IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jcltec/v5y2023i3p45-920d1193545.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Different Portland Cement Types in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Oluwafemi E. Ige

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Durban University of Technology, Durban 4001, South Africa)

  • Oludolapo A. Olanrewaju

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Durban University of Technology, Durban 4001, South Africa)

Abstract

Cement has long been recognized as an energy- and emission-intensive construction material. Cement production has recently experienced significant growth despite its high energy consumption, resource usage, and carbon emissions. This study aims to assess and compare the life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional Portland cement (CEM I) to those of three blended cement types (CEM II/B-L, CEM II/B-V, and CEM III/A), which assume mature technologies for reducing carbon emissions in South Africa, using LCA in compliance with ISO/TS 14071 and 14072. As its scope, the study employs the “cradle to gate” method, which considers the raw materials, fuel usage, electricity, transportation, and clinkering stages, using 1 kg of cement as the functional unit. The LCA analyses were performed using SimaPro 9.1.1.1 software developed by PRé Consultants, Amersfoort, Netherlands and impact assessments were conducted using the ReCiPe 2016 v1.04 midpoint method in order to compare all 18 impact categories of 1 kg of cement for each cement type. The assessment results show reductions in all impact categories, ranging from 7% in ozone depletion and ionizing radiation (CEM II/B-L) to a 41% reduction in mineral resource scarcity (CEM III/A). The impacts of global warming were reduced by 14% in the case of CEM II/B-L, 29% in the case of CEM II/B-V and 35% in the case of CEM III/A. The clinkering process was identified as the primary cause of atmospheric impacts, while resource depletion impacts were attributed to raw materials, fuels, and electricity processes, and toxicity impacts were primarily caused by raw materials. Alternative materials, like fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), can significantly help to reduce environmental impacts and resource consumption in the cement industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Oluwafemi E. Ige & Oludolapo A. Olanrewaju, 2023. "Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Different Portland Cement Types in South Africa," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-20, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:5:y:2023:i:3:p:45-920:d:1193545
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/5/3/45/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/5/3/45/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huang, T.Y. & Chiueh, P.T. & Lo, S.L., 2017. "Life-cycle environmental and cost impacts of reusing fly ash," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 255-260.
    2. Akhil Kunche & Bożena Mielczarek, 2021. "Application of System Dynamic Modelling for Evaluation of Carbon Mitigation Strategies in Cement Industries: A Comparative Overview of the Current State of the Art," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Oluwafemi E. Ige & Oludolapo A. Olanrewaju & Kevin J. Duffy & Obiora C. Collins, 2022. "Environmental Impact Analysis of Portland Cement (CEM1) Using the Midpoint Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Lee, Kun-Mo & Park, Pil-Ju, 2005. "Estimation of the environmental credit for the recycling of granulated blast furnace slag based on LCA," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 139-151.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Busola Dorcas Akintayo & Oludolapo Akanni Olanrewaju & Oludolapo Ibrahim Olanrewaju, 2024. "Life Cycle Assessment of Ordinary Portland Cement Production in South Africa: Mid-Point and End-Point Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-26, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saade, Marcella Ruschi Mendes & Silva, Maristela Gomes da & Gomes, Vanessa, 2015. "Appropriateness of environmental impact distribution methods to model blast furnace slag recycling in cement making," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 40-47.
    2. Moraes, Carlos Alberto Mendes & Kieling, Amanda Gonçalves & Caetano, Marcelo Oliveira & Gomes, Luciana Paulo, 2010. "Life cycle analysis (LCA) for the incorporation of rice husk ash in mortar coating," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1170-1176.
    3. Akhil Kunche & Bożena Mielczarek, 2021. "Application of System Dynamic Modelling for Evaluation of CO 2 Emissions and Expenditure for Captive Power Generation Scenarios in the Cement Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-22, May.
    4. Chen, C. & Habert, G. & Bouzidi, Y. & Jullien, A. & Ventura, A., 2010. "LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: An application to mineral additions in concrete," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1231-1240.
    5. Sanaz Soltaninejad & Seyed Morteza Marandi & Naveen BP, 2023. "Performance Evaluation of Clay Plastic Concrete of Cement and Epoxy Resin Composite as a Sustainable Construction Material in the Durability Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-32, June.
    6. Sayagh, Shahinaz & Ventura, Anne & Hoang, Tung & François, Denis & Jullien, Agnès, 2010. "Sensitivity of the LCA allocation procedure for BFS recycled into pavement structures," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 348-358.
    7. Ning Yuan & Hao Xu & Yanjun Liu & Kaiqi Tan & Yixiang Bao, 2023. "Synthesis and Environmental Applications of Nanoporous Materials Derived from Coal Fly Ash," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-29, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:5:y:2023:i:3:p:45-920:d:1193545. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.