Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Eco-efficient industrial waste recycling for the manufacturing of fibre

reinforced innovative geopolymer mortars: Integrated waste management
and green product development through LCA
Francesco Colangelo, Ilenia Farina, Marta Travaglioni, Cinzia Salzano, Raffaele Cioffi,
Antonella Petrillo *
Department of Engineering - University Parthenope of Naples, Centro Direzionale, Is. C4, 80143, Naples, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Zhen Leng The aim of this research is to evaluate the possibility of using an eco-sustainable geopolymer binder, through the
development of innovative technologies capable of offering tools for the water systems management, for the
Keywords: enhancement and protection of environmental resources. Specifically, a hydraulic pipeline made of geopolymer
Life cycle assessment mortar has been designed as prototype. A detailed comparative environmental assessment analysis of unrein­
Geopolymer mortar
forced and reinforced geopolymer prototypes has been conducted using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The
Fly ash
LCA study has been performed to determine the environmental performance of the different mix designs and to
Metakaolin
Blast furnace slag identify the most important factors contributing to their environmental burdens. The results of the analysis
Sustainability indicate that the advantages of geopolymers make them a valid alternative to traditional binders in many in­
Environmental impact dustrial environments and in this case in the realization of useful artifacts for hydraulic engineering.

et al. (2018) studied the replacement of sodium silicate with a combi­

1. Introduction
Geopolymers are alternative binders with low CO2 emissions,
developed to integrate waste materials from different industrial sectors
into the production cycle of building materials with low environmental
impact and economically sustainable (Luukkonen et al., 2018). The term
“Geopolymer” was coined by Joseph Davidovits in 1978 and refers to a
solid material, generated by the reaction between a wide range of
aluminosilicate precursors and an alkaline solution (Wang et al., 2019;
Davidovits et al., 1991; Davidovits et al., 1994). The geopolymerization
reaction is carried out at a moderate temperature (<85 ◦ C) and for this
reason geopolymers can be considered environmentally friendly. In fact,
they represent a hydraulic binder with a lower environmental impact
than Portland cement whose synthesis takes place at high temperatures
(1250◦ C–1350 ◦ C) (Khale et al., 2007). Therefore, the environmental
profiles of these innovative materials depend largely on the raw mate­
rials used (Puertas et al., 2018). Although coal ash, blast furnace slag
and metakaolin are more environmentally friendly raw materials than
cement, the activating solution, the sodium silicate (SS) is corrosive and
led to occupational hazards (Luukkonen et al., 2018). In fact, Luukkonen
nation of sodium hydroxide and silica, derived from rice husk ash.
Geopolymer can guarantee a higher mechanical resistance, compared to
the traditional concrete, and a greater resistance to acid attacks, sul­
phates, and freeze-thaw cycles (Chindaprasirt et al., 2018). In addition,
geopolymer-based binders are chemically stable and show a good fire
resistance, so they are resistant to exposure to high temperatures in
contrast to OPC hydration products (Carabba et al., 2019). The geo­
polymer has excellent mechanical properties and its compressive
strength can exceed 100 MPa (Fan et al., 2018) and so geopolymer
concrete has shown a better pull-off resistance than OPC concrete
(Nazari et al., 2019). The field of application of geopolymer binders is on
continued growth, with a wide use in both fibre-reinforced and unre­
inforced mortar or concrete, including pipes (John L. Provis, 2018).
Previous studies, in fact, highlighted that the performance of geo­
polymer mortar and concrete could be improved by reinforcing with
different types of fibres, including natural fibres (Cabral et al., 2018;
Darsana et al. al., 2016) and synthetic fibres. Natural fibres can replace
synthetic fibres to reduce the environmental impact of traditional
building materials (Zhou et al., 2018). The production and design of
geopolymer binders prepared with the use of industrial waste, is based

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: francesco.colangelo@uniparthenope.it (F. Colangelo), ilenia.farina@uniparthenope.it (I. Farina), marta.travaglioni@uniparthenope.it
(M. Travaglioni), cinzia.salzano@uniparthenope.it (C. Salzano), raffaele.cioffi@uniparthenope.it (R. Cioffi), antonella.petrillo@uniparthenope.it (A. Petrillo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127777
Received 18 September 2020; Received in revised form 8 March 2021; Accepted 30 May 2021
Available online 4 June 2021
0959-6526/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
F. Colangelo et al.
Nomenclature
BF Basalt Fibre
FA Fly Ash
GF Glass Fibre
GGBS Ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (Blast-furnace
slag)
HF Hemp Fibre
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
MK Metakaolin
NaOH 10 M Sodium hydroxide solution 10 mol/L
NaOH 12 M Sodium hydroxide solution 12 mol/L
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
SS Sodium Silicate
on several properties such as compressive strength and flexural strength,
ductility, faculty of pose, cost, etc., but also the environmental aspects
are nowadays part of the sustainability-based approach. To discuss the
issues related to the environmental impact of the building materials
industry, it is necessary to adopt a scientific approach, which follows the
criteria of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Some studied about LCA
have estimated a reduction in CO2 emissions between 40% and 80% for
the use of geopolymer binders compared to traditional Portland cement
binders (McLellan et al., 2011; Stengel et al., 2009; Turner and Collins,
2013; Yang et al., 2013). Habert et al. (2011) considered several mix­
tures from the literature and estimated impacts of geopolymers on
various environmental categories. Although they recorded better results
for geopolymers in terms of global warming, the impact on other cate­
gories was greater than traditional concrete because of the use of sodium
silicate. The activating solution is in fact in most cases the dominant
contribution to the environmental footprint of geopolymer binders
(Brykov et al., 2008). Despite the environmental impact of activating
solutions, Yuan et al. reported sodium carbonate as a good activator of
blast furnace slag, which induces energy savings and CO2 reduction up
to 97% compared to Portland cement (Yuan et al., 2017). However, the
choice of a mix design is extremely important for the evaluation of LCA
analysis (John L. Provis, 2018; Colangelo et al., 2018a). In particular,
the LCA study by Abdulkareem et al. (2019) and by Colangelo et al.
(2018b), highlighted that the environmental impact of green concrete is
lower than that of traditional concrete, with a 16% reduction in emis­
sions. A comparative study between fibre-reinforced geopolymer mortar
and conventional mortar demonstrated the applicability and effective­
ness of sustainable binder design, with an improved compressive
strength of 43.1 MPa and a 55% reduction of CO2 equivalent emissions
(Ohno et al., 2018). Salas et al. (2018) conducted a study on the life
cycle assessment (LCA) of geopolymer concrete, identifying the raw
materials that contribute to environmental impacts. The results showed
that the characterization of the global warming potential for geopolymer
concrete is 64% lower than conventional concrete. The authors
concluded that the environmental impacts of geopolymer activated with
sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate are lower than the ones from
traditional concrete. The global warming potential is also reduced by
using a combination of geopolymers based on clay and silica fumes, as
discussed by Heath et al. (2014).
This paper is focused on the possibility of developing an alternative
geopolymer binder to ordinary Portland cement. Therefore, the manu­
script is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the methodology and
the tools used to assess the environmental impact together with the
definition of the geopolymer mortar analysed. Section 3 is devoted to
LCA analysis. In particular, the first phase of the LCA study is detailed
(purpose of the study, functional unit, and system boundaries), the
second phase consists of inventory analysis and in the third phase the
analysed impacts are reported. Section 4 reports and discusses the
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777
results of the analysis.
2. Materials and methods
The LCA analysis methodology is structured and standardized by UNI
EN ISO 14040 standards, by UNI EN ISO 14040:2006 and UNI EN ISO
14044:2006. Standard UNI EN ISO 14040:2006 (Environmental Man­
agement - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework of Reference)
provides a general framework for the practices, applications, and limi­
tations of LCA and targets a wide range of potential users and stake­
holders, even with limited knowledge of life cycle assessment. UNI EN
ISO 14044:2006 (Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -
Requirements and Guidelines) has been developed for the preparation,
management, and critical review of the life cycle. It provides guidelines
for the impact assessment phase of LCA, the interpretation phase of re­
sults, the assessment of the nature and quality of the data collected.
Therefore, the standards provide a methodological framework. The
general requirements of ISO 14044 shall apply when conducting a LCA
analysis. In particular, the LCA method used in this study includes the
preliminary analysis, the LCA environmental assessment according to
UNI EN ISO 14040:2006 and UNI EN ISO 14044:2006, and the results
analysis.
Fig. 1 summarizes the main phases and methodology followed in this
study.
2.1. Mix design
The combination of three different precursors, namely fly ash (FA),
ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and metakaolin (MK), al­
lows to obtain four different geopolymer mixtures:
• Fly Ash (FA)
• Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS)
• Fly Ash + Metakaolin (FA + MK)
• Fly Ash + Ground granulated blast furnace slag (FA + GGBS)
For each mixture, unreinforced and reinforced samples were pre­
pared to improve the mechanical behaviour of the material (Fig. 2). The
fibres tested are inorganic fibres as basalt, that are mineral fibres ob­
tained by melting and subsequent spinning of volcanic rocks; fibreglass,
which have the advantage of a lower cost, and so are often used to obtain
intermediate properties at a low cost. Finally, the experimentation of
natural fibres such as hemp was also particularly interesting, for the eco-
sustainability aspects of the products obtained. Different mixtures have
been designed to produce geopolymer mortars, using different pre­
cursors, modifying the activating solutions, and using different types of
reinforcing fibres.
In detail, the characteristics of the mortar constituents are specified.
• Coal fly ash (FA) employed in this work was supplied by the ENEL S.
p.A. power plant located in Brindisi (Italy) and was used as received,
without drying treatment.
• Metakaolin (MK) was kindly provided by Neuchem s.r.l. (Milan,
Italy).
• Ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) was provided by
RILEM.
• Sodium hydroxide was supplied by CARLO ERBA Reagents s.r.l.
(Milan, Italy) in the form of pellets (with density equal to 2.13 g/cm3
at 20 ◦ C) and it is diluted in distilled water (NaOH 10M and NaOH
12M).
• Sodium silicate solution was supplied by Prochin Italia S.r.l. (Naples,
Italy).
Chemical composition of each constituents is reported in Table 1.
Chemical composition (wt%) in terms of major oxides of the fly ash,
ground granulated blast-furnace slag, metakaolin, sodium silicate
F. Colangelo et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777

Fig. 1. Flowchart of methodology used in this study.

Table 2
Density of fly ash, ground granulated blast-furnace slag, metakaolin, sodium
silicate solution and sodium hydroxide solutions (10 M and 12 M).
FA GGBS MK SS NaOH 10 NaOH 12
M M

Density [g/ 2.360 2.280 2.200 1.387 1.350 1.400

cm3]

was supplied by the Fidia s.r.l. - Technical Global Services located in

Milano (Italy) and their characteristics are reported in Table 3.
For the preparation of the samples, the different components of the
designed mixtures were weighed, specifically the reactive powder, sand
and reinforcing fibres (to produce fibre-reinforced geopolymer com­
posites). The reactive precursor was mix with the 10 M NaOH activating
solution and Sodium Silicate for all mixtures, except for the mixture
prepared using fly ash that required the use of a 12 M NaOH activating
solution and sodium silicate. The system was mixed, at room tempera­
Fig. 2. Mix design of unreinforced and fibre-reinforced geopolymer mortars.
ture, for 5 min at a maximum speed of 700 rpm. The sand was then
added, and the mixture was poured into cylindrical molds having a
diameter of 10 cm, height 20 cm and a thickness of 2 cm. Three samples
Table 1 for each mixture were prepared and the specimens obtained were sub­
Chemical composition (wt%)*. jected to a curing treatment in an oven at 40 ◦ C for one week (Fig. 3).
Compounds FA GGBS MK SS NaOH NaOH The density and compressive strength of geopolymer mortars was
(weight %) 10M 12M experimentally measured. More in detail, it is the result of experimental
Al2O3 28.12 10.76 41.9
tests conducted in the MASERG lab of the University of Naples “Par­
SiO2 53.75 35.16 52.9 27.4 thenope”. For each mixture analysed the density values of the fibre
K2O 1.89 0.14 0.77 reinforced mortar do not significantly differ from the value reported to
Fe2O3 6.99 1.4 1.6 the unreinforced mortar. This can be attributed to the fact that the
Na2O 0.87 0.11 1.8
amount of fibre (1%) is insignificant compared to the total mass of the
MgO 1.59 7.68 0.19
CaO 4.32 41.91 0.17 sample and therefore does not produce an appreciable increase in den­
others 2.47 1.78 0.67 sity. The values obtained are shown in Table 4.
Na2O 8.15 According to Table 4 in general, considering all four systems, the
NaOH 29 34 density values are comparable.
H2O 64.45 71 66

solution and sodium hydroxide solutions (10 M and 12 M) used in this

Table 3
paper. Other oxides (e.g. TiO2, SO3) with relative abundance less than 1
Characteristics of glass fibre, basalt fibre, hemp fibre.
wt% have not been explicitly indicated.
Density of fly ash, ground granulated blast-furnace slag, metakaolin, GF BF HF

sodium silicate solution and sodium hydroxide solutions (10 M and 12 Ultimate tensile strength, σfibre [MPa] 2500 3080 507
M) was reported in Table 2. Young’s Modulus, Efibre [GPa] 73 95 18.4
Ultimate tensile strain, εfibre [%] 3.42 3.15 3.27
Fibres (glass fibres, basalt fibres, hemp fibres) employed in this work
Density [g/cm3] 2.50 2.8 1.5

3
F. Colangelo et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777

Fig. 3. Geopolymer sample a) top view; b) front view; c) detail (zoom) top view.

materials used (fly ash, metakaolin and ground granulated blast furnace
Table 4
slag). The LCA analysis was performed according to ISO 14040: 2006
Compressive strength and density of mortars.
and ISO 14044: 2006. The Gabi 9 ® software and its included databases
Compressive strength (MPa) Density [g/cm3] were used to calculate the environmental impacts of geopolymer
FA 43.1 2.01 mortars.
FA + GF 44
FA + BF 44.2
3.1.1. Functional unit definition
FA + HF 43.6
GGBS 40.1 2.24
The LCA analysis examines the system with reference to 1 m3 of each
GGBS + GF 41.2 geopolymer mortar. By experimentally analysing hardened geopolymer
GGBS + BF 42.3 mortars, a mean value of 2100 kg/m3 has been taken as the density to be
GGBS + HF 40.6 associated with all identified subsystems. Therefore, the reference flow
FA + GGBS 42.4 2.13
can be defined as the mass in kg contained in 1 m3 of material.
FA + GGBS + GF 46.2
FA + GGBS + BF 47
FA + GGBS + HF 43.7 3.1.2. System boundaries definition
FA + MK 41.2 2.08 The system boundaries refer to the cradle-to-gate approach, which
FA + MK + GF 43.2 includes raw materials, production, and disposal (Fig. 4), as detailed
FA + MK + BF 43.4
FA + MK + HF 42.9
below.

• Raw Materials – The LCA assessment considered the contribution of

3. Performing LCA study
3.1. Goal and scope
The goal of the LCA study is to assess the environmental impact of
geopolymer mortars and to provide an assessment of the innovative
raw materials. The impacts of raw materials include:
◦ extraction and processing of metakaolin, sodium hydroxide, so­
dium silicate and glass fibres, basalt and hemp; for the hemp fibre,
the cultivation phase is also included;
◦ sand extraction;
◦ a mass allocation of 12.4% for FA (Van den Heede et al., 2012);

Fig. 4. Overview of the system boundary for geopolymer mortars production.

4
F. Colangelo et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777

◦ a mass allocation of 24% for GGGS (Van den Heede et al., 2012). Table 6
• Energy – Electricity production is considered from the extraction of Quantities expressed in kg of species in 1 m3 of geopolymer mortars with
raw materials, including fuels. Electricity is used to produce geo­ average density equals to 2100 kg/m.3.
polymer mortars. Geopolymer Fly Ash Sand NaOH SS Fibre Type of
• Transport – Transportation of precursor, activating solution and mortars [kg] 12 M data
fibres is excluded from this study as it is assumed all materials 1 FA 861 861 84 294 Primary
considered have similar transportation distances; it is worth noting 2 FA þ GF 861 840 84 294 21
that this estimate has a small effect on the overall production impact 3 FA þ BF 861 840 84 294 21
4 FA þ HF 861 840 84 294 21
of each analysed system, as the distances are very small (less than
GGBS Sand NaOH SS Fibre Type of
500 km). 10 M data
• Disposal – The end-of-life treatment considered is the disposal of 5 GGBS 756 441 609 294 Primary
waste generated by the processing of raw materials. 6 GGBS þ 756 420 609 294 21
GF
7 GGBS þ 756 420 609 294 21
BF
3.2. Inventory analysis 8 GGBS þ 756 420 609 294 21
HF
All materials and energy flows data considered were obtained from Fly Ash Sand NaOH SS Fibre Type of
laboratory analyses (primary data), datasets included in the software þ GGBS 10 M data
9 FA þ 735 + 420 399 168 Primary
and literature data (secondary data). Secondary data will describe the
GGBS 378
processing of species from the extraction of raw materials and, subse­ 10 FA þ 735 + 399 399 168 21
quently, the production of geopolymer mortars. GGBS þ 378
GF
11 FA þ 735 + 399 399 168 21
3.2.1. Processing of species
GGBS þ 378
The species production processes available on the software databases BF
are sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sand. Instead, production processes 12 FA þ 735 + 399 399 168 21
of sodium silicate, metakaolin and basalt fibres are reconstructed from GGBS þ 378
available literature. In both cases, the species production also includes HF
Fly Ash Sand NaOH SS Fibre Type of
the extraction of each raw material of which they are composed. Table 5
þ MK 10 M data
shows the sources used to produce each species used. 13 FA þ MK 651 + 273 189 525 Primary
462
3.2.2. Production of geopolymer mortars 14 FA þ MK 651 + 252 189 525 21
þ GF 462
The inventory analysis covering the geopolymer mortar production
15 FA þ MK 651 + 252 189 525 21
includes the species used in the laboratory (primary data). The quanti­ þ BF 462
ties refer to the mass expressed in kg of each species contained in the 16 FA þ MK 651 + 252 189 525 21
functional unit (1 m3 of mortar with an average density of 2100 kg/m3). þ HF 462
The complete set of experimental compositions is reported in Table 6. Each geopolymer mortar production process has an electricity consumption of
Table 6 shows the quantities expressed in kg of species for each 13.5 kWh.
subsystem.
All compositions have been designed considering those studied in the equivalent average mechanical strengths of 43 MPa (Table 4). In addi­
previous works (Ferone et al., 2013; Palumbo et al., 2018; Xie et al., tion, the mix-design can be understood by the fact that to reach suffi­
2020) that gave good geopolymerization results and by the fact that to cient mechanical strength, the Si/Al molar ratio have to be around 2 in
make the comparison meaningful, it is necessary to assess mortars with FA and GGBS whereas this ratio is close to 1 in MK. This leads to the
addition of an important quantity of sodium silicate in the solution with
Table 5 MK. On the contrary, Si/Al molar ratios of FA or GBFS are higher. It
Source for the construction of the species processing used in geopolymer follows that geopolymer mortar made from fly ashes or granulated blast
mortars.
furnace slags based require less of the sodium silicate solution to be
Material Source Type of activated (Habert et al., 2011).
data Fibre-reinforced samples were prepared in four different percentages
Fly Ash Lit-web: Spath P. L. et al., 1999. Secondary by weight of fibre (1%; 2%; 3%; 6%). The maximum limit was set at 6%
Lit: Van den Heede P. et al., 2012. according to the International Glassfibre Reinforced Concrete Associa­
Ground-granulated Lit: Van den Heede P. et al., 2012. Secondary
tion (GRCA) (2016). All chopped fibres studied being produced as
blast-furnace slag
Metakaolin Software dataset: Processed kaolinitic clay, Secondary bundles, and they show the same tendency to aggregation; in the case of
granular or powder, moisture content a sought-after isotropic distribution within the matrix causes difficulties
0–14%, expressed in dry mass (EU-27) in the mixing process and an uneven distribution of the fibres in the
Lit: Dorn C. et al., 2015 mixture. Glass, basalt, and hemp fibres, added to conglomerates even in
Sand Software dataset: Sand (grain size 0/2) Secondary
(EN15804 A1-A3) (dried) (EU-28)
low volumes, generally require a change in the liquid/solid ratio to
Sodium hydroxide Software dataset: Sodium hydroxide Secondary obtain the necessary workability. When the fibres come into contact
(caustic soda) mix (100%) (EU-28) with the mixture, chopped fibre bundles swell increasing their overall
Software dataset: Tap water from volume and trapping inter-fibre water, compromising the workability of
groundwater (IT)
the dough. Thus, there is a tendency to minimize the amount of fibres, as
Sodium silicate Lit: Fawer M. et al., 1999 Secondary
Glass fibre Software dataset: Glass fibres (DE) Secondary the results in terms of strength were satisfactory and an excess in the
Basalt fibre Lit: Schneider P. et al., 2018. Secondary amount of water would cause the formation of capillary pores, which
Hemp fibre Software dataset: Hemp fibre fleece Secondary would compromise the performance of the product in terms of me­
(EN15804 A1-A3) (EU-28) chanical strength. In this study, the focus was on the addition of 1% fibre
Electricity Software dataset: Electricity grid mix Secondary
1kV–60kV (IT)
by weight, calculated on the volume of the blends.

5
F. Colangelo et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777

3.3. Impact assessment method 3.3.1.1. Damage to human health. In the case study, the categories that
contribute to damage to human health are mainly three: 1) Climate
The life cycle impact assessment includes several methods. The change; 2) Freshwater Consumption; and 3) Human toxicity. Here below
approach adopted in this LCA analysis is ReCiPe 2016 midpoint (H), that is a summary of main results.
focused on the assessment of key issues using midpoint with hierarchical
perspective. Therefore, this section describes the impacts calculated
3.4. Climate change
according to ReCiPe (2016) midpoint (H).
For what concerns the unreinforced mortars, the FA + MK system
3.3.1. Impact assessment
produces more impact in terms of CO2 eq. with 1880 kg CO2 eq., fol­
The analysis was carried out using a functional unit equal to 1 m3 of
lowed by GGBS system with 615 kg CO2 eq., and by FA system with 487
geopolymer mortar with density δm = 2100 kg/m3 and considering all
kg CO2 eq. and the FA + GGBS system with 372 kg CO2 eq. By analysing
processes included in the system boundaries. Four geopolymer mortar
the emissions to air, there are inorganic emissions to air and organic
mixtures were evaluated (FA, GGBS, FA + GGBS and FA + MK) with and
emissions to air (VOC). The inorganic emissions to air are mainly in the
without fibres. Overall, the results show that the categories most
form of carbon dioxide, and they are higher for the FA + MK system with
affected by the production of the different compounds analysed are
about 1580 kg CO2 eq.; while, the emissions of FA system are about 322
many. For the purpose of this analysis the following categories were
kg CO2 eq. GGBS system is about with 443 kg CO2 eq. and the FA + GGBS
considered:
system is about 272 kg CO2 eq. Nitrogen oxide (NO) emissions are more
relevant for the FA + MK system (7 kg CO2 eq.), followed by the GGBS
• climate change,
system with about 4 kg CO2 eq., the FA system with 3 kg CO2 eq. and the
• fossil depletion,
FA + GGBS system with 2.5 kg CO2 eq. By examining VOC emissions
• freshwater consumption,
(volatile organic substances), the FA + MK system is again the most
• human toxicity (non-cancer),
impactful with 79 kg CO2 eq. followed by the GGBS system with
• land use,
approximately 48 kg CO2 eq.; the FA system with 39 kg CO2 eq. and the
• terrestrial ecotoxicity.
FA + GGBS system with 29 kg CO2 eq. With more detail on VOC emis­
sions, the contribution of halogenated substances is negligible and the
Fig. 5 shows the most significant impacts listed above for each non-
emissions of volatile organic substances are mainly due to methane.
reinforced mortar.
There are emissions of inorganic substances to soil of the order of mil­
Observing Fig. 5, the most important impacts derive from the mortar
ligrams only regarding the FA + MK system. Fig. 7 shows the graphs of
based on fly ash and metakaolin (FA + MK). They are divided according
air emissions for unreinforced mortars.
to the composition of the mortars. A comparison between fibre-
By analysing fibre-reinforced systems, there are no substantial dif­
reinforced and unreinforced mortars is made, since the aim is to
ferences within each system compared to unreinforced mortars and the
compare the systems that have the same mechanical behaviour. In
use of three fibres of different nature does not affect the amount of
addition, the main impact categories are described compared to the
emissions. The following tables show the main data extracted from the
damage categories, which are the damage to human health, damage to
analysis for fibre-reinforced and unreinforced matrices. In Table 8
the ecosystem and damage to the resources availability. The most sig­
emission to air values for unreinforced system are shown, and Table 9
nificant categories are calculated with respect to each characterisation
shows those for fibre-reinforced systems.
factor. The impact categories on which the results are focused, are listed
in Table 7.
Even for fibre-reinforced systems, the FA + MK mortar is the most 3.5. Freshwater Consumption
impactful, as shown in Fig. 6.
The main consumption of freshwater for unreinforced materials, is
linked to the FA + MK system with 65 m3, followed by FA system and

Fig. 5. Characterization according to the ReCiPe 2016 midpoint (H) of the impacts related to the analysed unreinforced compounds.

6
F. Colangelo et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777

Table 7
Impact categories overview reported in the results and their impact values.
Damage category Impact category Characterisation factor FA GGBS FA + GGBS FA + MK

Damage to Human Health Climate change kg CO2 eq. 4.87E+02 5.02E+02 5.24E+02 5.27E+02
Freshwater Consumption m3 3.63E+01 3.64E+01 3.65E+01 3.65E+01
Human Toxicity kg 1.4-DB eq. 1.96E+01 1.98E+01 2.03E+01 2.39E+01
Damage to Ecosystem Terrestrial Ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq. 8.86E+01 9.21E+01 1.00E+02 1.15E+02
Land use Annual crop eq.⋅y 2.01E+01 2.10E+01 2.19E+01 4.33E+01
Damage to Resource Availability Fossil Depletion kg oil eq. 1.36E+02 1.40E+02 1.85E+02 1.52E+02

Fig. 6. Characterization according to the ReCiPe 2016 midpoint (H) of the impacts related to the analysed fibre-reinforced compounds.

Fig. 7. Emission to air for the climate change category of the unreinforced systems, expressed in logarithmic scale.

GGBS system with about 37 m3 and FA + GGBS system with about 20 1860 m3 of water and the emitted amount is about 1820 m3. For the FA
m3. In more detail, the FA system uses a volume of water equal to 1430 + GGBS system the values of the water used and emitted are respectively
m3, while the emitted water is equal to 1390 m3; the GGBS system uses 1220 m3 and 1100 m3 and for FA + MK, they are 3010 m3 and 2940 m3,

7
F. Colangelo et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777

Table 8 Table 11
Emission to air values for the climate change category of unreinforced systems. Freshwater consumption values category of fibre-reinforced systems.
Climate change [kg CO2 eq.] FA GGBS FA + GGBS FA + MK Freshwater consumption FA + GGBS + FA + GGBS + FA + MK +
[m3] F* F* F* F*
CO2 322 443 272 1580
NO 3 4 2.5 7 Resources 1580 1470 1900 1160
VOC 39 48 29 79 Emission to water 1570 1430 1890 1140
Total 4 36 37 66

*F* means reinforcing fibres used in mortars.

Table 9
Emission to air values for the climate change category of fibre-reinforced
systems. Table 12
Values of emission to air, water and soil for the human toxicity, non-cancer
Climate change [kg CO2 FA + GGBS + FA + GGBS + FA + MK +
category of unreinforced systems.
eq.] F* F* F* F*
Element [kg 1.4-DB FA + MK
CO2 480 580 430 1840
eq.]
VOC 45 55 35 85 Emission to Emission to Emission in
air freshwater soil
*F* means reinforcing fibres used in mortars.
Arsenic ( + V) 1 11
Cadmium 1
respectively. The water volumes of fibre-reinforced systems do not differ Lead 2
appreciably from unreinforced systems, since the variation in the type of Mercury 0.6
fibre used does not influence the amount of water used, as shown in Silver 0.6
Table 10 and in Table 11. Zinc 0.6 3 16

3.5.1. Human toxicity (non-cancer)
Among the unreinforced and fibre-reinforced systems, the FA + MK
mixture has the greatest impact, with approximately 40 kg 1.4-DB eq.
This value includes all emissions to air, water, and soil. The quantities of
emissions produced by the materials analysed are emissions to soil,
water and air are related to heavy metals. Heavy metals are atmospheric
pollutants present in the air and generally refer to arsenic, cadmium,
lead, mercury, and others. Even if atmospheric levels are low, they settle
and accumulate on the soil and sediments, as well as in organisms. The
latter type of accumulation introduces them to food chain. Analysing the
FA + MK system (Table 12), the emission to air concern lead (2 kg 1.4-
DB eq.), arsenic (+V) (1 kg 1.4-DB eq.), mercury (0.6 kg 1,4-DB eq.),
silver (0.6 kg 1.4-DB eq.) and zinc (0.6 kg 1.4-DB eq.), for a total of about
5 kg 1.4-DB eq. In addition, the FA + MK system produces emission of
metals to water for a total of 15 kg 1.4-DB eq. Metals are mainly arsenic
(+V) (11 kg 1.4-DB eq.) and zinc, in lower amount (3 kg 1.4-DB eq.). The
latter metal is released as an emission to soil. In fact, the emission to soil,
which amount to about 18 kg 1.4-DB eq., are represented by zinc (16 kg
1.4-DB eq.) and cadmium (1 kg 1.4-DB eq.). The remaining kilogram is
divided into other metals in negligible quantities. Table 12 shows the
emissions of FA + MK mortars in this impact category.
Considering the reinforced materials, the results are identical since
1% of fibres does not represent a considerable variation.
3.3.1.2. Damage to ecosystem. The impacts due to the production of
geopolymer mortars depend on terrestrial ecotoxicity and land use.
3.6. Terrestrial ecotoxicity
The emissions produced in greater quantities by unreinforced mor­
tars, as shown in Fig. 8, and fibre-reinforced mortars, are those to air.
Instead, emission to soil and water are negligible.
Fig. 8 shows that the emission to air relating to the FA + MK system
concerns heavy metals (Table 13), which are mainly silver (83 kg 1.4-DB
eq.), mercury (39 kg 1.4-DB eq.) and copper (32.5 kg 1.4-DB eq.). The
Table 10
Freshwater consumption values category of unreinforced systems.
Freshwater consumption [m3] FA GGBS FA + GGBS
Resources 1430 1860 1120
Emission to water 1400 1820 1100
Total 36 37 20
addition of fibres does not generate a considerable increase in impacts.
In fact, heavy metal emissions concern the same metals in similar
quantities. For the FA + MK + BF system, the silver emissions are equal
to 87 kg 1.4-DB eq.; mercury is equal to 45 kg 1.4-DB eq. and the copper
is equal to 34 kg 1.4-DB eq. Table 13 shows the emission to air of FA +
MK mortars and FA + MK + BF mortars.
3.6.1. Land use
In all the systems analysed, the overall land use is 99% linked to
occupation and the land transformation represents only 1% of the im­
pacts, as shown in Fig. 9. For unreinforced systems, the land use is
greater in the case of FA + MK with a land occupation equal to 40.8
Annual crop eq.⋅y while the transformation is equal to 0.7 Annual crop
eq.⋅y.
By examining fibre-reinforced matrices, the FA + MK system has a
greater impact on land use. Of all the fibres, hemp exploits the land more
(Fig. 10). In fact, for the FA + MK + HF system land occupation is equal
to 64 Annual crop eq.⋅y while the transformation is equal to 0.7 Annual
crop eq.⋅y. Fig. 10 shows the land occupation and land transformation
for all mortars.
3.6.1.1. Damage to resource availability. The production of geopolymer
mortars has a strong impact on the fossil depletion category.
3.6.1.1.1. Fossil depletion. For unreinforced mortars, the FA + MK
system uses a greater quantity of non-renewable energy resources
(Fig. 11). Natural gas equal to 133 kg oil eq., a quantity of crude oil equal
to 41.3 kg oil eq. and of coal equal to 53.5 kg oil eq. are used. For ma­
terial resources, the FA + MK system contributes more to their use with a
consumption of non-renewable elements (sulphur) equal to 0.0277 kg
oil eq. and non-renewable resources (bound sulphur) equal to 5.01E-07
kg oil eq. Fig. 11 shows the consumption of non-renewable energy re­
sources of unreinforced mortars.
For the fibre-reinforced systems (Fig. 12), the FA + MK + BF system
uses a greater quantity of non-renewable energy resources (316 kg oil
eq.) than the other fibre-reinforced systems examined: 148 kg oil eq.
(FA + GF); 185 kg oil eq. (FA + BF); 152 kg oil eq. (FA + HF); 197 kg oil
eq. (GGBS + GF); 235 kg oil eq. (GGBS + BF); 202 kg oil eq. (GGBS +
HF); 126 kg oil eq. (FA + GGBS + GF); 163 kg oil eq. (FA + GGBS + BF);
130 kg oil eq. (FA + GGBS + HF); 278 kg oil eq. (FA + MK + GF) and
FA + MK
282 kg oil eq. (FA + MK + HF). The most used energy resources are
3000 crude oil (42.1 kg oil eq.), coal (54.9 kg oil eq.), lignite (11.7 kg oil eq.),
2950
natural gas (179 kg oil eq.) and uranium (27.3 kg oil eq.). Fig. 12 shows
65

8
F. Colangelo et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777

Fig. 8. Emissions to air, water and soil for the terrestrial ectoxicity of the fibre-reinforced systems, expressed in logarithmic scale.

4. Results and discussion

Table 13
Emission to air values for the terrestrial ecotoxicity of unreinforced and fibre-
The LCA analysis involved the assessment of the life cycle of the
reinforced systems.
production of geopolymer mortars, as a more sustainable solution,
Element [kg 1.4-DB eq.] FA + MK FA + MK + BF compared to ordinary concretes. The impact category that is most used
Copper 32.5 34 as a reference is the “climate change” category. The reason is related to
Mercury 39 45 the nature of the category, as it analyses and calculates the production of
Silver 83 87
carbon dioxide emitted to the air. Carbon dioxide is a climate-altering
substance, capable of significantly modifying the ecosystem, with con­
the consumption of non-renewable energy resources of reinforced sequences also on human health. The LCA analysis involved the evalu­
mortars. ation of unreinforced and reinforced mortars. Different types of fibres
Regarding the material resources, the FA + MK + FA system con­ were considered, such as glass, basalt, and hemp fibres. The transport of
tributes most to their use with a consumption of non-renewable ele­ the materials has been excluded, since they come from companies
ments (sulphur) equal to 0.0608 kg oil eq. and non-renewable resources operating in Italy for which the distances are almost the same. In
(bonded sulphur) of 5.21E0-7 kg oil eq. addition, the impacts are negligible (0.1 kg CO2 eq.).

Fig. 9. Land occupation and land transformation for the land use category of unreinforced systems, expressed in logarithmic scale.

9
F. Colangelo et al.
Fig. 10. Land occupation and land transformation for the land use category of fibre-reinforced systems, expressed in logarithmic scale.
Fig. 11. Consumption of non-renewable energy resources for fossil depletion category of unreinforced systems, expressed in logarithmic scale.
4.1. Overall results
From a general overview that includes all the impact categories, it
emerges that the mortar with the lowest overall impact is FA + GGBS,
while the FA + MK system has the greatest impact. Their ratio with
respect to the overall contribution to the environment is approximately
1:4.5. This leads to considering the FA + MK system as a critical com­
pound. Even mortar made with fly ash (FA) results in being an optimal
solution in terms of sustainability. However it has a greater impact than
the FA + GGBS system, but this is a predictable result. In fact, on
average, fly ash have a greater impact than ground granulated blast
furnace slag, since 1 kg of fly ash corresponds to the impacts of 19.2
kWh, while 1 kg of ground granulated blast slag corresponds to the
impacts of 4 kg of steel (Van den Heede et al., 2012). Therefore, in the
FA + GGBS system, the ground granulated blast slag is able to
compensate for the impacts deriving from fly ash. However, the GGBS
system appears to have an overall greater impact than the FA system.
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777
This result derives from the impact of sodium hydroxide. In all cases, the
impact categories vary proportionally with respect to each compound
evaluated, as can be easily deduced from the following Fig. 13, which
graphically summarizes the considerations just described.
For the reinforced mortars, the same results emerged. If compared to
the “climate change” category, hemp fibres are the ones that produce the
greatest emissions, overall the mortars made with basalt fibres have
slightly higher impacts than mortars reinforced with glass fibres and
hemp fibres. However, the nature of the fibres (1% of the total weight)
does not affect the results. In fact, for each mixture used, the overall
impacts are approximately the same. The ratios among the mortars are
also almost the same as for unreinforced mortars. In particular, the ratio
between the mortar FA + MK and the mortar FA + GGBS is the highest
and is approximately equal to 4. In any case, even in the presence of the
reinforcing fibres, regardless of their nature, the impact categories vary
proportionally, with respect to each compound evaluated. Fig. 14 shows
a general overview of fibre-reinforced mortars.
F. Colangelo et al.
Fig. 12. Consumption of non-renewable energy resources for fossil depletion category of fibre-reinforced systems, expressed in logarithmic scale.
Fig. 13. Comparison of overall impacts of unreinforced geopolymer mortars.
4.2. Specific results: CO2 emissions
According to the study proposed by Habert et al. (2011) in most of
the systems analysed it was found that the sodium silicate solution is the
species that has the greatest impact, producing considerable quantities
of CO2. Specifically, for FA and GGBS systems, the amount of CO2
emitted to the atmosphere is approximately 430 kg CO2 eq.; for FA +
GGBS systems CO2 quantity is lower and equal to about 110 kg CO2 eq.
These emissions are in line with the proportions used for manufacturing
mortars: 300 kg used in the FA and GGBS systems and 170 kg used in the
FA + GGBS system. In detail, the production of CO2 by sodium silicate
derives from the melting and vitrification phases which take place in
furnaces at very high temperatures and pressure. The use of electricity
(about 4500 MJ) and deionised water (115 m3) for the preparation of the
desired solution also affects the production of CO2. In the FA + GGBS
system, in addition to sodium silicate, the species that contributes to the
production of CO2 is also sodium hydroxide. This is a consequence of the
lower amount of sodium silicate present in the compound (170 kg). In
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777
fact, the quantity of sodium hydroxide is equal to about 400 kg, a
quantity that is among the highest compared to other mortars. For the
FA + MK system, CO2 emissions associated with sodium silicate are 767
kg CO2 eq. whereas sodium hydroxide produces only 50 kg CO2 eq.
These emissions match the mass of these species: circa 530 kg of sodium
silicate and circa 190 kg of sodium hydroxide. A considerable proportion
of CO2 emissions is also attributable to metakaolin. The reason is linked
to the production of metakaolin. The production of metakaolin involves
a process of calcination of the raw material, kaolin, at high temperatures
and between 600 and 900 ◦ C (White et al., 2010). Therefore, the CO2
emissions are mainly related to the high temperatures that are reached
during the calcination process. Quantity produced by about 470 kg of
metakaolin corresponds to the production of 1050 kg CO2 eq. A negli­
gible contribution also comes from the electricity used. In fact, CO2
emissions from electricity use amount to 6 kg CO2 eq./m3, correspond­
ing to 2.8 kg CO2 eq./t. Following these considerations, a comparison
with emissions from the production of traditional concrete makes it
possible to assert that mortars have a lower impact than it. The only
F. Colangelo et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777

Fig. 14. Comparison of overall impacts of fibre-reinforced geopolymer mortars.

exception is the mortar based on FA and MK, whose impacts are
approximately equal (or slightly higher) than those of concrete. In fact,
the production of CO2 resulting from the production of concrete is equal
to 842 kg CO2 eq./t (Scrivener et al., 2018). Subsequently, mortars
involving the addition of reinforcing fibres were analysed. The fibres are
present in a percentage of 1%. This quantity is of little relevance from
the point of view of the environmental impact in all categories. By
analysing each system, the presence of fibres results in a percentage
increase in CO2 impacts between 2% and 11%. In all systems hemp fibres
are responsible for the higher percentage increase. This is a consequence
of model hypotheses, which include the cultivation, harvesting and
processing processes of hemp fibres. In terms of CO2 emissions of 1 tonne
of mortar, glass fibre produces 17 kg CO2 eq./t, basalt fibre produces 18
kg CO2 eq./t and hemp fibre produces 20 kg CO2 eq./t. These values are
in addition to the impacts generated by unreinforced systems. Total CO2
eq. values of each mortar, referring to 1 tonne of mortar, are reported in
Table 14.
The results reported in Table 14 show that in percentage terms glass
fibre produces an increase of 7.3% in the FA system, 5.8% in the GGBS
system, 9.5% in the FA + GGBS system and just 1.9% in the FA + MK
system. Basalt fibre produces an increase of 7.7% in the FA system, 6% in
the GGBS system, 10% in the FA + GGBS system and just 2% in the FA +
MK system. Hemp fibre produces an increase of 8.3% in the FA system,
6.6% in the GGBS system, 11% in the FA + GGBS system and just 2.15%
in the FA + MK system.
5. Conclusions
The LCA methodology is a valuable tool for evaluating and quanti­
fying the environmental and energy loads of any production process.
The present study involved evaluating the environmental impacts on the
geopolymer mortars production. The mix design phase was the starting
point for the choice of quantities. Numerous tests have been carried out
based on which the recipes have been chosen that have returned satis­
factory resistance values. The geopolymer mortars designed envisaged
the use of three precursors (metakaolin, ground granules blast furnace
slag and fly ash), suitably activated with activating solutions based on
sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide. Specifically, the mortars pro­
duced and evaluated are FA mortar, FA + GGBS mortar, GGBS mortar
and FA + MK mortars. The analyses of the environmental impacts are
particularly complex. The maximum value was obtained from the pro­
duction of geopolymer mortars FA + MK, while the minimum impact
values were found for the system FA + GGBS. In both cases, the impacts
derive mainly from the activating solutions, while the precursors in the
form of industrial waste have proven to be a valid alternative to Portland
cement, the production of which generates CO2 emissions equal to
0.675 kg CO2 eq./kg (European Commission, 2013). The advantage
deriving from the use of fly ash and granulated ground slag as precursors

Table 14
CO2 emissions of fibres related to 1 tonne of unreinforced mortar and fibre-reinforced mortar.
Emissions kg CO2 eq./t FA GGBS MK SS NaOH 10M NaOH 12M Sand GF BF HF

FA 0.08 205 12.5 12

FA + GF 0.08 205 12.5 11.5 17
FA + BF 0.08 205 12.5 11.5 18
FA + HF 0.08 205 12.5 11.5 20
GGBS 1.5 205 78 6
GGBS + GF 1.5 205 78 5.7 17
GGBS + BF 1.5 205 78 5.7 18
GGBS + HF 1.5 205 78 5.7 20
FA + GGBS 0.07 0.8 117 51 6
FA + GGBS + GF 0.07 0.8 117 51 5.5 17
FA + GGBS + BF 0.07 0.8 117 51 5.5 18
FA + GGBS + HF 0.07 0.8 117 51 5.5 20
FA + MK 0.06 500 365 24 4
FA + MK + GF 0.06 500 365 24 3.6 17
FA + MK + BF 0.06 500 365 24 3.6 18
FA + MK + HF 0.06 500 365 24 3.6 20

12
F. Colangelo et al.
is in the use of highly reactive fly ash, therefore rich in aluminosilicate
species. In fact, not all fly ash is suitable for producing a geo­
polymerization reaction. Therefore, using industrial wastes of different
chemical compositions it is possible to obtain different life cycle
assessment results. Another important advantage is the reuse of mate­
rials that would normally be waste materials. Indeed, fly ash and ground
granulated slag can reduce emissions, as they are industrial by-products
that would remain unused after their production. Among other things,
their use implies the adoption of the principles of the circular economy.
Finally, the influence of the addition of reinforcing fibres on the per­
formance and environmental impacts of geopolymer mortars was
investigated. The analysis also shows that, for all mortars, the addition
of fibres in the amount between 1% and 2% by weight, it does not make
substantial changes. This is an extremely advantageous fact, as it does
not produce substantial negative effects on the environment since there
is an average increase equal to 0.018 kg CO2 eq./kg. Another advantage
of using mortars is the significant energy savings. Traditional concrete
production requires an energy consumption of 440 kWh/kg (Colangelo
et al., 2018). On the contrary, the production of mortars required a
minimum contribution of electricity (0.006 kWh/kg). This translates
into savings in terms of coal, oil, petroleum coke, and natural gas
(Chatziaras et al., 2014). Based on these considerations, to further
mitigate the environmental impacts, one could think of evaluating and
improving the mixtures, appropriately calibrating the relationships be­
tween the reacting species, since the latter are the most critical factors of
systems. A careful choice of raw materials must be focused on both solid
and liquid components. From this perspective, it is plausible to think of
replacing sodium silicate with chemically modified rice husk ash since
this has a lower environmental impact than the commercial sodium
silicate solution (Mellado et al., 2014). In conclusion, the environmental
impact of geopolymer mortars should be minimized, therefore it is
necessary to develop new binding materials with greater sustainability.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Francesco Colangelo: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization.
Ilenia Farina: Writing – original draft, Methodology. Marta Trav­
aglioni: Formal analysis, designed the model, carried out the imple­
mentation. Cinzia Salzano: Methodology. Raffaele Cioffi:
Conceptualization. Antonella Petrillo: Formal analysis, designed the
model, carried out the implementation, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the financial support from Regione Cam­
pania. The work is the result of the Italian project Idrica “Laboratorio
integrato per il monitoraggio, controllo e gestione ottimale delle risorse idriche
e ambientali” POR Campania FESR 2014/2020, Asse 1. O.S. 1.2, Az.
1.2.2. CUP B63D18000310007.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127777.
References
Abdulkareem, M., Havukainen, J., Horttanainen, M., 2019. How environmentally
sustainable are fibre reinforced alkali-activated concretes? J. Clean. Prod. 236,
117601 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.076, 2019.
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777
Brykov, A.S., Korneev, V.I., 2008. Production and usage of powdered alkali metal silicate
hydrates. Metallurgist 52, 648–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11015-009-9108-5.
Cabral, M.R., Nakanishi, E.Y., Dos Santos, V., Palacios, J.H., Godbout, S., Savastano
Junior, H., et al., 2018. Evaluation of pre-treatment efficiency on sugarcane bagasse
fibers for the production of cement composites. Arch. Civil Mech. Eng. 18 (4),
1092–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2018.02.012.
Carabba, L., Moricone, R., Scarponi, G.E., Tugnoli, A., Bignozzi, M.C., 2019. Alkali
activated lightweight mortars for passive fire protection: a preliminary study.
Construct. Build. Mater. 195, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.11.005.
Chatziaras, N., Psomopoulos, C.S., Themelis, N., 2014. Use of Alternative Fuels in
Cement Industry. 12th International Conference on Protection and Restoration of the
Environment, at: Skiathos Island, Greece, vol. 1, pp. 521–529.
Chindaprasirt, P., Rattanasak, U., 2018. Fire-resistant geopolymer bricks synthesized
from high-calcium fly ash with outdoor heat exposure. Clean Technol. Environ.
Policy 20 (5), 1097–1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1532-4.
Colangelo, F., Forcina, A., Farina, I., Petrillo, A., 2018a. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
different kinds of concrete containing waste for sustainable construction. Buildings 8
(5), 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8050070.
Colangelo, F., Petrillo, A., Cioffi, R., Borrelli, C., Forcina, A., 2018b. Life cycle assessment
of recycled concretes: a case study in southern Italy. Sci. Total Environ. 615,
1506–1517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.107.
Darsana, P., Abraham, R., Joseph, A., Jasheela, A., Binuraj, P.R., Sarma, J., 2016.
Development of coir-fibre cement composite roofing tiles. Procedia Technol. 24,
169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.05.024.
Dorn, C., Behrend, R., Giannopoulos, D., Napolano, L., García Baños, B., James, V.,
Uhlig, V., Catalá, J.M., Founti, M., Trimis, D., 2015. KPI and LCA evaluation of
integrated microwave technology for high temperature processes. Procedia CIRP 29,
492–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.033.
Fan, F., Liu, Z., Xu, G., Peng, H., Cai, C.S., 2018. Mechanical and thermal properties of fly
ash based geopolymers. Construct. Build. Mater. 160, 66–81. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.023.
Fawer, M., Concannon, M., Rieber, W., 1999. Life cycle inventories for the production of
sodium silicates. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4, 207.
Ferone, C., Colangelo, F., Cioffi, R., Montagnaro, F., Santoro, L., 2011. Mechanical
performances of weathered coal fly ash based geopolymer bricks. Procedia Eng. 21,
745–752.
Habert, G., d’Espinose de Lacaillerie, J.B., 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.
ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -
Principles and Framework.
ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044:2006 Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -
Requirements and Guidelines.
Luukkonen, T., Abdollahnejad, Z., Yliniemi, J., Kinnunen, P., Illikainen, M., 2018.
Comparison of alkali and silica sources in one-part alkali-activated blast furnace slag
mortar. J. Clean. Prod. 187, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.03.202.
McLellan, B.C., Williams, R.P., Lay, J., Van Riessen, A., Corder, G.D., 2011. Costs and
carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary Portland cement.
J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1080–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.02.010.
Mellado, A., Catalán, C., Bouzón, N., Borrachero, M.V., Monzó, J.M., Payá, J., 2014.
Carbon footprint of geopolymeric mortar: study of the contribution of the alkaline
activating solution and assessment of an alternative route. RSC Adv. 4,
23846–23852. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RA03375B.
Nazari, A., Bagheri, A., Sanjayan, J.G., Dao, M., Mallawa, C., Zannis, P., Zumbo, S., 2019.
Thermal shock reactions of ordinary Portland cement and geopolymer concrete:
microstructural and mechanical investigation. Construct. Build. Mater. 196,
492–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.098.
Ohno, M., Li, V.C., 2018. An integrated design method of Engineered Geopolymer
Composite. Cement Concr. Compos. 88, 73e85 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2018.02.001.
Palumbo, G., Iadicicco, A., Messina, F., Ferone, C., Campopiano, S., Cioffi, R.,
Colangelo, F., 2018. Characterization of early age curing and shrinkage of
metakaolin-based inorganic binders with different rheological behavior by fiber
Bragg grating sensors. Materials 11 (1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11010010.
Provis, J.L., 2018. Alkali-activated materials. Cement Concr. Res. 114, 40–48. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.009.
Puertas, F., Gonzalez-Fonteboa, B., Gonz_alez-Taboada, I., Alonso, M.M., Torres-
Carrasco, M., Rojo, G., Martínez-Abella, F., 2018. Alkali-activated slag concrete:
Fresh and hardened behaviour. Cement Concr. Compos. 85 22, 31. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.10.003.
Salas, D.A., Ramirez, A.D., Ulloa, N., Baykara, H., Boero, A.J., 2018. Life cycle
assessment of geopolymer concrete. Construct. Build. Mater. 190, 170–177. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.123.
Schneider, P., Oswald, K.-D., Riedel, W., Meyer, A., Schiller, G., Bimesmeier, T., Pham
Thi, V.A., Nguyen Khac, L., 2018. Engineering perspectives and environmental life
cycle optimization to enhance aggregate mining in Vietnam. Sustainability 10, 525.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020525.
Scrivener, K.L., John, V.M., Gartner, E.M., 2018. Eco-efficient cements: potential
economically viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials industry.
Cement Concr. Res. 114, 2–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.03.015.
Spath, P.L., Mann, M.K., Kerr, D.R., 1999. Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-Fired Power
Production. United States. Web. https://doi.org/10.2172/12100.
F. Colangelo et al.
Stengel, T., Reger, J., Heinz, D., 2009. Life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete-
what is the environmental benefit?. In: Concrete 09, 24th Biennial Conf Australian
Concrete Institute. Concrete Institute of Australia, pp. 54–62. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.007. Sydney, Australia.
Turner, L.K., Collins, F.G., 2013. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a
comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Construct. Build. Mater.
43, 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023.
Van den Heede, P., De Belie, N., 2012. Environmental impact and life cycle assessment
(LCA) of traditional and “green” concretes: literature review and theoretical
calculations. Cement Concr. Compos. 34 (4), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2012.01.004.
Wang, Y.C., Zhao, J.P., 2019. Facile preparation of slag or fly ash geopolymer composite
coatings with flame resistance. Construct. Build. Mater. 203, 655–661. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.097.
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 312 (2021) 127777
White, C.E., Provis, J.L., Proffen, T., Riley, D.P., van Deventer, J.S.J., 2010. Density
functional modeling of the local structure of kaolinite subjected to thermal
dehydroxylation. J. Phys. Chem. 114, 4988–4996.
Xie, T., Visintin, P., Zhao, X., Gravina, R., 2020. Mix design and mechanical properties of
geopolymer and alkali activated concrete: review of the state-of-the-art and the
development of a new unified approach. Construct. Build. Mater. 256, 119380.
Yang, K.H., Song, J.K., Song, K., 2013. Assessment of CO2 reduction of alkalia-activated
concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.08.001.
Yuan, B., Straub, C., Segers, S., Yu, Q.L., Brouwers, H.J.H., 2017. Sodium carbonate
activated slag as cement replacement in autoclaved aerated concrete. Ceram. Int. 43,
6039–6047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2017.01.144.
Zhou, C., Shi, S.Q., Chen, Z., Cai, L., Smith, L., 2018. Comparative environmental life
cycle assessment of fiber reinforced cement panel between kenaf and glass fibers.
J. Clean. Prod. 200, 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.200.