Abstract
India is the second-leading cement producer in the world after China. Cement causes huge carbon footprint during the production and transportation of materials. Various efforts are being made to reduce the environmental impacts. Among the notable developments are the use of by-product or secondary material to develop new binders such as geopolymer cement. This paper contains a cradle-to-gate life cycle impact assessment of two types of geopolymer cement produced from blending fly ash and slag, and blending fly ash and cement in an Indian scenario. As there is no standard data available for geopolymer cement production, the primary data used were collected by producing geopolymer cement at pilot scale (5 t/d). In an Indian context, the geopolymer cement significantly reduces the global warming potential (267 kg CO2-Equiv.), abiotic depletion potential fossil (3092 MJ), abiotic depletion potential element (1.18 e−3 kg Sb-Equiv.), human toxicity potential (249 kg DCB-Equiv.), and terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (0.438 kg DCB-Equiv.) with blending fly ash and slag. The geopolymer cement produced from fly ash and slag reduces the global warming potential by 70%, abiotic depletion potential fossil by 49%, abiotic depletion potential element by 34%, and terrestrial ecotoxicity potential by 77% when compared with ordinary Portland cement of the building and construction industries. In case of geopolymer cement, the maximum impact on the environment is due to the use of an alkali solution. Based on the analysis, geopolymer cement appears more sustainable than traditional cement and thus has good potential as an alternate binder.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- ADP:
-
Abiotic depletion potential
- AP:
-
Acidification potential
- Al:
-
Aluminum
- BF:
-
Blast furnace
- CFC:
-
Chloro-fluoro-carbons
- CPCB:
-
Central Pollution Control Board
- DCB:
-
Di-Chloro Benzene
- EP:
-
Ecotoxicity potential
- GGBFS:
-
Ground granulated blast-furnace slag
- GHG:
-
Greenhouse gas
- GWP:
-
Global warming potential
- HFC:
-
Hydro-chloro-fluoro-carbon
- h:
-
Hours
- HTP:
-
Human toxicity potential
- IARC:
-
International Agency for Research on Cancer
- IS:
-
Bureau of Indian Standard
- ISO:
-
International Organization for Standardization
- LCA:
-
Life cycle assessment
- Mt:
-
Million tons
- NTP:
-
National Toxicology Program
- OSHA:
-
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- OPC:
-
Ordinary Portland cement
- ODP:
-
Ozone depletion potential
- PPC:
-
Portland Pozzolana cement
- PSC:
-
Portland slag cement
- Si:
-
Silicon
- Sb:
-
Antimony
- t/d:
-
Tons per day
- y:
-
Year
References
Abbas R, Khereby MA, Ghorab HY (2020) Preparation of geopolymer concrete using Egyptian kaolin clay and the study of its environmental effects and economic cost. Clean Techn Environ Policy 22:669–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01811-4
Akadiri PO, Chinyio EA, Olomolaiye PO (2012) Design of a sustainable building: a conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. Build 2(2):126–152. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2020126
Andrew RM (2018) Global CO2 emissions from cement production. Earth Syst Sci Data 10:195–217. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2213-2018
Bajpai R, Choudhary K, Srivastava A, Sangwan K, Singh M (2020) Environmental impact assessment of fly ash and silica fume based geopolymer concrete. J Clean Prod 254:120147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120147
Boesch ME, Hellweg S (2010) Identifying improvement potentials in cement production with life cycle assessment. ES&T 44(23):9143–9149. https://doi.org/10.1021/es100771k
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) (2008) Minimising release and environmental implications of chlorine and its compounds. MOEF, Govt. of India, Delhi, India. Page-5. http://164.100.107.13/upload/NewItems/NewItem_137_chlorine_package.pdf.
Chandrasekhar S (1996) Influence of metakaolinization temperature on the formation of zeolite 4A from kaolin. Clay Miner 31(2):253–261. https://doi.org/10.1180/claymin.1996.031.2.11
Damani A and Jaiswal P (2017) Understanding how the Indian cement industry works. Cement, Stock Talk, India. https://www.alphainvesco.com/blog/.
Davidovits J (2013) Geopolymer cement a review. Geopolymer Sci and Technics Technical Paper #21 Geopolymer Institute Library.
Davidovits J (2015) False values on CO2 emission for geopolymer cement/concrete published in scientific papers. Technical Paper #24 Geopolymer Institute Library.
Douglas E, Bilodeau A, Malhotra VM (1992) Properties and durability of alkali-activated slag concrete. ACI Mater J 89(5):509–516
Fawer M, Concannon M, Rieber W (1999) Life cycle inventories for the production of sodium silicates. Int J Life Cycle Ass 4(4):207–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979498
Flower DJM, Sanjayan JG (2007) Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture. Int J Life Cycle Ass 12(5):282–288. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.05.327
Garcıa-Gusano D, Herrera I, Garraın D, Lechon Y, Cabal H (2015) Life cycle assessment of the Spanish cement industry: implementation of environmental-friendly solutions. Clean Technol Envir 17:59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0757-0
Habert G, D’Espinose de Lacaillerie JB, Lanta E, Roussel N (2010) Environmental evaluation for cement substitution with geopolymers. 2nd International Conference on SCMT, Ancona, Italy. 1607–1615
Habert G, D’Espinose de Lacaillerie JB, Roussel N (2011) An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends. J Clean Prod 19(11):1229–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.012
Heath A, Paine K, McManus M (2014) Minimising the global warming potential of clay based geopolymers. J Clean Prod 78:75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.046
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 (2006) Environmental management - LCA- principles and framework. Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14040:ed-2:v1:en.
Jiang M, Chen X, Rajabipour F, Hendrickson CT (2014) Comparative life cycle assessment of conventional, glass powder, and alkali-activated slag concrete and mortar. J Infrastruct Syst 20(4):04014020. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000211
Josa A, Aguado A, Cardim A, Byars E (2007) Comparative analysis of the life cycle impact assessment of available cement inventories in the EU. Cem Concr Res 37(5):781–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.02.004
Kim TH, Chae CU (2016) Environmental impact analysis of acidification and eutrophication due to emissions from the production of concrete. Sustain 8(6):578. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060578
Kim TH, Tae SH (2016) Proposal of environmental impact assessment method for concrete in South Korea: an application in LCA (Life Cycle Assessment). Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(11):1074. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13111074
Kumar S, Kumar R, Bandopadhyay A, Alex TC, Kumar BR, Das SK, Mehrotra SP (2008) Mechanical activation of granulated blast furnace slag and its effect on the properties and structure of portland slag cement. Cem Concr Compos 30(8):679–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.05.005
Kumar S, Kumar R, Mehrotra SP (2010) Influence of granulated blast furnace slag on the reaction, structure and properties of fly ash based geopolymer. J Mater Sci 45:607–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-009-3934-5
Kumar S, Mucsi G, Kristály F, Pekker P (2017) Mechanical activation of fly ash and its influence on micro and nano-structural behaviour of resulting geopolymers. Adv Powder Technol 28(3):805–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2016.11.027
LCA White Paper by Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) (2009) Comparative life-cycle assessment of precast concrete commercial buildings overview/executive summary. Chicago. www.pci.org/hpprecast.
Li C, Nie Z, Cui S, Gong X, Wang Z, Meng X (2014) The life cycle inventory study of cement manufacture in China. J Clean Prod 72(1):204–211
Li C, Cui S, Nie Z, Gong X, Wang Z, Itsubo N (2015) The LCA of portland cement production in China. Int J Life Cycle Ass 20(1):117–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0804-4
Li Y, Liu Y, Gong X, Nie Z, Cui S, Wang Z, Chen W (2016) Environmental impact analysis of blast furnace slag applied to ordinary Portland cement production. J Clean Prod 120:221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.071
Luukkonen T, Abdollahnejad Z, Yliniemi J, Kinnunen P, Illikainen M (2018) One-part alkali-activated materials: a review. Cem Concr Res 103:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.10.001
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)- Steel Furnace Slag, United States Steel Corporation, (2010) https://www.ussteel.com/sites/default/files/Steel%20Furnace%20Slag%20SDS.pdf
McLellan BC, Williams RP, Lay J, Riessen A, Corder GD (2011) Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement. J Clean Prod 19(9–10):1080–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.02.010
McGrath TE, Cox S, Soutsos M, Kong D, Mee LP, Alengaram JUJ (2018) Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete: a Malaysian context. IOP Conf Series: Mater Sci 431:092001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/431/9/092001
Mikulčić H, Cabezas H, Vujanović M, Duić N (2016) Environmental assessment of different cement manufacturing processes based on Emergy and Ecological Footprint analysis. J Clean Prod 130:213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.087
Moya JA, Pardo N, Mercier A (2011) The potential for improvements in energy efficiency and CO2 emissions in the EU27 cement industry and the relationship with the capital budgeting decision criteria. J Clean Prod 19(11):1207–1215
NLK Project EA2860 (2002) Ecosmart concrete project: Metakaolin pre-feasibility study. NLK Consultants Inc., Vancouver, Canada. http://ecosmartconcrete.com/docs/trnlkmk02.pdf
Penadés-Plà V, Martí JV, García-Segura T, Yepes V (2017) Life-cycle assessment: a comparison between two optimal post-tensioned concrete box-girder road bridges. Sustain 9(10):1864. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101864
Robayo-Salazar R, Mejía-Arcila J, Mejía de Gutiérrez R, Martínez E (2018) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of an alkali-activated binary concrete based on natural volcanic pozzolan: a comparative analysis to OPC concrete. Constr Build Mater 176:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.017
Stafford FN, Dias AC, Arroja L, Labrincha JA, Hotza D (2016a) Life cycle assessment of the production of Portland cement: a Southern Europe case study. J Clean Prod 126:159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.110
Stafford FN, Raupp-Pereira F, Labrincha JA, Hotza D (2016b) Life cycle assessment of the production of cement: a Brazilian case study. J Clean Prod 137:1293–1299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.050
Statista Market report (2021) Major countries in worldwide cement production 2010–2020 (in million metric tons).
Strazza C, Borghi AD, Gallo M, Borghi MD (2011) Resource productivity enhancement as means for promoting cleaner production: analysis of co-incineration in cement plants through a life cycle approach. J Clean Prod 19(14):1615–1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.014
Turner LK, Collins FG (2013) Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Constr Build Mater 43:125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Patent Search, Switzerland (2021). https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/result.jsf?_vid=P12-K2VDEA-22510/ (accessed 3 March 2021).
Zhao M, Gong X, Shi F, Fang M (2013) Life cycle assessment of ready-mixed concrete. Mater Sci Forum (Ener and Envi Mater). https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.743-744.234
Živica V, Palou MT, Križma M (2014) Geopolymer cements and their properties: a review. Build Res J 61(2):85–100. https://doi.org/10.2478/brj-2014-0007
Acknowledgement
The authors thank the Director, CSIR-National Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur, for encouragement, guidance, and support. Authors would also like to extend sincere appreciation to Tata Power Co. Ltd. for providing fly ash and Tata Steel Co. Ltd. for supplying BF slag.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Editorial responsibility: Parveen Fatemeh Rupani.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meshram, R.B., Kumar, S. Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of geopolymer cement manufacturing with Portland cement in Indian context. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 19, 4791–4802 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03336-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03336-9