Environmental profile of Spanish porcelain stoneware tiles

  • Teresa Ros-DosdáEmail author
  • Irina Celades
  • Eliseo Monfort
  • Pere Fullana-i-Palmer



Porcelain stoneware tile (PST) is currently the ceramic tile of greatest commercial and innovation interest. An environmental life cycle assessment of different varieties of PST was undertaken to enable hotspots to be identified, strategies to be defined, differences between PST varieties to be evaluated and guidance for PST manufacturers to be provided in choosing the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) programme that best suited their needs according to grouping criteria.


Analysis of previous information allowed three main parameters (thickness, glaze content and mechanical treatment) to be identified in order to encompass all PST variations. Fifteen varieties of PST were thus studied. The coverage of 1 m2 of household floor surface with the different PST varieties for 50 years was defined as functional unit. The study sets out environmental data whose traceability was verified by independent third parties for obtaining 14 EPDs of PST under Spanish EPD programmes.

Results and discussion

The study presents PST inventory analysis and environmental impact over the entire life cycle of the studied PST varieties. The natural gas consumed in the manufacturing stage accounted for more than 70% abiotic depletion–fossil fuels and global warming; electricity consumption accounted for more than 60% ozone layer depletion, while the electricity generated by the cogeneration systems avoided significant environmental impacts in the Spanish power grid mix. The variations in PST thickness, amount of glaze and mechanical treatments were evaluated. The PST variety with the lowest environmental impact was the one with the lowest thickness, was unglazed and had no mechanical treatments. Similarly, the PST variety with the highest environmental impact was the one with the greatest thickness, was glazed and had been mechanically treated.


The PST life cycle stage with the highest environmental impact was the manufacturing stage. The main hotspots found were production and consumption of energy and raw materials extraction. Variation in thickness was a key factor that proportionally influenced almost all studied impact categories; the quantity of glaze strongly modified abiotic depletion–elements and eutrophication, while the mechanical treatments contributed mainly to ozone depletion. The study of all PST varieties led to the important conclusion, against the current trend, that differences among them were found to be so significant that declaring a number of PSTs within the same EPD is not directly possible, and it needs preliminary verification to ensure compliance with the product category rule.


Ceramic tile Porcelain stoneware tile Life cycle assessment Technological variations 



This study was performed with the DAPCER tool, developed from the GaBi software package by the authors for the Spanish Ceramic Tile Manufacturers’ Association (ASCER) with the financial support of the Instituto Valenciano de Competitividad Empresarial (IVACE) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The authors would also like to thank the ceramic tile manufacturing companies for their help in data collection.

The authors are responsible for the choice and presentation of the information contained in this paper as well as for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit this Organisation.


  1. Almeida MI, Dias AC, Demertzi M, Arroja L (2016) Environmental profile of ceramic tiles and their potential for improvement. J Clean Prod 131:583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCER (2011) Guía de la baldosa cerámica : el vademecum de la baldosa cerámica, para su clasificación, su selección, materiales de agarre y rejuntado, la redacción del proyecto, el control de la obra, 6th edn. Generalitat Valenciana, Castellón (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  3. ASCER (2015) El sector en datos Accessed 9 Dec 2015 (in Spanish)
  4. Baraldi L (2015) World production and consumption of ceramic tiles. Ceram world Rev 113:48–61Google Scholar
  5. Belussi L, Mariotto M, Meroni I et al (2015) LCA study and testing of a photovoltaic ceramic tile prototype. Renew Energy 74:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benveniste G, Gazulla C, Fullana P, Celades I, Ros T, Moliner R, Zaera V, Godes B (2010) Sectoral life cycle assessment of ceramic tile. In: XI Global Forum of Ceramic Tile. Castellón, SpainGoogle Scholar
  7. Benveniste G, Gazulla C, Fullana P, Celades I, Ros T, Zaera V (2011) Life cycle assessment and product category rules for the construction sector. The floor and wall tiles sector case study. Inf Constr 63:71–78 (in Spanish)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bovea MD, Díaz-Albo E, Gallardo A et al (2010) Environmental performance of ceramic tiles: improvement proposals. Mater Des 31:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. BSI PAS 2050 (2011) Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Celades I (2013) Caracterización física, química, mineralógica y morfológica del material particulado emitido por focos canalizados de la industria de baldosas y fritas cerámicas. Universitat Jaume I. (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  11. Cerurbis project (2013-2017) Guide ceramics applications in urban space. Accessed 17 May 2017
  12. CET - European Ceramic Tile Manufacturer’s Federation (2014) Product category rules for preparing an environmental product declaration for ceramic tiles. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. DAPcons (2015) RCP 002, v2. Reglas de Categoría de Producto para preparar una Declaración Ambiental de Producto (DAPcons) sobre productos de revestimiento cerámico (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  14. da Silva AL, Feltrin J, Dal Bó M, Bernardin AM, Hotza D (2014) Effect of reduction of thickness on microstructure and properties of porcelain stoneware tiles. Ceram Int 40:14693–14699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Souza DM, Lafontaine M, Charron-Doucet F et al (2015) Comparative life cycle assessment of ceramic versus concrete roof tiles in the Brazilian context. J Clean Prod 89:165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Directive (2008a)/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. Off. J. Eur. Union L 24/8:22Google Scholar
  17. Directive (2008b)/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. Off. J. Eur. Union L 312/3:28Google Scholar
  18. Directive (2009)/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community. Off. J. Eur. Union l 140/63:25Google Scholar
  19. Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control). Off. J. Eur. Union L 334/17:17Google Scholar
  20. EcoPlatform (2016) Accessed 13 May 2016
  21. EIPPCB Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (2012) Reference document on best available techniques (BATs) in the glass manufacturing industry. European Commission, Directorate-General JRC, Joint Research Centre. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (Sevilla). Technologies for Sustainable Development. European IPPC Bureau. 2012Google Scholar
  22. EIPPCB Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (2007) Reference document on best available techniques (BATs) in the ceramic manufacturing industry. European Commission, Directorate-General JRC, Joint Research Centre. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (Sevilla). Technologies for Sustainable Development. European IPPC Bureau. 2007Google Scholar
  23. EN 14411 (2012) Ceramic tiles. Definitions, classification, characteristics, evaluation of conformity and marking. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  24. EN 15804 (2012)+A1 (2013) Sustainability of construction works—environmental product declarations - Core rules for the product category of construction products. CEN European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  25. EN15978 (2011) Sustainability of construction works—assessment of environmental performance of buildings—calculation method. CEN European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  26. Frischknecht R, Althaus H-J, Bauer C, Doka G, Heck T, Jungbluth N, Kellenberger D, Nemecek T (2007) The environmental relevance of capital goods in life cycle assessments of products and services. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1065/lca2007.02.309
  27. Gabaldón-Estevan D, Hekkert MP (2013) How does the innovation system in the Spanish ceramic tile sector function? Bol Soc Esp Ceram Vidr 52(3):151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gabaldón-Estevan D, Criado E, Monfort E (2014) The green factor in European manufacturing: a case study of the Spanish ceramic tile industry. J Clean Prod 70:242–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. GlobalEPD (2013) RCP 002, va. Regla de Categoría de Producto de Recubrimientos cerámicos. Madrid (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  30. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning, A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational annex. III: Scientific background. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  31. Han B, Wang R, Yao L et al (2015) Life cycle assessment of ceramic façade material and its comparative analysis with three other common façade materials. J Clean Prod 99:86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ibáñez-Forés V, Bovea MD, Azapagic A (2013) Assessing the sustainability of best available techniques (BAT): methodology and application in the ceramic tiles industry. J Clean Prod 51:162–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ibáñez-Forés V, Bovea M-D, Simó A (2011) Life cycle assessment of ceramic tiles. Environmental and statistical analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:916–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. IBU EPD programme (2013) Part B: Requirements on the EPD for ceramic tiles and panels. Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  35. International EPD® System (2012) Bricks, blocks, tiles, flagstone of clay and siliceous earths (sub-oriented PCR; appendix to PCR 2012:01; under development) - Environmental Product DeclarationsGoogle Scholar
  36. Islam H, Jollands M, Setunge S, Bhuiyan MA (2015a) Optimization approach of balancing life cycle cost and environmental impacts on residential building design. Energy Build 87:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Islam H, Jollands M, Setunge S et al (2015b) Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implications for roofing and floor designs in residential buildings. Energy Build 104:250–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ISO 13006 (2012) Ceramic tiles—definitions, classification, characteristics and marking, 2nd edn. International Organization for Standardization, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework, 2nd edn. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  40. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  41. ISO 7708 (1995) Air quality—particle size fraction definitions for health-related sampling. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  42. Joint Research Centre (2015) European Reference Life-Cycle Database Version 3.2. Accessed 16 May 2016
  43. Martín-Márquez J, Rincón JM, Romero M (2010) Effect of microstructure on mechanical properties of porcelain stoneware. J Eur Ceram Soc 30:3063–3069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Minne E, Crittenden JC (2015) Impact of maintenance on life cycle impact and cost assessment for residential flooring options. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Monfort E, Celades I, Gomar S, Rueda F, Martínez J (2011a) Characterisation of acid pollutant emissions in ceramic tile manufacture. Bol Soc Esp Ceram Vidr 50(4):179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Monfort E, Mezquita A, Granel R, Vaquer E, Escrig A, Miralles A, Zaera V (2010) Analysis of energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in ceramic tile manufacture. Bol Soc Esp Ceram y Vidr 49:303–310 (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  47. Monfort E, Sanfélix V, Celades I, Gomar S, Martín F, Aceña B, Pascual A (2011b) Diffuse PM10 emission factors associated with dust abatement technologies in the ceramic industry. Atmos Environ 45:7286–7292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. NF EN 15804/CN (2016) Contribution des ouvrages de construction au développement durable - Déclarations environnementales sur les produits - Règles régissant les catégories de produits de construction - Complément national à la NF EN 15804+A1. France. (In French)Google Scholar
  49. Nicoletti GM, Notarnicola B, Tassielli G (2002) Comparative life cycle assessment of flooring materials: ceramic versus marble tiles. J Clean Prod 10:283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. NSF International (2014) Flooring: carpet, resilient, laminate, ceramic, wood, USA. Available online in Accessed 24 Jul 2017
  51. PE International (2008a) Database for life cycle engineering, copyright, TM. 1992-2008 (compilation., DB version 4.131)Google Scholar
  52. PE International (2008b) GaBi software-system. Compilation 4.131. Accessed 17 May 2016
  53. Pini M, Ferrari AM, Gamberini R, Neri P, Rimini B (2014) Life cycle assessment of a large, thin ceramic tile with advantageous technological properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1567–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. REE Red Eléctrica de España (2014) Informe del sistema eléctrico español 2013. Accessed 19 Apr 2016 (in Spanish)
  55. Ros-Dosdá T, Celades I, Monfort E, Moliner R, Zaera V, Benveniuste G, Cerdán C (2010) Impactos ambientales del ciclo de vida de las baldosas cerámicas. Análisis sectorial, identificación de estrategias de mejora y comunicación. In: X Congreso Nacional del Medio Ambiente, CONAMA. CONAMA10, Madrid, pp 1–20 (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  56. Ruschi Mendes Saade M, da Silva GM, Gomes V et al (2014) Material eco-efficiency indicators for Brazilian buildings. Smart Sustain Built Environ 3:54–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sánchez E, García-Ten J, Sanz V, Moreno A (2010) Porcelain tile: almost 30 years of steady scientific-technological evolution. Ceram Int 36:831–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thinkstep (2016a) Database for Life Cycle Engineering Compilation DB version 6.115Google Scholar
  59. Thinkstep (2016b) GaBi software-system. Compilation Accessed 17 May 2016
  60. Thurning M. Spirinckx C. Debacke W. (2013) PCR-TBE. Product category rules for environmental product declarations for construction clay Products. Mol, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  61. Tikul N, Srichandr P (2010) Assessing the environmental impact of ceramic tile production in Thailand. J Ceram Soc Jpn 118:887–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van Oers L, Guinée J (2016) The abiotic depletion potential: background, updates, and future. Resources 5:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wittstock B, Gantner J, Saunders KLT, Anderson J, Carter C, Gyetvai Z, Kreißig J, Lasvaux ABS, Bosdevigie B, Bazzana M, Schiopu N, Jayr E, Nibel S, Chevalier J, Fullana-i-Palmer P, Mundy, CGJ-AST-Wc (2012) EeBGuide Guidance Document Part B: BUILDINGS. Operational guidance for life cycle assessment studies of the Energy-Efficient Buildings Initiative 1–360Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Tecnología Cerámica (ITC), Asociación de Investigación de las Industrias Cerámicas (AICE)Universidad Jaume ICastellónSpain
  2. 2.UNESCO Chair in Life Cycle and Climate Change (ESCI-UPF)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations