Copper has 100% recyclability property. The property is one of the reasons as to why it has the highest rating of sustainability as it can be put to use in the creation of a sustainable world. Brass, on the other hand, is durable as well but cannot be in comparison to coppers (Hammersley, 2012, 44). Brass has a much lesser sustainability rate as compared to copper as it is recycled from scrap which is much economical in comparison to being manufactured from copper and zinc. Lastly, tropical wood has the lowest sustainability rating making it less sustainable when compared to copper and zinc.
Copper is the most environmentally friendly material. One of the reasons is due to less Co2 emission to the environment when compared to brass and tropical wood. Another reason is due to the high green tag rating when compared to the other two materials (Freese, 2007, 169). That implies that copper can be easily recycled over and over again and does not become weak in the process when compared to brass and wood. Brass is the second ecological friendly material. Such is because has the second highest green star rating and green tag rating. Equally the amount of Co2 emitted is less as compares to that of Tropical hardwood and higher that of Copper. Such is relevant as brass manufactures from scrap reduces the process by 40% making it more useful than when produced from copper (Freese, 2007, 172). The least ecological friendly material in the category is Tropical Hardwood. The reason is because its level of Co2 emission is high than the other three elements making it less environmentally friendly. Equally, the article has the least green start and tag rating from the table.
- Excellent quality
- 100% Turnitin-safe
- Affordable prices
- Freese, J, 2012, Replication Standards for Copper and Brass Sustainability Rating, Journal of Analytical Methods & Research, Vol. 36, No. 2, Pp. 153-172.
- Hammersley, M, 2014, Assessing Validity in Tropical Wood Green Leaf Rating, The SAGE Handbook of Environmental Research Methods, SAGE Publication Ltd, London, Pp. 42- 53, Print.