Construction and Building Materials 240 (2020) 117931

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Effect of zeolite and pumice powders on the environmental and physical

characteristics of green concrete filters
Armin Azad a, Amir Saeedian a, Sayed-Farhad Mousavi a, Hojat Karami a,⇑, Saeed Farzin a, Vijay P. Singh b
a
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
b
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering & Zachry Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

Using zeolite enhances the filter ability in reducing pollution parameters of wastewater types.

Using pumice enhances the filter ability in reducing pollution parameters of wastewater types.

Using zeolite and pumice materials do not deteriorate the physical properties of porous concrete.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Green porous concrete (GPC) is a porous concrete (PC) with minimum amount of cement. This study
Received 23 December 2018 investigated the effects of zeolite and pumice, as cementitious materials, on the physical properties of
Received in revised form 29 August 2019 PC and the enhancement of its ability to reduce urban and industrial runoff pollution. GPC specimens
Accepted 20 December 2019
were prepared by replacing cement with zeolite and pumice in different portions (10–40%). Results indi-
cated that pumice had a better physical performance but zeolite had a greater ability to enhance GPC per-
formance in improving wastewater quality. Furthermore, zeolite and pumice reduced the apparent
Keywords:
density of concrete up to 181 and 92 kg/m3, respectively. Also, GPC performed well in eliminating TSS
Water pollution
Urban and industrial runoff
and turbidity. The use of 40% zeolite improved the ability of PC to reduce chemical oxygen demand
Adsorbent (COD), Zinc (Zn), Copper (Cu), Cadmium (Cd) and Lead (Pb) by 38.6, 99, 99, 99 and 99%, respectively.
Cementitious materials The reductions in these water quality parameters due to the addition of 40% pumice were 25.4, 98, 96,
99 and 99%, respectively.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Increasing temperature, decreasing precipitation, rising popula-
tion, and growing demand for water are some of the reasons for
over-exploitation of groundwater resources. Artificial recharge is
a well-known method for recharge and retrieval of groundwater
resources [1,2]. In this system, storm runoff, drainage water from
agricultural fields, and urban and industrial runoffs are collected
into stilling basins and returned to groundwater resources [3].
Meanwhile, urban storm-runoff has significant amounts of con-
taminants, such as microorganisms, total dissolved solids (TDS),
total suspended solids (TSS), turbidity, COD, and salinity, due to
the existence of organic and inorganic substances on the streets.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Armin.azad1@yahoo.com (A. Azad), Saeedian_amir@yahoo.
com (A. Saeedian), fmousavi@semnan.ac.ir (S.-F. Mousavi), hkarami@semnan.ac.ir
(H. Karami), Saeed.Farzin@semnan.ac.ir (S. Farzin), vsingh@tamu.edu (V.P. Singh).
Runoff may also contain heavy metals, such as Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn
[4].
Porous concrete (PC) is an eco-friendly and cost-effective mate-
rial for improving water and wastewater quality, which is applica-
ble almost everywhere. This type of concrete has many
applications, such as in the pavements of streets and sidewalks,
as a substrate for patios and greenhouses, and for reducing flow
during floods and improving road drainage. Furthermore, PC con-
tributes to the recharge of groundwater resources [5]. This kind
of concrete can be used for drainage of agricultural and industrial
runoff, or as a filter in the recharge basins. In all of these cases,
PC slightly improves the quality of drained runoff (qualitative
behavior), in addition to rapid disposal of runoff and controlling
floods. Some of the water quality parameters are trapped during
the drainage of wastewater, thus, the quality of wastewater will
be improved [6].
Despite the ability of PC to improve wastewater quality, in
many cases, the level of water contamination is far from the stan-
dard level for disposal to groundwater resources [7]. Therefore,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117931
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 A. Azad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 240 (2020) 117931

some new methods should be developed to enhance the ability of focusing on physical properties and reducing the harmful environ-
the PC system in reducing water pollution. Mineral adsorbents mental impacts of cement. However, the impact of these cementi-
(additives) are inexpensive and easily available materials for this tious materials on the physical and qualitative behavior of PC has
purpose. Many studies have been conducted to investigate the not been investigated before.
effectiveness of some minerals, such as zeolite, pumice, vermi- Based on the authors’ knowledge, less attention has been paid
culite, kaolin and dolomite in removing various harmful sub- on the physical and environmental advantages of the two men-
stances from wastewater [8–13]. tioned minerals if they are properly used. In this research, using
In this respect, studies have also been conducted using mineral the two cementitious materials (zeolite and pumice) in GPC was
adsorbents as aggregates in PC. Abedi Koupai et al. (2016) added examined from three aspects: i) effect of using these materials as
iron slag aggregate to PC, which increased its ability to improve a substitute for cement in the concrete filter in order to improve
the quality of urban storm-water runoff. In order to improve the runoff quality by reducing some parameters, such as COD, TSS,
ability to reduce total suspended solids (TSS) in water, a filter (sand TDS, and turbidity; ii) potential of the mentioned materials in con-
column), 200 mm high, was used under concrete samples [6]. crete to remove such heavy metals as Zn, Cu, Cd and Pb, from
Saghaian Nejad et al. (2017) reported that addition of zeolite, as industrial runoff; and (iii) to study the effect of zeolite and pumice
fine aggregate, improved the performance of PC in the pollution on physical properties of GPC.
reduction of urban storm-water runoff [7]. Kim et al. (2017) indi-
cated that the use of ash aggregates increased the ability of PC to 2. Materials and methods
reduce water pollution [14]. In this respect, Azad et al. (2018)
examined the application of vermiculite and quartz as aggregate In the present study, zeolite and pumice were used in the PC
substitute in porous concrete. Their results showed that these mixtures. Both zeolite and pumice were Iranian types, which were
adsorbents had a good effect on the performance of concrete to obtained from some mines in Semnan and East-Azerbaijan pro-
remove COD, TSS, and turbidity [15]. vinces, Iran, respectively. Tables 1 and 2 show the XRF and mineral
However, using PC and improving its ability to reduce water components analysis, as well as their physical properties, respec-
pollution with the abovementioned methods has several disadvan- tively. Crushed gravel and Portland cement type 5 were used to
tages, which should be considered in the future studies. Cement is prepare the PC. Selection of this type of cement is due to the pos-
known as a non-eco-friendly material due to the emission of CO2 sible use of GPC where there may be the danger of sulfate attacks.
(as one of the greenhouse gases) in its production process, which
is harmful to the environment [16]. Furthermore, the cement
2.1. Mixing proportions of PC
slurry covers the surface of additives (such as zeolite, pumice, per-
lite, iron slag, etc.) during the mixing process of PC and eliminates a
Characteristics of PC mixtures are listed in Table 3. Initially,
significant portion of its ability to improve water quality. On the
control specimens (without zeolite and pumice) were mixed on
other hand, using mineral additives as fine grains reduces the per-
the basis of ACI 211 3R standards and previous studies
meability and draining ability of PC [2]. Green porous concrete
[17,29,30]. The water-to-cement ratio (W/C) of these samples
(GPC) refers to a type of porous concrete in which the portion of
cement usage has been minimized. In this type of concrete, an
attempt is made to minimize the dependence of concrete on Table 1
cement, considering the physical properties of PC and using non- XRF analysis and some physical properties of cement, zeolite and pumice.
harmful and suitable cementitious materials. The GPC is thus an Chemical parameter Cement Zeolite powder Pumice
attempt to improve the environmental characteristics of PC. powder
In recent years, some studies have been conducted on the use of SiO2 22.6 0.69 63.45
some cementitious materials, as a substitute for cement, which Al2O3 4.4 0.10 17.24
have the ability to improve water quality. These studies aimed to Fe2O3 4.4 0.049 2.86
select materials which increase the ability of PC to improve water CaO 63.1 0.035 3.22
MgO 1.70 0.005 1.73
quality, and simultaneously make minimal change in the physical
SO3 1.50 0.005 0.16
properties of PC. Ong et al. (2016) improved the ability of PC to Na2O 0.2 0.0073 2.01
reduce urban storm-water runoff pollution by replacing limestone K2O 0.5 0.01 2.16
powder and fly ash for part of the cement [17]. López-Carrasquillo Apparent density (kg/m3) 3300 2215 2380
Color Gray Light-green-green-yellow White
and Hwang (2017), Homles et al. (2017), and Shabalala et al. (2017)
used fly ash and obtained positive effects on the ability of PC to
remove heavy metals from water [18–20]. In recent years, numer-
ous studies have been performed on the application of these min- Table 2
erals as cementitious materials for physical properties of various Mineral components of zeolite and pumice [[49], with permission].
types of concrete [21,22].
Zeolite % Pumice %
Zeolite and pumice are eco-friendly and well-known substances
in water purification [23,24]. Zeolite, which is primarily an alumi- Clinoptilolite 66 Albite 25
KNa2Ca2(Si29Al7)O7224H2O (Na,Ca)(Si,Al)4O8
nosilicate mineral, has an ability to improve the quality of water, Cristobalite 14 Amorphouse 55
especially to remove heavy metals, due to its high surface area, (Ca,Na)(Si,Al)4O8
high superficial pores, and ion exchange capacity [25]. The proper- Anorthite 7 Quartz 6
ties of this material have led to the use of zeolite as a cement sub- (Ca,Na2,K2)Al2Si10O24,7H2O SiO2
Orthoclase 5 Hornblende 8
stitute in various types of concrete [26]. On the other hand, pumice
KAlSi3O8 Ca2(Fe.Mg)4Al(Si7Al)
has been used in many studies to improve water quality due to its O22,(OH)2
porous structure [27]. It has also been used as a cementitious Mordenite 4 Calcite 4
material in all kinds of concrete (except PC), because of its high (Ca,Na2,K2)Al2Si10O24,7H2O CaCO3
surface area, low specific weight, and a substitute for cement in Dolomite 2 Dolomite 1
CaMg(CO3)2 CaMg(CO3)2
the concrete [28]. The main reason for using these minerals was Other minerals 1 Other minerals 2
to find a suitable cementitious material as a substitute for cement,
 A. Azad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 240 (2020) 117931 3

was 0.35, and the amounts of cement and aggregates were 330 and

void (%)
1400 kg=m3 , respectively. Subsequently, based on the volume of

Total
cement, samples were mixed by replacing zeolite and pumice in

32
31
32
32
32
32
31
32
31
different portions (10, 20, 30 and 40%). Each mixture had 3
replications. The cubic PC specimens had dimensions of
Permeability 150  150  150 mm in order to conduct compressive strength
(cm/min)
tests and dimensions of 100  100  100 mm in order to perform
permeability, air voids (porosity), and water quality tests. All spec-
36.1
34.6
35.2
34.7
35.6
35.4
35.9
34.7
36.2
imens were cured in a water pond (surface of the samples was kept
moist by a 5-cm layer of water) for 42 days due to the use of type 5
cement. The relative humidity and average air temperature were
strength (MPa)

about 40% and 22 °C, respectively, during the curing period. Finally,
Compressive

physical and water quality characteristics of all mixtures were

10.47

12.03
10.05

10.20
tested after the curing period. Properties of the used aggregates
9.88
7.28
7.49

9.48
9.82 are presented in Table 4.
Aggregate

2.2. Physical characteristics

(kg/m3)

1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400

2.2.1. Compressive strength

The test was conducted according to BS 1881 standard. Each
mixture consisted of 3 replications and the compressive strength
(kg/m3)
Pumice

23.80
47.60
71.40
95.20

value reported for each treatment was the mean strength of the
3 specimens [31].
0
0
0
0
0
(kg/m3)

2.2.2. Permeability
Zeolite

22.15

66.45
44.30

88.60

This experiment was performed on 100  100  100 mm spec-

0

0
0
0
0

imens, using an apparatus made according to the ACI 522R stan-

dard (Fig. 1) [32]. The permeability of each specimen was tested
Cement
(kg/m3)

using two filters (sand and gravel) at the bottom of the PC samples,
297
264
231
198
297
264
231
198
330

in order to bring the test conditions closer to the actual conditions.

The gravel used in the gravel filter had the same diameter range as
cement (w/c)

the aggregates (4.75 to 9.6 mm) utilized in PC mixtures; so, it did

not have a significant effect on the permeability of specimens;
Water/

while the sand filter (grain size range of 0.4 to 1 mm) had some
0.36
0.36
0.37
0.38
0.39
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36

effect. Therefore, for each specimen, there were two permeability

results (with and without sand filter).
Replacement

2.2.3. Air voids

level (%)

The total air voids (porosity) of the PC samples was measured

10
20
30
40
10
20
30
40

by using an Archimedes balance according to ASTM C1754 stan-

0

dard. Three samples for each PC type were tested to calculate the
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Dimensions

mean value. According to Eq. (1), the air voids value was obtained










by dividing the difference between the initial mass of the specimen

15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15










in water (W2) and the ultimate mass measured following air drying
(cm)

15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15

for 24 h (W1), divided by the sample volume (V) and the density of
water (qw Þ [33,34]:
Geometry

  
W2  W1
Cube
Cube
Cube
Cube
Cube
Cube
Cube
Cube
Cube

At ¼ 1   100 ð1Þ
qw  V
Number of
specimens

2.2.4. Unit weight

Porous concrete mixing proportions and results.

The unit weight describes the density of fresh porous concrete.

It is an indicator offered to test the quality of porous concrete [17].
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

The unit weight of concrete can be determined according to ASTM

C1688 [35]. It is noted that unit weight is used to estimate the
compressive strength of porous concrete because there is a rela-
CPC* = Control porous concrete.
cementitious

tionship between void ratio and compressive strength [36].

Replaced

material

Pumice
Pumice
Pumice
Pumice
Zeolite
Zeolite
Zeolite
Zeolite

2.3. Water quality tests

––

The performance of different treatments (GPC mixtures) was

Specimens’

evaluated for improving the urban and industrial runoff quality.

The runoff used in this study had some of the most important pol-
name

CPC*
Table 3

Z10
Z20
Z30
Z40
P10
P20
P30
P40

lutants of urban and industrial runoff, namely TSS, TDS, COD, tur-
bidity, Cd, Pb, Cu, and Zn. In order to perform qualitative tests, a
4 A. Azad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 240 (2020) 117931

Table 4
Physical properties of aggregates.
Characteristic
Gradation (mm)
Unit weight (kg/m3)
Apparent density (kg/m3)
Water adsorption (%)
GPC specimen was first inserted in the apparatus shown in Fig. 1.
Then, the contaminated runoff was drained from the specimen.
Value Finally, some of the drained runoff was collected to perform the
9.5–4.75 qualitative tests. The synthetic runoff was prepared by mixing
1550 water with clay, NaCl salt, and potassium hydrogen phthalate pow-
2480 der (KHP) for TSS, TDS, and COD tests, respectively. For heavy met-
1.2 als, specific salts for each parameter were used. Table 5 presents
runoff characteristics of the quality tests.

2.3.1. Measurement of urban runoff parameters

TSS, turbidity, COD, and TDS are present in various types of run-
off. However, due to the wide application of PC in the drainage of
urban storm-water runoff, these parameters are classified under
urban runoff. In order to measure COD by dichromate reflux
method, a COD reactor, and a spectrophotometer (DR-2010) were
used [37]. This instrument has the ability to measure concentra-
tions between 0 and 800 ml/L with an accuracy of ±2 nm [38].
For TDS, a HANNA HI-2040 apparatus was used, in which the elec-
trode was placed in the drained runoff of each treatment for 10 s
and readings were recorded. The device was able to measure the
concentration between 0 and 14.99 g/L with an accuracy of ±1%.
A HACH turbidimeter 2100 N was used for the estimation of tur-
bidity [39]. This apparatus was calibrated with 5 standard solu-
tions ranging from 0 to 400 NTU (nephelometric turbidity unit).
Finally, the paper filter method was used to determine the TSS con-
centration in the input and output runoff. The difference between
these two values was reported as the ability of each treatment to
reduce TSS.

2.3.2. Measurement of Cd, Pb, Zn, and Cu

Many industrial wastewaters and runoff contain Cd, Pb, Zn, and
Cu. In the present study, atomic absorption spectrometry
(Shimadzu–AA-6300) was used to measure the concentration of
these heavy metals in the input and output runoff. The apparatus
had the ability to measure wavelength within a range of 185–
900 nm, with a resolution of 0.2–2 nm.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Physical properties of GPC

3.1.1. Effect of pumice and zeolite on compressive strength

Several studies have been carried out to improve environmental
properties of concrete by replacing some cementitious materials
which have appropriate physical properties. The compressive
strength results of the mixtures containing pumice (GPC-P)
showed that overall the use of this mineral had no significant neg-
ative effect on the compressive strength of GPC. However, in the
mixture with 10% pumice (GPC-P10), the compressive strength
improved up to about 20% (Fig. 2). According to the authors’
Fig. 1. Permeability measurement and urban/industrial runoff draining apparatus. knowledge, the effect of pumice, as a cementitious material, on
porous concrete has not been examined before. Reports on other
types of concrete show that pumice appropriately performs on
Table 5
the various physical properties of the concrete. Demirel and
Concentration of runoff quality parameters.
Kelestemur (2010) reported that although the increase of pumice
Control porous concrete GPC-Za GPC-Pb usage, as a cement substitute, culminated in a bit compressive
COD (mg/l) 300 ± 65 300 ± 80 300 ± 97 strength reduction, the resistance to temperature was enhanced
TSS (mg/l) 750 + 280 750 + 260 750 + 260 [40]. In another study, pumice was suggested as an apt cement
EC (dS/m) 6.10 ± 0.25 6.10 ± 0.3 6.10 ± 0.35
alternative to make normal concrete somehow lightweight [41].
Turbidity (NTU) 250 ± 52 250 ± 48 250 ± 56
Cu (mg/l) 1.75 ± 0.2 175 ± 0.1 1.75 ± 0.25
Proper performance of pumice is due to its porous structure,
Pb (mg/l) 3.70 ± 0.3 3.70 ± 0.25 3.70 ± 0.15 high surface area, as well as appropriate pozzolanic activity of this
Zn (mg/l) 2.51 ± 0.2 2.51 ± 0.2 2.51 ± 0.10 material with cement paste [42]. The porous structure and surface
Cd (mg/l) 4.00 ± 0.10 4.00 ± 0.15 4.00 ± 0.20 cavities cause pumice to react better with cement particles and
a, b: GPC-Z and GPC-P = Green porous concrete containing zeolite or pumice, aggregate surfaces, resulting in good adhesion between concrete
respectively. elements. Fig. 3 shows the cavities of Iranian pumice. Also,
 A. Azad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 240 (2020) 117931
14
12
Compressive strength (MPa)
y = -0.831x + 11.497
10
0
0 10
Replacement level (%)
Fig. 2. Effect of using various replacement levels of zeolite and pumice on the compressive strength of GPC.
Fig. 3. SEM pictures of Iranian natural pumice [[44], with permission].
appropriate chemical reaction of pozzolanic material with cement
is another reason for acceptable results of GPC-P specimens [43].
Pozzolanic materials, such as pumice and zeolite, have silicon com-
pounds with amorphous structure, which have high reactivity with
alkaline substances, including lime released in the cement hydra-
tion reaction. This reaction leads to the production of calcium sili-
cate hydrate, which improves the physical and chemical resistance
5
Zeolite Pumice
Linear (Zeolite) Linear (Pumice)
y = -0.288x + 11.164
20 30 40
of concrete [44]. The pumice XRD analysis showed that most peaks
had low angles and suitable gradients which reflected the amor-
phous structure of the pumice mineral (Fig. 4). In XRD analysis,
low angles are a sign of amorphous structure.
Results showed that GPC containing zeolite also had an accept-
able performance in the physical properties (Fig. 2). The average
compressive strength of zeolite samples (GPC-Z) was about 12%
lower than that of control mixtures. However, this lower strength
was justifiable and negligible, due to the benefits of decreasing the
amount of cement as well as the higher ability of GPC-Z to improve
the quality of urban and industrial runoff [45]. Like pumice, the
proper function of zeolite is due to its high surface area, high
superficial pores, amorphous structure, and calcium silicate
hydrate production (Figs. 5 and 6). Results of the current study
are similar to those of previous published reports about using zeo-
lite as a cementitious material in different types of concrete. Ran-
jbar et al. (2013) proposed zeolite as an appropriate cement
alternative in self-compact concrete [46]. According to their
results, although the compressive strength of mixtures containing
zeolite was up to 15% less than of other samples, these specimens
had some compensating benefits [46]. Samimi et al. (2017)
reported that the compressive strengths of normal concrete con-
taining zeolite in all replacement levels were about 5–15% lower
than non-zeolite specimens [24]. Although the effects of zeolite
on some physical factors, like resistance to chloride penetration,
durability and sulfate resistance, were not examined in the present
study, other studies have shown that zeolite has a good effect on
various physical parameters of different types of concrete
[24,46,47]. Based on these studies, the use of natural pozzolans
not only reduces the harmful effects of cement, but also improves
the resistance of concrete to corrosive and sulfated agents [48].
This can be noticed in GPC, which is always exposed to corrosive
agents, bacteria, and sulfate conditions [49].
Table 6 shows analysis of variance for the compressive strength
of suggested materials which suggests that there is no significant
relationship between porous concrete containing zeolite and
pumice at various replacement levels. The XRD analysis of zeolite
and pumice showed that zeolite had a higher slope than pumice
at various angles (Figs. 4 and 5). Figs. 4 and 5 show that the ten-
dency of pumice material to have amorphous structure was more
than that of zeolite. This could be a reason for better performance
of pumice in the chemical reaction with cement, and as a result,
better physical properties. Another reason for lesser compressive
strength of zeolite mixtures is the higher ratio of water/cement
6 A. Azad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 240 (2020) 117931

Fig. 4. XRD analysis of Iranian natural pumice.

Fig. 5. XRD analysis of Iranian natural zeolite [[49], with permission].

Fig. 6. SEM pictures of Iranian natural zeolite [[50], with permission].

Table 6
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for physical properties of porous concrete.

Physical property Condition Total Mean Square* F P-value F critical

Compressive strength — 17.90 2.80 2.10 0.21 5.19
Air voids — 0.0004 0.00007 3.73 0.09 5.19
Permeability Without filter 3.54 0.70 4.69 0.06 5.19
With filter 0.15 0.01 0.92 0.51 5.19
Weight — 30,504 5462.1 3.86 0.08 5.19

* Mean square is reported for between groups. To calculate mean square of within groups, F should be multiplied by the presented mean square.

(W/C) used in zeolite specimens [24]. The amount of water needed the W/C ratio when using different pumice levels. However, the
to achieve proper workability of GPC-P mixtures was similar to amount of water needed for GPC-Z mixtures to achieve the desired
that of the control GPC. Therefore, it was not necessary to change workability was more than that of the control specimens [24].
 A. Azad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 240 (2020) 117931 7

38 6.5 Pumice Zeolite

Pumice Zeolite
36
6

Permeability (cm/min)

Permeability (cm/min)
34
5.5
32
30 5

28 4.5
26
4
24
3.5
22
20 3
Control 10 20 30 40 Control 10 20 30 40
PC PC Replacement level (%)
Replacement level (%)
(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Permeability of various PC samples: a) samples without filter, b) samples with filter.

0.35 Zeolite Pumice

0.3

0.25
Air void

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
Control 10 20 30 40
Replacement level (%)

Fig. 8. Air voids of various mixtures.

Thus, an increase in the zeolite content increased the W/C ratio to
allow the cement paste to reach an acceptable workability. This
can be considered as an advantage of pumice over zeolite.
Although this weakness of zeolite can be compensated for by using
superplasticizers, it was decided that superplasticizers should not
be used due to economic and environmental reasons, non-
conventional use of superplasticizers in GPC, and negative effects
on this type of concrete, such as a sharp decrease in permeability
and reduced ability of GPC in draining runoff water.
3.1.2. Effect of zeolite and pumice on permeability and air voids
Permeability (hydraulic conductivity) shows how fast the GPC
is able to drain runoff. Permeability in the GPC is directly related
to its air voids. Results of this study showed that the use of zeolite
and pumice at various replacement levels did not have any consid-
erable negative effect on the values of permeability and air voids
(Figs. 7 and 8). In fact, the cement was replaced by zeolite and
pumice powder, and the void ratio of GPC specimens was not chan-
ged, so the permeability of GPC was not decreased. Fig. 7 shows
that both systems with/without filter had an acceptable perfor-
mance for the drainage of runoff water. Table 6 shows statistical
analysis of air voids and permeability, with/without filter. It fur-
ther shows that permeability and air voids of no mixture were sta-
tistically significant. It is because when zeolite/pumice replaces
part of cement, approximately no change would occur in the vol-
ume of concrete. In this case, there would be very small changes
which are mostly based on laboratory errors; as a result, there is
no expectation to see a significant relationship between results.
3.1.3. Effect of zeolite and pumice on the weight of specimens
Results indicated that apparent density of GPC-P and GPC-Z
specimens was significantly less than that of typical PC. By replac-
ing 10, 20, 30 and 40% of the cement by the additives, the apparent
density of zeolite mixtures was reduced by 75, 82, 147, and 181 kg/
m3, respectively, and the pumice samples became lighter by 34, 45,
83, and 92 kg/m3, respectively. These results were due to the lower
apparent density of zeolite and pumice than that of cement.
Indeed, replacement of lightweight cementitious materials with
cement resulted in a reduction in the final apparent density of por-
ous concrete (Table 1). On the other hand, results showed that the
average apparent density of GPC-Z samples was less than that of
pumice, which was due to the lower apparent density of zeolite
powder than that of pumice (Fig. 9).
3.2. Effectiveness of GPC in water quality control
3.2.1. Improvement of urban runoff quality
Results showed that GPC was more suitable than conventional
PC to reduce COD from storm-water runoff. Also, an increase in
the replacement level of zeolite and pumice improved the ability
of GPC specimens to reduce COD. Using 10, 20, 30 and 40% zeolite
increased the ability of PC to reduce COD from 14% in the control
8 A. Azad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 240 (2020) 117931

1700
Control sample Pumice Zeolite
1650

1600
Weight (kg/m3) 1550

1500

1450

1400

1350

1300
Control PC 10 20 30 40
Replacement level (%)

Fig. 9. Effect of zeolite and pumice on the weight of porous concrete.

45
Pumice Zeolite
40

35
COD Remocal (%)

30

25

20

15

10

0
Control sample 10 20 30 40
Replacment level (%)
Fig. 10. Effect of various replacement levels of zeolite and pumice on the performance of GPC to reduce COD.

Fig. 11. SEM pictures of Iranian zeolite and pumice minerals: a) pumice and b) zeolite [[47] and [51], with permission].

sample to 15.3, 22, 29, and 38.6%, respectively (Fig. 10). The GPC
specimens containing pumice had similar results to the GPC-Z
specimens. At the replacement levels of 10, 20, 30, and 40%, the
ability of GPC-P in reducing COD increased from 14% in the control
sample to 14.5, 16.9, 21.7 and 25.4%, respectively. Table 6 indicates
that these results are statistically significant. The reason for better
performance of GPC samples is their porous structure, higher
specific surface, and more superficial pores of zeolite and pumice
as compared to cement [25]. During the drainage of runoff water,
pollutants are trapped inside the cavities and pores of the zeolite
and pumice particles, so the drained runoff had a lower amount
of COD (Figs. 5, 6, and 11).
TSS and turbidity are two other common contamination param-
eters in runoff. Based on the previous studies, zeolite and pumice,
as cementitious materials, do not have considerable effect on the
ability of PC to reduce TSS and turbidity. The size of suspended
 A. Azad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 240 (2020) 117931
Table 7
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for water quality properties of porous concrete.
Water quality parameter Condition Total
COD — 579.56
TSS Without filter 39.15
With filter 91.069
Turbidity Without filter 88.7
With filter 38.8
TDS — 4.69
* Mean square is reported for between groups. To calculate mean square of within groups, F should be multiplied by the presented mean square.
Fig. 12. Effect of fine aggregates on the PC pores. a) PC sample without fine aggregates and b) PC sample with fine aggregates. In a and b, voids are indicated in blue and
aggregate particles are red. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
particles in runoff (TSS and turbidity) is generally much larger than
the particles of dissolved parameters (COD, TDS, heavy metals).
Therefore, zeolite and pumice pores cannot reduce TSS and turbid-
ity of urban runoff. These points were confirmed by statistical anal-
ysis which did not show any significant relationship between
various mixtures and the level of TSS and turbidity removal
(Table 7). Results of a study showed that the most important factor
in the reduction of TSS and turbidity was the voids’ size of the used
filter (the porous concrete with sand filter) [6]. The PC voids’ size
depends on the grading range of the coarse aggregates and the
use or non-use of sand and fine aggregate materials. Fig. 12 shows
the voids in a PC specimen and also how the use of fine aggregates
reduces the volume of voids, and improves the ability of PC in the
reduction of TSS and turbidity in runoff. In the present study, pow-
der pumice and zeolite were applied to the cement. Therefore,
there was no change in the voids volume of GPC. Results of prelim-
inary experiments showed that all samples with different replace-
ment levels of pumice and zeolite had a similar ability to reduce
TSS and turbidity. The mixtures containing zeolite reduced TSS
and turbidity by 48 and 55 percent, and samples containing
pumice decreased TSS and turbidity by 46 and 57 percent, respec-
tively. Results of control specimens were similar to GPC-Z and
GPC-P specimens, and this mixture decreased TSS and turbidity
by 46% and 56%, respectively.
In addition to the abovementioned tests, a 300 mm filter
(100 mm gravel and 200 mm sand) was added to the system to
better improve the ability of GPC specimens for reducing these
parameters. Results indicated a significant improvement in the
ability of the system to decrease these parameters, such that the
average ability of pumice specimens to reduce the TSS and turbid-
ity increased from 46% and 57% in samples without filter to 92%
and 97%, respectively. This improvement was obtained for the zeo-
lite samples. In these samples, the ability to remove TSS and tur-
bidity was improved by about 93% and 98%, respectively (Fig. 13).
9
Mean Square* F P-value F critical
113.30 4.48 0.05 5.19
2.45 0.41 0.79 5.19
5.02 0.35 0.83 5.19
10.35 1.09 0.45 5.19
6.13 2.14 0.21 5.19
0.32 0.48 0.75 5.19
TDS is considered as a parameter of water salinity [52]. High
values of this parameter causes some problems for humans and
in agriculture. Fig. 14 presents the performance of different mix-
tures in reducing the TDS content of runoff. None of the treatments
had a good performance in decreasing TDS. In fact, there are some
anions and cations in these cementitious materials which are
added to water during drainage. Although part of TDS may be
trapped in adsorbents’ cavities, their effect was neutralized by add-
ing cations or anions available in the concrete to runoff. This is
probably why Table 7 did not show significant results in this
respect. Besides, other studies have pointed out the inability of
PC to reduce salinity [6,7] (Fig. 15).
3.2.2. Improvement of industrial-runoff quality
Results indicated that both applied adsorbents were suitable for
increasing the performance of GPC in reducing heavy metals’ con-
centration and improving the quality of industrial runoff. By
replacing 10, 20, 30, and 40% of the cement by zeolite, the ability
of GPC to reduce Zn, Cu, Cd, and Pb contents was improved from
78, 80, 76, and 86% to 94, 92, 99, and 97%; 95, 94, 99, and 98%;
96, 96, 99, and 99%; and 99, 99, 99, and 99%, respectively. In
pumice specimens, replacing 10–40 percent of the cement with
pumice improved the ability of GPC to reduce Zn, Cu, Cd, and Pb
contents by 93, 91, 94 and 94%; 94, 92, 96 and 96%; 98, 92, 97,
and 97%; and 98, 96, 99, and 99%, respectively. Table 8 confirms
these significant results statistically. High specific area, porous
structure, and superficial pores of the additives influenced the abil-
ity of suggested porous concretes to reach these results. Further-
more, wide ranges of pore size and air voids of zeolite and
pumice were another reason for the adsorption of heavy metals.
Results also showed that zeolite was more effective in adsorbing
heavy metals than pumice. This can be due to the high ion
exchange of zeolite, which increases the ability of this mineral [25].
10 A. Azad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 240 (2020) 117931

TSS Without filter With filter

100
90
80
70
TSS Removal (%)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Control PC GPC-P GPC-Z

Turbidity Without filter With filter

100
90
80
Turbidity Removal (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Control PC GPC-P GPC-Z

Fig. 13. Average performance of various treatments in reducing TSS and turbidity from urban runoff.

6
GPC-Z GPC-P

5
TDS Removal (%)

0
Control PC 10 20 30 40
Repleacment level (%)

Fig. 14. Performance of various GPC mixtures in reducing TDS in urban runoff.
 A. Azad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 240 (2020) 117931 11

The GPC samples containing Zeolite

100

Heavy metals Removal (%)

95

90

85

80

75
Zn Cu Cd Pb
Heavy metal parameters

GPC-Z10 GPC-Z20 GPC-Z30 GPC-Z40 Control PC

GPC samples containing Pumice

100
Heavy Metal Removal (%)

95

90

85

80

75
Zn Cu Cd Pb
Heavy metals parameters
GPC-P10 GPC-P20 GPC-P30 GPC-P40 Control PC

Fig. 15. Performance of GPC-Z and GPC-P samples in reducing heavy metals from industrial runoff.

Table 8
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for industrial wastewater quality of porous concrete.

Wastewater parameter Total Mean Square* F P-value F critical

Zn 546.1 135.65 193.7 ** 5.19
Cu 367.6 88.15 29.3 ** 5.19
Pb 228.9 55.1 32.41 ** 5.19
Cd 782.40 190.85 50.22 ** 5.19

* Mean square is reported for between groups. To calculate mean square of within groups, F should be multiplied by the presented mean square.
** P-value was less than 0.001.

4. Conclusion 4) Using zeolite and pumice as cementitious materials reduced

the apparent density of GPC, such that the apparent density
Green porous concrete (GPC) is a new system for improving the of lightest mixtures containing zeolite and pumice was 181
quality of polluted waters, and restoring it to the groundwater and 92 kg/m3, respectively, less than those of the control
resources. Results of the present study revealed that: specimens.
5) Both zeolite and pumice had an appropriate performance in
1) Pumice had no negative effect on the compressive strength improving GPC’s ability to reduce urban and industrial run-
of GPC. off contamination. Using 40% zeolite increased GPC’s ability
2) Physical properties of zeolite were weaker than those of to reduce COD, Zn, Cu, Cd and Pb up to 38.6, 99, 99, 99 and
pumice. However, the average compressive strength of zeo- 99%, respectively. Using 40% pumice improved the perfor-
lite specimens (GPC-Z) was only about 12% less than that of mance of GPC control specimens to remove these parame-
the control treatment. ters by 25.4, 98, 96, 99 and 99%, respectively. In addition,
3) All GPC specimens had acceptable permeability and ability the GPC-Z and GPC-P treatments had a good ability in elim-
for the drainage of urban and industrial runoff. inating TSS and turbidity, and on average, reduced these
12 A. Azad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 240 (2020) 117931

parameters up to about 46% and 56% in treatments without
filter, and 93% and 38% in specimens with filter, respectively.
Finally, TDS was the only parameter in the runoff which GPC
could not reduce it notably.
Taking into account the cause and effect as well as results seen
in this research, some suggestions could be highlighted for future
research: (i) Using combination of zeolite and pumice in order to
obtain an optimized mixture which benefits from both adsorbents;
(ii) Trying other types of wastewater runoff, such as mining seeps
or leachates, to examine the ability of the suggested green concrete
filter in improving other water quality parameters; and (iii) with
respect to local resources, examination of some other adsorbents,
such as vermiculite, kaolin and talc, in order to find other accept-
able adsorbents for the use in green concrete filters.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] L.K. Singh, M.K. Jha, V.M. Chowdary, Multi-criteria analysis and GIS modeling
for identifying prospective water harvesting and artificial recharge sites for
sustainable water supply, J. Cleaner Prod. 142 (2017) 1436–1456.
[2] A. Azad, S.F. Mousavi, H. Karami, S. Farzin, Application of talc as an eco-friendly
additive to improve the structural behavior of porous concrete, Iranian J. Sci.
Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 43 (2019) 443–453.
[3] A.G. Selvarani, G. Maheswaran, K. Elangovan, Identification of artificial
recharge sites for Noyyal River Basin using GIS and remote sensing, J. Indian
Soc. Remote Sens. 45 (1) (2017) 67–77.
[4] H.M. Leung, N.S. Duzgoren-Aydin, C.K. Au, S. Krupanidhi, K.Y. Fung, K.C.
Cheung, M.T. Tsui, Monitoring and assessment of heavy metal contamination
in a constructed wetland in Shaoguan (Guangdong Province, China):
bioaccumulation of Pb, Zn, Cu and Cd in aquatic and terrestrial components,
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 (10) (2017) 9079–9088.
[5] A. Azad, S.F. Mousavi, H. Karami, S. Farzin, Using waste vermiculite and
dolomite as eco-friendly additives for improving the performance of porous
concrete, Eng. J. 22 (5) (2018) 87–104.
[6] J. Abedi Koupai, S. Saghaian Nejad, S. Mostafazadeh-Fard, K. Behfarnia,
Reduction of urban storm-runoff pollution using porous concrete containing
iron slag adsorbent, J. Environ. Eng. 142 (2) (2016) 04015072.
[7] S. Saghaian Nejad, J. Abedi-Koupai, S. Mostafazadeh-Fard, K. Behfarnia,
Treatment of urban storm water using adsorbent porous concrete.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water Management, 2017;
doi:10.1680/jwama.16.00093.
_ Çifçi, S. Meriç, A review on pumice for water and wastewater treatment,
[8] D.I.
Desalin. Water Treat. 57 (39) (2016) 18131–18143.
[9] Z. Ma, Q. Zhang, X. Weng, C. Mang, L. Si, Z. Guan, L. Cheng, Fluoride ion
adsorption from wastewater using Magnesium (II): Aluminum (III) and
Titanium (IV) modified natural zeolite: Kinetics, thermodynamics, and
mechanistic aspects of adsorption, J. Water Reuse Desalin. (2017).
jwrd2017037.
[10] E. Ranjbar, R. Ghiassi, Z. Akbary, Lead removal from groundwater by granular
mixtures of pumice, perlite and lime using permeable reactive barriers, Water
Environ. J. 31 (1) (2017) 39–46.
[11] B. Silva, E. Tuuguu, F. Costa, V. Rocha, A. Lago, T. Tavares, Permeable biosorbent
barrier for wastewater remediation, Environ. Process. 4 (1) (2017) 195–206.
[12] M. Belhachemi, S. Djelaila, Removal of amoxicillin antibiotic from aqueous
solutions by date pits activated carbons, Environ. Process. 4 (3) (2017) 549–
561.
[13] S.S. Salih, T.K. Ghosh, Preparation and characterization of chitosan-coated
diatomaceous earth for hexavalent chromium removal, Environ. Process. 5 (1)
(2017) 1–17.
[14] G.M. Kim, J.G. Jang, H.R. Khalid, H.K. Lee, Water purification characteristics of
pervious concrete fabricated with CSA cement and bottom ash aggregates,
Constr. Build. Mater. 136 (2017) 1–8.
[15] A. Azad, S.F. Mousavi, H. Karami, S. Farzin, V.P. Singh, The effect of vermiculite
and quartz in porous concrete on reducing storm-runoff pollution, ISH J.
Hydraul. Eng. (2018) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2018.1528482.
[16] D.F. Velandia, C.J. Lynsdale, F. Ramirez, J.L. Provis, G. Hermida, A.C. Gomez,
Optimum green concrete using different high volume fly ash activated
systems, in: Concrete Durability, Springer International Publishing, 2017,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55463-1_8.
[17] S.K. Ong, K. Wang, Y. Ling, G. Shi, Pervious Concrete Physical Characteristics
and Effectiveness in Stormwater Pollution Reduction, CTRE, Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa, USA, 2016.
[18] V. López-Carrasquillo, S. Hwang, Comparative assessment of pervious concrete
mixtures containing fly ash and nanomaterials for compressive strength,
physical durability, permeability, water quality performance and production
cost, Constr. Build. Mater. 139 (2017) 148–158.
[19] R.R. Holmes, M.L. Hart, J.T. Kevern, Heavy metal removal capacity of individual
components of permeable reactive concrete, J. Contam. Hydrol. 196 (2017) 52–
61.
[20] A.N. Shabalala, S.O. Ekolu, S. Diop, F. Solomon, Pervious concrete reactive
barrier for removal of heavy metals from acid mine drainage- column study, J.
Hazard. Mater. 323 (2017) 641–653.
[21] N. Kabay, M.M. Tufekci, A.B. Kizilkanat, D. Oktay, Properties of concrete with
pumice powder and fly ash as cement replacement materials, Constr. Build.
Mater. 85 (2015) 1–8.
[22] K. Samimi, S. Kamali-Bernard, A.A. Maghsoudi, M. Maghsoudi, H. Siad,
Influence of pumice and zeolite on compressive strength, transport
properties and resistance to chloride penetration of high strength self-
compacting concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 151 (2017) 292–311.
[23] A. Karaipekli, A. Sari, Development and thermal performance of pumice/
organic PCM/gypsum composite plasters for thermal energy storage in
buildings, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 149 (2016) 19–28.
[24] F. Aydin Temel, A. Kuleyin, Ammonium removal from landfill leachate using
natural zeolite: kinetic, equilibrium, and thermodynamic studies, Desalin.
Water Treat. 57 (50) (2016) 23873–23892.
[25] A. Alshameri, A. Ibrahim, A.M. Assabri, X. Lei, H. Wang, C. Yan, The
investigation into the ammonium removal performance of Yemeni natural
zeolite: modification, ion exchange mechanism, and thermodynamics, Powder
Technol. 258 (2014) 20–31.
[26] P. Rovnaníková, P. Schmid, Z. Keršner, Effect of cement replacement by zeolite
on the basic mechanical fracture properties of concrete: a parametric study,
Adv. Mater. Res. 969 (2014) 140–143.
[27] B.I. Harman, M. Genisoglu, Synthesis and characterization of pumice-
supported nZVI for removal of copper from waters, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng.
4372136 (2016) 10.
[28] R.B. Ardalan, A. Joshaghani, R.D. Hooton, Workability retention and
compressive strength of self-compacting concrete incorporating pumice
powder and silica fume, Constr. Build. Mater. 134 (2017) 116–122.
[29] ACI 211 3R-02. Guide for selecting proportions for no-slump concrete. 2002.
[30] M. Valipour, F. Pargar, M. Shekarchi, S. Khani, M. Moradian, In situ study of
chloride ingress in concretes containing natural zeolite, metakaolin and silica
fume exposed to various exposure conditions in a harsh marine environment,
Constr. Build. Mater. 46 (2013) 63–70.
[31] British Standard, Testing Concrete. Part 108. Method for making test cubes
from fresh concrete. BS 1881: Part 108 1983.
[32] ACI 522R-06. Pervious concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., 2006.
[33] ASTM C1754/C1754M-12. Standard test method for density and void content
of hardened pervious concrete. ASTM International, USA 2012.
[34] S. Hesami, S. Ahmadi, M. Nematzadeh, Effects of rice husk ash and fiber on
mechanical properties of pervious concrete pavement, Constr. Build. Mater. 53
(2014) 680–691.
[35] ASTM C1688. Standard test method for density and void content of freshly
pervious concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008.
[36] J.T. Kevern, V.R. Schaefer, K. Wang, M.T. Suleiman, Pervious concrete mixture
proportion for improved freeze-thaw durability, J. ASTM Int. 5 (2) (2008) 1–12.
[37] APHA (American Public Health Association). Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. American Water Works Association
and Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington, DC, 1995.
[38] HACH Company. Digital reactor block 200 (DRB 200) Instrument Manual.
Loveland, CO 2003.
[39] HACH Company. Model 2100N turbidimeter manual. Loveland, CO 1999.
[40] B. Demirel, O. Kelesßtemur, Effect of elevated temperature on the mechanical
properties of concrete produced with finely ground pumice and silica fume,
Fire Saf. J. 45 (6–8) (2010) 385–391.
[41] K.M.A. Hossain, S. Ahmed, M. Lachemi, Lightweight concrete incorporating
pumice based blended cement and aggregate: Mechanical and durability
characteristics, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (3) (2011) 1186–1195.
[42] K.M.A. Hossain, Blended cement using volcanic ash and pumice, Cem. Concr.
Res. 33 (10) (2003) 1601–1605.
[43] R. Snellings, G. Mertens, Ö. Cizer, J. Elsen, Early age hydration and pozzolanic
reaction in natural zeolite blended cements: reaction kinetics and products by
in situ synchrotron X-ray powder diffraction, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (12) (2010)
1704–1713.
[44] E. Ghafari, A. Baig, K. Nicoletta, D. Feys, R.D. Ferron, K.H. Khayat, Admixture
Compatibility of Alternative Supplementary Cementitious Materials for
Pavement and Structural Concrete, Center for Transportation Infrastructure
and Safety/NUTC Program, The National Academies of Sciences Engineering
and Medicine, 2014.
[45] F. Nishimura, T. Yamada, M. Tanaka, H. Kassai, M. Masuda, Ammonia removal
characteristics of porous concrete with zeolite for enhancing self-purification
ability in river system, Int. J. Geomate 8 (8) (2015) 1130–1137.
[46] M.M. Ranjbar, R. Madandoust, S.Y. Mousavi, S. Yosefi, Effects of natural zeolite
on the fresh and hardened properties of self-compacted concrete, Constr.
Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 806–813.
[47] M. Najimi, J. Sobhani, B. Ahmadi, M. Shekarchi, An experimental study on
durability properties of concrete containing zeolite as a highly reactive natural
pozzolan, Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (2012) 1023–1033.
 A. Azad et al. / Construction and Building Materials 240 (2020) 117931 13

[48] Y. Senhadji, G. Escadeillas, M. Mouli, H. Khelafi, Influence of natural pozzolan,
silica fume and limestone fine on strength, acid resistance and microstructure
of mortar, Powder Technol. 254 (2014) 314–323.
[49] Y. Long, Y. Bing, Z. Zhang, K. Cui, X. Pan, X. Yan, Q. Guo, Influence of plantation
on microbial community in porous concrete treating polluted surface water,
Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 117 (2017) 8–13.
[50] Negin Powder Company. Branch of Mineral Materials, Semnan, Iran.
[51] F.N. Bahabadi, M.H. Farpoor, M.H. Mehrizi, Removal of Cd, Cu and Zn ions from
aqueous solutions using natural and Fe modified sepiolite, zeolite and
palygorskite clay minerals, Water Sci. Technol. 75 (2) (2017) 340–349.
[52] A. Azad, H. Karami, S. Farzin, A. Saeedian, H. Kashi, F. Sayyahi, Prediction of
water quality parameters using ANFIS optimized by intelligence algorithms
(Case study: Gorganrood River), KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 22 (7) (2018) 2206–2213.