Environmental impacts of reclaimed bricks: comparing different deconstruction methods

Emmi Salmio; Satu Huuhka

doi:10.5334/bc.651

Full Article

1. INTRODUCTION

Fired clay bricks are a traditional construction material, which has been used throughout the world for thousands of years. Today, the climate impact of the brick industry is globally in the same order of magnitude as that of the cement industry (Olsson et al. 2025). The demand for bricks is only expected to grow in the coming decades due to increasing housing demand. If the industry’s environmental impact is not addressed, its contribution to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could grow from the present 1% to 5% by 2050 (Olsson et al. 2025). Thus, the brick industry should search for ways to reduce the environmental footprint of its products. While it is imperative to improve the energy efficiency of kilns (Olsson et al. 2025), the circular economy could also be of help. Potential circular economy-inspired pathways for bricks include reclaiming them for reuse from end-of-life buildings (e.g. Hopkinson et al. 2019; Nordby et al. 2009), using waste materials as secondary alternative raw materials for new bricks (e.g. Al-Fakih et al. 2019; Zhang 2013) and using brick waste as a secondary raw material for other products or applications (e.g. Fořt & Černý 2020; Wong et al. 2018).

So far, most research has dwelled on recycling¹ rather than reuse (Hopkinson et al. 2019). The idea of reusing bricks is not new, though. Until now, it has mainly been driven by affordability and convenience—particularly in materially non-abundant contexts—and relied on brickmasons’ tacit knowledge to evaluate reusability. However, the modern brick industry could also adopt reuse as a cleaner industry strategy. By partnering with deconstructors to implement take-back schemes, the industry could seek to provide reclaimed bricks on the market on a large scale. While small reclamation operators have existed for a long time (Devos et al. 2024; Gregory et al. 2004), to the authors’ knowledge, only a few Nordic companies operate industrially with this premise, such as the Danish Gamle Mursten and Genbrugssten, the Swedish Brukspecialisten and the Norwegian Høine. The business model of Gamle Mursten has already been described by Nußholz et al. (2019).

In order for a modern brick business to operate professionally on the basis of take-back schemes in a developed context, at least four prerequisites must be met. First, it must be possible to detach bricks intact from end-of-life buildings. Second, it is necessary to determine the quality of the reclaimed bricks reliably and cost-efficiently. Third, the price of the reclaimed bricks needs to be competitive compared with virgin bricks. Fourth, and connected to the evolving regulatory landscape where GHG benchmarks are becoming introduced for buildings (One Click LCA 2022), reclaimed bricks’ environmental benefits must be evidenced.

This research will focus on the first and fourth viewpoints: practical reclaimability and environmental impact. Section 2 presents a state-of-the-art review on these aspects. To summarise the present understanding, mostly solid bricks from historic structures, bonded with lime mortars, are currently considered as reclaimable, and the evidence base on reclaimed bricks’ environmental performance is surprisingly unsatisfactory. For those interested in the second and third viewpoints, i.e. technical quality and cost, see Devos et al. (2025), Klang et al. (2003), Räsänen et al. (2022), Üçer Erduran et al. (2020) and Zhou et al. (2020), for example.

To bridge the existing knowledge gaps, the purpose of this paper is threefold. First, it investigates the practical reclaimability of modern perforated bricks, bonded with cement-based mortar, from a brick veneer. Second, it studies two alternative techniques to perform the deconstruction. Third, and as its main goal, it determines the environmental impacts of bricks reclaimed in this way. The paper compares their impacts against those of new bricks and investigates the significance of transport distance. The work is based on an empirical case study from Finland, which has been designed to ensure the feasibility of data collection.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 PRACTICAL FEASIBILITY: MORTAR COMPOSITION, BRICK TYPE AND STRUCTURE

Various authors mention that the practical reclaimability of bricks would depend on the type of mortar used (e.g. Addis 2006: 74, 110; Gregory et al. 2004; Hopkinson et al. 2019; Nordby et al. 2009; Thormark 2000). The consensus is that historic lime mortar breaks off easily, but modern cement-based mortar makes reclamation impractical. The grounds for this claim are assumably empirical, even though it is unclear what data they are based on. Ostensibly, the source is practice-based expert opinion (e.g. Gregory et al. 2004; Nordby et al. 2009), earlier literature (e.g. Hobbs & Hurley 2001; Yeap et al. 2012) containing such an opinion, and/or a singular case study (Addis 2006: 43). Zhou et al. (2020) have challenged the claim with an empirical test. Only focusing on removing mortar from already detached bricks, they concluded that bricks bonded with cement mortar can be successfully cleaned.

Little discussion exists in the literature about different deconstruction techniques. Gregory et al. (2004) and Devos et al. (2024) mention two distinct techniques: handwork with hammers and chisels, or pushing a structure down mechanically. Neither study collected data to distinguish the outcomes of using each technique. Zhou et al. (2020) conducted empirical tests using two alternative cleaning methods, but excluded deconstruction.

In terms of the types of reclaimed bricks, the literature focuses on solid bricks from historic massive masonry walls, though some studies (Thormark 2000; Klang et al. 2003) do not detail these aspects. Perhaps because modern bricks have been considered as irredeemable due to the use of cement mortar, little attention has been paid to reclaiming perforated bricks from cavity walls or brick veneers. Zhou et al. (2020) investigated different types of bricks, including perforated ones, but only from the cleaning perspective. Nordby et al. (2009) explicitly discussed the influence of the structure type, but their study is opinion-based.

As earlier literature is largely opinion-dominated rather than data-based or lacks essential detail, major gaps remain to be addressed with empirical data. The most significant omission is the reclaimability of perforated bricks, bonded with cement-based mortar, from modern building structures, using mechanised deconstruction techniques.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF RECLAMATION

Evidence on the environmental impacts of reclaimed bricks is sparse. Only a handful of studies touch upon the topic, and often they have not been designed to address reclamation impacts. For example, Addis (2006: 74) evaluated the environmental benefit of reusing bricks as ‘low’ (if bonded with cement-based mortar) or ‘medium’ (if bonded with lime mortar), without referring to any data. The reasoning is supposedly connected to the alleged difficulty of removing cement mortar. Contradictorily, Gregory et al. (2004) rationalised that there should be a large environmental saving potential in reuse because brick production is energy intensive.

Üçer Erduran et al. (2020) and Andersen et al. (2020) incorporated reclaimed bricks in the evaluation of larger structures, but assumed the reclaimed bricks themselves to be free of any environmental impact. Klang et al. (2003) and Zhou et al. (2020) presented life-cycle assessments (LCAs) based on empirical data collected on the cleaning phase, but not the entire reclamation process, including deconstruction.

Excluding deconstruction impacts is possible under current LCA guidelines, which enable assigning them to the decommissioned building’s system (CEN 2021). It should be noted, though, that decommissioning may be implemented differently if bricks are to be reclaimed for reuse. Based on what is known about other products (e.g. Andersen et al. 2022 regarding a reclaimed steel facade cladding), reclaiming may introduce a larger environmental impact than a conventional demolition. This is because deconstruction is performed more carefully, requiring longer operation times of heavy machinery.

A few third-party verified environmental product declarations (EPDs) exist for reclaimed bricks (Al-Najjar & Malmqvist 2025), such as those by Brukspecialisten i Sverige (2023), Gamle Mursten (2023), Genbrugssten (2023) and Utomhus Østfold Gress (2024). An earlier, 2017, version of the Gamle Mursten EPD was scrutinised by Nußholz et al. (2019), who found that the reused product exhibits only 1% of a respective virgin product’s global warming potential (GWP). The EPDs, however, only encompass partial reclamation impacts, as they include collecting, transporting, cleaning and productising the bricks, but ignore deconstruction impacts (Al-Najjar & Malmqvist 2025). This may be justified in view of the companies’ business models if they retrieve bricks from recycling centres, without taking part in deconstruction.

Only Thormark (2000) and Devos et al. (2024) were underlain by empirical data on brick reclamation impacts from all phases, including deconstruction. Both studies report very low environmental impacts vis-à-vis virgin bricks. Thormark’s (2000) focus was not exclusively on reclaimed bricks but on an entire house built using various recycled and reused materials. That paper did not detail the empirical data on bricks but referenced a Swedish-language background report from 1999, inaccessible to the current study. Devos et al. (2024) used a qualitative method (interviews of company representatives) to collect quantitative data. This discrepancy introduced uncertainty to the results.

The environmental impacts of construction products have become increasingly relevant, as several European Union (EU) member states are introducing regulatory GHG benchmarks for buildings, and EU-wide thresholds are expected as a part of the EU Sustainable Finance Taxonomy (One Click LCA 2022). In Finland, where the current study is situated, the Building Act already mandates a climate declaration from new buildings that must quantify the GHG impact of building products (Rakentamislaki 21.4.2023/751, 38§; FINLEX 2023). These developments, and the lack of robust empirical data from previous studies covering deconstruction impacts with alternative deconstruction techniques, showcase the need for the current study’s quantitative approach.

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 CASE STUDY

Empirical data for LCA were collected from a deconstruction site in collaboration with a deconstruction company. The slated building was a former electrical substation from 1959, located in the city of Espoo, Finland (Figure 1A). It had a square footprint and was symmetrical on three sides. Concrete columns made up the load-bearing frame. The facades were non-load-bearing brick veneers and consisted of perforated red clay bricks, sized 270 × 130 × 60 mm, with 22 holes each and weighing circa 3.3 kg. They were bonded with cement-based mortar with a seam width of 15 mm. The deconstruction was performed in November 2022.

**(A)** The case building before deconstruction (photo: KAMU Espoo City Museum/Jyri Vilja, published under licence CC-BY-ND 4.0); **(B)** deconstruction with hand-held power tools (T1); and **(C)** deconstruction with an excavator (T2).

3.2 FIELD DATA COLLECTION

Two alternative methods to reclaim bricks from the building were tested (Figure 1B–C). In the first technique (T1), two workers used a battery-powered hand-held demolition hammer to deconstruct the facade. They also used a fuel-powered scissor lift to reach the top of the wall. After detachment, the bricks were tossed to the ground from the top of the scissor lift. This method was intended to be gentler on the bricks and was expected to result in more intact bricks, as the bricks were detached individually.

In the second technique (T2) the brick wall was torn down by a fuel-powered excavator with a grapple. This technique mimics the business-as-usual demolition method that would also have been used even if there were no intention to reclaim the bricks. The technique was chosen to examine if bricks could remain intact in a conventional process.

One of the building’s three identical walls was deconstructed using T1, and one wall using T2. Before starting, the facade was torn down to a level where a solid brick infill begun. The walls were 3.0 m wide and 4.7 m tall, so the area deconstructed with each method was 14.1 m².

The steps of the reclamation process were documented to determine the environmental impact. The data collection process consisted of four phases: deconstruction, first weighing, sorting and cleaning, and second weighing. Apart from the deconstruction technique (T1 or T2), the processes were otherwise identical. The acts of deconstruction and cleaning were video recorded. The operational times of the machines were subsequently determined from the videos.

For T1, the electricity consumption of the battery-powered demolition hammer was calculated based on a three-step process. First, the energy demand to charge the battery from empty to full was determined using an electricity meter on the charger. Second, the operating time to exhaust the battery in the deconstruction work was documented. Third, the actualised operating time in deconstruction was determined from the videos.

After the facades’ deconstruction, all the resulting material, i.e. whole bricks, broken bricks and mortar, was loaded into a roll-off container and the container was driven to a waste station for weighing. The impacts of this exercise (e.g. transport emissions) were not incorporated into the LCA. This is because the actions were not a normal part of the reclamation process but were only done for data collection purposes.

After being weighed, the load was returned to the site. The bricks were then cleaned by hammering off pieces of mortar (Figure 2A). All pieces larger than half a brick were reclaimed. The clean bricks were collected onto pallets (Figure 2B) and wrapped in plastic film. The number of whole bricks was manually counted during cleaning. The brick pallets were then weighed with a crane scale. The weight difference between the original and cleaned batches gave (1) the quantity of produced waste material and (2) the proportion of bricks that could be reclaimed (as a percentage of the deconstructed wall). The pallets were also weighed empty so that their weight could be subtracted from these sums. The clean bricks were transported to a warehouse from where they were distributed for reuse.

**(A)** The cleaning method; and **(B)** the final products before wrapping with plastic film.

3.3 LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA)

LCA is a widely used methodology for evaluating the environmental impacts of building products throughout their life-cycle. The international standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 (ISO 2006a, 2006b) provide the foundational framework and requirements for performing LCAs, dividing the execution into four phases:

goal and scope definition
life-cycle inventory (LCI)
life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
interpretation.

Building upon this general framework, European Standard EN 15804+A2 (CEN 2021) provides more detailed rules specifically for construction products, namely for developing EPDs. The LCA of this study follows these guidelines. The following sections detail the execution of the assessment.

3.4 GOAL AND SCOPE

The goal was defined as comparing the environmental impacts of reclaimed bricks with those of virgin bricks using a cradle-to-gate approach.

The study focuses on the product stage (life-cycle modules A1–A3), encompassing raw material acquisition, transport to manufacturing site and production. Other life-cycle modules are excluded because it is assumed that reclaimed bricks will perform equally to virgin bricks in the transport to the building site (A4), installation into the building (A5), use (B) and end of life (C). Given that the properties of the bricks are ensured (by using methods suggested by, e.g., Räsänen et al. 2022) and the bricks are used in applications that are appropriate for their properties, no premature deterioration should take place during use (B).

Figure 3 illustrates the study’s system boundaries. Reclaiming bricks from end-of-life buildings is seen as raw material supply (module A1). This encompasses deconstruction with technique T1 or T2. Transporting the reclaimed material to a handling facility corresponds to module A2. It includes loading all the deconstructed material (intact bricks as well as brick and mortar rubble) to a roll-off container with an excavator. Cleaning, sorting, packing and storing the bricks at the facility are associated with module A3.

The process of reclaiming bricks with two different techniques: T1 and T2.
*Note:* The dashed line marks the system boundaries.

Waste processing (recycling or disposal) of the non-reusable material (brick and mortar rubble) is excluded from the system boundaries, even if this material is transported to the cleaning facility along with the reclaimed bricks. This waste is generated due to the decommissioning decision of a building. As such, it occurs regardless of the brick reclamation and not as its consequence. Therefore, unlike the impacts from deconstruction, it is justified to allocate the waste processing impacts to the first system, i.e. the demolished building. Moreover, these impacts would also take place if new bricks were used, but they are not reflected in the environmental impacts of new bricks for similar reasons (the impacts do not occur as a result of the manufacturing of new bricks). Should only reclaimed bricks be burdened with these impacts, the situation would be biased in favour of new bricks.

It is assumed that the equipment used for deconstruction is also utilised for other activities on the demolition site. Consequently, the transport impacts of the scissor lift (T1) and excavator use (T2) are excluded. They are, however, examined for sensitivity analysis purposes, and will be touched upon in the discussion. The scope also excludes impacts related to worker mobility. Furthermore, the impacts of the quality assurance process of reclaimed bricks are excluded from the current study due to the lack of data for estimating them. The impact is expected to be negligible.

As the cradle-to-gate approach excludes the use phase, a declared unit is used instead of a functional unit (CEN 2021). The declared unit is 1 t of full-sized ready-to-reuse bricks packed on pallets and wrapped in plastic film. Even though halved bricks were also harvested from the case study building, the LCA is primarily carried out for whole bricks, making it more comparable with new bricks. Should half bricks also be reused, it would distribute the environmental impact to a larger quantity of bricks. This would reduce the per tonne impacts, as discussed in the results section.

3.5 LIFE-CYCLE INVENTORY (LCI)

Environmental data were drawn from the Swiss ecoinvent 3.10 cut-off library.² Data representative of Finnish and European conditions were chosen whenever available. To represent new bricks for comparison purposes, a dataset for European clay bricks was selected from the ecoinvent library. For details of the datasets used, see File 1 in the supplemental data online.

The primary data for reclaimed bricks were mainly drawn from the empirical case study (see Section 3.1). To simulate situations in which bricks are reclaimed as a business and, subsequently, in larger quantities than in the case study, some of the processes were estimated rather than based on the empirical data.

Instead of cleaning the bricks on-site, as in the case study, they would be cleaned at an operator’s facility, stored and packaged for delivery to clients. This would guarantee the least disturbance to the demolition site, where there often is pressure to get new construction started as soon as possible.

The number of reclaimed bricks in the case study was limited by the size of the donor building. The process was upscaled by assuming full loads of 19 t of brick rubble (both reclaimed bricks and waste materials) per lorry. Empty pick-up trips were included. The input of loading was based on brick rubble weighing 1480 kg/m³ (Peachtree Waste n.d.).

The transport distance was set to 30 km, which represents the distance from Helsinki city centre to the fringes of the Helsinki metropolitan area. This area, where the case study deconstruction site was also situated, is the leading location for both demolition and new construction in Finland (Huuhka & Lahdensivu 2016). However, the transport distance is also examined from a sensitivity analysis viewpoint.

The activities at the cleaning facility were assumed to be identical to the case study, apart from the location. To represent these activities, a dataset for clay pit infrastructure (i.e. a brick factory) was selected from the ecoinvent database. For storage and outbound transport, both reclaimed and new bricks were assumed to be stacked on standard European pallets (EUR-pallets) and wrapped in plastic film. The demand for packaging material was assumed to be similar for both reclaimed and new bricks. The number of pallets was based on the capacity of one EUR-pallet being 1500 kg (European Pallet Association n.d.), and the European clay brick dataset was modified accordingly. For both products, the demand of plastic film was drawn from the European clay brick dataset.

3.6 LIFE-CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (LCIA)

The LCIA was conducted in all core³ and additional⁴ environmental impact categories using SimaPro 9.6.0.1 software with the ecoinvent 3.10 cut-off library.

To enable comparison, a single score indicator was also formed, which combines all impact indicators to a single unit: points (Pt). This was done using normalisation and weighing factors of Environmental Footprint method v. 3.1 (Andreasi Bassi et al. 2023; Sala et al. 2018).

Climate change, expressed as GWP, is the most assessed impact category in the construction sector due to environmental performance regulation. This includes Finnish legislation (Rakentamislaki 21.4.2023/751, 38§; FINLEX 2023). Thus, GWP was also zoomed in on in this study. According to EN 15804+A2 (CEN 2021), GWP-total is divided into three subcategories: fossil, biogenic, and land use and land use change (luluc). GWP-fossil and GWP-luluc represent the climate burdens of resource extraction and processing.

Within the cradle-to-gate system boundary (A1–A3), GWP-biogenic reflects the net carbon sequestration of biobased materials, which typically results in negative values and therefore reduces GWP-total. In the context of bricks, GWP-biogenic primarily stems from the use of wooden pallets for shipment. The more pallets are used, the more stored carbon is introduced into the system and the more GWP-total is reduced. Even if pallets can be considered short-lived single-use products in this context, the impacts of their disposal fall outside the system boundary and are thus not reflected in the results. Consequently, GWP-fossil contributes a truer picture of brick reclamation impacts than GWP-total. The study therefore concentrates on GWP-fossil as the most relevant indicator.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Using technique T1, 38% of the deconstructed wall was reclaimed as whole bricks, compared with 24% with T2. When half bricks were also accounted for, the reclamation rates increased to 79% and 51%, respectively. These numbers contradict the consensus in the literature that bricks bonded with cement-based mortars could not be reclaimed. Reclamation rates achieved with T1 were expectedly better than those achieved with T2. However, T1 is much more time-consuming than T2. In the case study, it took two workers 1.4 h to deconstruct the wall with T1, while the excavator used in T2 took only 4 min.

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Reclaimed bricks exhibit environmental impacts lower than those of new bricks in all environmental impact categories (Figure 4). They reduce the environmental impacts by at least 80% in the following impact categories: climate change (total and fossil), ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication (freshwater, marine and terrestrial), photochemical ozone formation, depletion of fossil fuels, and ionising radiation. Additionally, they reduce the environmental impacts with 50–70% in climate change (luluc), depletion of minerals and metals, water use, particulate matter emissions, freshwater ecotoxicity, and human toxicity (cancer and non-cancer effects).

Life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results of bricks reclaimed with deconstruction techniques T1 and T2 vis-à-vis new bricks.
*Note:* For the specific numerical values for each category, see the supplemental data online. luluc = land use and land use change.

In two impact categories, climate change (biogenic) and land use, the performance of reclaimed bricks is clearly closer to that of new bricks. In climate change (biogenic), reclaimed bricks’ impact is 25% smaller, i.e. poorer, than that of new bricks. In the context of bricks, the positive biogenic climate change impacts result from the wooden pallets used in packaging and the wood chips used in virgin brick production, supposedly to increase the porosity and frost resistance of bricks.⁵ In land use, reclaimed bricks’ impact is only about 15% smaller than that of new bricks. This impact is also connected to the use of pallets, for the majority thereof stems from forestry, which supplies the timber for pallet manufacture. Wood chips and clay extraction cause additional land-use impacts for new bricks.

In comparison with the clearly worse performance of new bricks, the environmental performances of the deconstruction techniques do not differ substantially. In most cases, bricks deconstructed with technique T1 perform slightly better than those deconstructed with T2. A few impact categories make an exception: climate change (luluc), eutrophication (marine and terrestrial), ionising radiation and freshwater ecotoxicity. Here, the slightly larger impacts of T1 stem from electricity use, which does not occur in T2.

Figure 5 summarises the environmental loads in a single-score end-point indicator that normalises and weights the LCIA results from the different impact categories shown in Figure 4. This helps to compare the total environmental impacts of the options. Reclaimed bricks have a significantly lower total environmental impact (3214 µPt using T1 and 3546 µPt using T2) than new bricks (17,359 µPt). Regardless of the deconstruction method, reclaiming reduces the impact of bricks by about 80%. This is in the same order of magnitude as the results of Devos et al. (2024), who reported savings around 85%.

Total single-score environmental impact of bricks reclaimed with deconstruction techniques T1 and T2 and of new bricks.
*Note:* The unit is micropoints (µPt) per the declared unit. *For values, see the supplemental data online.

Together, the use of fossil resources, human toxicity (cancer effects), particulate matter formation, use of mineral and metal resources, and climate change (total) cause around 70% of the total environmental impact of reclaimed bricks. In the case of new bricks, climate change dominates with a share of 37%, followed by fossil resource use with 18%. In new bricks, the fossil resource use stems from natural gas used in their manufacture, while for the reclaimed bricks, it originates from transporting reclaimed brick rubble to the cleaning facility and from electricity use in T1. The same activities also contribute the most to climate change.

4.2 CLIMATE CHANGE

In comparison with new bricks, reclamation reduces GWP-total by 95% (T1) or 94% (T2), and GWP-fossil by 88% (T1) or 86% (T2). The GWP-total and GWP-fossil of reclaimed bricks acquired with T2 are 41% or 13% greater than those acquired with T1, respectively (Figure 4). Should half bricks also be reused, GWP-total and GWP-fossil would be reduced by 100% or 92% (T1) and 99% or 91% (T2), respectively, in comparison with new bricks. These reductions are of the same magnitude as those achieved by Devos et al. (2024). However, in the case study, half bricks were treated solely by removing mortar. In practice, there would be a need to cut away uneven edges mechanically, which would increase GWP.

4.3 PROCESS CONTRIBUTIONS

Figure 6 categorises the GWP-fossil of whole bricks reclaimed with T1 and T2 into modules A1–A3. With both reclamation techniques, deconstruction (A1) has the smallest GWP-fossil contribution with 17% in T1 and 3% in T2.

Process contributions of the two deconstruction techniques to fossil global warming potential (GWP-fossil).

Transport (A2) dominates GWP-fossil with 51% in T1 and 69% in T2. In the case study, all deconstructed material is brought into the cleaning facility. This means that the amount of transported brick rubble is the same for both T1 and T2. With T2, fewer bricks are reclaimed at the facility because more of them are broken. This leads to a larger per tonne impact stemming from transport (A2) for bricks reclaimed using T2 in comparison with those reclaimed with T1. The percentages are of the same magnitude as in Devos et al. (2024), whose respective values are 42–59% from transport (calculated based on the underlying data received from Katrien Devos, personal communication, 12 January 2026).

Cleaning bricks caused no emissions in the case study because it was performed by hand with hammers. Thus, the GWP-fossil of the manufacturing phase (A3) results from the packaging materials and cleaning facility infrastructure. These are equal in both options, making up 32% in T1 and 28% in T2. Should the cleaning phase be mechanised, as suggested by Zhou et al. (2020) and implemented by some of the companies (Table 1), additional GWP (both fossil and total) would be induced.

Table 1

Studies and environmental product declarations (EPDs) of reclaimed clay bricks and reference new bricks.

	SOURCE	LOCATION	BRICK TYPE	MORTAR	DECONSTRUCTION METHOD	CLEANING METHOD	RECLAMATION RATE (%)	WHOLE BRICKS	HALF BRICKS
Reclaimed bricks
R1	Present paper	Finland	Extruded, perforated	Cement	Demolition hammer (T1)	Manual	38%	×
R2	Present paper	Finland	Extruded, perforated	Cement	Demolition hammer (T1)	Manual	79%	×	×
R3	Present paper	Finland	Extruded, perforated	Cement	Excavator (T2)	Manual	24%	×
R4	Present paper	Finland	Extruded, perforated	Cement	Excavator (T2)	Manual	51%	×	×
R5	Brukspecialisten i Sverige (2023)	Sweden	n/a	n/a	Not assessed	Mechanical^a	n/a	×	×
R6	Devos et al. (2024)	Belgium	Moulded	Lime/bastard	Manual	Manual	63%	×
R7	Devos et al. (2024)	Belgium	Extruded	Cement	Manual	Manual	40%	×
R8	Devos et al. (2024)	Belgium	Field oven	Lime/bastard	Manual	Manual	27%	×
R9	Gamle Mursten (2023)	Denmark	Solid/perforated	n/a	Not assessed	Vibration^b	65%^c	×	×
R10	Genbrugssten (2023)	Denmark	Solid/perforated	n/a	Not assessed	Vibration^d	54%^d	×	×
R11	Utomhus Østfold Gress (2024)	Norway	n/a	n/a	Not assessed	n/a	n/a	×
New bricks
N1	Present paper	Europe	Extruded					×
N2	Tiileri (2021)	Finland	Extruded, perforated/solid					×
N3	Wienerberger (2025)	Finland	Extruded, perforated/solid					×

[i] Sources: Additional data sources: ^aBrukspecialisten (n.d.), ^bGamle Mursten (n.d.), ^cMøller et al. (2013) and ^dGenbrugssten (n.d.).

4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORT

Since transport (A2) is the largest single contributor to GWP-fossil, the transport distance between the deconstruction site and cleaning facility can have a notable impact. While a 30 km-distance was assumed, this may vary substantially between cases. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was conducted. To determine the farthest distance from which reclamation would still be environmentally beneficial, Figure 7 expresses GWP-fossil as a function of transport distance. Bricks reclaimed with T1 can be collected from up to 480 km from the cleaning facility before GWP-fossil exceeds that of new bricks. With T2, the distance is 315 km.

Effect of the distance between the deconstruction site and the brick-cleaning facility on the fossil global warming potential (GWP-fossil) of reclaimed bricks.
*Note:* The sensitivity analysis concerns only module A2 of reclaimed bricks, while the GWP-fossil of new bricks remains constant.

Transport of machinery to the deconstruction site was excluded from the study’s scope, as the same equipment was assumed to be required for conventional demolition of other parts of the building. For instance, the scissor lift would already be delivered for internal stripping. Therefore, the impacts would be shared between multiple processes, and the impacts allocated to the brick reclamation would be negligible. This assumption may not hold in all cases. Should the machinery be transported solely for brick reclamation, the GWP-fossils of T1 and T2 would rise by 4% and 16%, respectively, assuming a 30-km transport distance with a 16–32 t lorry. The relative impacts decrease as the volume of reclaimed bricks increases.

4.5 COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS STUDIES

Figure 8 compares the GWPs obtained in this research with those of new and reclaimed products drawn from EPDs and other sources (for details, see Table 1). Only three of them also account for half bricks; others include only whole bricks. None of the EPDs announces the deconstruction or cleaning methods, but often the latter could be found on the manufacturer’s webpage. Bricks produced in Finland (N2–N3) are also given for reference as local new brick options. They have slightly smaller GWPs in comparison with the European clay brick drawn from ecoinvent (N1), primarily used in this study. Nevertheless, the GWP-fossil of the case study reclaimed bricks (R1–R4) is 78–89% smaller than that of the Finnish reference bricks (N2–N3).

Global warming potential (GWP) of reclaimed (R1–R11) and new (N1–N3) bricks.
*Note:* For descriptions of R1–R11 and N1–N3, see Table 1. *GWP-fossil for R6–R8 was calculated based on data underlying Devos *et al*. (2024), received from Katrien Devos (personal communication, 12 January 2026), and includes both GWP-fossil and GWP-luluc (land use, land use change).

Due to the discrepancies in system boundaries and the lack of transparency in the EPDs, it is unfortunately not possible to exhaustively explain the reasons behind these differences. Reclaimed bricks clearly exhibit substantially lower GWPs than new bricks. Reclamation methods utilising energy-consuming machinery (R1–R5, R9–R11) do increase GWP-fossil in contrast to manual work (R6–R8). Vibration-based cleaning methods (R9–R10) would seem to contribute a higher GWP than other kind of mechanical cleaning (R5). No clear patterns stemming from the reclamation rates can be observed. Since this study found that transport (module A2) can be a substantial contributor, it might explain some of the differences. Alas, the other sources do not give details about the transport to determine if this is the case.

The current study’s reclamation rates themselves are generally in line with those of previous studies, even though the case study bricks were perforated. Such bricks were expected to be more prone to break in the reclamation process than solid bricks, but the results do not suggest this is the case. Interestingly, this study reports the lowest (24%) and highest (71%) reclamation rates out of all the sources, pointing to the influence of deconstruction methods and the inclusion or exclusion of half bricks. The low rate was achieved with T2 reclaiming whole bricks only, and the high rate with T1 reclaiming both whole and half bricks. Remarkably, T1 is much more time-consuming than T2 (see the supplemental data online), which likely leads to substantially different reclamation costs. This, however, remains a topic for future research.

4.6 UNCERTAINTIES OF THE STUDY

4.6.1 Field data-collection conditions

The case study deconstructions were performed in more dire weather conditions (0°C) than the mean annual temperature of Finland (around 3–4°C). This may have affected the performance of the demolition hammer (T1). Ambient temperature affects battery life, so batteries may have drained faster than during a warmer time of year.

In the case study building, the wall structure was brick veneer, which facilitated a straightforward deconstruction. The demolition hammer (T1) could easily detach the bricks, while the excavator’s grapple (T2) had direct access to the space behind the bricks. Had the structural solution been different, e.g. a cavity wall or a solid brick wall, deconstruction might have been slower.

Additional steps were required to weigh the bricks for data collection purposes. The extra rounds of loading and unloading may have increased brick breakage.

4.6.2 Transport (module A2)

The transport impacts (module A2) in this study may be slightly overestimated. The assessment assumes that all deconstructed material is transported to the cleaning facility, where it is sorted into reusable bricks and waste fractions such as small brick pieces and mortar. In practice, depending on how the reclamation process is organised, a proportion of waste could be left at the deconstruction site. Consequently, the actual mass transported to the cleaning facility would be somewhat lower, thereby reducing the transport-related impacts. This is noteworthy since transport is the dominant contributor to the environmental impacts of reclaimed bricks. Devos et al. (2024), for example, reported deconstruction wastage of 30–70% of the total mass, depending on the brick and mortar types. If the lowest possible environmental impact is sought after, cleaning would ideally take place at the deconstruction site, avoiding unnecessary transport of waste material.

4.6.3 Cleaning (module A3)

As the cleaning process was carried out manually, no direct environmental impacts were associated with it. However, manual cleaning can be unergonomic for workers (cf. Klang et al. 2003) as well as time-consuming, resulting in high labour costs. In the case study, sorting, cleaning and packing required 4 labour-hours per tonne of reclaimed bricks. The development of more efficient cleaning methods could help reduce costs and the burdensome nature of the work. However, if mechanised cleaning methods requiring energy inputs—such as fuel or electricity—are employed, the environmental impacts of brick reclamation increase.

4.6.4 Choice of scope

The LCA was conducted as a cradle-to-gate analysis covering modules A1–A3. Modules A4 (transport to site) and A5 (construction) were excluded, as these were assumed to be the same for reclaimed and new bricks. This assumption may not always hold true.

In Finland, new bricks are manufactured in only three locations, and the manufacturers give average transport distances of 132 km (Wienerberger 2025) or 324 km (Tiileri 2021) for module A4. The cleaning facility of reclaimed bricks would most likely be situated near growing municipalities, such as the Helsinki metropolitan area, where significant demolition and new construction activities occur in lockstep. Therefore, not only would the transport to cleaning facility (A2) distance likely remain rather short for reclaimed bricks, but also the transport to site (A4) distance. New bricks would likely travel longer distances from factories to sites, resulting in even greater environmental impacts for new bricks, but this is case dependent. Furthermore, the vintage-look new bricks, the appearance of which resembles reclaimed bricks, are not manufactured in Finland but imported from Central Europe. Thus, the European dataset chosen in this paper to represent new bricks can be considered as justified.

Due to the cradle-to-gate scope, a declared unit of 1 t of bricks was used. However, in terms of the demand of bricks to produce a brick veneer in module A5, tonnes of different bricks may not be fully comparable with one another because the depth of bricks may vary. This can lead to a different consumption of bricks per a m² of brick veneer, as some veneers may be thicker than others. The depth of the case study bricks was known (130 mm), but that of the new European clay brick was not. This is because the dataset in the ecoinvent database covers brick production in general, and the sizing is not specified. Also, the amount of mortar it takes to build the brick wall depends on the size of the bricks and their ability to soak up mortar. Moreover, if wastage is created in module A5, its impact will be greater for new bricks than for reclaimed bricks. This is because of the greater production impact of wasted new bricks (Katrien Devos, personal communication, 12 January 2026).

4.6.5 LCI datasets

LCI data are geographically restricted, i.e. they have been collected from a distinct geographical area with a specific energy mix. Geographically representative datasets were unavailable for all modelled processes. Data were drawn from the Swiss ecoinvent database, which may not have been fully applicable to the Finnish conditions due to, for example, differences in energy mixes. For one, new bricks were modelled as generic European clay bricks, which does not accurately represent Finnish brick production (cf. Figure 8). However, when possible, the data were modified to correspond to the Finnish context or, more broadly, the European context.

To represent reclaimed bricks’ cleaning facility operations, a dataset for clay pit infrastructure (i.e. a brick factory) was selected from the ecoinvent database. The dataset includes land occupation and transformation, a steel-structured hall, a multi-storey building, and industrial machinery. The chosen dataset probably exaggerates the impacts of the facility. This is because compared with a new brick factory, the needed infrastructure would be much simpler and smaller, only including spaces for cleaning, packing and storing reclaimed bricks. Nevertheless, in the ecoinvent database, the clay pit infrastructure dataset was the closest match. Selecting it guarantees that the impacts from this module are not underestimated. The dataset is also assumed to cover all internal operations, such internal logistics, quality control and packaging machinery, which were not explicitly included.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Brick reuse is a traditional circular economy practice that so far has received little scholarly interest. The lack of evidence-based scrutiny has enabled the beliefs to canonise, such as the idea that only historic structures would lend themselves to brick reclamation.

The present paper is the first study to compare the practical viability and environmental impacts of using two different deconstruction methods to reclaim modern bricks for reuse. It documented the reclamation process in detail to shed new light on the conditions under which reclamation is feasible. The finding that perforated bricks bound with cement-based mortars can be effectively reclaimed opens new opportunities for researchers, practitioners and policymakers to re-evaluate the modern building stock as an urban mine. The study combines technical deconstruction trials with environmental impact assessment in a way that makes its results widely applicable beyond the case study.

The results showcase that building decommissioning impacts can be different from business-as-usual demolition if products are to be reclaimed for reuse. In the case of bricks, the impacts of handwork-based reclamation are lower than with the excavator method in most environmental impact categories. Nevertheless, this study shows that brick reclamation is also feasible with the excavator method. In comparison with the clearly higher environmental impacts of new bricks, the differences in impacts between bricks reclaimed with different deconstruction methods are not significant. More significantly, excavator-based deconstruction is more wasteful in that it results in greater breakage of bricks. It is, however, more time-efficient and less disruptive for current demolition operators and their clients to adopt. Should bricks not be reclaimed, an even greater amount of waste would be generated.

The ease and ultra-low environmental impact of reclaiming bricks, as showcased in this study, suggests that not reclaiming carbon-intensive products (e.g. bricks) is a wasted ‘low-hanging fruit’ for sustainable construction. The study infers that the barriers to reuse are not so much technical as economic and organisational. The findings provide a basis for future research into the economic impacts of reuse and policymaking. Whether subsidies for start-ups, extended producer responsibility for manufacturers or tendering criteria for public procurement, policymakers should introduce instruments to support the market entry and mainstreaming of reclamation businesses.

Notes

[2] Confusingly, some authors, such as Cheng (2013) and Fořt & Černý (2020), use the term ‘reuse’ to describe what effectively is recycling.

[3] See https://ecoinvent.org/ecoinvent-v3–10/.

[4] Climate change—total; climate change—fossil; climate change—biogenic; climate change—luluc; ozone depletion; acidification; eutrophication aquatic freshwater; eutrophication aquatic marine; eutrophication terrestrial; photochemical ozone formation; depletion of abiotic resources—minerals and metals; depletion of abiotic resources—fossil fuels; and water use.

[5] Particulate matter emissions; ionising radiation, human health; ecotoxicity (freshwater); human toxicity, cancer effects; human toxicity, non-cancer effects; and land use-related impacts/soil quality.

[6] These chips burn away when the bricks are fired, so the biogenic carbon is not stored in the final product. There would seem to be an omission in the ecoinvent dataset of clay brick production because it only accounts for the intake and does not consider the release of related biogenic CO₂ emissions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the demolition company Umacon and its employees, in particular Juha Nyberg, Timo Kareisto, Vilma Wathén and Antti Lantta, for enabling the research and for participating in the data collection. They thank Ahmad Al-Najjar from KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, for providing environmental product declarations of reused bricks. The authors are also grateful to their colleague, Hannele Auvinen, for valuable life-cycle assessment advice and support during the preparation of the paper. They thank the reviewers and editor for their insightful and constructive feedback.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

E.S.: empirical data collection, processing and analysis of the data, visualisation of the results, and writing and editing the manuscript together with S.H.. S.H.: conceptualising the research, acquiring funding for it, supervision of the work, literature review, and writing and editing the manuscript together with E.S.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors have no competing interests to declare. S.H. is a member of the journal’s Editorial Board, but had no role in the review process and the editorial decisions.

DATA ACCESSIBILITY

Data are available in the supplemental data online and in the ecoinvent 3.10 cut-off library (https://ecoinvent.org/ecoinvent-v3-10/).

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA

The supplemental data ‘Underlying Data and Numerical Results’ can be accessed at: https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.651.s1