Figure 1
(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).
Figure 2
(A) The cleaning method; and (B) the final products before wrapping with plastic film.
Figure 3
The process of reclaiming bricks with two different techniques: T1 and T2.
Note: The dashed line marks the system boundaries.
Figure 4
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.
Figure 5
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.
Figure 6
Process contributions of the two deconstruction techniques to fossil global warming potential (GWP-fossil).
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 | Mechanicala | 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 | Vibrationb | 65%c | × | × |
| R10 | Genbrugssten (2023) | Denmark | Solid/perforated | n/a | Not assessed | Vibrationd | 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 | × | |||||
Figure 7
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.
Figure 8
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).