**5. Conclusions**

In this study, the valorization of an olive pomace-based biocomposite was evaluated through the environmental criteria, with the LCA method. The functional unit is the production of 1 m<sup>2</sup> of a lath (building material) made of an olive pomace-based biocomposite. Two scenarios with different thermoplastic matrices (PE, PP) were assessed. In both cases, the twin-screw compounding process contributed the major burden in most of the midpoint impact categories. Compounding is mainly affected by the production of the respective polymers. When comparing the OSF/PE and OSF/PP materials, the impacts are relatively similar. Therefore, a further study at the end of life of the material should be carried out to conclude which of the proposed biocomposites is the less polluting one.

The results obtained showed that human health is the most affected area of protection; it represented 89% for both scenarios, i.e., OSF/PP and OSF/PE. The main contributors to this damage category are energy, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, used and produced in the manufacturing process. Ecosystems and resources availability represented a lower contribution to the total impact. Scenarios presented values of 6% and 4.5% for ecosystems and resources availability, respectively.

The comparison of the olive pomace-based-composite with the business-as-usual scenario shows that the biocomposite released half of the pollution produced by the PVC decking, when considering the same FU. Besides, given the long lifespan of the biocomposites, the CO2 stored on it can mitigate climate change because of the delay in the carbon emissions into the technosphere.

This case study evaluates a new path for olive pomace-based composites as an alternative eco-material for the building sector, based on environmental criteria. Future works can include the use of biosourced polymer matrices, which could reduce the impact of the production of olive pomace-based composites.

**Author Contributions:** Methodology, G.E.-A.; investigation, G.E.-A., P.G.-A. and P.E.; writing— original draft, G.E.-A. and P.G.-A.; writing—review and editing, C.V., J.-P.B., P.E. and C.S.; validation, C.V., J.-P.B., P.E. and C.S.; supervision, C.V., J.-P.B. and C.S.; visualization, G.E.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The work was carried out as part of the doctoral thesis of G. Espadas-Aldana, her work being financed by the Mexican National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT Mexico) under the scholarship No. 471707.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data is contained within the article.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
