A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a Composite Bamboo Shear Wall System Developed for El Salvador

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

The paper presents a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP) values for a residential single-storey building in two alternative designs: Composite Bamboo Shear Wall (CBSW) and reinforced hollow block masonry. As expected, the first alternative has a significantly smaller environmental impact, expressed in CO_2e. The authors noted that including more LCA phases and environmental impact categories would have provided a more comprehensive understanding of the overall environmental impact. The paper is well-written and structured, with clearly presented and explained results. It demonstrates a solid background in the current context and contributes to the knowledge of buildings that use biomaterials as construction materials.

Specific comments/minor revisions:

1 – r38-39, “number of new houses required to house those living in substandard, precariously located or overcrowded housing” – “to accommodate” instead of “to house”.

2 – r83, “been built in Colombian”.

3 – r171, “35m2”; r578, “818kg/m3”; r581, “510kg/m3” …

4 – r307, “2.1.3. Design / service life”, - “2.1.5” instead of “2.1.3”.

5 – r437, “2.3.2. Process and material quantities” – “2.3.1” and renumber Sections 2.3.1 to 2.3.4, including in the r456-457.

6 – r670, “where 1% is released at CO₂”.

7 – r743-744, “similar if not longer amount time”, “amount of time”.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your comments and detailed revisions, these have been very helpful. Thank you very much for your time and efforts reviewing our paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, this research presents an innovative and detailed approach to LCA of building systems in El Salvador, with a specific focus on Bamboo Composite Shear Wall (CBSW) technology.

The authors conducted a comprehensive analysis, addressing not only the direct environmental impact of the materials used, but also considering important aspects such as durability, maintenance over a 50-year period, and sensitivity analysis.

The document is well structured, which facilitates understanding of the methods applied and the results obtained.

Furthermore, the consideration of factors such as biogenic carbon and the recommendation for future research on end-of-life modules reinforce the relevance and potential of CBSW as a sustainable and affordable housing solution.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and we greatly appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing our paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a significant issue regarding sustainable housing solutions in developing countries, specifically in El Salvador. The research's focus on life cycle assessment (LCA) of composite bamboo shear wall (CBSW) systems versus traditional masonry systems is relevant and timely, considering global efforts towards low-carbon construction materials.

 

The literature review is comprehensive, covering relevant studies on bamboo construction and LCA methodologies. However, it could be strengthened by including more recent studies on bio-based materials and their applications in different climatic conditions. (Specifically, Enhancing the interfacial compatibility and self-healing performance of microbial mortars by nano-SiO₂-modified basalt fibers.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2024.105650.

Compressive Strength Estimation and CO2 Reduction Design of Fly Ash Composite Concrete. 10.3390/buildings12020139)

 

1.         The assumptions made for material quantities, transport distances, and construction processes are well-documented. However, more detail on the source and quality of data used for LCA calculations would enhance the transparency and reliability of the results.

 

2.         The exclusion of end-of-life modules (C) is justified due to uncertainty in future scenarios, but a sensitivity analysis including these phases could provide additional insights.

 

3.         The discussion of biogenic carbon and its impact on the overall GWP is a valuable addition. However, the assumptions regarding biogenic carbon sequestration and end-of-life scenarios should be further elaborated.

 

4.         It would be beneficial to include a brief mention of policy implications or recommendations for stakeholders in the construction and housing sectors.

 

5.         The references are comprehensive and up-to-date, covering a wide range of relevant literature. However, there are a few formatting inconsistencies that should be corrected to ensure compliance with journal guidelines.

 

6.         Table 2 and 3: Provide more detail on the specifications and sources of materials listed.

 

7.         Section 2.3.4: Clarify the assumptions made regarding the replacement frequency of roof sheets and the impact on overall GWP.

 

8.         The use of LCA software and databases is appropriate, but a brief discussion on the limitations of these tools in the context of this study would be helpful.

 

In summary, this manuscript provides a valuable contribution to the field of sustainable construction materials and offers practical insights for addressing housing challenges in developing countries. Addressing the above points could strengthen the manuscript further.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx