Potent 5

Is recycled mixed plastic an environmentally effective solution
as a replacement for exterior treated wood? Combating the
ed
myth of down-cycling with an open-loop design approach.
Jose F López-Aguilar a,b, Eva Sevigné Itoiz c, Mª Lluïsa Maspoch b, Javier Peña a
a
Elisava, Barcelona School of Design and Engineering (UVic-UCC). La Rambla 30,32 08002
iew
Barcelona, Spain
b
Centre Català del Plàstic – Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Barcelona Tech (EEBE-UPC),
Departament de Ciència i Enginyeria de Materials,. Avda. Eduard Maristany 16, 08019 Barcelona,
Spain
c
Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, The Weeks Building, 16-18 Princes
v
Gardens, London SW7 1NE, United Kingdom
re
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4210248
1 1. INTRODUCTION
ed
2 The European Council (2008) defines recycling as “the transformation of waste within
3 an industrial process for its initial purpose or for other purposes excluding energy
4 recovery”. Depending on the properties of the material obtained, closed-loop recycling
5 is considered to be when recycled material replaces the original material, whilst open-
6 loop is when new raw material is produced that can be used for different products (ISO,
iew
7 2006). Currently, only 14% of total plastic waste is recycled (Ellen MacArthur, 2017)
8 although nearly all plastics are technically recyclable. When it comes to plastic packaging
9 waste, which accounts for about 60% of total plastic waste in Spain, only 11% of the
10 waste generated is recycled (Lopez-Aguilar et al, 2022), which falls far below the EU
11 recycling objective of 50% set for 2030 (European Commission, 2018).
ev
12 One of the main aspects to consider is effective use. For waste to be recycled, it must
13 have a useful purpose and, therefore, a market value (Ellen MacArthur, 2017). Bear in
14 mind that a final treatment (landfill or incineration) is more efficient than closed-loop
15 recycling, except in the case of PET and HPDE (Antoniopoulos, 2019; Eriksen, M. 2019;
rr
16 Ghisellini, 2016), due to the high costs of sorting, cleaning and conditioning the waste,
17 and then of transforming it back into the original material. It becomes essential,
18 therefore, to research and improve the materials that can be obtained from
19 heterogeneous waste in order to effectively increase recycling rates (Bajracharya, 2016).
ee
20 In this same vein, materials from open-loop recycling of mixed waste have traditionally
21 been used as a substitute for exterior treated wood (Herrero, 2018; Bajracharya, 2016).
22 However, because of the low design load with which these products have commonly
23 been approached, the use of recycled mixed plastics has been considered down-cycling
p
24 and recycled material has been associated with low quality and inefficiency
25 (McDonought and Braungart, 2002).
ot
26 1.1. Recycled mixed plastics as a substitute for treated wood for exterior use
27 In the early 1990s, a simple technology was developed to extrude mixed-plastic waste
28 (PMix) into solid profiles that did not have significant compositional constraints. This
tn
29 enabled the processing of large volumes of mixed plastics to be considered

30 (Krishnaswamy, 2001). The study of this new family of materials was undertaken in a
31 generic way to profile material formats that would serve as substitutes, such as treated
32 wood for exterior use as urban benches, fences, picnic tables or bollards in ports, owing
rin
33 to its substantial thickness and wood-like quality enabling it to be sawn and screwed
34 into, whilst offering the advantage of resistance to insects, rot, humidity and many
35 chemical products (Awoyera, 2020). According to Singh (2007) in his plastic recycling
36 review, polymers are widely used as a substitute for ceramics or metals due to their
37 strength and lightness, with the most interesting scalability and feasibility application
ep
38 being the use of recycled plastics as a replacement for exterior wood (Singh, 2017) in a
39 clear commitment to open-loop recycling. Indeed, Awoyera’s (2020) strong interest in
40 recycled mixed-plastics for construction purposes drove him to express the need for
41 further research into recycled mixed plastics to characterise and validate its use as a
Pr
42 substitute for wood and other materials (Awoyera, 2020).

43
44 Initially, the use of recycled plastic profiles was successful due to their high resistance
45 to environmental deterioration when compared to wood, however, problems with
46 buckling after a few months of use slowed market penetration and gave the recycled
1 plastic profiles a bad reputation (Krishnaswamy, 2001). As a result, a common error in
2 the use of recycled mixed-plastics has been directly replacing wood elements without
ed
3 considering the properties and design possibilities of the new material (Carroll, 2001). If
4 plastic profiles are used in place of wood profiles in an urban bench, for instance, they
5 will not withstand constant loads since their rigidity is very low and their Young's
6 modulus1 is only 10% that of wood (Breslin, 1998). At the same time, one of plastic’s
iew
7 most notable properties when working with long lengths is creep 2, which can cause the
8 plastic slats to become deformed, but not break, due to the weight of the material,
9 which generates the perception of insufficient quality (Breslin, 1998). In this regard, the
10 addition of steel reinforcement is a common strategy when using recycled plastic slats,
11 this might be attached to the underside of the slats and be removable for further
12 recycling at the end of its life. Despite having a low mechanical resistance, it does not
ev
13 degrade due to rain or insect action and can be moulded, allowing for lighter solutions
14 as well as more functional and versatile designs. As a result, the recycled material has
15 significant potential for use, but it must be specifically designed to match the technical
16 requirements requested (Herrera, 2018).
17
rr
18
19 1.2. Life cycle assessment of open-loop recycled mixed plastics
20
21 Previously, using recycled material had a positive aspect when it came to material
ee
22 circularity, but its environmental execution depends on other impacts. Life Cycle
23 Assessment (LCA) is the tool most often used to evaluate effective environmental
24 performance in material and product impact analyses. To evaluate the environmental
25 performance of conventional material substitution, using recycled material, the
26 environmental impact of the recycled material and the substituted virgin material must
p
27 be calculated. For closed-loop recycling, identifying the substituted material is

28 straightforward. Traditionally, published studies have evaluated closed-loop recycled
29 plastics in an ideal scenario with 1:1 virgin material replacement (Gu, 2017;
ot
30 Lazarevic,2010) with favourable results for the recycled material. To correct this
31 idealisation in the study of recycled material, Bala-Gala (2015) and Rigamonti (2020)
32 proposed a quality indicator, ‘Q’, that gives the suggested recycled material a
tn
33 replacement value (Bala-Gala, 2015).

1
34 Youngs’ module or elastic module: indicates material rigidity, the more rigid a material is, the higher is its elastic module.
2
35 Creep one of the ways in which a material fails. It is defined as the tendency of a solid material to deform permanently due to the
36 influence of either external pressure or its own weight
37 This value is made up of the recycled and virgin material property quotients, which
rin
38 indicate how much the virgin material is displaced by recycled material. It is possible to
39 bring the values obtained by LCA closer to reality in a specific way, avoiding results that
40 are over- or underestimated. However, due to the nature of the different materials, this
41 indicator is not suitable for open-loop recycling, as the nature of it causes more aspects
ep
42 to be influenced during the substitution than just the mechanical property value (Ashby,
43 1999; Karana, 2008).
44
45 Huysman (2015) developed a method for benefit allocation in both closed-loop and
Pr
46 open-loop plastics recycling processes, in an attempt to methodically evaluate the

47 environmental performance of recycled plastics. In the end, he determined that it is only
48 valid for closed-loop recycling, because the variety of substituted material distorts the
49 results in open-loop processes (Huysman, 2015). Williams (2010) was the first to publish
50 a specific study evaluating the open-loop recycling process, using a recycled plastic
1 drainage system to replace one of cement aggregate. Although he concluded that the
2 substitution was environmentally beneficial, he emphasised the need to extend the
ed
3 study to include different energy sources. In his study, he highlighted the impact of using
4 electricity to obtain recycled plastics, which depends on the primary mix of sources used
5 to make them.
6 In the particular case of substituting exterior wood for recycled mixed-plastic, Finnveden
iew
7 (2005) evaluated the environmental performance of mixed plastic as a replacement for
8 treated wood compared to incineration with energy recovery, which produced a
9 positive result in favour of incineration. However, the scenarios compared may be
10 misleading because of the low impact loads assigned to wood products, whereas
11 replaced energy is assumed to be carbon-based. In a later investigation, Bolin et al
12 (2011) concluded that wood has a significantly lower environmental impact and is thus
ev
13 a better option. However, it did not consider wood’s maintenance requirements, nor
14 did it model the environmental impact of recycled plastic, instead, it presents a
15 theoretical model based on the impact of virgin polyethylene. Sevigné-Itoiz et al (2015)
16 considered the open-loop potential of recycled plastic as an exterior wood alternative
rr
17 and concluded that further research was required to quantify the current environmental
18 performance of both recycled plastic and treated wood and their maintenance
19 requirements (Sevigné-Itoiz et al, 2015).
ee
20
21 On the one hand, in terms of progress in developing the inventory of recycled mixed
22 plastics, Huysveld (2019) published the most comprehensive study on the treatment
23 required for its valorisation. In the same context, Civancik-Uslu (2021) agreed with
24 regards to mixed plastic usage in urban furniture and expanded the recycled plastic
p
25 inventory, but due to a lack of data on treated wood, compared avoided impact with
26 virgin HDPE and warned that the impact of real modelling of materials would affect
27 environmental performance (Civancik-Uslu, D. et al. 2021). As a result, the published
ot
28 report concluded that data gaps have caused inappropriate findings and resulted in a
29 lack of any reliable conclusion on the environmental performance of open-loop recycled
30 plastic as a substitute for exterior treated wood. On the other hand, no study has
tn
31 considered the environmental impact of recycled plastic by geographical source. It is

32 reasonable to assume that the production location will have an impact on its
33 environmental performance (Williams, 2010), because the national energy mix
34 influences the plastic recycling process. Similarly, to appreciate the difference between
35 local production, medium-distance importation and intercontinental options, the
rin
36 impact loads caused by long-distance transport must be considered.

37 The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the environmental performance of recycled
38 mixed plastic as a substitute for exterior treated wood in a real-use scenario. Various
product typologies covering the entire range of use and maintenance requirements over
ep
39
40 time will be considered in this regard. To clarify, the practical study cases evaluated are
41 classified into those products with mechanical resistance requirements, such as two
42 urban bench types, and those without, such as fences and bollards. In contrast, a fence
43 model with high maintenance requirements and another model with no maintenance
Pr
44 requirements will also be investigated. In this regard, the LCA, when incorporated into
45 product design and development methodologies, enables the environmental impact of
46 material design to be visualised (Russo, 2014) and provides valuable information for
47 decision-making at a technical and environmental level from a holistic perspective close
1 to industrial reality and use (Tao, 2018). Different design strategies for the same product
2 type will be considered in the study in order to evaluate the potential of design in
ed
3 defining environmental impact. In this manner, results will be obtained that present a
4 ‘snapshot’ of specific circumstances and provide a representative range that includes
5 aspects such as product performance or origin.
6 To summarise, this study claims to provide answers to the following questions: Are
iew
7 recycled mixed plastics an environmentally and functionally effective substitute for
8 exterior treated wood? How does design affect ecological efficiency? Beyond the
9 substituted material, how much does the environmental performance depend on the
10 application type and its design? Is the concept of down-cycling well-founded?
11
ev
12 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
13 A brief description of the studied material and the various study cases will be given, as
14 well as the life cycle analysis methodology used for the environmental impact analysis.
15
16
17
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Treated wood for exterior use rr
ee
18 Wood has many sustainability benefits as a natural and renewable material and is used
19 in construction, furniture, packaging and tools (Pelli, 2021). It is popular for exterior use
20 and widely used for things like furniture, fencing and decking. When exposed to ambient
21 climatic conditions, however, wood is vulnerable to bio-deterioration and photo-
p
22 degradation, resulting in aesthetic and mechanical property loss (Brischke and

23 Alfredsen, 2020). Amongst the different species used, those of tropical origin are the
24 most widely used because of their greater resistance to humidity and dimensional
ot
25 stability. In recent years, European and North American species, such as the Flanders
26 pine and red pine (pinus sylvestris) have seen an increase in market share for exterior
27 use (Arpaci et al 2021). Indeed, to prevent degradation, vacuum pressure autoclave
tn
28 treatment with organic salts (CuHDO) is the most commonly used treatment due to its
29 effectiveness and durability, as well as its lower environmental impact and toxicity
30 compared to other treatments, such as the ones based on chromium salts (CCA).
31 Treatments are classified as class I, II, III and IV based on the level of protection provided,
rin
32 with the class IV treatment offering the most protection and being the most suitable for
33 urban furniture. In the same way, the CuHDO base treatment is considered the most
34 innocuous alternative that is similar to the CCAs in class IV in terms of durability, which
35 is why a water repellent layer like varnish is added (Salminen, 2014). Exterior wood
36 degrades due to the action of atmospheric agents (sun and rain) as well as wear and tear
ep
37 from use and vandalism, thus needing regular maintenance.

38 2.1.2. Recycled Mixed Plastics
39 Polymer recycling is generally assumed to be a mechanical process (JRC, 2012) that
Pr
40 involves separating, shredding and melting waste into newly processable material.
41 Recycled mixed plastics are made up of various plastics, mostly polyolefins (HDPE, LDPE,
42 and PP) in various proportions (Huysveld, 2019; Brouwer, 2018; Nosker TJ, 1992). The
43 blended fraction composition in Spain is demonstrated in Figure 1 and Table 1. Due to
1 the variety of compositions, blended plastics have a wide range of properties, from 580-
2 700 MPa with a majority content of HDPE and LDPE for blends such as those offered by
ed
3 the commercial brands Govaplast (Holland) and Ecooh (Belgium), to 1,000-1,200 MPa
4 for those based on PP like those offered by Solteco and Lasentiu (Spain). In any case,
5 despite their heterogeneity and flexibility, in order to obtain a stable material that also
6 has a high enough quality for use, the mixture must undergo separation processes that
iew
7 eliminate unsuitable and less miscible plastics that could significantly affect its
8 mechanical and aesthetic properties. (Antoniopoulos, 2019; Ragaert K. D., 2017; Breslin,
9 1998). Furthermore, additional separation processes have an increased environmental
10 and economic impact (Silveira, 2018; Colwill, 2017). However, achieving a high enough
11 quality to provide effective virgin material substitution is necessary. When the
12 environmental balance between recycled plastic production and substituted virgin
ev
13 material is favourable in final waste treatment terms, there is value and balance
14 (Huysveld, 2019).
15
rr
PET oil Cardboard Tetrapak Metals
0,11% 1,01% 1,01% 0,70%
PET Multilayer OTHERS

0,29% PVC 9,39%
0,55%
ee
PET Colour
0,47%
PET transparent
1,40%
p
PS (EPS and rigid)

14,93%
ot
HDPE black
0,06% PP
62,69%
HDPE multilayer
0,27%
tn
HDPE colour
0,86%
HDPE injection LDPE film

1,99% 4,25%
rin
Fig 1 Composition of a mix waste fraction from selective plant of separation packaging waste in Spain
2017 (Ecoembes). In shades of yellow polyolefins are identified. The rest of the materials in grey.
16
Mixed polyolefins (%) Non polyolefins (%)
ep
69,8 29,74
Table 1.
Classification of the total of mixed polyolefins (PP, HDPE, LDPE) in percentage with respect to the rest
Pr
of materials (other plastics, metals and cardboard)

17
18 Materials with more technically and aesthetically acceptable properties are produced
19 and achieved using polyolefin compositions containing at least 95% polyolefins (PP,
1 HDPE, LPDE). The Belgian company, Ecooh has developed a mixed plastic recycling
2 treatment process mentioned by Huysveld et al (2019) and Ragaert et al (2017), which
ed
3 could be considered a standard recycling procedure. To begin, infrared (NIR) separation
4 treatments are used to divert PET to a proprietary recycling channel and PVC to final
5 treatment. Metals are removed using magnetism and other heavy impurities are
6 removed using drum centrifuges. The light fraction (film) is separated by an air co-
iew
7 current and added later in a controlled manner, the ground plastic is separated using
8 flotation; the plastic is then ground and the polyolefins have floated away from the rest.
9 When the shredded plastic mixture is immersed in a liquid medium, the polyethylenes
10 and polypropylenes float and the rest sinks and is removed. Once the polyolefins
11 mixture is obtained, it undergoes several washing and drying cycles to remove
12 impurities and organic debris until a controlled flow of HDPE, LDPE and PP shredded into
ev
13 fine particles is produced that can then be processed in bulk or as pellets (Huysveld,
14 2019; Ragaert, 2017).
Plastic mix. An open loop recycled material
MANUFACTURING PROCESS
rr
ee
Profile extrusion Press board Moulded
p
SURFACE FINISH
ot
tn
+heterogeneous +homogenous
rin
15 Graphic 1. different formats manufactured with recycled mixed plastic and the different superficial finishes
16 depending on their composition. Samples of materials from the industry. (Syntrewood, Solteco, Govaplast
17 and OiKo Design Office)
18 The material obtained is open-loop recycled plastic. Various material formats are
ep
19 depicted in Graphic 1 based on composition and manufacturing processes. To clarify,

20 mechanical properties and material forming capabilities, are completely different from
21 the original materials. The highly rough and irregular surface finishes are far from
22 conventional plastics on a sensory level, they are typically formed of thick-walled
Pr
23 geometries due to fluidity levels and mechanical strength, with compression moulding
24 and solid profile extrusion the most suitable industrial processes. (Herrera, 2018;
25 Bajracharya, 2016).
1 Regarding mechanical properties, recycled plastics have a considerably lower amount of
2 rigidity than wood, whilst their design versatility is significantly superior. In addition, due
ed
3 to its plastic nature, recycled plastic differs from wood in that it does not degrade due
4 to humidity, nor is it affected by xylophagous insects or fungi. It may lose colour intensity
5 due to the sun, but UV filters are generally added to prevent this, so it will maintain its
6 appearance and aesthetic properties without significant variations over a guaranteed
iew
7 life cycle of 10 years. Additionally, plastics and recycled mixed plastics can be moulded
8 using press and extrusion methods that allow hollow shapes and are more versatile than
9 wood shaping processes, which usually generate only solid, simple shapes.
10 2.2. Definition of products studied

11 Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 represent various products used in this research. They are a multi-
ev
12 person bench measuring 1.8 m long, an individual bench measuring 0.6 m long, an
13 English Garden model fence and a palisade fence. They represent the various critical use
14 aspects, allowing a broad range of study. To explain, the multi-person bench has a high
15 mechanical demand, whilst the individual bench has a lower mechanical requirement
rr
16 but uses the same materials for aesthetic reasons. Also, the English fence has low
17 technical but high maintenance requirements due to aesthetic considerations. Lastly,
18 the palisade fence is a product that has no high technical or aesthetic requirements.
ee
19
20 The four products have been designed in the same way with both treated wood and
21 plastic versions that are equivalent in their dimensions and shapes, resulting in an
22 undistorted comparison. Recycled plastic products were compared in both solid wood-
23 like shapes and redesigned according to proper plastic design parameters. As shown in
p
24 Fig. 3, both the English Garden and the palisade fences have been shaped with a
25 constant wall of 1 cm. The 1.8 m long bench slats, measuring 35 mm x 90 mm, have been
26 reinforced with a 20 x 20 mm tube and a 2 mm galvanised steel insert on the lower face
ot
27 to allow it to be disassembled for recycling.

28
29
tn
30
31
32
33
34
rin
Multi-person bench slat 1.8 m

ep
Pr
Fig. 2. Multi-person bench in tropical wood (left) and 35x90 mixed recycled plastic slat with removable 20x20 reinforcement
(right).
1
Individual bench slat 0.6 m
ed
iew
ev
Fig. 3. Individual bench in tropical wood (left) and 35x90 recycled plastic slat mix without reinforcement (right).
English model fence
rr
ee
English model fence in recycled mixed plastic
p
ot
tn
Fig. 4. English Garden model fence in varnished tropical wood (top left), English model Garden fence in mixed recycled plastic (top
right). Below, images of the different design solutions with plastic studied to lighten the product.
2
Palisade model fence
rin
ep
Pr
ed
iew
Fig. 5. Palisade model fence in unpainted treated European wood (top left), palisade model fence in recycled mixed plastic (top
ev
right). Below, images of the different design solutions with plastic studied to lighten the product.
1
2 2.3. Environmental impact assessment
3 In order to achieve the aims of this study, different products and proposed scenarios for
4
5
6 rr
use have been modelled and compared using life cycle analysis methodology and
following the recommendations of standards ISO 14040 series (ISO, 2006), which
includes a description of the objectives and scope, life cycle inventory, impact
ee
7 assessment and, to conclude, an interpretation of the results.
8
9 2.3.1. Objectives and scope
10 The main purpose is to examine the environmental performance of exterior treated
11 wood substitutes, using a recycled plastic mixture in a number of use and design
p
12 scenarios. For each case study, the functional unit (FU) is defined as replacing the
13 original treated wood product with recycled plastic over 10 years. The evaluation
14 considered distinct product typologies, as described in section 2.1.1, describing various
ot
15 use and design scenarios. A biannual surface maintenance programme has also been
16 implemented to account for deterioration over time.
17
tn
18 Figures 5 and 6 present the evaluated products’ life cycles and boundaries system. All
19 relevant stages of the life cycle are represented, from raw material procurement,
20 through manufacturing, transportation, use and, finally, end-of-life (EoL).
21
rin
Wood Maintenance (x1-10)

ep
Class IV transportation Transport to

Cutting and Use
treatment to factory* installation
varnishing
Transport to
landfill
Transport to
Pr
landfill
Off cuts EoL
*it is only counted in the case of imported wood.
Fig. 5. The System Limits of Wood Products
ed
Galvanized steel tube *
iew
Plastic waste Recycled plastics Extrusion Transport to Use
treatment installation
Transport to recycling
ev
*It is only counted in the case of reinforced profiles.
Fig. 6. Limits for recycled plastic products in the system
rr
1
2 2.3.2. Inventory and impact calculation
3
4 SimaPro 9.2 software and an Ecoinvent 3.5 database were used to model inventory data
ee
5 and calculate environmental impact. Table 19 contains detailed information about the
6 inventory. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) category expressed in kg CO2 eq.
7 according to IPCC 2013 GWP method (100) was used to quantify the impact. In the
8 baseline scenario, recycled mixed plastic products produced in Spain replaced treated
p
9 tropical wood. Additionally, the inventory incorporates information from a sensitivity
10 investigation, which takes into consideration the roots of the various materials, e.g.
11 European wood, plastic from Germany and China, as well as tropical wood and Spanish
12 plastic.
ot
13
14 • Materials and manufacturing
15 A bibliographic review was carried out, as well as consultations with the urban furniture
tn
16 manufacturers, Escofet, the recycled material producers, Solteco, Hanit and Ecooh, the
17 timber company, Gabarró and Barcelona City Council's Maintenance Department.
18
19 The processes required to produce treated wood for exterior use with a 550 kg/m3
rin
20 European pine density and 800 kg/m3 for tropical pine, were accounted for. Specifically,
21 the processes carried out were: kiln-dried and with a class 4 treatment (CSN EN, 2014)
22 (CSN EN, 2007) with 12 kg/m3 of Cr free organic salts in autoclave and a solvent-based
23 varnished surface treatment of 0.2 kg/m2. A manufacturing waste of 10% was assumed
24 in the leftover form, based on the waste generated during the production of the bench
ep
25 slats in which the commercial format is 2 m, while the product uses 1.8 m.
26
27 To model the post-consumer production of recycled plastic the plastic production’s
28 environmental impact was assigned to its first use (food and non-food packaging) and
Pr
29 no credits were assigned relating to the end-of-life recycling system. All waste collection,
30 separation, cleaning and melting processes for recycling were recognised. The inventory
31 described by Huysveld (2019) was considered, with referenced modified electrical
32 consumption for Spain, Germany and China. Extrusion was used in the manufacturing
1 process. The manufacture of the steel reinforcement was assumed to have followed
2 market standards and been shaped by rolling and electro welding, followed by 7-micron
ed
3 galvanisation (EN ISO 10346).
4
5 - Transportation
6 Table 2 describes the different distances and transport modes taken into account. Table
iew
7 2 reports estimated distances and means of transport from the material production site
8 to the factory (Spain) and from the factory to the installation site. Material manufacture
9 includes the intermediate transport related to sawmill operations (in the case of wood)
10 or obtaining the residues for recycled plastic. Final distribution of the finished product
11 has been estimated at an average of 500 km by road in an average 7.5-16-ton lorry. Also,
12 end-of-life transport has been incorporated in the end-of-life stage.
ev
13
Tropical European Recycled plastic Recycled plastic Recycled plastic
wood wood mix ES mix DE mix CN
Lorry 32 t 1500 4000 200 1.500 200
Ship 8000 10,000
rr
Lorry 7.5 t 500 500 500 500 500
14 Table 2. Different transports distribution taken into consideration.
15
ee
16 • Use
17 Through communication with Barcelona City Council, which oversees the conservation
18 of urban furniture in the city, annual or biannual maintenance has been estimated to be
19 required during the 10-year life cycle for intensive urban use of a bench. The general
p
20 maintenance option entails painting the slats in place with polyurethane-based paint
21 (250g/m2), which covers the wood, along with any superficial or deeper flaws. The 20
22 km distance travelled by the operators’ vehicle to the place of work is calculated and
ot
23 divided by the total number of slats to be repainted per journey. As far as the recycled
24 plastic alternative is concerned, the manufacturers guarantee that no maintenance or
25 replacement will be required for ten years, so no additional impact is considered during
use.
tn
26
27
28 • End-of-life situation
rin
29 Treated wood is considered to be hazardous waste. It is difficult to distinguish traditional

30 treated wood with highly toxic CCA (copper chromium arsenic) from current treatments
31 with organic salts, such as the one used in this study. This allows material recovery in
32 the form of chips, however, as a precaution, this material recovery must be treated as
ep
33 hazardous waste (WPA, 2021). As a consequence, it is classified as a controlled landfill.

34 Wood is biodegradable and can decompose in. at least 5 years; nevertheless, if treated,
35 the decomposition time increases by at least 15 years. Although chemicals slow the
36 decomposition process in wood, they do eventually decompose and migrate into the
37 environment, so they must be managed in controlled landfills with no leaks. The
Pr
38 environmental impact is expected to be much greater than that recorded during the
39 process. Recycled plastics are technically recyclable, as a material, so this has been
40 considered within the recycling process. It has also been assumed that municipal
41 management makes proper disposal viable and realistic.
1
ed
STRIP 1.8 m kg m2 km Reference
Material inventory from (Huysveld, 2019) modified to include
Material recycled plastic 4.7
electricity from Spain (ES), Germany(GE) and China(CN)
Extrusion, plastic pipes {RER}| extrusion, plastic pipes |
Manufacturing extrusion 4.7 APOS, U modified to include electricity from Spain (ES),
Germany(GE) and China(CN)
iew
Cast iron {RER}| production | APOS, U
Steel 2.2
Reinforcement Section bar rolling, steel {RER}| processing | APOS, U
galvanised 0.33 Zinc coat, coils {RER}| zinc coating, coils | APOS, U
Transport to ES DE CN Transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO4 {RER}|
Lorry 32 t
factory 200 1500 200 transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO4 | APOS, U
Transport, freight, sea, container ship {GLO}| market for
Ship 10,000
transport, freight, sea, container ship | APOS, U
ev
Transport to Transport. freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5
Lorry 7.5 t 500
installation
EoL Recycling
2
rr
3 Table 3. Life cycle inventory for a 1.8 m recycled plastic batten and reference list of the processes used for
4 the impact calculation.
STRIP 1.8 kg m3 m2 Reference

ee
euro tropical
Euro: Sawn-wood, beam, softwood, raw, dried (u=10%)
{Europe without Switzerland}| beam, softwood, raw, kiln
drying to u=10% | APOS, U
Material wood 4.48 3.024 0.0056
Tropical: sawn-wood, parana pine, dried (u=10%) {RER}|
sawn-wood, parana pine, dried (u=10%), import from BR
p
| APOS, U
Wood preservation, vacuum pressure method, organic
salts, Cr-free, outdoor use, ground contact {RER}| wood
Treatment autoclave class IV 0.07 0.07
preservation, vacuum pressure method, organic salt, Cr-
free, outdoor use, ground contact | APOS, U
ot
Alkyd paint, white, without water, in 60% solution state

Finish varnishing 0.112 0.4479 {RER}| alkyd paint production, white, water-based,
product in 60% solution state | APOS, U
Leftover Treated wood 0.50

tn
0.34
Transport, passenger car, large size, diesel, EURO 5
Maintenance Operator transport 2.5 (km)
{GLO}| market for | APOS, U
Polyurethane, rigid foam {RER}| production | APOS, U
paint 0.112
modified by eliminating the foaming processes.
km
rin
Transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO4 {RER}|

Transport to
Lorry 32 t 4000 1000 transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO4 | APOS,
factory
U
ship 8000
ep
Transport to 500
Lorry 16 t Transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5
installation
Lorry 7.5 t Transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5

EoL 200
Treatment of waste wood, untreated, sanitary landfill
Landfill
RoW
Pr
5 Table 4 Life cycle inventory and reference list of the processes used to calculate the impact for a 1.8 m
6 strip of treated wood.
7
8
1
2
ed
STRIP 0.6 m kg m2 km Reference
Material inventory from (Huysveld, 2019) modified to include
Material recycled plastic 1.57
electricity from Spain (ES), Germany(GE) and China(CN)
Manufacturing extrusion 1.57 APOS, U modified to include electricity from Spain (ES),
iew
Lorry 32 t
ship 10,000
Transport to Transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5

Lorry 7.5 t 500
installation
ev
EoL recycling
3 Table 5 Life cycle inventory and reference list of the processes used to calculate the impact for a 0.6 m
4 strip of recycled plastic.
rr
5
STRIP 0.6 kg m3 m2 Reference
euro tropical
ee
Euro: Sawnwood, beam, softwood, raw, dried (u=10%)
Material wood 1.02 1.49 0.0056
sawn-wood, parana pine, dried (u=10%), import from BR |
APOS, U
p
Wood preservation, vacuum pressure method, organic salts,
class IV Cr-free, outdoor use, ground contact {RER}| wood
Treatment 0.022 0.01
autoclave preservation, vacuum pressure method, organic salt, Cr-free,
outdoor use, ground contact | APOS, U
ot
Finish varnishing 0.037 0.15 {RER}| alkyd paint production, white, water-based, product in
60% solution state | APOS, U
Leftover Treated wood 0.17

0.11
tn
Operator Transport, passenger car, large size, diesel, EURO 5 {GLO}|

Maintenance 2.5 (km)
transport market for | APOS, U
Paint 0.037
km
rin
Transport to
Lorry 32 t 4000 1000 Transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO4 {RER}|
factory
transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO4 | APOS, U
ship 8000
Transport to 500
installation
ep

EoL 200
Landfill Treatment of waste wood, untreated, sanitary landfill RoW
6
Pr
7 Table 6. Life cycle inventory and reference list of the processes used to calculate the impact for a 0.6 m
8 strip of treated wood.
ENGLISH FENCE kg km Reference
Solid Light
recycled Material inventory from (Huysveld, 2019) modified to include
Material 58.9 36.24
plastic electricity from Spain (ES), Germany(GE) and China(CN)
ed
Manufacturing extrusion 58.9 36.24 APOS, U modified to include electricity from Spain (ES),
Lorry 32 t
Ship 10,000
iew
Lorry 7.5 t 500
installation
EoL recycling
1 Table 7. Life cycle inventory and reference list of the processes used to calculate the impact for English
2 fence model of recycled plastic.
ev
ENGLISH FENCE kg m3 m2 Reference
euro tropical
rr
APOS, U
Wood preservation, vacuum pressure method, organic salts,
class IV Cr-free, outdoor use, ground contact {RER}| wood
ee
Treatment 0.744 0.744
autoclave preservation, vacuum pressure method, organic salt, Cr-free,
outdoor use, ground contact | APOS, U
Finish varnishing 1.506 0.15 {RER}| alkyd paint production, white, water-based, product in
60% solution state | APOS, U
p
Treated Wood drying to u=10% | APOS, U
Leftover 5.51
3.79 APOS, U
ot
Operator Transport, passenger car, large size, diesel, EURO 5 {GLO}|

transport market for | APOS, U
paint 1.506
tn
km
Transport to
Lorry 32 t 4000 1000 Transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO4 {RER}|
factory
transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO4 | APOS, U
ship 8000
rin
Transport to 500
installation

EoL 200
Landfill Treatment of waste wood, untreated, sanitary landfill RoW
3
ep
4 Table 8 Life cycle inventory and reference list of the processes used to calculate the impact for a English
5 fence model of treated wood.
Pr
1
PALISADE
ed
kg km Reference
FENCE
Solid Light
Material inventory from (Huysveld, 2019) modified to
recycled
Material 82.8 49.8 include electricity from Spain (ES), Germany(GE) and
plastic
China(CN)
iew
Extrusion, plastic pipes {RER}| extrusion, plastic pipes
Manufacturing extrusion 82.8 49.8 | APOS, U modified to include electricity from Spain
(ES), Germany(GE) and China(CN)
ES DE CN Transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO4
Transport to
Lorry 32 t {RER}| transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton,
factory 200 1500 200 EURO4 | APOS, U
Transport, freight, sea, container ship {GLO}| market
ship 10,000
for transport, freight, sea, container ship | APOS, U
ev
Lorry 7.5 t 500
installation
EoL recycling
2 Table 9. Life cycle inventory and reference list of the processes used to calculate the impact for a plastic
rr
3 palisade model fence.
4
PALISADE
ee
kg m3 m2 Reference
FENCE
euro tropical
Euro: Sawn-wood, beam, softwood, raw, dried
(u=10%) {Europe without Switzerland}| beam,
softwood, raw, kiln drying to u=10% | APOS, U
p
Tropical: sawn-wood, parana pine, dried (u=10%)
{RER}| sawn-wood, parana pine, dried (u=10%),
import from BR | APOS, U
Wood preservation, vacuum pressure method,
organic salts, Cr-free, outdoor use, ground contact
class IV
ot
Treatment 1.104 1.104 {RER}| wood preservation, vacuum pressure method,

autoclave
organic salt, Cr-free, outdoor use, ground contact |
APOS, U
Finish varnishing
Euro: Sawn-wood, beam, softwood, raw, dried
tn
(u=10%) {Europe without Switzerland}| beam,

Treated softwood, raw, kiln drying to u=10% | APOS, U
Leftover 5.62 8.18
Wood Tropical: sawn-wood, parana pine, dried (u=10%)
{RER}| sawn-wood, parana pine, dried (u=10%),
import from BR | APOS, U
Operator Transport, passenger car, large size, diesel, EURO 5
rin
transport {GLO}| market for | APOS, U

paint 1.506
km
Transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO4
Transport to
Lorry 32 T 4000 1000 {RER}| transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton,
ep
factory
EURO4 | APOS, U
Transport, freight, sea, container ship {GLO}| market
ship 8000
for transport, freight, sea, container ship | APOS, U
Transport to 500
installation
Pr
Transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5

EoL Lorry 7.5 t 200
Treatment of waste wood, untreated, sanitary landfill
Landfill
RoW
5 Table 10. Life cycle inventory and reference list of the processes used to calculate the impact for a treated
6 wood palisade model fence.
1
2 3. RESULTS
ed
3 The comparative impact of the different case studies, including the bench slats and
4 fences, maintenance, and taking into account the basic scenario of recycled plastic and
5 the local origin of tropical wood have been examined. Following that, maintenance
iew
6 visibility throughout the life cycle is assumed and, finally, a sensitivity analysis has been
7 performed considering the different origins of recycled plastic and wood of European
8 origin.
9 3.1 Baseline Results Scenario
10 The GHG emissions distribution for the two models of bench slats manufactured for use
ev
11 in multi-person and individual benches are shown in Fig. 7 and Table 11 respectively,
12 without considering maintenance requirements. In the results, the impact and high
13 mechanical strength requirements of both wood and recycled plastic in the multi-person
14 1.8 m long bench slat are seen to be similar, but with a 17% penalty for plastic. However,
rr
15 in an individual bench slat with a shorter length and lower strength requirement, the
16 recycled plastic option reduces the environmental impact by more than half. This
17 significant difference in results is because the 1.8 m multi-person slat requires metal
18 reinforcement to achieve the required firmness, which accounts for 59% of the slat's
ee
19 total impact. On the other hand, the 0.6 m individual bench does not require
20 reinforcement because of its lower stress conditions. Despite the lower mechanical
21 stress, the wooden slat is applied with the same cross-section and is used excessively.
22 This realistic situation, which is common in many kinds of products, indicates that
p
23 materials are not always used optimally and their shape is influenced by standard
24 format, aesthetics or ergonomics. Thus, materials’ environmental impact is conditioned
25 by the design and not only by the matter’s properties or nature.
ot
Multi-person bench slat 1.8 m

10
9
tn
5
rin
2
ep
0
Treated wood (Tropical) kg CO2 Recycled mixed plastic (ES) kg CO2
Class IV treated Wood 3.78 Extruded recycled plastic 3.95

Pr
Leftover 0.80 5.51

Varnishing 0.72
Transport to factory 1.59 Transport to factory 0.23
Transport to installation 0.23 Transport to installation 0.34
End of life 1.90 End of life -
Total 9.01 Total 10.81
26
1 Figure 7 and Table 11. Impact of a 1.8 m slat made of treated tropical wood and locally-sourced recycled plastic (Spain).
Individual bench slat 0.6 m
ed
3
2,5
iew
2
1,5
ev
0,5
rr
Class IV treated wood 1.13 Extruded recycled plastic 1.19
Leftover 0.24
Varnishing 0.21
Transport to factory 0.48 Transport to factory 0.03
ee
Transport to installation 0.07 Transport to installation 0.08
End of life 0.57 End of life 0.00
2
3 Fig 8. and Table 12. Disaggregated impact of a 0.6 m slat made of treated tropical wood and locally-sourced recycled plastic (Spain).
p
5 The impact of the English Garden and Palisade fences are represented in Figure 9 and
6 Table 13. In both cases, substituting recycled plastic for tropical wood yields positive
ot
7 results. The improvement is less in the Palisade fence because the original wood option
8 is not varnished, as opposed to the English Garden fence, whose varnished finish and
9 large surface area increases the initial impact. Therefore, plastic design features, such
tn
10 as thin walls and hollowed-out shapes, enable the weight to be reduced to a lower level
11 than wood, despite the higher density of the plastic. When compared to wood, the
12 plastic’s ability to be designed in more lightweight shapes improves its environmental
13 performance and calls into question the suitability of comparing materials by unit mass
rin
14 or mechanical properties. On this occasion, an English Garden fence made of recycled

15 plastic and designed with lighter shapes has a 40% lower environmental impact when
16 compared to the same product produced with the same material but using solid shapes.
17 The reduction is 60% when compared to the tropical wood alternative. It should also be
18 noted that lighter material also reduces transportation emissions.
ep
19
20
Pr
21
22
23
1
English Garden fence model
ed
90
80
70
iew
60
50
40
30
ev
20
10
0
rr
Solid Light
Class IV treated wood 41.85 Extruded recycled plastic 45.87 28.22
Leftover 5.81
Varnishing 8.64
ee
Transport to factory 12.21 Transport to factory 2.02 1.24
Transport to installation 4.25 Transport to installation 5.05 3.11
End of life 7.25 End of life
80.01
Total Total 52.94 32.57
2
3 Fig 9. and Table 13. Disaggregated environmental impact of English Garden fence model made of treated tropical Wood and locally-
p
4 sourced recycled plastic in a solid and lightweight format (Spain)

5
Palisade fence model
ot
110
100
90
tn
80
70
60
50
rin
40
30
20
10
ep
0
Solid Light
Class IV treated wood 62.11 Extruded recycled plastic 64.48 38.78
Leftover 9.06
Pr
Varnishing
Transport to factory 18.12 Transport to factory 2.84 1.71
Transport to installation 6.31 Transport to installation 7.10 4.27
End of life 9.21 End of life
Total 104.80 Total 74.42 44.76
6
1 Fig 10. and Table 14. Disaggregated environmental impact of palisade model fence made of treated tropical Wood and locally-
2 sourced recycled plastic in a solid and lightweight format (Spain)
ed
3 3.2 Life cycle results
4 Consecutively, the Tables 15, 16, 17 and 18 classify the environmental impact
5 accumulation produced by successive maintenance cycles. The greater resistance of
6 recycled plastic to the open-air compared to treated wood means no maintenance is
iew
7 required over a period of 10 years, whereas wood products require biannual
8 maintenance to guarantee an optimal state of conservation, both technically and
9 aesthetically. Maintenance consists of repainting the surface, in which the product’s
10 design plays a role, but not its mass, i.e. a product with a larger surface area, such as a
11 thinner slat, has a higher relative load. Each maintenance activity may account for 15-
12 20% of the product's initial impact. Thus, in a proposed maintenance scenario, it can
ev
13 imply an increase of 50 to 75% in its impact. As a result, while the
14 mechanical properties of plastic are lower, this material is more resistant to
15 atmospheric and biological agents and allows prevention of impact throughout its life
16 cycle.
rr
17
Multi-person bench slat 1.8 m life cycle
16
ee
14
12
p
10
8
ot
4
tn
0
rin
Strip (year installation 0-2) 9.01 Strip (year installation 0-10) 10.81
Maintenance (year 2-4) 1.63
ep

18
19 Fig 11 and Table 15. Environmental impact comparison of 1.8 m slats over their entire life cycle in CO2 kg.
Pr
1
Individual bench slat 0.6 m life cycle
ed
5
4,5
iew
3,5
2,5
ev
1,5
0,5
Treated wood (Tropical)
Strip (year installation 0-2)

kg CO2
2.7 rr
Recycled mixed plastic (ES) kg CO2
Strip (year installation 0-10) 1.3

ee
2
p
3 Fig 12 and Table 16. Environmental impact comparison of 0.6 m slats over their entire life cycle in CO2 kg.
4
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
1
English Garden fence model's life cycle
ed
140
120
iew
100
80
60
40
ev
20
rr
Solid Light
Strip (year installation 0-2) 80.01 Strip (year installation 0-10) 52.94 32.57
ee
Total 121.98 Total 52.94 32.57
2
3 Fig. 13 and Table 17. The environmental impact of the English Garden fence over its entire life cycle in CO2 kg.
p
4
Palisade model fence life cycle
ot
120
100
tn
80
60
rin
40
20
ep
Solid Light
Strip (year installation 0-2) 104.80 Strip (year installation 0-10) 64.48 38.78
Maintenance (year 2-4) -
Pr

Total 104.80 Total 64.48 38.78
5
6 Fig. 14 and Table 18. The environmental impact of palisade fencing over its entire life cycle in CO2 kg.
1
2 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
ed
3 The different material contribution is shown in Table 19 which compares the
4 environmental, formal and use alternatives in percentages as well as per unit mass (kg).
5 The outcomes demonstrate a distinction between assorted uses and incorporate
6 material variability into the decision-making process.
iew
7 Indeed, except for solid section palisade fencing, recycled plastic from Spain is beneficial
8 in all scenarios. In all cases, European-sourced wood has a significantly lower
9 environmental impact than tropical wood and thus may be more efficient at the point
10 of installation, but not once maintenance has been accounted for. Although there is a
11 penalty for recycled plastic during installation, in uses with high maintenance
ev
12 requirements, such as the 0.6 m slat and the English Garden fence, when the
13 accumulated impact of maintenance is considered, a reduction of up to 70% in emissions
14 can be achieved. As a result, post-consumer recycled mixed plastic, compared with
15 tropical or European origin wood, can be considered a more environmentally-friendly
rr
16 alternative to treated wood for exterior use.
17 By contrast, the environmental performance of recycled plastic sourced from Germany
18 or China for all applications is less conclusive. When compared to European wood,
ee
19 German plastic does not reduce impact when used for the 1.8 m slats or the Palisade
20 fence. Even in the English Garden fence, it requires between three and four
21 maintenance cycles to show a positive performance. When compared with tropical
22 wood, the plastic of Spanish origin has generally good performance, but with closer
results. At the same time, the results are much less favourable for recycled plastic from
p
23
24 China, owing to the impact of higher electricity use by the Chinese, whose mixed plastics
25 have a very high carbon footprint. In all cases, the introduction of design variables that
26 are inherent to plastic to make the product weigh less than wood and provide superior
ot
27 results is a key factor.

28
tn
2 4 6 8 10
Installat Mant. Mant. Mant. Mant.
ion (x1) (x2) (x3) (x4)
Vs Wood Euro 112.80 59.68 28.69 7.78 -7.29
Strip 1.8 Recycled plastic ES
Vs Wood tropical 19.98 1.60 -11.90 -22.23 -30.39
Vs Wood Euro -13.91 -35.00 -47.79 -56.38 -62.54
Strip 0.6 Recycled plastic ES
rin
Vs Wood tropical -51.85 -59.25 -64.67 -68.82 -72.10

Vs Wood Euro 10.41 -9.41 -23.20 -33.34 -41.12
Recycled plastic ES
Vs Wood tropical -33.84 -41.50 -47.58 -52.51 -56.60
Garden fence
Recycled plastic ES Vs Wood Euro -32.07 -44.26 -52.74 -58.99 -63.77
(designed) Vs Wood tropical -59.29 -64.01 -67.75 -70.78 -73.29
Vs Wood Euro 28.33 28.33 28.33 28.33 28.33
Recycled plastic ES
Vs Wood tropical -28.99 -28.99 -28.99 -28.99 -28.99
ep
Palisade fence
Recycled plastic ES Vs Wood Euro -22.81 -22.81 -22.81 -22.81 -22.81
Vs 1 kg Wood Euro 37.0 2.7 -17.8 -31.4 -41.2

1 kg Recycled plastic ES
Vs 1 kg Wood tropical 11.6 -5.9 -18.5 -28.1 -35.7
Pr
Vs Wood Euro 167.91 101.03 62.02 35.69 16.72

Strip 1.8 Recycled plastic DE
Vs Wood tropical 51.05 27.91 10.92 -2.09 -12.36
Vs Wood Euro 25.83 -5.00 -23.69 -36.24 -45.24
Strip 0.6 Recycled plastic DE
Vs Wood tropical -29.63 -40.44 -48.37 -54.44 -59.23
Vs Wood Euro 69.73 39.26 18.07 2.47 -9.48
Recycled plastic DE
Garden fence Vs Wood tropical 1.71 -10.08 -19.42 -27.00 -33.28
Vs Wood Euro 5.28 -13.62 -26.76 -36.44 -43.85
Recycled plastic DE
Vs Wood tropical -36.91 -44.22 -50.02 -54.72 -58.61
(designed)
Vs Wood Euro 98.90 98.90 98.90 98.90 98.90
ed
Recycled plastic DE
Vs Wood tropical 10.06 10.06 10.06 10.06 10.06
Palisade fence
Recycled plastic DE Vs Wood Euro 19.62 19.62 19.62 19.62 19.62
Vs 1 kg Wood Euro 74.4 30.7 4.7 -12.7 -25.2

1 kg Recycled plastic DE
Vs 1 kg Wood tropical 42.0 19.8 3.7 -8.5 -18.2
iew
Strip 1.8 Vs Wood Euro 224.61 143.57 96.31 64.41 41.42
Recycled plastic CN
Vs Wood tropical 83.02 54.98 34.39 18.63 6.18
Strip 0.6 Vs Wood Euro 85.43 40.00 12.45 -6.04 -19.31
Recycled plastic CN
Vs Wood tropical 3.70 -12.23 -23.91 -32.85 -39.91
Vs Wood Euro 120.07 80.57 53.09 32.87 17.36
Recycled plastic CN
Vs Wood tropical 31.88 16.59 4.48 -5.35 -13.49
Garden fence
Recycled plastic CN Vs Wood Euro 34.98 10.75 -6.10 -18.51 -28.02
ev
Vs Wood Euro 161.17 161.17 161.17 161.17 161.17
Recycled plastic CN
Vs Wood tropical 44.51 44.51 44.51 44.51 44.51
Palisade fence
Recycled plastic CN Vs Wood Euro 70.31 70.31 70.31 70.31 70.31
Vs 1 kg Wood Euro 107.3 55.3 24.4 3.7 -11.1

1 kg Recycled plastic CN
rr
Vs 1 kg Wood tropical 68.8 42.3 23.3 8.7 -2.8
1
2 Table 19. Sensitivity analysis results in %
3
ee
4 Comparison of Mass
5 When comparing performance per unit mass, we see a remarkable difference in results
6 that highlights the misrepresentation of results when comparing materials per unit
p
7 mass. With regard to comparative impact increases for recycled plastic, while there is a
8 more pronounced results reversal through successive maintenance cycles across two of
9 the types of wood, as tropical wood’s density is much higher and, therefore, a lower
ot
10 volume per mass than European wood, if the maintenance impact is not taken into
11 consideration and they are only compared kg by kg, recycled plastics are a worse option
12 in all scenarios, with an 11% increase in baseline emissions and a 107% increase in
13 Chinese plastic compared to European wood.
tn
14
15 4. DISCUSSION
rin
16
17 4.1. Stable development and an environmentally competitive market for mixed

18 plastics
19 The principal incentive for material recycling is the establishment of a stable competitive
ep
20 market for recycled materials that replace virgin materials (European Comission, 2016,
21 Ellen Macarthur, 2015). Consequently, the evaluation of uses for mixed plastics, as
22 performed in this study, is essential to validate the strategy's sustainability, not only in
23 terms of circularity, but also to prevent climate change. The results show that
Pr
24 substituting treated wood for exterior use with locally-sourced recycled plastic (Spain)
25 is an environmentally-friendly option that can reduce CO2 emissions by between 7% and
26 73% over a life cycle and with an especially notable environmental improvement when
27 replacing tropical wood.
1 In Spain, 423,000 tons of PP and PS plastic packaging waste are generated each year, of
2 which 37,000 tons (8%) are recycled (López-Aguilar et al, 2022). Owing to the lack of a
ed
3 consolidated proposal for use, this waste sector has one of the lowest recyclability rates.
4 Assuming that, as per the EU's recycling targets for the next few years, recycled mixed
5 plastic reaches 200,000 tons, environmental scenarios can be considered. If this volume
6 of material can be used as a replacement for treated tropical wood for products with
iew
7 low mechanical but long-term maintenance requirements, such as the "English Garden
8 fence" model studied, 344,355 tons of CO2 emissions per year could be avoided.
9 In accordance with Herrera (2018), recycled mixed plastic is a material that, with the
10 right design, really does have the potential to be used for products that are commonly
11 made of wood and offers functional improvement. According to the current study
12 findings, it would also have environmental benefits. In this sense, an appropriate
ev
13 definition of uses in which recycled plastics are more effective in functional terms,
14 scalability and environmental performance, may stimulate the recycling of
15 heterogeneous plastic waste and enable the European Union circularity objectives to be
16 achieved, thus moving towards greater societal sustainability. However, to increase its
rr
17 use in urban environments, a greater design effort is required to ensure the successful
18 functioning of the material (Karana, 2008). Products made of recycled mixed plastic have
19 generally been perceived as low-quality due to a limited design approach and a lack of
ee
20 aesthetics (Pinzón-Moreno, 2017; Petersen, 2017). In this regard, research is needed to
21 identify the perception of recycled mixed plastics as a wood substitute, as well as its full
22 design potential beyond a traditional profile configuration.
23 4.2. Recycled plastic as an alternative to exterior wood.
p
24 In Europe, 6.5 million m3 of treated exterior wood is produced each year, with 66%
25 intended for construction, large poles and sleepers, and the remaining 34% used for
26 garden products, furniture or fences (Salminen, 2014). This sector is where the main
ot
27 potential for using recycled mixed plastics lies, as it has lower technical and regulatory
28 requirements. Assuming a balanced distribution of imported tropical wood (with a
29 density of 800 kg/m3) and European wood (550 kg/m3), the total mass per year would
tn
30 be 4.22 million tons, which would correspond to at least 386,000 in the Spanish market.
31 Aside from the direct reduction in environmental impact and establishing a large-scale
32 market for mixed plastic waste, replacing wood with recycled plastic might have an
33 indirect positive effect. The growing demand for wood in the construction sector could
34 absorb the demand detour caused by substituting recycled plastics for wood for smaller
rin
35 uses. Diversified pressure on natural resources would be an additional benefit in

36 sustainability terms, thus avoiding the overexploitation of forests. It should be noted
37 that wood is regarded as an optimal material in terms of circularity and emission
38 reduction due to its renewability and off-setting of carbon dioxide during growth.
ep
39 However, forest system overexploitation, especially tropical ones, implies loss of

40 biodiversity and indirect emissions that are not generally evaluated due to
41 methodological shortcomings in inventories and life cycle analysis tools. (Julie Hansted
42 Andersen, 2020).
Pr
43 4.3. Open-loop recycled plastics: an improvement opportunity

44 Closed-loop and open-loop are frequently confused in literature through the use of the
45 neologisms ‘up-cycling’ to mean recycling in which maximum material quality is
46 achieved (Sung, 2015) and ‘down-cycling’ to refer to open-loop recycling, implying the
1 loss of quality in the material and its degradation in circularity terms (Eriksen M. D.,
2 2018). However, as stated by Ragaert K. D. (2017), it is essential to avoid subjective
ed
3 considerations, with similarity or distinction being the unique difference between virgin
4 original and recycled materials, rather than judging a material to be better or worse. So
5 far, no single objective reason has been provided to justify why open-loop recycling is
6 worse than closed-loop recycling in terms of environmental performance (Deschamps
iew
7 et al. 2018). In terms of material efficiency, open-loop recycling produces a cascading
8 employment process that improves system performance (Sirkin, 1994). According to
9 Hahladakis et al. (2018) and Cimpan (2015), cascading open-loop plastic recycling is a
10 beneficial model that produces an increased recyclability rate and environmental
11 performance.
12 Even though the mechanical properties of mixed plastics are drastically inferior to that
ev
13 of wood, the performance of these materials is not directly correlated to their
14 mechanical properties. As a consequence, materials do not behave better or worse
15 based purely on their intrinsic properties, but depending on how they are used. The
16 environmental performance of a material might be understood by comparing it with its
rr
17 functional capabilities and according to current design criteria. Manufacturing
18 processes, ergonomic requirements or aesthetics, predetermine the way the material is
19 used and, therefore, its environmental behaviour. (Karana, 2008; Ashby M., 2013).
ee
20 Likewise, other properties, such as resistance to wear, may be even more important
21 because of their implication in terms of product durability (Huysman, 2015) and its
22 effect on increased environmental impact due to maintenance needs.
23 5. CONCLUSION
p
24 To sum up, the outcomes in this paper demonstrate that recycling mixed plastics in an
25 open-loop system cannot be considered down-cycling in a general sense or from an
26 objective standpoint. A material that offers a valid functional operation during its use
ot
27 and that reduces the environmental impact generated throughout its life cycle by 65%
28 compared to the conventional option cannot be considered a bad material.
29 One of the most important methodological findings is that, due to density variations,
tn
30 assessing the environmental impact of a material according to unit mass produces

31 inconclusive results and that surface area and requirements of use are more important
32 than weight. The impact of wood surface treatments, for instance, contributes at least
33 10% and is not mass-dependent but design-dependent. Therefore, materials may be
rin
34 have different shapes with a range of surface areas while having equal mass. Thus, a set
35 of thin slats will have more surface area than a cubed block with equal mass. In the same
36 way, the durability of a material is influenced by the way it is used and mechanical
37 strength does not necessarily correlate to greater resistance to deterioration and
ep
38 therefore, greater durability. It is clear from the various use scenarios investigated how
39 maintenance requirements influence material selection and environmental suitability.
40 The cumulative environmental impact of maintenance outweighs wood’s benefits. As a
41 result, issues such as a product's installation location or potential for deterioration
42 during use affect the material's true environmental impact.
Pr
43 The importance of item design in defining a material’s environmental impact has been
44 demonstrated. Materials are not always used optimally. The bench slats study highlights
45 the effects of design as a separate issue to mechanical properties, but aesthetic and
46 commercial aspects have further implications than the nature of the material itself. On
1 the other hand, potential industrial uses for plastic could present a huge benefit.
2 Through the possibility of hollow shapes that lighten the mass, while still maintaining
ed
3 functionality, the environmental impact of a product might be reduced by up to 40%
4 when compared to solid wood sections.
5 As a detailed conclusion of the research, the following may be stated:
iew
6 • Considering open-loop recycled plastic as an example of down-cycling is neither
7 environmentally nor functionally justified.
8 • In almost all the scenarios studied, recycled plastic is a better choice than
9 tropical wood.
10 • The origin of recycled plastic is an important factor in determining environmental
11 performance.
ev
12 • A material’s environmental performance is directly influenced by the product it
13 is used for and its design.
14 • Because materials are not always used optimally, determining their quality
15 simply based on their mechanical properties is incorrect.
rr
16 • Comparing a material’s environmental impact according to unit mass is
17 inconclusive, as design constraints and use have a greater impact on
18 environmental performance than its nature.
19 • Recycled plastics have some better properties than exterior wood, such as
ee
20 resistance to deterioration from biological agents or humidity, which improves
21 their overall environmental performance.
22 • Applying plastic-specific design criteria allows a decrease in mass compared with
23 copying solid wood sections. This strategy favours a lower environmental impact.
p
24 • Depending on use, recycled plastic can reduce environmental impact by up to

25 70% over a 10 year life cycle when compared to exterior treated wood.
26
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
1 References
2 J. H. Andersen, N. L. Rasmussen, M. W. Ryberg. Comparative life cycle assessment of cross
ed
3 laminated timber building and concrete building with special focus on biogenic carbon. Energy
4 and Buildings. 254 (2021) 111604
5 I. Antonopoulos, G. Faraca, D. Tonini. Recycling of post-consumer plastic packaging waste in the
6 EU: Recovery rates, material flows, and barriers. Waste Management, 126 , (2021), pp.694-705.
iew
7 S. Arpaci, E. D. Tomak, M.A.Ermeydan I. Yildirim. Natural weathering of sixteen wood species:
8 Changes on surface properties. Polymer Degradation and Stability 183 (2021) 109415
9 Ashby, M. (1999). Material selection in mechanical design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
10 P. O. Awoyera, A. Adesina. Plastic wastes to construction products: Status, limitations and future
11 perspective. Case Studies in Construction Materials. 12(2020) Article e00330
ev
12 M. Bajracharya, A. Manalo, W. Karunasena, K. Lau Characterisation of recycled mixed plastic
13 solid wastes: Coupon and full-scale investigation. Waste Management. Volume 48, February ,
14 (2016) pp 72-80
rr
15 A.Bala-Gala, M.Raugei, P. Fullana-Palmer. Introducing a new method for calculating the
16 environmental credits of end-of-life material recovery in attributional LCA. International Journal
17 of Life Cycle Assessment. 20, (2015) 645-654.
18 A. Björk, G. Finnveden. Recycling revisited—life cycle comparisons of global warming impact and
ee
19 total energy use of waste management strategies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44
20 (2005) 309-317
21 Bolin, C. S. (2011). Life cycle assessment of ACQ-treated lumber with comparison to wood plastic
22 composite decking. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 620-629.
p
23 Bolin, C. A. (2011). Life cycle assessment of ACQ-treated lumber with comparison to wood plastic
24 composite decking. Journal of Cleaner Production, 620-629. .
25 V. T. Breslin, U. Senturk, C. C. Berndt. Long-term engineering properties of recycled plastic
ot
26 lumber used in pier construction , Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 23, (1998) 243-258 .
27 M. T. Brouwer, E. U. Thoden van Velzen, K. Ragaert, A.Augustinus, H.Soethoudt, S. De Meester,
28 K. Ragaert. Predictive model for the Dutch post-consumer plastic packaging system and
tn
29 implications for the circular economy. Waste Management 71(2018) 62-85

30 BS EN 16485:2014. Round and sawn timber. Environmental Product Declarations. Product
31 category rules for wood and wood-based products for use in construction
32 BS EN 351-1:2007 Durability of wood and wood-based products —Preservative-treated solid
rin
33 wood —Part 1: Classification of preservative penetration and retention

34 D.R. Carroll, R. B. Stone, M. A. Friedman. Structural properties of recycled plastic/sawdust
35 lumber decking planks. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 31,(2001) 241-251
36 C. Cimpan, M.Rothmann, L.Hamelin, H.Wenzel. Towards increased recycling of household
ep
37 waste: Documenting cascading effects and material efficiency of commingled recyclables and
38 biowaste . Journal of Environmental Management Volume 157 (2015) 69-83 .
39 Civancik-Uslu, D. N. (2021). Moving from linear to circular household plastic packaging in
40 Belgium: Prospective life cycle assessment of mechanical and thermochemical recycling.
Pr
41 Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 171, 105633.

42 J.Colwill A. Simeone O.Gould E.Woolley C. Mulvenna Energy-efficient Systems for the Sensing
43 and Separation of Mixed Polymers. Procedia CIRP2017. 62 (2017) 512-517
1 Ellen MacArthur Foundation,. (2017). The New Plastics Economy. Rethinking the uture of
2 plastics. Catalysing action. Recuperado el july de 2020, de
ed
3 https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/the-new-plastics-economy-rethinking-the-future-of-
4 plastics-and-catalysing
5 EN 10346:2015 Continuously hot-dip coated steel flat products for cold forming - Technical
6 delivery conditions
iew
7 M. K. Eriksen T. F. Astrup. Characterisation of source-separated, rigid plastic waste and
8 evaluation of recycling initiatives: Effects of product design and source-separation system.
9 Waste Management. Volume 87, 15 (2019), Pages 161-172
10 Euroepan Comission. DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
11 COUNCIL of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. https://eur-
12 lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:0030:en:PDF#:~:text='recycli
ev
13 ng'%20means%20any%20recovery%20operation,the%20original%20or%20other%20purposes.
14 European Commision. 2018. DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/852 OF The European Parliament and of the
15 Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste.
16 Brussels : s.n., 2018. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/es/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018L0852
rr
17 (Accessed 21 July 2020)
18 European Comission. (2016). Sustainable supply of raw materials. Optimal recycling. Business
19 Innovation Observatory
ee
20 G. Finnveden, J. Johansson, P. Lind, Å. Moberg. . (s.f.). Life cycle assessment of energy from solid
21 waste – part 1: general methodology and results. . Journal of Cleaner Production, 13 (2005), pp.
22 213-229.
23 P. Ghisellini, C. Cialani, S. Ulgiati. A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a
p
24 balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 114
25 (2016) Pages 11-32
26 F. Gu, J. Guo, W. Zhang, P. A.Summers, P.Hall. From waste plastics to industrial raw materials: A
27 life cycle assessment of mechanical plastic recycling practice based on a real-world case study.
ot
28 Science of The Total Environment. 601–602 (2017) 1192-1207

29 J. Hahladakis, E. Iacovidou. Closing the loop on plastic packaging materials: What is quality and
30 how does it affect their circularity? Science of total environment, 630 (2018) 1394-1400.
tn
31 J.P. Herrera, D. Bedoya-Ruiz, J. E. Hurtado Seismic behavior of recycled plastic lumber walls: An
32 experimental and analytical research. Engineering Structures. 177 (2018) 566-578
33 S. Huysman, S.Debaveye, T. Schaubroeck, S. DeMeester, F.Ardente, F. Mathieux, JoDewulf. The
rin
34 recyclability benefit rate of closed-loop and open-loop systems: A case study on plastic recycling
35 in Flanders. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101, (2015) 53-60.
36 Huysveld, S. H. (2019). Advancing circular economy benefit indicators and application on open-
37 loop recycling of mixed and contaminated plastic waste fractions. . Journal of Cleaner
38 Production, 210, 1-13.
ep
39 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I
40 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F.,
41 D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley
42 (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535
Pr
43 pp,
44 ISO. (2006). Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework
45 ISO 14040:. Geneva,Switzerland: International Standard Organization.
1 ISO. (2006). Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework
2 ISO 14040:. Geneva,Switzerland: International Standard Organization.
ed
3 JRC, J. R. (2012). End of waste criteria for waste plastic for conversion. Sevilla: Technical
4 proposal. Second working documento.
5 E. Karana, P. Hekkert, P. Kandachar. Material considerations in product design: A survey on
6 crucial material aspects used by product designers . Materials & Design. 29 (2008). 1081–1089.
iew
7 P. Krishnaswamy, R. Lampo. Recycled-Plastic Lumber Standards: From Waste Plastics to Markets
8 for Plastic-Lumber Bridges (Dec. 2001) highlights ASTM International's efforts to develop the
9 industry-consensus, performance-based standards that have contributed to market acceptance
10 of recycled-plastic lumber (RPL) in structural applications. (2001)
11 D. Lazarevic, E.Aoustin, N.Buclet, N. Brandt. Plastic waste management in the context of a
12 European recycling society: Comparing results and uncertainties in a life cycle perspective.
ev
13 Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2010) 246-259
14 J.F. Lopez-Aguilar, E. Sevigné-Itoiz, M L. Maspoch, J. Peña. A realistic material flow analysis for
15 end-of-life plastic packaging management in Spain: Data gaps and suggestions for improvements
16 towards effective recyclability. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 31 (2022) 209-219.
17
18
19 rr
Nosker TJ, V. N. (1992). Chapter 9: Commingled Plastics. En e. Ehrig RJ, Plastics Recycling:
Products and Processes (págs. 187–229). New York: Hanser Publishers, Oxford University Press,.
P.Pelli. Service innovation and sustainable construction: Analyses of wood vis-à-vis other
ee
20 construction projects. Cleaner Engineering and Technology Volume 2, June 2021, 100061. (s.f.).
21 M.Petersen, S.Brockhaus. Dancing in the dark: Challenges for product developers to improve
22 and communicate product sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 161 (2017) 345-354
23 D. Pinzón-Moreno, C. Saron. Low-density polyethylene waste/recycled wood composites.
p
24 Composite StructuresVolume 176 (2017) 1152-1157

25 L.Rigamonti S.E.Taelman S.Huysveld S.Sfez, K.Ragaert, J.Dewulf. A step forward in quantifying
26 the substitutability of secondary materials in waste management life cycle assessment studies.
ot
27 Waste Management , 114, (2020) 331-340.

28 Russo, D. R. (2014,). Structural optimization strategies to design green products , Pages 470-479.
29 Computers in Industr, 65.
tn
30 E. Salminen, R. Valo, M. Korhonen, R.Jernlås. Wood preservation with chemicals: Best Available
31 Techniques (BAT). (2014). Working Group for Sustainable Consumption and Production
32 E. Sevigné-Itoiz, C. Gasol, X. Gabarrell, Contribution of plastic waste recovery to greenhouse gas
33 (GHG) savings in Spain. Waste Management Volume 46 (2015) Pages 557-567
rin
34 A. V. M. Silveira, E.H. Tanabe, M. Cella, D. A. Bertuol. Application of tribo-electrostatic separation

35 in the recycling of plastic wastes. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 114 (2018) 219-
36 228
ep
37 N. H. Singh, D. Hui, F.Fraternali (2017). Recycling of plastic solid waste: A state of art review and
38 future applications. Composites Part B: Engineering, 115, (2017)409-422.
39 T. Sirkin, M. Houten. (1994). The cascade chain. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 10,
40 (1994) 213–276.
Pr
41 K. Sung A review on upcycling: current body of literature, knowledge gaps and a way for-ward.
42 17th International Conference on Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability.
43 The ICECESS. (2015).
1 J. Tao, L. Li, S. Yu. An innovative eco-design approach based on integration of LCA, CAD∖CAE and
2 optimization tools, and its implementation perspectives . Journal of Cleaner Production, 187,
ed
3 (2018) 839-851.
4 T. Williams, O. Heidrich, P. Sallis. A case study of the open-loop recycling of mixed plastic waste
5 for use in a sports-field drainage system. Resources Conservation and Recycling,, 55 , (2010) 118-
6 128.
iew
7 WPA (Wood Protection Asociation). Code of Practice: Industrial Wood Preservation. Ed The
8 Wood Protection Association. West Yorkshire 2021
ev
rr
p ee
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

Potent 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Potent 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Potent 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is recycled mixed plastic an environmentally effective solution

as a replacement for exterior treated wood? Combating the

29 enabled the processing of large volumes of mixed plastics to be considered

42 substitute for wood and other materials (Awoyera, 2020).

27 be calculated. For closed-loop recycling, identifying the substituted material is

33 replacement value (Bala-Gala, 2015).

46 open-loop plastics recycling processes, in an attempt to methodically evaluate the

31 considered the environmental impact of recycled plastic by geographical source. It is

36 impact loads caused by long-distance transport must be considered.

22 degradation, resulting in aesthetic and mechanical property loss (Brischke and

37 from use and vandalism, thus needing regular maintenance.

PET Multilayer OTHERS

PS (EPS and rigid)

HDPE injection LDPE film

of materials (other plastics, metals and cardboard)

19 depicted in Graphic 1 based on composition and manufacturing processes. To clarify,

10 2.2. Definition of products studied

27 to allow it to be disassembled for recycling.

Multi-person bench slat 1.8 m

English model fence

Wood Maintenance (x1-10)

Class IV transportation Transport to

*it is only counted in the case of imported wood.

Fig. 6. Limits for recycled plastic products in the system

29 Treated wood is considered to be hazardous waste. It is difficult to distinguish traditional

33 hazardous waste (WPA, 2021). As a consequence, it is classified as a controlled landfill.

STRIP 1.8 kg m3 m2 Reference

Alkyd paint, white, without water, in 60% solution state

Leftover Treated wood 0.50

Transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton, EURO4 {RER}|

Lorry 7.5 t Transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5

Transport to Transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5

Leftover Treated wood 0.17

Operator Transport, passenger car, large size, diesel, EURO 5 {GLO}|

Lorry 7.5 t Transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5

ENGLISH FENCE kg km Reference

Operator Transport, passenger car, large size, diesel, EURO 5 {GLO}|

Lorry 7.5 t Transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5

Treatment 1.104 1.104 {RER}| wood preservation, vacuum pressure method,

(u=10%) {Europe without Switzerland}| beam,

transport {GLO}| market for | APOS, U

Transport, freight, lorry 3.5-7.5 metric ton, EURO5

Multi-person bench slat 1.8 m

Class IV treated Wood 3.78 Extruded recycled plastic 3.95

Leftover 0.80 5.51

Individual bench slat 0.6 m

Treated wood (Tropical) kg CO2 Recycled mixed plastic (ES) kg CO2

14 or mechanical properties. On this occasion, an English Garden fence made of recycled

4 sourced recycled plastic in a solid and lightweight format (Spain)

Treated wood (Tropical) kg CO2 Recycled mixed plastic (ES) kg CO2

Maintenance (year 8-10) 1.63

Treated wood (Tropical)

Strip (year installation 0-2)

Strip (year installation 0-10) 1.3

Treated wood (Tropical) kg CO2 Recycled mixed plastic (ES) kg CO2

Maintenance (year 4-6) -

27 results is a key factor.

Vs Wood tropical -51.85 -59.25 -64.67 -68.82 -72.10

Vs 1 kg Wood Euro 37.0 2.7 -17.8 -31.4 -41.2