, (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17081104
  46. Fuhler M., Panozzo B., Dodd B., Pasley D. and Young A. The importance of environmental product declarations in the decarbonization effort. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Centre, (2023). https://doi.org/10.21079/11681/47828
  47. Moshood T., Rotimi J. and Rotimi F. Combating greenwashing of construction products in New Zealand and Australia: A critical analysis of environmental product declarations. Sustainability, 16: 9671, (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229671
  48. Ingrao C., Matarazzo A., Lagioia G. and Słowiński R. Aggregating midpoint-indicator results from environmental product declarations for comprehensive evaluations of products’ profiles. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 107492, (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107492
  49. Linkosalmi L., Schwarzschachner H. and Valtonen T. Harmonisation of the environmental product declarations for wood products. World Conference on Timber Engineering (WCTE 2023), (2023). https://doi.org/10.52202/069179-0594
  50. Waldman B., Huang M. and Simonen K. Embodied carbon in construction materials: A framework for quantifying data quality in EPDs. Building and Cities, 1: 625-636, (2020). https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.31
  51. Olanrewaju O., Enegbuma W., Donn M. and Oyefusi O. Assessment of environmental product declaration and databases: Towards ensuring data quality assurance practices. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 107803, (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107803
  52. Moins B., Hernando D., Buyle M., Van Den Bergh W. and Audenaert A. Reviewing the variability in product category rules for asphalt pavements: A quantitative evaluation of methodological framework differences for environmental product declarations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140580, (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140580
  53. One Click LCA. Materials Compass. One Click LCA, (2025). https://materials.oneclicklca.com/
  54. Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. Environmental Product Declaration: EGGER Timber. EPD-EGG-20200248-IBC2-EN, issue date 29 July 2021, valid to 9 May 2027.
  55. Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. Environmental Product Declaration: EGGER Eurospan Raw Chipboard. EPD-EGG-20200249-IBC1-DE, issue date 10 May 2021.
  56. Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. Environmental Product Declaration: EGGER Eurodekor—Melamine Faced Chipboard. EPD-EGG-20200251-IBC2-EN, issue date 29 July 2021, valid to 9 May 2027.
  57. Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. Environmental Product Declaration: EGGER Medium-Density Fibreboard. EPD-EGG-20200250-IBC1-DE, issue date 10 May 2021.
  58. Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. Environmental Product Declaration: EGGER PerfectSense Lacquered Boards. EPD-EGG-20200253-IBC1-DE, issue date 10 May 2021.