See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369840440
A comparative life cycle energy and green house emissions of natural and
artificial stone-manufacturing phase
Article in Results in Engineering · April 2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101055
CITATIONS
READS
4
107
4 authors, including:
Shireen Bader Alqadi
Haya S. Nasereddin
Birzeit University
Palestine Polytechnic University
8 PUBLICATIONS 33 CITATIONS
5 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Shireen Bader Alqadi on 12 April 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101055
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Results in Engineering
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-engineering
A comparative life cycle energy and green house emissions of natural and
artificial stone-manufacturing phase
Shireen Bader Alqadi a, *, Deema Alamleh b, Ilham Naser Eldin b, Haya Naser Eldin b
a
b
Department of Architectural Engineering and Planning, College of Engineering, Birzeit University, Palestine
Department of Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering, Palestine Polytechnic University, Palestine
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Stone-cutting industry
Stone quarry
Natural stone
Artificial stone
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment
The natural stone industry in many countries plays an essential role in its cultural heritage, history and economy.
However, the stone industry consumes large amounts of energy in the production phase. The total energy in the
natural stone production is a collective summation of energy levels consumed in each phase of production,
starting from stone quarries or from mixture preparation to finally produce natural or artificial stone as an end
product. The study aims at evaluating the total embodied energy of the stone industry in Palestine to further
conduct a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for both energy levels consumed in the manufacturing of
natural and artificial stone. Personal interviews, observations, and stone quarry sites and workshops visits were
used to collect data in Hebron – south of the West Bank. The results have shown a more sustainable production of
artificial stone over natural stone in terms of energy consumption; and the (GHG) emissions accordingly as the
amounts of energy for natural and artificial stone manufacturing were 120 MJ/m2 and 70.71 MJ/m2 respec­
tively. As a conclusion, the study proves that natural stone (limestone) manufacturing produces more (GHG)
emissions than the locally made artificial stone manufacturing in the study context under the studied circum­
stances. The environmental impact can be decreased through locating the workshops near the quarries and the
sourcing points of raw materials. In addition, this can be obtained by depending on electrical vehicles and using
green energy sources.
1. Introduction
Energy performance of buildings is recognized as a major subject to
address the worrying enquiries of fossil energy resources depletion and
human-induced global warming. Hence, recently the design of low, zero
and positive energy buildings has become an important topic. However,
the buildings’ impact does not only happen during the occupancy phase,
but it starts from the extraction and manufacturing of materials and ends
with building demolition and disposal [1]. The energy used in this phase
is defined as the embodied energy which usually accounts for 10–20% of
a building’s Life Cycle Energy (LCE) [2].
One of the decisions that the designer has to make when designing a
new building, is the type of cladding that will be used. The design choice
of a façade has an aesthetic result on the façade appearance. In addition,
there is an environmental impact of the design choice depending on the
materials and the technology used in all the stages of the buildings’ lives
and not merely during the occupancy phase [1]. In many countries,
natural stone is a preferable cladding material due to its aesthetic values,
durability and thermal characteristics [3]. Stone also is an ancient
building material; it has a cultural and historical dimension which al­
lows researchers to understand populations’ way of life. Natural stone
can be generally divided into three geological groups: sedimentary rocks
such as limestone, metamorphic rocks such as marble and finally,
igneous rocks such as granite [4]. There are two methods of extracting
the natural stone which are the open pits and the underground mining
[5]. Despite the values that the natural stone has such as durability,
beauty, and thermal characteristics, it has several drawbacks such as the
relatively high cost, extensive labor needed and the heaviness which
needs to be considered during the structural calculations. It also has a
negative impact on the environment during the mining process since it
can cause the loss of forest land, erosion of soil, losing the agricultural
land, affecting the biodiversity, and instability of rock masses [6]. It also
consumes a relatively large amount of energy during cutting, prepara­
tion and transportation [7]. The stone’s characteristics must follow the
local building standards for building construction, i.e., low water ab­
sorption percent, homogeneous color, stiffness, and hardness [7]. In
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shalqade@birzeit.edu (S.B. Alqadi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101055
Received 20 January 2023; Received in revised form 22 March 2023; Accepted 26 March 2023
Available online 5 April 2023
2590-1230/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/).
S.B. Alqadi et al.
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101055
addition, natural stone cutting produces dust, solid waste, and sludge
[2].
Due to these drawbacks and sometimes due to the depletion of nat­
ural stone, designers use artificial stone instead. Artificial stone is made
of mainly cement, sand, and natural aggregate such as crushed stone in
certain proportions [8]. More products were examined in artificial stone
production such as stone slurry powder and limestone dust [9]. It has
several applications in cladding and interior designing addition to ap­
plications in restoration of historical buildings [10].
In this paper, a comparative study between the natural and the
artificial stone within the context of Hebron, West Bank (WB) in
Palestine using Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) method is performed. How­
ever, there are certain constraints for the context. Since 1967, the West
Bank was under the Israeli occupation till the Oslo Peace Accord in
(1993) when the West Bank is divided into areas A, B, and C. Area A
(18% of the WB) is under the full control of the Palestinian Authority;
Area B (22% of the WB) is under the civil administration of the Pales­
tinian Authority (health and education) while Israel retains exclusive
security control over Area C (60% of the WB) [11] Hebron has been
under the full control of Israel, and Israel established settlements in the
heart of the city, in addition to the settlements around Hebron. This
makes Hebron a special case in the Palestinian Israeli conflict. According
to the Hebron Protocol signed between Palestinians and Israelis in 1997,
Hebron has been divided into two parts: HI and H2 [12]. H1 constitutes
80% of the city and is under full Palestinian Authority. H2 which is the
remaining 20% of the city, continues to be under Israeli military control
[13]. The Palestinian urban areas in Hebron – like the rest of the WB- is
segregated and isolated by Israeli settlements, ring roads and check­
points either permanent or temporary. This distinct socio-political and
demographic context has implications on the environment whether
directly or indirectly. For example, Palestinian urban areas are forced to
expand in certain areas away from the settlements and the ring roads.
These areas are very limited; hence, they are used for urban expansion
regardless of the agricultural or cultural value [14]. Due to land use
restrictions, some industrial areas are located near the urban areas
which can cause health hazards for the local residents, especially when
these industries create odours, chemicals and air suspenders such as dust
[14]. Palestinians in many cases are not allowed to use the direct roads
between the cities and villages and are also forced to use roads with
longer distances to prevent checkpoints which in fact does not only
waste time, but also energy (fuel) and increasing the Green House Gases
(GHG)’s [14].
On the other hand, Palestine depends almost entirely on electricity
imported from the Israel Electric Corporation (accounting for more than
90% of imported electric energy) [15]. The most of the energy generated
in Israel is produced from natural gas (66%) and coal (30%), while at
least 3% of it is generated from renewables [16]. The Palestinian Na­
tional Authority aims to steering towards sustainable energy sources
especially solar energy, however, there are still technical, financial and
legislative challenges to realize this vision [15].
Several studies addressed the energy performance of natural stone
and artificial stone as a cladding material [1,17]. Using the (LCA)
method, this study focuses on comparing the environmental impacts
mainly Green House Gases (GHG) over the natural stone (limestone) and
manufactured stone in Palestine- Hebron, during the manufacturing
process. The study aims to determining which phase of each alternative
has to be improved in order to identify strategies to reduce the envi­
ronmental impacts caused by these façade systems. Although other
impacts are also important to be assessed such as water effluent,
airborne materials, and raw materials depletion, these impacts will not
be within the scope of this research due to the lack of related data.
disposal, including used materials, processes, recycle or reuse strategies,
by conducting a careful assessment of energy consumption, resources
use and the related environmental outcomes [18–20]. (LCA) can give us
a better understanding of the process to move towards optimization of
processes, value engineering and circular economy [21].
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) as a concept can be applied in different
approaches depending on the case and goals of performing the (LCA).
For example, the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) evaluates
of all environmental, social and economic negative impacts and benefits
in decision-making processes [22,23]. Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is
an economic assessment technique that defines the total cost of owning
and operating a facility over a certain timeframe and assess the payback
period of certain interventions or technologies [24]. In addition, Life
Cycle Green House Gas (LCGG) used to assess the overall greenhouse gas
(GHG) impacts of a fuel through the whole life cycle of a product [25].
Despite the significant role of buildings in social and economic
development most of the buildings have negative impact on the envi­
ronment. The building process starting from mining and manufacturing
of materials, construction, operation, and demolition, consumes a
considerable amount of energy and release significant amounts of
greenhouse gases [26]. Therefore, building industry has become one of
the main targets for LCA studies to reduce its environmental impact, as
buildings are responsible for 40% of the world’s energy, 33% of emis­
sions, 25% of water consumption, 30% of raw materials use, 25% of
solid waste production and 12% of land use [27].
LCA comprises four main phases which are: goal and scope, in­
ventory analysis, impact assessment and finally interpretation [28]. In
the goal and scope phase, the aims of the study are defined, specifically
the intended application, the reasons for carrying out the study. The
researcher makes the methodological choices in this phase such as the
definition, the system boundaries, and the allocation procedures in
addition to the required data quality [29]. The next phase, is the Life
Cycle Inventory (LCI) in which the data collection and the calculation
procedure for the quantification of inputs and outputs of the system is
performed [29]. It is flowed by the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
which involves the environmental impact categories and indicators such
as resources depletion, land use and acidification [30]. The last phase is
the interpretation of the results from LCI and LCIA are interpreted in
accordance to the stated goal and scope and the uncertainty and accu­
racy is also addressed [29] (Fig. 1). shows the four phases of LCA.
Despite that the (LCA) tool is vital for the eco-design process, the
actual implementation of it in industry is quiet challenging. This is due
to the lack of universal standards for setting a reference time for data
collection [31], definition of the system boundary [32], lack of flexi­
bility of the method to adapt to the different geographical and system
constraints [33], and difficulty of using data from scientific literature
[34]. In some cases, the results of the LCA are not presented correctly so
the understanding of the results are affected by preconceptions [35].
Furthermore, The Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) is a complicated process
that needs high skills and consumes time and money. During the impact
calculation, the designer has to define proper level of data aggregation
for his calculations which depends on data that is not always available
[36]. In addition, improper visualization of the interpretation of the data
decrease its usefulness for the decision makers, making the LCA not
valuable in the decision making process [36].
Despite that the main goal of the LCA is to understand and manage
the impact of a certain product and identifying eco-improvement solu­
tions, in many cases LCA is used as a communication tool between the
manufacturer and the potential “green” customers or for obtaining green
certificates or rating [37].
3. Stone industry in Palestine – Hebron as a case study
2. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
The lithological structure of Palestine is characterized by ancient
metamorphic rocks from the Arabian Shield, alongside sedimentary
formations including limestone, sandstone, dolomite, gypsum, and clay
Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool used to evaluate the environ­
mental impact of a product considering all its phases from design to final
2
S.B. Alqadi et al.
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101055
Fig. 1. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) phases.
originating from different geological periods [38]. Cities at the south of
Palestine such as Hebron, is mainly composed of limestone, dolomite,
and dolomitic limestone rocks that date back to the Upper Cretaceous
epoch, underlain by Nubian sandstone from the Lower Cretaceous era
[39]. Limestone, which has a thickness in the geological composition of
800 m (2625 ft), is the main rock type covering the majority of the land
in Palestine, with dolomite and sandstone formations in some outcrops
[38].
Palestine is famed by its rich built cultural heritage, formed by the
employment of natural stone, which has played an important role in the
architecture of old cities in the mountain region such as Jerusalem,
Hebron, Bethlehem and Nablus [38]. Vernacular architecture in these
old cities illustrate the construction techniques that the local residents
developed over generations to utilize stone in walls, arches and vaults.
The utilization of stone as a building material in Palestine increased
significantly in the Ottoman period because of its durability and
aesthetic appeal [40]. The main used stone types in Palestine were
limestone, which was used mainly in the central mountains, and sand­
stone in the coastal plain [41].
The National Register for traditional architectural buildingsmaintained by Riwaq - Center for Architectural Conservation contains
records of over 50,000 traditional building, in Palestine in which stone
was predominantly used as a building material [41]. Buildings of the old
cities and towns in the mountain areas in Palestine has a special identity
and are considered as cultural heritage that should be preserved [42].
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) has listed several buildings and old cities in Palestine as
world heritage sites such as the Nativity Church in Bethlehem and the
old city of Hebron [43]. The (UNESCO) also promotes several projects
that aim to preserve these cultural heritage sites in cooperation with
local nongovernmental organisations such as (Riwaq) and Hebron
Rehabilitation Committee (HRC) [43]. Among these, is a project that
targets local development through the rehabilitation and revitalization
of the historic built environment in Palestine. The project consisted of
renovating historic buildings and areas in targeted historic centers and
transforming them into spaces available for public use [43].
The stone industry is one of the core economic resources in most
parts of the Middle Eastern and Mediterranean regions remarkably in
Palestine [44]. It is considered as an essential productive sector that
plays a significant role in the economic status in Palestine [45]. Globally,
Palestine is the twelfth producer of stone worldwide, that contributes
4% of the world’s stone production [46,47]. It takes a part of 30% of the
national export [46], and contributes about 5.5% to gross domestic
product and about 4.5% to gross national product [47]. Furthermore,
around 14% of the total workforce of Palestine is employed in the stone
industry sector, distributed in 1650 companies of various phases of this
industry (i.e.: quarries, crushers, cutting factories and workshops) [45],
among these, there are nearly 280 stone quarries and 600 stone-cutting
workshops in the West Bank and Gaza [48].
Despite its significant contribution in the Palestinian economy and
its role in the local cultural heritage and in creating the urban
morphology [38], natural stone is directly correlated to negative envi­
ronmental impacts and great hazard to human health. Stone dust pro­
duced from the several activities of stone industry including excavation
and manufacturing, negatively affects air quality in the areas sur­
rounding to the stone quarries and workshops [47]. Moreover, it forms a
major source of soil contamination, severe landscape and groundwater
pollution [49–56]. Stone industry as well affects the growth and yield
status of some plants [57,58]. This has been proven in an experimental
study conducted in 2019 in Palestine in the Qabatiya region, to inves­
tigate the effect of prolonged exposure of olive trees to stone-quarry
dust. Its results showed that long-term exposure of olive trees to dust
reduces the percentage of seed maturity and germination and reduces oil
yield by 55.3–84.4% [59].
Furthermore, natural stone industry implies serious health threats.
Stone dusts negatively affects the ambient air quality which causes
serious health consequences for humans exposed to it [60]. Air sus­
pended stone particles are associated with many diseases such as lung
disease, lung cancer, silicosis, asthma, kidney damage, osteoporosis and
eye and skin irritation [38, 60–63]. This becomes even more serious
when it comes to workers in the stone industry who are constantly
exposed to stone-dust pollution. For example, Hamdan, El-Ashgar, &
Musalam, (2021) conducted a study targeting 30 workers in limestone
factories in Gaza strip, and found that 50% of the workers who worked
for 10 years or more in limestone industry suffer from abnormal
breathing symptoms and complain of coughing, wheezing and chest
pain [64]. The damages that may be caused to the workers exceed the
health damages and may lead to death or serious injuries that cause
disability, which has been recorded several times in the quarries of
Palestine [38]. The impact exceeds the queries site and extends to the
adjacent residential areas which are usually very close to the queries and
increase the health risks on the community levels. Safety measures to
decrease the impact of the queries are very limited as there are no laws
or enforcement of safety regulations.
On the other hand, one of the most important characteristics that
make the use of natural stone desirable is its durability. For example,
Brimblecombe and Grossi (2014) found that the lifespan of pure lime­
stone can last up to 500 years [65]. Furthermore, Kramar, Brus, and
Cafuta (2017) mentioned that the 19th-century buildings that were built
of limestone have a lifespan of over 100 years [66]. However, the life­
span of limestone can be negatively affected by the environment the
stone exposed to and the lack of maintenance [67]. For example, there
was a negative influence of acid rain exposure on some limestone
monuments in Italy, which were damaged only after 30 years [68].
Although proper maintenance and regular cleaning can increase the
durability of limestone [67]. However, it can eventually wear out over
time. It is worth noting that limestone has wide range of uses at the end
of its life; It can be used as raw material in the production of cement,
paint and plastics. It also can be recycled and used in landscaping and
new construction projects. Moreover, limestone can be crushed to pro­
duce aggregate at the end of its life as a cladding material [68].
Recently, artificial stone has been used widely as an alternative to
natural stone, due to its low price compared to natural stone, the flexi­
bility of making any shape of stone with any color that is required in any
building design [69,70]. Moreover, compared to natural stone, artificial
stone has a higher resistance to scratches and stains and demands less
cleaning and maintenance [71]. However, when comes to durability and
weather and environmental resistance, natural stone surpasses artificial
stone, that’s why the average lifespan of the artificial stone is less than
the natural stone and may range from 25 to 40 years [72], while it can
exceed 50 years if it installed and maintained properly [73].
At the end of its life, artificial stone wastes in most cases are thrown
into landfills [74]. However, some governments and manufacturers are
developing recycling strategies and regulations that organize the con­
struction waste disposal [75].
As for the impact of artificial-stone industry, it is important to
consider the raw materials used in the industry and the influence of each
of them on humans. Artificial stone in Palestine is mainly produced from
3
S.B. Alqadi et al.
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101055
cement, aggregate, sand and additive materials. While the production of
these raw materials may pose a threat to human health. Cement dust, for
example, causes skin irritation and dermatitis to those exposed to
Ref. [76]. Furthermore, it was found that workers in cement factories
have higher risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and residents
living near to them suffer from higher prevalence of respiratory symp­
toms such as wheezing and cough [77,78].
The production of aggregate and sand has a negative influence on
human health as well, aggregate and sand industries causes a huge
generation of airborne particles, that can be inhaled and therefore cause
respiratory complications, such as asthma, lung cancer and chronic
bronchitis [79–81]. Furthermore, it was found that working in aggregate
industry is associated to higher risk of skin disorders including derma­
titis and eczema [82].
Table 2
[85]: Chemical composition of Limestone (% by weight).
Compound
Calcite
(CaCO3)
Quartz
(SiO4)
Muscovite (KAl2(AlSi3O10) (F,
OH)2)
Weight
99.2
0.7
0.1
4.2. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis
The life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis is a technical process that
quantifies the inputs to and outputs from the processes within the system
boundaries. Here the main focus will be on the energy consumed within
the system boundary. The (LCI) will be presented for natural stone and
manufactured stone.
4.2.1. Natural stone (limestone)
The energy of the production of natural stone is the summation of: 1.
The energy consumed in the quarrying phase, 2. Transportation of stone
to the workshops and 3. The cutting and shaping phase. The areas of
energy consumption in natural stone production are presented in the
diagram in (Fig. 3) as follows.
4. Comparative (LCA) between natural stone (limestone) and
artificial stone manufactured in Hebron
In this study the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) method was used to
evaluate the natural and artificial stone that is local manufactured in
Hebron, West Bank. This section discusses the methodology adopted to
implement the comparison is the (LCA) method, including the goal and
scope, system boundaries, Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), Life Cycle Impact
Assessment (LCIA), and finally the results were interpretated depending
on the previous steps.
4.2.1.1. Quarrying phase. The total energy used in quarries for stone
extraction was investigated by Alshboul and Alzoubi (2008), who found
that 69 MJ of energy consumed in a quarry to extract 1 m2 of limestone
[7].
4.1. Goal and scope
4.2.1.2. Transportation from Quarries to the workshops. The study
assumed the average distance between quarries and workshops is 20 km.
As for the energy consumed in the transportation phase. A study by
Ref. [89] found that the embodied energy in the transportation
component for the full process is assumed to be 4.5MJ/ton/Km, another
study found that the average amount of energy ranges between 3 and 6
MJ/ton/Km [90]. Furthermore, a study conducted in Jordan based on
experimentation strategy found that transportation consumes the high­
est energy levels reaching 166MJ/m2 when the average distance be­
tween quarries and workshops is 100 km [7].
According to the previously reviewed study, that was conducted in
Jordan, which is geographically close to Palestine, in addition to its
results being more recent than other mentioned studies, the energy
consumed in the stone transportation can be considered as 166 MJ/m2/
100 km. Therefore, the transportation phase is associated with an energy
consumption of 33.2 MJ/m2 for the assumption of 20 km distance be­
tween quarries and workshops, which is the average distance between
limestone quarries and workshops in Hebron.
The goal of this study is to assess and compare the environmental
impact of two cladding materials in Hebron, the natural stone (lime­
stone) and locally manufactured stone. To study the environmental
impact of the two cladding materials, a functional unit was chosen to
represent a 1 m2 of an external cladding material with a 5 cm thickness.
The functional units were carefully chosen to be representative of the
actual thickness of the cladding material used in the context and to allow
for a fair and meaningful comparison between the different materials.
The properties of the functional unit are shown in Table 1. Tables 2 and
3 show the chemical composition of limestone and artificial stone’s raw
materials.
It is important to note that in most types of cement-based artificial
stone, binders or resins are used, which both have implications on the
environment. However, the manufacturing process that is addressed in
this paper depends only on previously mentioned raw materials.
The energy consumed during the manufacturing phases of natural
and artificial stone were calculated to conduct a comparative evaluation
of the environmental impact. The calculations of embodied energy levels
were based on the amount of energy consumed in MJ/m2. The numbers
were collected depending on previous studies, investigations, field visits
and personal interviews with local manufacturers. Three natural-stone
workshops as well as three artificial-stone factories in Hebron were
used as case studies (Fig. 2). illustrates the general system boundaries of
the proposed study, which include the production (quarrying/
manufacturing raw materials, transporting the materials to the work­
shops and manufacturing into construction materials).
4.2.1.3. Cutting and shaping phase. The energy consumed in the cutting
and shaping phase was calculated in this study by reviewing the monthly
electricity bills for a year of three different natural-stone workshops in
Palestine in addition to reviewing their monthly production records of
cladding stone in m2. The electricity consumption in KWh to produce a
square meter of natural stone (electricity intensity in KWh/m2) was
calculated by dividing the electricity consumption by the production of
stone in each month. Then it was calculated the average monthly elec­
tricity intensity. This process was repeated for the three natural-stone
workshops to finally fined the average electricity intensity of the three
workshops, which was converted to MJ/m2.
Table 1
Functional unit properties [83,84].
Cladding material
Natural stone
Locally manufactured stone
Properties
Description
Density (kg/m3)
Water absorption (%)
Compressive Strength (Megapascal)
Limestone
It consists of cement, aggregate, sand and plasticizer.
1650–2200
2200
2–8.5
4–5.6
35–60
30
4
S.B. Alqadi et al.
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101055
Table 3
Chemical composition of artificial stone raw material (% by weight).
Aggregate [86]
Cement [87]
Sand [88]
SiO2
Al2O3
Fe2O3
CaO
MgO
SO
Na2O
K2 O
Cl
3.5
20.23
99.5
1.5
5.39
0.4
–
3.04
0.06
95.0
64.64
0.03
–
0.92
0.1
–
1.91
–
–
0.30
0.1
–
0.31
0.08
–
0.025
–
Fig. 2. System boundaries of the study (a) Natural stone, (b) Manufactured stone.
Table 4 below shows the monthly electricity consumption for cutting
and shaping of natural stone in KWh according to the electricity bills as
well as the monthly production of natural stone in m2 in the three
workshops. Table 4 also shows the calculation results of electricity in­
tensity in KWh/m2 and the average production energy of 1 m2 of natural
stone in MJ.
The energy consumed in the production of natural stone is the
summation of previously determined energy of the three phases (69.0
MJ/m2 +17.8 MJ/m2 +33.2 MJ/m2) and equals 120 MJ/m2 as shown in
Table 5.
Table 4
The monthly electricity consumption for cutting and shaping of natural stone in KWh according to electricity bills as well as the monthly production of natural stone in
m2 (in the three workshops) and the calculated electricity intensity in KWh/m2.
Workshop 1
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Workshop 2
Workshop 3
Monthly
electricity
consumption
(KWh)
Monthly
stone
production
(m2)
Electricity
intensity (KWh/
m2)
Monthly
electricity
consumption
(KWh)
Monthly stone
production (m2)
Electricity
intensity
(KWh/m2)
Monthly
electricity
consumption
(KWh)
Monthly
stone
production
(m2)
Electricity
intensity
(KWh/m2)
9500
9040
10,000
10,870
10,240
10,090
12,110
10,000
10,300
10,000
9030
8820
Average monthly
electricity
intensity of
workshop 1
(KWh/m2)
2026
1930
2205
2300
2180
2206
2402
2000
2250
2135
1980
1910
4.7
4.69
4.68
4.54
4.73
4.7
4.6
5.04
5
4.58
4.68
4.56
4.61
Average
monthly
electricity
intensity of
workshop 2
(KWh/m2)
Production
Energy of
workshop 2
(MJ/m2)
11,100
11,360
15,000
12,400
12,050
11,550
12,700
13,500
15,200
10,790
12,800
11,550
5.0
2210
2300
3000
2470
2310
2400
2540
2850
3150
2000
2600
2250
Average
monthly
electricity
intensity of
workshop 3
(KWh/m2)
Production
Energy of
workshop 3
(MJ/m2)
5.02
4.94
5
5.02
5.22
4.81
5
4.74
4.82
5.4
4.92
5.13
5.1
12,100
12,000
13,050
13,400
11,505
11,350
12,760
14,005
13,420
11,790
10,070
10,554
2370
2330
2600
2500
2300
2020
2500
2800
2700
2400
2010
2150
5.1
5.15
5.02
5.36
5
5.62
5.1
5
4.97
4.91
5.01
4.91
Production
Energy of
workshop 1 (MJ/
m2)
Average Production Energy of
the three workshops (MJ/m2)
17
17.8
18
*1 KWh = 3600000 J = 3.6 MJ.
5
18.4
S.B. Alqadi et al.
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101055
(Fig. 5) An explanation of the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) stage.
Table 5
The energy consumed in the production of natural stone.
Production phase
Quarrying
Phase
Energy consumption to
69
produce a meter square
unit MJ/m2
Total production energy MJ/m2
Transportation
phase
Cutting and
shaping phase
4.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
33.2
17.8
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) is part of the (LCA) method. It is
the phase in which the evaluation takes place of the environmental
impacts resulting from the basic products and elementary flows gener­
ated in the LCI. This paper focuses of the Global Warming Potential
(GWP) through calculation of the Green House Gases (GHG) emissions
leading to theearth’s greenhouse effects. The potential impacts are re­
ported in kilograms units of an equivalent relative contribution (eq) to
the emission being measured (kg CO 2eq) for each phase and in total for
both the natural and for the artificial stone (see Table 7).
120
4.2.2. Artificial stone
The stone factories targeted by the study are non-mechanized fac­
tories, which rely heavily on manual work. During its manufacture, the
artificial stone goes through several stages in which electricity is
consumed: it includes making molds, mixing stage and vibration stage.
According to the personal interviews with the artificial-stone man­
ufacturers in Hebron, cement, aggregate, sand and plasticizer are the
main components of the artificial stone.
The production energy for the manufacture of artificial stones is
equal to the sum of: 1. The total amount of estimated energy for each of
its components (its production and transportation from its source of
production to the factories) and 2. The energy consumed in the
manufacturing process.
4.4. Results interpretation
The energy consumption and the related (GHG) emissions of the
natural stone (limestone) and the locally manufactured stone are shown
in Table 6. Generally, the natural stone uses a total of (120) MJ/m2 with
5 cm thickness which is very close to the results calculated by Alshboul,
Alzoubi (2008), which is (119.3) MJ/m2 with 5 cm thickness of the
natural stone when the distance between the query and the workshop is
20 Km [7]. The locally manufactured stone with the same thickness
consumes (70.71) MJ/m2 of energy to be ready for transportation to the
construction site with 19.6 kg CO2eq of (GHG)s. The (GHG)s created
during the production in this research was more than what was found in
the literature which was 7.04 kg CO2eq [94]. The discrepancy can be
due the context differences, components type, procuring of raw material
(binder), and method of manufacturing. Table 9 also shows a significant
difference between the amount of emissions between the natural and
artificial stone with natural stone produces almost 70% more than the
artificial stone. The main (GHG)s production takes place in the trans­
portation from the quarry to the workshop. This is due to the heaviness
of stone which needs a big amount of energy to mobilize. The results
shown that transportation distant is a key factor in determining the
environmental impact as (GHG)s and it is more influential in the natural
stone. This is due to the heaviness of natural stone leading to higher
transportation emissions due to higher consumption of diesel fuel. It also
depends on the energy conversion efficiency, carbon intensity of fuels
and the fuel efficiency of vehicles [95]. However it is important to note
that the expected lifespan of limestone is much longer than the artificial
stone. The (GHG) emissions can be eliminated if the energy used during
the production and mobilization is sustainable. Shifting towards green
electrical energy in the manufacturing and mobilization using electric
vehicles can create a difference. New models empowered by BIM is
oriented to a zero-waste and zero-ecological footprint and reduced time
to execute the constructions can be adapted by these industries as well to
deeply understand their impact on the environment [96].
It is important to mention that implementing LCA in conflict zones is
not an easy task. The uncertainty in such contexts increases as changes
can accrue on the production processes due to the events that take place.
For example, checkpoints can cause traffic congestion which increases
the transportation time and closures can change the routs taken during
4.2.2.1. Production and transportation of the raw materials. According to
the data collected from interviews and field visits, the required quanti­
ties of artificial stone are not produced all at once, but rather are pro­
duced in successive quantities, due to several factors, the most important
of which is the presence of a specific number of molds that have a certain
capacity of the mixture size. In the studied factories, each mixture
produces 4 m2 of artificial stone with a thickness of 5 cm, consisting of
50 kg of cement, 0.072 m3 of sand, 0.108 m3 of aggregate and 285 g of
plasticizer. Accordingly, the quantities required of cement, sand, ag­
gregates and plasticizers to produce one-meter area of 5 cm-thick arti­
ficial stone are 12.5 kg, 0.018 m3, 0.027 m3 and 71.25 g, respectively.
The raw materials sources in Hebron are accessible within 20 km from
the artificial stone factories. Therefore, the average distance was
assumed to be 20 km in this research.
The production as well as the transportation energy of the raw ma­
terials’ shares in 1 m2 of artificial stone are explained in Table 6 below.
The resulted energy of this phase reaches 67.58 MJ/m2.
4.2.2.2. Manufacturing of artificial stone. As for the manufacture pro­
cess, three different artificial stone factories in Palestine were studied by
reviewing their monthly electricity bills for a year as well as reviewing
their monthly production records of artificial stone in m2. The electricity
intensity in KWh/m2 was calculated in all months, then their average
was converted to MJ/m2. The average energy consumed in stone
manufacturing was found to be 3.13 MJ/m2 as shown in Table 7.
The production energy of 1 m2 of artificial stone, which is presented
in Table 8 below, equals 70.71 MJ, which is the summation of the
amounts of energy consumed in phases shown in (Fig. 4); the raw ma­
terials production, their transportation, and the manufacturing process.
Table 6
The energy consumed in production and transportation of raw materials of 1 m2 of 5 cm-thick artificial stone.
Material
Production
energy (MJ/
unit)
Transportation energy per
20 Km distance (MJ/unit)
Material quantity
required to produce
1 m2 of stone
Production Energy of
the material in 1m2 of
stone (MJ)
Transportation Energy of the
material in 1m2 of stone per 20
Km distance (MJ)
≈ Total energy of the
material share in 1m2
of stone (MJ)
Sand (m3)
Aggregate
(m3)
Cement (kg)
Plasticizer
(kg)
Total Energy
0.08 [91]
20.5 [92]
17.5 [92]
17.5 [92]
0.018
0.027
0.00144
0.5535
0.315
0.4725
0.31644
1.026
4.9 [91]
59.97 [93]
0.0562 [93]
0.0562 [93]
12.5
0.07125
61.25
4.2729
0.7025
0.0158
61.9525
4.2887
67.58
6
S.B. Alqadi et al.
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101055
Table 7
The monthly electricity consumption for the manufacturing of artificial stone in KWh according to electricity bills as well as the monthly production of artificial stone
in m2 (in the three factories) and the calculated electricity intensity in KWh/m2.
Factory 1
Monthly
electricity
consumption
(KWh)
Factory 2
Monthly
stone
production
(m2)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
667
600
650
590
750
650
743
700
600
540
595
530
660
600
575
500
709
700
715
700
660
590
680
600
Average monthly electricity
intensity of factory 1 (KWh/m2)
Production Energy of factory 1
(MJ/m2)
Average Production Energy of the three factories
(MJ/m2)
Factory 3
Electricity
intensity
(KWh/m2)
Monthly
electricity
consumption
(KWh)
1.11
1.1
1.15
1.06
1.11
1.12
1.1
1.15
1.01
1.02
1.12
1.13
1.1
230
280
255
320
210
280
310
400
350
440
200
240
235
300
210
250
320
410
220
280
220
260
240
290
Average monthly electricity
intensity of factory 2 (KWh/m2)
Production Energy of factory 2
(MJ/m2)
3.13
4
Monthly
stone
production
(m2)
Electricity
intensity
(KWh/m2)
Monthly
electricity
consumption
(KWh)
0.82
0.8
0.75
0.78
0.8
0.83
0.78
0.84
0.78
0.79
0.85
0.83
0.8
680
1000
600
900
680
1030
700
1070
680
1050
580
880
660
1000
730
1050
800
1200
500
750
650
980
750
1200
Average monthly electricity
intensity of factory 3 (KWh/m2)
Production Energy of factory 3
(MJ/m2)
3
Monthly
stone
production
(m2)
Electricity
intensity
(KWh/m2)
0.68
0.67
0.66
0.65
0.65
0.66
0.66
0.7
0.67
0.67
0.66
0.63
0.66
2.4
*1 KWh = 3600000 J = 3.6 MJ.
concepts which all could meet to increase the sustainability of a product
[96,97].
Table 8
The energy consumed in the production of artificial stone.
Production phase
Raw material production
and transportation
Manufacture
process
5. Sensitivity analysis
Energy consumption to produce a
meter square unit (MJ/m2)
Total production energy (MJ/m2)
67.58
3.13
In this paper the transportation distance that is assumed was 20 km
from the quarry to the workshop and from the sourcing point of the raw
materials to the workshop. In this section, a sensitivity analysis was
performed to check the impact of changing the transportation distance
as the estimated path in kilometres may not be the real representation of
actual transportation distance. A Coefficient of Variation (CoV) of 20%
is usually defined for the estimation of transportation distance [98]. The
original assumption was to transport the natural and artificial stone for a
distance of 20 km. We also checked the impact of changing this distance
to be 16 km and 24 km (Fig. 6). shows the energy consumption based on
the sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, It was found that the (GHG)
emissions changed to be 31.5 kg CO2eq and 35.2 kg CO2eq when the
transportation distance changed to 16 km and 24 km respectively for the
limestone. As for the artificial stone, the sensitivity analysis showed that
the (GHG) emissions changed to19.6 kg CO2eq and 19.7 kg CO2eq ac­
cording to transportation distance change. The results shown that
transportation distance is a key factor in determining the environmental
impact as (GHG) and it is more influential in the natural stone. This is
due to the heavy weight of natural stone leading to higher transportation
emissions due to higher consumption of diesel fuel. Although the dif­
ferences resulted from the sensitivity analysis of the artificial stone seem
to be insignificant. However, when building a 200 m2-single house in
70.71
transportation to usually longer ones. Such events increase the energy
used for transportation and affecting the LCA results. Destroying infra­
structure can cause electricity blackouts, which is replaced by electricity
generators that uses fossil fuel. These scenarios are unpredictable, still
the LCA method is not flexible to embed such cases.
However, it is essential to note that (GHG) emissions are not the only
outcome of producing natural stone. Slurry powder is a serious problem
if was not tackled properly to the surrounding environment [9]. This
biproduct can be used as a raw material for producing the artificial stone
which completes the production circle moving towards a circular
economy through adopting lean manufacturing [96]. Another issue that
should be also considered is the amount of water used in the production
and water reuse potential, especially in a place that suffers from water
scarcity like Hebron. Thus, we can see that the transition to the circular
economy of a product, is proceeded by a deep understanding of the
processes in order to redesign the product safely and cost effectively
[36]. LCA can promote this transition through analyzing the production
process and coupling it with value engineering and lean manufacturing
Fig. 3. The areas of energy consumption in natural stone production.
7
S.B. Alqadi et al.
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101055
Fig. 4. The calculation of energy consumption in artificial stone production.
Table 9
The energy consumed in the production of natural stone.
Natural stone (limestone)
Artificial stone
Production phase
Energy Consumed
MJ/m2
Green House Gases (GHG)
(kg CO2eq)
Production phase
Energy Consumed
MJ/m2
Green House Gases (GHG)
(kg CO2eq)
Quarrying
Transportation to
workshop
Cutting and shaping
Total
69
33.2
19.2
9.2
Raw material production and
transportation
67.58
18.8
17.8
120
4.9
33.3
Manufacture process
Total
3.13
70.71
0.9
19.6
Hebron, for example, the average amount of artificial stone needed for
cladding may reach 250 m2, which means that when reducing the
transportation distance between the sourcing points of the raw materials
and the artificial stone factory, the (GHG) emissions will be reduced by
12.5 kg CO2eq. Therefore, when consuming a large amount of artificial
stone in many buildings, the variation in energy consumption and the
(GHG) emissions due to transportation will be significant..
accordingly. This was important in the study context which is a conflict
zone where predictability is low. The results shown that changing the
transportation distance by − 20% and +20% affected the energy con­
sumption by − 6% and +6% for the limestone and by − 0.5% and +0.5%
for artificial stone respectively.
Therefore, in order to reduce the life cycle environmental impact, the
production of thetwo types of cladding should strive to reduce energy
and raw material inputs through energy conservation. For example,
limestone workshops should be located near stone quarries, and the raw
materials for the artificial stone should be procured from locations close
to point of manufacturing facilities, which reduces the (GHG) emission
generated and cost due to long distance transportation. Moreover, using
green energy sources such as solar energy to replace fossil fuel or elec­
tricity generated using fossil fuel as the main energy source could reduce
environmental impacts. Innovation can also be a game changing
element in this process by using the biproducts that are formed in the
natural stone (limestone) production as an elementary material to create
manufactured stone can also decrease the amount of energy used in the
production process and save the environment. Future research can
address the distribution of stone workshops on a regional and its impact
on the energy consumed for transportation and how it can be reflected
on the land-use.
6. Conclusions and recommendations
This study compared two building cladding options that are used in
Palestine by using Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) approach. Locally mined
stone (Limestone) and locally manufactured artificial stone were
compared in terms of the energy consumed during the production phase
and the impact on environment in terms of Green House Gases (GHG)s.
The amount of energy used to produce 1 m2 of 5 cm-thick piece was 120
MJ for the limestone and 70.71 MJ for the locally manufactured stone.
The energy consumed for limestone extraction was 69 MJ/m2, while
transporting the limestone from the quarry to the workshop for a dis­
tance of 20 km consumed 33.2 MJ. The results indicate that the lime­
stone consumed more energy than the locally manufactured stone in
total by 70%, with 120 and 70.71 MJ/m2. This is reflected on the
amount of (GHG) emissions produced. The emissions produced during
the production of the limestone was 33.3 kg CO2eq, which is higher than
the manufactured stone, which was 19.6 kg CO2eq. Quarrying had the
greatest impact in the natural stone manufacturing followed by the raw
material production and transportation of locally manufactured stone in
terms of creating the (GHG) emissions. A sensitivity analysis was per­
formed to check the impact of the transportation distance during the
production phase on the total energy consumed and (GHG)s
Author declaration
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest
associated with this publication and there has been no significant
financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
8
S.B. Alqadi et al.
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101055
Fig. 5. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) stage.
Fig. 6. The impact of changing the distance on energy calculations for both natural and artificial stone.
Declaration of competing interest
Data availability
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
The authors do not have permission to share data.
9
S.B. Alqadi et al.
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101055
References
buildings in United States, J. Build. Eng. 67 (2023), 105921, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2023.105921.
[25] I. Bošković, A. Radivojević, Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hemp-lime
concrete wall constructions in Serbia: the impact of carbon sequestration,
transport, waste production and end of life biogenic carbon emission, J. Build. Eng.
66 (2023), 105908, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.105908. Available at:.
[26] A. Rashid, F. Abd, S. Yusoff, A review of life cycle assessment method for building
industry, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 45 (2015) 244–248, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.043.
[27] C.K. Chau, T.M. Leung, W.Y. Ng, A review on life cycle assessment, life cycle
energy assessment and life cycle carbon emissions assessment on buildings, Appl.
Energy 143 (2015) 395–413, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.023.
[28] European Commission, Joint Research Centre, J. Cristobal-Garcia, R. Pant,
F. Reale, et al., Life Cycle Assessment for the Impact Assessment of Policies,
Publications Office, 2017. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2788/318544.
[29] W. Klöpffer, B. Grahl (Eds.), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH
& Co. KGaA, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527655625.
[30] M. Klinglmair, S. Sala, M. Brandão, Assessing resource depletion in LCA: a review
of methods and methodological issues, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19 (3) (2013)
580–592, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0650-9.
[31] H. AzariJafari, A. Yahia, B. Amor, Removing shadows from consequential LCA
through a time-dependent modeling approach: policy-making in the road
pavement sector, Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 (3) (2019) 1087–1097.
[32] T. Gibon, T. Schaubroeck, Lifting the fog on characteristics and limitations of
hybrid LCA—a reply to “Does hybrid LCA with a complete system boundary yield
adequate results for product promotion?” by Yi Yang (Int J Life Cycle Assess,
Environ- mental science & technology 53 (3) (2019) 1087–1097, 22 (3): 456–406.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(6), 1005-1008. (2017) a
time-dependent modeling approach: policy-making in the road pavement sector.
[33] A. Antelava, S. Damilos, S. Hafeez, G. Manos, S.M. Al-Salem, B.K. Sharma,
A. Constantinou, Plastic solid waste (PSW) in the context of life cycle assessment
(LCA) and sustainable management, Environ. Manag. 64 (2) (2019) 230–244.
[34] N. Thonemann, A. Schulte, D. Maga, How to conduct prospective life cycle
assessment for emerging technologies? A systematic review and methodological
guidance, Sustainability 12 (3) (2020) 1192.
[35] C. Spreafico, D. Landi, Investigating students’ eco-misperceptions in applying ecode-sign methods, J. Clean. Prod. 342 (2022), 130866.
[36] C. Spreafico, D. Landi, Using product design strategies to implement circular
economy: differences between students and professional designers, Sustainability
14 (3) (2022) 1122, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031122.
[37] M. Tobé, P. Pankaew, Consumer Buying Behaviour In a Green Supply Chain
Management Context : A Study In the Dutch Electronics Industry (Dissertation), 2010.
Retrieved from, http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-12873.
[38] H.S. Salem, Evaluation of the Stone and Marble Industry in Palestine:
environmental, geological, health, socioeconomic, cultural, and legal perspectives,
in view of sustainable development, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 22 (2021)
28058–28080, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12526-4.
[39] A.A. Snelling, The geology of Israel within the biblical creation-flood framework of
history: 2. The flood rocks, Answers Research Journal (3) (2010) 267–309.
[40] G. Shadi, Palestinian Dry Stone Structures- an Endogenous Expression of Cultural
Landscape, Sustainable development, culture, traditions, 2015, p. 1b.
[41] (Abuarkub, 2017).
[42] Pereira and marker, Geosciences 6 (1) (2016) 13, https://doi.org/10.3390/
geosciences6010013.
[43] visited 24th, Feb, www.UNESCO.org, 2023.
[44] A. Abu Hanieh, S. AbdElall, A. Hasan, Sustainable development of stone and
marble sector in Palestine, J. Clean. Prod. (2013) 1–8.
[45] S.S. Sultan, Competitiveness of the Palestinian stone and marble sector through
clustering, African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure 3 (2) (2014).
[46] M. Al Jabari, M. Abualfailat, S. Shaheen, Treating leather tanning wastewater with
stone cutting solid waste, Clean: Soil, Air, Water 40 (2) (2012) 206–210, https://
doi.org/10.1002/clen.201000431.
[47] T. Sayara, Environmental impact assessment of quarries and stone cutting
industries in Palestine: case study of jammain, Journal of Environment Protection
and Sustainable Development 2 (4) (2016) 32–38. ISSN: 2381-7739 (Print); ISSN:
2381-7747.
[48] N. Al-Joulani, Soil contamination in Hebron district due to stone cutting industry,
the Jordanian Journal for Applied Science 10 (1) (2008) 37–50.
[49] S. Hamoush, T. Abu-Lebdeh, S.A. Miguel Picornell, Development of sustainable
engineered stone cladding for toughness, durability, and energy conservation,
Construct. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 4006–4016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2011.04.035.
[50] S. Mustafa, M.A. Khan, M.R. Khan, L.M. Sousa, F. Hameed, M.S. Mughal, A. Niaz,
Building stone evaluation—a case study of the sub-Himalayas, Muzaffarabad
region, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan, Eng. Geol. 209 (2016) 56–69, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.05.007.
[51] N. Neto, J.d. Brito, Inspection and defect diagnosis system for natural stone
cladding (NSC), J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (10) (2011) 1433–1443.
[52] R. Sivacoumar, R. Jayabalou, S. Swarnalatha, K. Balakrishnan, Particulate matter
from stone crushing industry: size distribution and health effects, J. Environ. Eng.
132 (3) (2006) 405–414.
[53] M. Al Jabari, M. Abualfailat, S. Shaheen, Treating leather tanning wastewater with
stone cutting solid waste, Clean: Soil, Air, Water 40 (2) (2012) 206–210, https://
doi.org/10.1002/clen.201000431.
[1] S.A. Dabous, T. Ibrahim, S. Shareef, E. Mushtaha, I. Alsyouf, Sustainable façade
cladding selection for buildings in hot climates based on thermal performance and
energy consumption, Results in Engineering (2022), 100643, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100643.
[2] V. Venkatraj, M.K. Dixit, W. Yan, S. Lavy, Evaluating the impact of operating
energy reduction measures on embodied energy, Energy Build. 226 (2020),
110340, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110340.
[3] F. Emídio, J. de Brito, P.L. Gaspar, A. Silva, Application of the factor method to the
estimation of the service life of natural stone cladding, Construct. Build. Mater. 66
(2014) 484–493, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.073.
[4] S. Mineo, G. Pappalardo, Rock emissivity measurement for infrared thermography
engineering geological applications, Appl. Sci. 11 (9) (2021) 3773, https://doi.org/
10.3390/app11093773.
[5] F. Bayram, I. Bektasoglu, Determination of actual dissolution rates from some rock
properties in construction of deep salt cavern for natural gas storage, Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 126 (2020), 104183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijrmms.2019.104183.
[6] S. Vats, Impact of stone mining on the health and environment: a study of the
village of mewat, India, Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences Research
(2022) 1–4, https://doi.org/10.47363/jeesr/2022(4)185.
[7] A.A. Alshboul, H.H. Alzoubi, Analysis of embodied energy requirements for natural
dimensioned stone production in Jordan, Architect. Sci. Rev. 51 (2) (2008)
124–132, https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2008.5116.
[8] N.R. Diwakar, S. Suresha, K.B. Prakash, A review on properties of artificial stone
with mixed aggregate, Mater. Sci. Eng. 677 (2016) 301–308, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.msea.2016.09.012.
[9] M. Galetakis, S. Raka, Utilization of limestone dust for artificial stone production:
an experimental approach, Miner. Eng. 17 (2) (2004) 355–357, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mineng.2003.10.031.
[10] M. Stefanidou, V. Pachta, I. Papayianni, Design and testing of artificial stone for the
restoration of stone elements in monuments and historic buildings, Construct.
Build. Mater. 93 (2015) 957–965, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.05.063.
[11] M. Kersel, Fractured oversight: the ABCs of cultural heritage in Palestine after the
Oslo Accords, J. Soc. Archaeol. 15 (1) (2014) 24–44.
[12] Takruri, A., El Jabari, C., & Ghazzawi, L. (2023). The Manifestations of the IsraeliPalestinian Conflict in the H2 Areas of Hebron City and its Impact on Livelihood
and Health. International Journal of Qualitative Research, 2(3), 270-278. https://doi.
org/10.47540/ijqr.v2i3.733ARIJ, Available from Hebron area classification (2007)
: accessed 18 January 2019 http://www.arij.org.
[13] Rabab Alshweiky, Zeynep Gül Ünal, An approach to risk management and
preservation of cultural heritage in multi identity and multi managed sites: AlHaram Al-Ibrahimi/Abraham’s Tombs of the Patriarchs in Al-Khalil/Hebron,
Journal of Cultural Heritage 20 (2016) 709–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culh
er.2016.02.014.
[14] Nassar, M., Levy, R., Keough, N., & Nassar, N. N. (2019). Agricultural land use
change and its drivers in the palestinian landscape under political instability, the
case of Tulkarm City. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 34(3), 377-394.ARIJ, The
environmental impact of Israeli military activities in the occupied Palestinian
territory (2014) available from: https://www.arij.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/
01/The-environmental-impact-of-Israeli-military.pdf.
[15] Alkhalidi, Yaser, Mousa, Nael, The Gradual Sustainable Energy Transition in
Palestine: An Enabling Environment to Attract Local and International Investment
(2022). MAS, p 19-20, www.mas.ps.
[16] Taub, T. E., Hassid, A., Ruthstein, S., & Cohen, H. (2020). Mechanism underlying
the emission of gases during the low-temperature oxidation of bituminous and
lignite coal piles: The involvement of radicals. Acs Omega, 5(44), 2850028509OECD, Fossile fuel country note (2020). www.oecd.org/fossil-fuels/.
[17] A.K.L. Bezerra, L.A. Silva, L.B.R. Araújo, A.E.B. Cabral, Production and
characterization of artificial stone for coating with limestone waste laminated in
polymeric matrix, Ambiente Construído 22 (4) (2022) 23–33, https://doi.org/
10.1590/s1678-86212022000400625.
[18] F.M. Pionteka, M. Müllera, Literature reviews: life cycle assessment in the context
of product-service systems and the textile industry, in: 25th CIRP Life Cycle
Engineering (LCE) Conference, Procedia CIRP, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018,
pp. 758–763, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.131, 69.
[19] A. Lewandowska, Environmental life cycle assessment as a tool for identification
and assessment of environmental aspects in environmental management systems
(EMS) part 1: methodology, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16 (2011) 178–186, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0253-2.
[20] C. Hendrickson, A. Horvath, S. Joshi, L. Lave, Economic input-output models for
environmental life-cycle assessment, Environ. Sci. Technol. 32 (7) (1998)
184A–191A, https://doi.org/10.1021/es983471i.
[21] Ö. Çimen, Development of a circular building lifecycle framework: inception to
circulation, Results in Engineering 17 (2023), 100861, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rineng.2022.100861.
[22] S.C. Andersen, H. Birgisdottir, M. Birkved, Life cycle assessments of circular
economy in the built environment—a scoping review, Sustainability 14 (11)
(2022) 6887, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116887.
[23] B. Soust-Verdaguer, C. Llatas, A. García-Martínez, Critical review of bim-based LCA
method to buildings, Energy Build. 136 (2017) 110–120, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2016.12.009.
[24] T. Vasishta, M. Hashem Mehany, J. Killingsworth, Comparative life cycle
assesment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) of precast and cast–in–place
10
S.B. Alqadi et al.
Results in Engineering 18 (2023) 101055
[76] A. Rahmani, A. Almatroudi, A. Babiker, A.Khan, M. Alsahly, (2018). Effect of
exposure to cement dust among the workers: an evaluation of health related
complications. Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences, 6(6), 1159.
[77] M.R. Ghotb Ravandi, et al., Respiratory symptoms and lung function among
cement factory workers in Iran: a cross-sectional study, BMC Pulm. Med. 18 (1)
(2018) 129.
[78] P. Li, et al., Exposure to cement dust and its impact on lung function and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease in a cement factory in Liaoning province of China,
J. Occup. Health 56 (2) (2014) 73–77.
[79] B.R. Devi, M.P. Kumar, R.B.N. Prasad, T.P. Rao, Assessment of occupational dust
and silica exposure in Indian stone mining and crushing unit- A case study, Journal
of Occupational Health and Epidemiology 7 (4) (2018) 210–216.
[80] S. Cakmak, C. Hebbern, J.D. Cakmak, K. Van Ryswyk, L. Rector, P. Kumarathasan,
Public health risks from ambient particulate matter in Canada: estimating the
number of premature deaths attributable to air pollution, Air Quality, Atmosphere
& Health 7 (3) (2014) 307–316.
[81] P.F. DeCarlo, K.D. Hinson, The health impact of industrial sand mining in
Wisconsin: a comprehensive review, Wis. Med. J. 118 (1) (2019) 39–44.
[82] M.B. Schenker, J. Jacobs, R. Saltzman, E. Krieg, B. Lushniak, H. Amandus,
F. Prudhommeaux, The occupational health of California’s agricultural workers,
Am. J. Ind. Med. 58 (3) (2015) 284–296.
[83] PS-000112, Standard Specification for Limestone - Dimension Stone, 2019.
[84] PS-000127, Artificial Building Stone from Concrete, 1997.
[85] P. Šiler, I. Kolářová, J. Bednárek, M. Janča, P. Musil, T. Opravil, The possibilities of
analysis of limestone chemical composition, in: IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering, IOP Publishing, 2018, June, 012033. Vol. 379, No. 1.
[86] X. Yu, Z. Tao, T.Y. Song, Z. Pan, Performance of concrete made with steel slag and
waste glass, Construct. Build. Mater. 114 (2016) 737–746.
[87] T. Matsushita, S. Hoshino, I. Maruyama, T. Noguchi, K. Yamada, Effect of curing
temperature and water to cement ratio on hydration of cement compounds, in:
Proceedings of 12th International Congress Chemistry of Cement, 2007, April
(Montreal).
[88] Silica sand in Israel. http://www.waterchemicalsindia.com/israel/silica-sand-me.
html, 2015.
[89] J. West, C. Atkinson, N.P. Howard, Embodied energy and carbon dioxide emissions
for building materials, in: CIB Task Group 8 Buildings and the Environment:
Proceedings of the First International Conference, Building Research
Establishment, Watford,England, 1994.
[90] E.M. Gartner, M.A. Smith, Energy costs of house construction, Energy Pol. 5 (1976)
144–157, https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(76)90007-0.
[91] D.M. Dissanayake, C. Jayasinghe, M.T. Jayasinghe, A comparative embodied
energy analysis of a house with recycled expanded polystyrene (EPS) based foam
concrete wall panels, Energy Build. 135 (2017) 85–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2016.11.044.
[92] B.V. Reddy, K. Jagadish, Embodied energy of common and alternative building
materials and technologies, Energy Build. 35 (2003) 129–137, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0378-7788(01)00141-4.
[93] C. Galán-Marín, C. Rivera-Gómez, A. García-Martínez, Embodied energy of
conventional load-bearing walls versus natural stabilized earth blocks, Energy
Build. 97 (2015) 146–154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.03.054.
[94] N. Crishna, P.F.G. Banfill, S. Goodsir, Embodied energy and CO2 in UK dimension
stone, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (12) (2011) 1265–1273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.06.014B.H.
[95] S. Xiong, J. Ji, X. Ma, Comparative life cycle energy and GHG emission analysis for
BEVs and PhEVs: a case study in China, Energies 12 (5) (2019) 834, https://doi.
org/10.3390/en12050834.
[96] A. da Silva, M.M. Gil, Industrial processes optimization in digital marketplace
context: a case study in ornamental stone sector, Results in Engineering 7 (2020),
100152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2020.100152.
[97] W.M. Cheung, J.T. Leong, P. Vichare, Incorporating lean thinking and life cycle
assessment to reduce environmental impacts of plastic injection moulded products,
J. Clean. Prod. 167 (2017) 759–775, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.08.208.
[98] G.W. Sonnemann, M. Schuhmacher, F. Castells, J. Clean. Prod. 11 (2003) 279–292.
[54] A. Oktriani, L. Darmajanti, T.E. Soesilo, River pollution caused by natural stone
industry, in: AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP Publishing LLC, 2017, https://doi.
org/10.1063/1.4978129, 1823.
[55] D.P. Naik, R.K. Somashekar, Ground water quality evaluation in stone quarry area,
J. Ind. Pollut. Control 23 (1) (2007) 15–18.
[56] M. Rafiq, L. Khan, M. Khan, Welfare impact of dust pollution on human health in
the district khyber ex-FATA, Pakistan, Journal of Applied Economics and Business
Studies (JAEBS) 2 (6) (2022) 15–32, https://doi.org/10.34260/jaebs.622.
[57] S.B. Sharma, B. Kumar, Effects of stone crusher dust pollution on growth
performance and yield status of rice, International Journal of Current Microbiology
and Applied Sciences 5 (5) (2016) 796–806.
[58] S.B. Sharma, B. Kumar, Effects of stone crusher dust pollution on growth
performance and yield status of gram, Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 4 (2015)
971–979.
[59] H. Sawalha, L. Shalabi, A. Hussein, Nasser, Limestone dust as an abiotic disease
factor affecting vegetables and olives in Palestine, Syrian Journal for Agricultural
Research (2019, June) 534–547.
[60] A.C. Chougule, P.A. Chougule, C.K. Kumbhoje, Effect of stone crusher on ambient
air quality, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
4 (7) (2017) 2640–2644.
[61] R.F. Hoy, T. Baird, G. Hammerschlag, D. Hart, A.R. Johnson, P. King, D.H. Yates,
Artificial stone-associated silicosis: a rapidly emerging occupational lung disease,
Occup. Environ. Med. 75 (1) (2018) 3–5, https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2017104428.
[62] M.R. Kramer, P.D. Blanc, E. Fireman, A. Amital, A. Guber, N.A. Rhahman,
D. Shitrit, Artifi cial stone silicosis: disease resurgence among artifi cial stone
workers, Chest 142 (2) (2012) 419–424, https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-1321.
[63] I. Ilahi, A. Khan, M. Ali, U. Ullah, J. Ali, M. Khan, Effects of stone dust exposure on
some liver and kidney related serum parameters of stone crush plant workers,
J. Biol. Life Sci. 3 (1) (2012) 211–219, https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-1321.
[64] Fahed S. Hamdan, Nizam M. El-Ashgar, Alaa MA. Musalam, Respiratory Health
Risks of Limestone Factories’ Dust: Gaza City as a Case Study, Israa University
Journal for Applied Sciences, 2021. V5, Issue 1, ISSN: 2523-0522.
[65] P. Brimblecombe, C.M. Grossi, Longevity of stone, in: Stone in Architecture:
Properties, Durability, Springer, Dordrecht. Top of Form, 2014, pp. 55–76.
[66] S. Kramar, J. Brus, V. Cafuta, The durability of building limestones from the 19th
century, Geologija 60 (2) (2017) 139–148, https://doi.org/10.5474/
geologija.2017.011.
[67] ASTM. Standard Specification for Serpentine Dimension Stone, ASTM International
(ASTM, 2019. https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=ASTM%
20C1526&item_s_key=00404838#doc-detail-history-anchor.
[68] G. Caneva, M.P. Nugari, O. Salvadori, Decay of stone and stone monuments in
polluted environments, Atmos. Environ. 28 (12) (1994) 1911–1925, https://doi.
org/10.1016/1352-2310(94)90049-3.
[69] A. Ali, R.P. Côté, End-of-Life management of building materials: a review, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 76 (2013) 112–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2013.03.005.
[70] MarketsandMarkets, Artificial Stone Market by Type (Solid Surface, Engineered
Stone, Others), Application (Kitchen Countertops, Facade, Flooring, Bathroom,
Others), and Region - Global Forecast to 2025, 2020. Retrieved from, https://www.
marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/artificial-stone-market-218843876.html.
[71] Research and Markets, Global Artificial Stone Market Outlook to 2026, 2021.
Retrieved from, https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5316159/globalartificial-stone-market-outlook-to-2026.
[72] Building Research Establishment (BRE), Durability of Stone Cladding: BRE
Research Report 300, BRE Press, 2011. https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/pdf/rpt
s/stonecladding.pdf.
[73] K. Kalinowska-Wichrowska, P. Gwozdziewicz, K. Nawariak, Durability of artificial
stone used in building envelope systems: a review, Construct. Build. Mater. 236
(2020), 117570, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117570.
[74] L. Yang, H. Yan, L. Zhang, T. Yu, Environmental performance evaluation of
building materials: a case study of artificial stone production, J. Clean. Prod. 103
(2015) 517–525, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.054.
[75] G. Liu, X. Wu, H. Wu, Y. Wang, L. Wang, Life cycle assessment of artificial stone
and its recycling methods, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 174 (2021), 105802, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105802.
11
View publication stats