This article analyzes in detail the impact of wooden houses on the environment using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology and at the same time evaluates the indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in these houses. The investigated detached family houses had a wooden structure. The first one had a bearing system made of a wooden frame; other materials were conventional. The second house was built entirely of log wood. Given the high risk of greenhouse gas emissions, the concentration of which in the atmosphere is causing global climate change, the global warming potential (GWP) indicator is crucial. According to results, the family house built entirely of wood and with a biomass boiler significantly reduces CO₂ emissions and is therefore considered from the LCA point of view as a more suitable alternative compared to a house with a wooden frame structure. The building materials with the highest share involved in the creation of GWP include concrete structures (38–48%), ceramic roof tiles (33%) and plasterboard (15%). Plasterboard cladding (55%), concrete structures (17–19%), oriented strand board OSB (9–22%), impregnated wooden structures (31–52%) and plastic windows (9%) are the most involved in acidification potential (AP) and eutrophication potential (EP). Plasterboard structures (21%), impregnated wood materials (47.4%), reinforced concrete structures (12%) and mineral wool and roof tiles significantly contribute to the creation of photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) and ozone depletion potential (ODP). The indoor environmental quality was evaluated through short-term measurements of basic physico-chemical parameters. Since both houses have different characteristics, the aim of this monitoring was to evaluate the actual state of IEQ in selected wooden houses under real conditions. Based on the recorded results, it can be stated that neither presented wooden house, in terms of thermal-humidity microclimate, concentration of CO₂ and particulate matter, represents an environment with a negative impact on their occupants. With regards to volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the increased concentrations of xylenes and tetrachlorethylene in the log house were probably caused by the application of impregnation and protective coatings six months before monitoring. In this case, the concentration of tetrachloroethene, which is considered a potential carcinogen, was six times higher than the legislative limit. For VOCs, such as limonene, isobutylene and n-butylacetate, which were found in the wooden frame house, no limits are set. The legislative limits for xylenes and tetrachlorethylene in this house have not been exceeded, and therefore the IEQ cannot yet be considered harmful for health. The presence of all the mentioned VOCs in the interior air of the wooden frame house is more related to the activities of occupants, as this house has been inhabited for several years.

This study performs a life cycle assessment (LCA) of five new family houses in Eastern Slovakia to compare them in terms of the materials and technologies used. The main goal of the analysis is to investigate and highlight the expectable reduction rate of environmental impact resulting from using green materials and technologies. Their environmental impact is determined by using eToolLCD software. The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) categories of global warming, ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication and photochemical ozone creation potential are determined within the cradle-to-grave boundary. The examined family houses are built of conventional materials such as aerated concrete blocks, expanded polystyrene (EPS) for thermal insulation and roofing mineral wool, as well as natural materials such as clay, straw, wood, cellulose and vegetation for the roofs. Family houses built of natural materials are characterized by negative emissions of CO _2eq in the product phase. Results show that especially the product phase contributes greatly to all environmental impact categories for houses built of conventional materials, such as aerated concrete blocks, mineral wool for thermal insulation, reinforcement concrete and ceramic or concrete tiles.

Construction and using of buildings for many years produce long-lasting impacts on human health and the environment. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the rapidly evolving science of clarifying these impacts in terms of their quality, severity, and duration. LCA of three selected new family houses located in Eastern Slovakia is performed with the aim to compare them in terms of built-in materials as well as used technologies. The main goal of the analysis is to investigate and underline the foreseeable reduction rate of environmental impacts resulting from applied green materials and green technologies. LCA impact categories of global warming potential (GWP), ozone depletion potential (ODP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), and photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) are selected for this analysis. Investigated family houses are built from conventional materials, such as aerated concrete blocks, reinforced concrete, thermal insulation of silicate mineral slabs, and roofing mineral wool, as well as natural materials, such as clay, straw, wood, cellulose, and vegetation roofs. Product phase contributes greatly to the GWP for houses built of conventional materials. AP, EP, ODP, and POCP impact categories are considerable also in the product phase. Even an operational energy phase contributes a large share of the negative impact on the environment. Adoption of green design and technology in buildings, which can mitigate negative impacts on the environment, has been recognized as a key step towards global sustainable development. The main goal of this article is to make the case that green buildings are important for reducing negative effects on the environment and resources, while simultaneously enhancing positive effects throughout the building life cycle.

Paper is focused on the assessment of two alternatives of family house from environmental performance. Environmental impact categories such as Global warming potential (GWP), Acidification potential (AP) and Eutrophication potential (EP) expressed as CO_2eq, SO_2eq and PO₄³⁻_eq using the LCA assessment method are presented. Alternative solutions of building materials are also compared from phase shift of thermal oscillation. Results show that natural building materials are characterized by lower environmental impacts expressed as equivalent emissions of CO₂ (6%), SO₂ (24%) and PO₄³⁻ (44%). The wood fiber board can store nearly 24 times more heat than the mineral wool. The wood fiber boards have a phase shift of thermal oscillation of 7–13 h, while other insulation materials only about 3–4 h.

Transition to environmentally friendly technologies provides a comprehensive solution to problem of creating an economic value without destroying the nature. Buildings using green technologies lead to lower operating costs, healthier living and working environment and protect the environment more. The aim of this paper is to assess the environmental impact of two alternatives of family house designed as conventional building and building with green technologies. Evaluated family house are located in village Kokšov Bakša, which is situated 12 km south-east from city of Košice, a metropolis of eastern Slovakia. This analysis investigates the role of applied green technologies in single family houses for impact categories: global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP) and eutrophication potential (EP) expressed as CO_2eq, SO_2eq and PO₄ ^3- _eq within "Cradle to Grave" boundary by using the LCA assessment method. The main contribution of the study is a proof that green technologies have significant part in the reduction of environmental impacts. Results show that alternative of family house designed as green one contributes to CO_2eq, SO_2eq and PO₄ ^3- _eq emissions by 81%, 73% and 35% less than alternative of conventional family house, respectively.

This paper aims to assess the environmental impact of family houses designed as a building with green technologies and green materials. These family houses are located in villages of Velky Folkmar and Jedlinka, which are situated in eastern Slovakia. The analysis investigates the role of application of these technologies on impact categories such as: global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP), abiotic depletion potential fossil fuels (ADPF) expressed as CO_2eq, SO_2eq, PO₄³⁻_eq, kg ethylene and MJ, respectively within “Cradle to Grave” boundary by using the LCA assessment method. The main contribution of the study is to highlight the significance of green technologies in reduction of environmental impacts. The presented results show that house with built-in green materials and technologies causes significantly lower environmental impacts compared to house where both green technologies and conventional materials are built. The operation phase (B6) is characterized by greater environmental impacts compared to the product and construction phases, as well as deconstruction phase due to the use of green materials and technologies.