sustainability

Review
A Review: Construction and Demolition Waste as a Novel Source
for CO2 Reduction in Portland Cement Production for Concrete
Kubilay Kaptan, Sandra Cunha * and José Aguiar

Center for Territory, Environment and Construction (CTAC), Department of Civil Engineering,
Campus de Azurém, University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal; [email protected] (K.K.);
[email protected] (J.A.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: There is an increasing global recognition of the need for environmental sustainability
in mitigating the adverse impacts of cement production. Despite the implementation of various
carbon dioxide (CO2 ) mitigation strategies in the cement industry, such as waste heat recovery, the
use of alternative raw materials and alternative fuels, energy efficiency improvements, and carbon
capture and storage, overall emissions have still increased due to the higher production levels. The
resolution of this matter can be efficiently achieved by the substitution of traditional materials with
an alternative material, such as calcined clay (CC), construction and demolition waste (CDW), which
have a significant impact on various areas of sustainable development, including environmental,
economic, and social considerations. The primary objectives of employing CDW in the Portland
cement production are twofold: firstly, to mitigate the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, as it is a
significant contributor to environmental pollution and climate change; and secondly, to optimize
the utilization of waste materials, thereby addressing the challenges associated with their disposal.
The purpose of this work is to present a thorough examination of the existing body of literature
pertaining to the partial replacement of traditional raw materials by CDW and the partial replacement
of Portland cement by CDW and to analyze the resulting impact on CO2 emissions.
Citation: Kaptan, K.; Cunha, S.;
Aguiar, J. A Review: Construction and Keywords: construction and demolition waste; carbon dioxide reduction; cement production
Demolition Waste as a Novel Source
for CO2 Reduction in Portland
Cement Production for Concrete.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585. https:// 1. Introduction
doi.org/10.3390/su16020585
Cement, being one of the most widely utilized materials for construction, plays a
Academic Editors: Ahmed crucial role as the primary binder in concrete, leading to the formation of a durable, stone-
Salih Mohammed, Azeez like, hard material capable of withstanding various loads [1–4].
Abdullah Barzinjy and Samir The conventional kind of cement, known as ordinary Portland cement (OPC), primarily
Mustafa Hamad comprises over 90% Portland cement clinker. This particular type of cement is derived
from readily accessible raw materials that are widely abundant and cost-effective, making
Received: 3 November 2023
Revised: 22 December 2023
it easily obtainable in nearly all regions [5].
Accepted: 24 December 2023
This inexpensive mineral binder has rapid hardening properties in nearly all livable
Published: 9 January 2024 environments, enabling the creation of diverse structures [6]. Moreover, its user-friendly
nature allows untrained individuals, including those lacking literacy skills, to utilize it
effectively for self-construction purposes [5].
Cement constitutes approximately 10% of the total volume of concrete on a global scale,
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. and approximately 50% of cement is allocated to produce concrete, while the remaining
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. portion is designated for applications such as mortars, pastes, and pre-manufactured
This article is an open access article products [7].
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 585. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020585 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 2 of 50

1.1. Cement Production

1.1.1. Global Cement Production
The global output of cement has witnessed a significant rise over the years. Specifically,
it has escalated from 0.94 billion tons in 1970 to 2.284 billion tons in 2005, further increasing
to 4.05 billion tons in 2017 and reaching 4.1 billion tons in 2018 [8].
In the year 2017, the countries of China and India, which are recognized as the largest
global manufacturers, collectively accounted for 64% of the global cement production. This
equated to a total output of 2.61 million tons of cement out of the whole global production
of 4.05 million tons [6]. In the year 2019, the primary producers of cement were China,
India, the European Union, and the United States [9,10]. These four entities collectively
accounted for 56.1%, 7.8%, 4.4%, and 2.2% of the total cement production, respectively [11].
Current cement consumption is about 4.2 billion tons per year [12], which is enough
to produce almost 1.6 m3 of concrete per person. This amount, which is approximately half
of the volume of food produced worldwide, is expected to reach approximately 6 billion
tons by the end of 2050 [7,13].

1.1.2. Cement Production Stages

Cement is derived from a combination of limestone, clay, and sand, which serve as
the primary sources of lime, silica, alumina, and iron [14]. Cement production by the dry
manufacturing process consists of six stages [6,15–18].
During the initial phase, the raw materials necessary for the process are extracted
through mining operations, such as limestone, clay, laterite, bauxite, iron ore, kaolinite,
sandstone, and other similar inorganic materials. All of them, properly dosed, constitute
the “Portland clinker crude” (PCC), the last six being in addition the fluxes or mineralizers
of the first two (those with the highest dosage), to which, despite their very considerable
lower dosage, they reduce their melting point so that they can chemically react more
and better and thus form Portland clinker permanently. The second stage of the process
entails the characterization of diverse raw materials and their proper dosage to create PCC.
During the third stage, the PCC is introduced into a preheating chamber. During the fourth
stage, the pre-heated decarbonized PCC is introduced into the rotary kiln to undergo the
process of clinkerization at a temperature ≥1450 ◦ C. During the fifth stage, the clinker that
emerges from the kiln undergoes a quick cooling process facilitated using pressurized air.
During the concluding phase, the cooled clinker is recovered from the cooling vessels and
then transferred to the mills. The clinker is ground together with the optimum amount
of setting regulator [19] (natural gypsum stone) into powder using a ball mill or roller
mill, or a vertical mill, and the pulverized cement is transported to storage silos using a
transportation system suitable for shipping (Figure 1). Nevertheless, if the composition
of the ground material consists of a combination of natural and/or artificial pozzolans
and/or GGBFS along with Portland clinker, the ideal quantity of setting regulator needs to
be determined utilizing the R. Talero method [20].
Sustainability
Sustainability 16, x 16,
2024, 2024, FOR 585PEER REVIEW 3 of 52
3 of 50

Figure 1. 1.
Figure Cement
Cementproduction.
production.

1.2. Environmental Impacts

The six phases can beofcondensed
Cement Production
into three primary stages: raw meal preparation,
clinker production, and finish grinding [21,22].
In comparison to the year 1750, it has been observed that concentrations of CO2 in the
Earth’s atmosphereImpacts
1.2. Environmental have risen fromProduction
of Cement 280 to 410 parts per million by volume (ppmV) [23–
29]. ThisIn comparison to the year 1750, it hastobeen
upward trajectory is projected persist in thethat
observed coming decades,ofpotentially
concentrations CO2 in the lead-
ingEarth’s
to a temperature
atmosphere haverise risen
of upfrom
to 5.8
280°C
toduring
410 partsthe
perpresent
million century
by volume [29,30].
(ppmV) [23–29].
Approximately
This upward trajectory40% is of worldwide
projected CO2inemissions
to persist the coming can be attributed
decades, to four
potentially keytoindus-
leading
◦ C during the present century [29,30].
tries: power plants, iron and steel manufacturing, cement manufacturing, and chemicals
a temperature rise of up to 5.8
and petrochemicals
Approximately[29].40%The cement sector
of worldwide is identified
CO2 emissions can as
be the primary
attributed contributor
to four of pro-
key indus-
tries: power plants, iron and steel manufacturing, cement manufacturing, and chemicals
cess emissions [16,31].
and petrochemicals [29]. The cement sector is identified as the primary contributor of
Based on the available worldwide CO2 emission data, cement plants made a substan-
process emissions [16,31].
tial contribution
Based on the ofavailable
2.9 billion tons of CO
worldwide CO22 emission
in the year
data,2021 [7].plants
cement This figure
made arepresents
substan- an
almost fivefold increase
tial contribution when compared
of 2.9 billion tons of CO2to inthe
theemission
year 2021level of 0.57
[7]. This billion
figure tons recorded
represents an
in 1990
almost[29,32].
fivefold increase when compared to the emission level of 0.57 billion tons recorded
in 1990 [29,32].
CO2 Emissions from the Cement Industry
CO2 Emissions from the Cement Industry
Cement production is a highly resource-intensive process that consumes significant
Cement production is a highly resource-intensive process that consumes significant
amounts
amountsofofenergy
energy and
and raw materials[16].
raw materials [16].This
Thisprocess
process leads
leads to emission
to the the emissionof COof CO2
2
through two primary pathways: direct emissions from the combustion
through two primary pathways: direct emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in of fossil fuels in
thethe
kiln and
kiln andindirect
indirectemissions fromthe
emissions from thecalcination
calcination process
process of the
of the primary
primary raw material,
raw material,
predominantly
predominantlylimestone
limestone[33].
[33].Additionally,
Additionally, the theconsumption
consumption of of electricity in cement
electricity in cement pro-
duction, particularly
production, when
particularly whengenerated
generatedfrom
from fossil fuelcombustion,
fossil fuel combustion, contributes
contributes to overall
to overall
COCO2 emissions
2 emissions [34].
[34].
TheThe emissionof
emission ofCO
CO22 during
during the
themanufacturing
manufacturing of of
oneonemetric ton ton
metric of Portland cement
of Portland cement
is predicted to range from 0.73 to 0.99 metric tons throughout various geographical re-
is predicted to range from 0.73 to 0.99 metric tons throughout various geographical re-
gions [34]. It can be asserted that the manufacturing of one kilogram of Portland cement
gions [34]. It can be asserted that the manufacturing of one kilogram of Portland cement
results in the emission of about one kilogram of CO2 into the atmosphere [35,36].
results The
in the emission
global of about
production one
of this kilogram
product of CO2 into
is responsible forthe atmosphere5–9%
approximately [35,36].
of CO2
The global production of this product is responsible for approximately
emissions [13,16,29,37–41]. Furthermore, it accounts for significant emissions of carbon 5–9% of CO2
emissions
monoxide[13,16,29,37–41]. Furthermore,
(CO) and heavy metals it accounts
[14]. In addition to COfor significant
2 , CO, and heavyemissions
metals, theofusecarbon
monoxide (CO) and
of a substantial heavyofmetals
quantity material [14].
hasInledaddition to CO2,burden
to the excessive CO, and onheavy metals,
deposits the use
of these
of materials
a substantial quantity
and the of material
alteration has led toThe
of the environment. theproduction
excessive of burden on cement
Portland deposits of these
alone
materials and the alteration of the environment. The production of Portland cement alone
entails the consumption of approximately double the quantity of raw materials required
to manufacture one metric ton of Portland cement [35].
As previously stated, the process of manufacturing Portland cement results in the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 4 of 50

entails the consumption of approximately double the quantity of raw materials required to
manufacture one metric ton of Portland cement [35].
As previously stated, the process of manufacturing Portland cement results in the emis-
sion of carbon dioxide through both direct and indirect means [39]. Indirect emissions are
generated because of the calcination process, wherein limestone, the principal constituent
of cement, undergoes heating [39,42,43]. The process of thermal decomposition causes the
calcium carbonate present in limestone to undergo a chemical transformation, resulting
in the formation of calcium oxide and the liberation of CO2 gas [39]. This procedure is
responsible for approximately 50% of the total emissions generated during the manufacture
of cement [32,41]. The production of cement involves subjecting limestone and other clay-
like materials to high temperatures of approximately 1450 ◦ C within a kiln [39,44]. Direct
emissions arise because of the combustion of fossil fuels utilized for the purpose of heating
the kiln, constituting approximately 40% of the total emissions associated with cement
manufacturing [5,16,45]. The emissions associated with the quarrying of raw materials,
their transportation, grinding processes [46], the electricity consumption for operating
additional plant machinery, as well as the packaging and final delivery of cement, all
contribute to the remaining 10% of the overall emissions [43,47].
Furthermore, a range of technological and managerial inefficiencies within the typical
cement production process might result in additional CO2 emissions. Geographical location,
technological factors, plant and manufacturing efficiency, the energy mix utilized for
electricity generation, and the choice of kiln fuels all contribute to additional carbon dioxide
CO2 emissions [29,38,39].

1.3. Construction and Demolition Waste

Construction waste results from building constructions and building renovations
and consists of surplus material, unusable impaired or fractured material, cut-off pieces,
processing waste, worn-out tools and accessories, dismantled shuttering, packaging, and
waste produced by construction workers [48–50]. On the other hand, after the end of a
structure’s life cycle, its demolition is crucial for the growth of cities where inadequate
space is the major obstruction. CDW can also be generated in the aftermath of a natural
disaster, which presents several significant challenges, such as transportation, storage in an
appropriate location prior to processing, and disposal at landfill sites [51].
Overall, it can be stated that CDW is a type of solid waste generated on construction
sites and during the entire or partial demolition of buildings and infrastructures [52–58].

1.3.1. CDW Composition and Generation

CDW consists primarily of inert and non-inert materials, such as gravel, concrete, sand,
ceramic, tile, metal, plastic, glass, roofing materials, paper, cardboard, etc. The inert waste
materials consist of soft and hard inert materials, whereas the noninert waste consists of
residual waste and other materials such as metals, wood, plastic, and glass [53,59,60]. Inert
fraction waste accounts for between 40 and 85 percent of total waste volume, excluding
excavation soils [50,58,61].
It is estimated that the construction industry annually generates more than 3 billion
tons of CDW worldwide [62–64]. This indicates that CDW accounts for approximately
36% of the world’s total waste production [65]. CDW in the United States rose from
50 million tons in 1980 to 600 million tons in 2018 [61]. More than 1.5 billion tons of CDW
are produced annually in China [66,67], while in the European Union (EU), countries
produce about 850 million tons/year, or 31% of the total waste generation in the EU [68].

1.3.2. Environmental Impacts of CDW

The generation of waste results in adverse externalities on the environment, even
while a significant portion of CDW consists of inert materials that may not provide as
significant a risk as hazardous waste [69,70]. The disposal of CDW in landfills causes land-
slides [71], depletes limited landfill resources, exacerbates energy consumption, amplifies
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 5 of 50

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, poses public health concerns, and contaminates the
environment [44,72–75].
In recent years, governmental bodies have enacted new regulations pertaining to the
management of waste, encompassing responsibilities, disposal practices, and recycling
efforts on a broader scale [76]. Consequently, the urban landscape is undergoing trans-
formation through the establishment of recycling facilities, yet the current recovery rate
for CDW remains very low [49,77]. The expansion of the worldwide population and the
concurrent rise in sea levels have resulted in a reduction in the accessible land for dump
sites, hence leading to an indirect escalation in the expenses associated with landfills [78].

1.4. Scope of the Study

The current solutions for cement manufacturing have issues in meeting the increasing
market demand, hindering the transition towards a sustainable and low-carbon footprint
material. Hence, it is imperative to explore various approaches that might effectively ad-
dress the dual objectives of promoting sustainability and minimizing the carbon emissions
associated with cement production. Parallelly, due to the rapid process of urbanization
and the increasing global population, it is projected that the annual production of waste
worldwide will experience a significant increase, reaching 3.4 billion tons within the next
three decades. This anticipated figure represents a notable rise from the 2.01 billion tons
recorded in 2016 [79].
The decrease in CO2 emissions resulting from the cement production process and
waste management has consistently been a topic of great interest for researchers in both
academic institutions and industry. Numerous endeavors have been undertaken to address
the substantial volume of CO2 emissions stemming from the cement sector, as well as the
incorporation of waste materials within the framework of the circular economy. Despite
the technological viability of the bulk of these techniques, the level of CO2 mitigation in the
cement industry and waste reuse remains unsatisfactory due to different impediments [80].
Furthermore, the utilization of non-renewable materials in the process of cement man-
ufacture has given rise to a novel environmental apprehension. Consequently, professionals
in the industry and scholars have developed novel approaches to tackle these increasingly
complex issues [16].
In contrast with its detrimental effects on the environment and on human life, the
utilization of CDW may contribute to a more sustainable and greener society. Since some of
its components have a high resource value, the majority of CDW is recoverable. CDW might
be recycled and utilized for both economic and environmental gain. The technologies for
the separation and recovery of CDW are well-established, widely available, and generally
affordable [48].
This paper first presents an overview of recent advancements in CO2 mitigation tech-
nologies within the cement industry. This study, then, gives a brief analysis of alternative
fuels (AFs), substitution of alternative raw materials (ARMs) in the raw meal, and substitu-
tion of waste/by-product/recycled materials in Portland cement production. Furthermore,
this study presents comprehensive analysis of the utilization of CDW in the cement indus-
try, emphasizing the beneficial effects of CDW when it is utilized in partial raw material
substitution and in partial Portland cement replacement to reduce CO2 emissions.

1.4.1. Methodology of the Review Paper

The methodology followed in the creation of this review was based on the premise
of giving priority to papers published in the last 10 years with the objective of keeping
the review up to date. The search for scientific papers and books was carried out using
internationally recognized databases, such as SCOPUS, Web of Science, and open-access
databases. The papers were selected by taking into account their contribution to the topic
and scientific relevance.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 6 of 50

1.4.2. Limitation of the Study

The limitations of the study are listed below:
• Non-material related mitigation measures (energy efficiency, waste heat recovery
(WHR), technological upgrading, etc.) are not reviewed.
• The present study does not consider the studies related to alternative binders, alterna-
tive clinkers, and total replacement of Portland cement.
• For the CO2 reduction studies, the present study only considers the research conducted
on concrete mixes.
• The primary focus of the study on reducing CO2 emissions lies in the utilization of CDW-
derived products as a partial replacement in Portland cement to produce concrete.

2. Mitigation and Improvement Measures to Reduce CO2 in Portland

Cement Production
Clinker is a transitional product in the production of cement, occurring before the
mineral additions (MAs) to create the final cement product. As the temperature rises, the
pre-calcined materials undergo physical and chemical transformations, causing them to
liquefy and combine, resulting in the formation of lumps [39]. Thus, the manufacturing of
cement emits greenhouse gases through both chemical and physical processes.
The thermal decomposition of limestone releases CO2 by an endothermic chemical
reaction, and the combustion of coal, fuel, or AF releases it as well (but exothermically), only
that the transmission to the limestone of the heat generated at the same time, to decompose
it and decarbonate it, is not carried out chemically but physically by the following ways:
conduction, convection, and radiation.
Although it is not possible to completely eliminate these emissions, the use of energy-
saving technologies can help reduce physical emissions. Therefore, the cement industry
had been actively engaged in the pursuit of techniques aimed at reducing CO2 emissions
far in advance of the emergence of global warming as a prominent concern. To address this
predicament, an increasing body of research has delved into the process of decarbonization
within the cement sector, as outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Relevant studies on CO2 reduction methods for the cement industry.

Reference Region Reviewed Methods

Utilization of Afs/ARMs, supplementary cementitious materials
[81] Global
(SCMs), and alternative low-carbon binders.
Improving energy efficiency; use of Afs; clinker substitution by
MAs/SCMs; utilization of carbon capture and storage (CCS),
[5] Global
alternative clinkers, and alkali-activated materials; and improving the
efficiency of cement use.
Increased use of calcined clay and engineered filler with dispersants,
introduction of new Portland clinker-based cement alternatives, use
[82] Global
of alkali-activated materials, and improvement of the efficiency of
cement use.
Energy savings and the use of CCS and alternative materials (AFs,
[16] Global
ARMs, and clinker substitute).
Improving energy efficiency, material substitution, and the use of AFs
[14] Global
and CCS.
The use of CCS technologies, reduction of clinker/cement ratio, use
[83] Global
of AFs, and pyro-processing improvements.
Improving energy efficiency, changing fuel type, the use of CCS,
[84] Global
substituting clinker, and improving cement use efficiency.
Reduction of the clinker/cement ratio and the use of ARMs/AFs,
energy efficiency improvements, the use of WHR and CCS, and the
[22] Global
replacement of cement in concrete or mortar with
alternative materials.
[85] Global Utilization of energy conservation approaches.
[86] Global Utilization of CCS, SCMs, and nanotechnology.
Utilization of WHR, blended cements, efficiency improvements,
[87] Global
and CCS.
[88] Global Utilization of CCS.
[10] Global Use of low-carbon cement technologies.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 7 of 50

Table 1. Cont.

Reference Region Reviewed Methods

Improving energy efficiency, the use of AFs, reduction of the
clinker-to-cement ratio, and utilization of emerging and innovative
[89] Asia
technologies (excess heat recovery, CCS, energy management
systems, etc.)
The use of energy efficiency improvement technology, WHR, CCS,
[21] China
AFs, and clinker substitution.
The use of energy efficiency improvements, AFs, clinker substitution,
[90] China
and CCS.
Utilization of advanced efficiency technologies, ARMs, AFs,
[91] China
renewable electricity, CCS, and cement carbonation effects.
[92] China Use of energy efficiency, AFs, ARMs, and CCS.
[93] Indonesia The use of clinker substitutes, AFs, and WHR and upgrading kilns.
Improving energy efficiency and the use of clinker substitution, AFs,
[94] Indonesia
and CCS.
The use of energy and material efficiency strategies, AFs, reducing
[95] Japan clinker-to-cement ratios, lowering transportation emissions, and
decarbonizing electricity supply.
[96] Japan Reuse of building material waste.
The use of energy-efficient technologies, WHR, AFs (fuel
[39] Malaysia
switching/co-processing), alternative binders, and CCS.
[97] Thailand The use of WHR.
[38] Hong Kong The use of Afs and ARMs and the application of combined strategies.
[98] USA Improving energy efficiency.
[2] Portugal Use of alternative clinker technologies.
Improving energy efficiency and the use of waste as raw materials
[99] Poland
and MAs in cement production.
[100] Italy and Germany The use of AFs and ARMs.
[101] Sweden The use of CCS.

As depicted in Table 1, the cement industry globally implements a range of mitigation

techniques, with variable degrees of adoption. Some of these mitigation techniques are
reviewed in the following sections.

2.1. Substitution of Alternative Fuels (AFs)

While AF substitution in the cement production process is not a novel concept [16,102],
its prominence has grown considerably, and the utilization of AFs in cement manufacturing
has received significant attention in recent years due to its efficacy in replacing the thermal
energy derived from fossil fuels and mitigating pollutant emissions. The contemporary ce-
ment kiln exhibits a high degree of adaptability, enabling the cement industry to seamlessly
transition between different fuel sources with moderate ease [5,16]. The cement rotary kiln
possesses the capability to incinerate a diverse array of materials because of the extended
durations spent at elevated temperatures, the inherent capacity of clinker to assimilate and
confine impurities such as heavy metals within itself, and the alkaline conditions prevailing
within the kiln [103].
The cement industry utilizes conventional fossil fuels, including coal, fuel oil, petroleum
coke (petcoke), natural gas, and diesel, in its kilns and pre-heater systems to generate the
elevated temperatures required for clinker production [46]. The aforementioned fuels account
for over 94% of the thermal energy need in the worldwide cement industry [104].
The suitability of AFs is contingent upon various properties, including their physical
state (solid, liquid, or gaseous), lower heating value, ash composition and content, toxicity
(organic compounds, heavy metals), volatile content [105], humidity content, physical
properties (scrap size, density, and homogeneity), content of circulating elements, grinding
properties, storage/feeding capabilities, and calorific value [15,16,43,105–107].
The utilization of AFs offers several key benefits, namely enhanced energy recov-
ery and the preservation of finite fossil fuel resources. These advantages result in the
reduction of pollutant emissions, particularly CO2 , and a projected decrease in the ex-
penses associated with cement production [16,102,103,108,109]. Nevertheless, the adoption
of AFs presents numerous problems as a result of the complexities associated with inte-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 8 of 50

grating supplementary fuel-saving methodologies. Furthermore, it is important to note

that not all AFs guarantee a reduction in CO2 emissions due to their elevated carbon
intensities [45,81,102,110,111].
AFs can be broadly categorized into three primary groups [112]. The first group
comprises liquid AFs, encompassing materials such as waste oil, solvents, animal fat, and
sewage sludge. The second group consists of solid AFs, which include waste tires (either
chipped or whole), animal and bone meal, dried sewage sludge, scrap wood, and waste
materials originating from various industries, such as the pulp, paper, cardboard, plastics,
packaging, and textile industries. Lastly, the third group encompasses gas AFs, which
encompass landfill gases, pyrolytic gases, and biogases.
Typical AFs used by the cement industry include animal meat and bone meat [113–121],
municipal solid waste [110,122–128], refuse derived fuel [129–131], waste tires [110,132–134],
plastic waste [22,106,135], saw dust or wood [136,137], straw [138,139], agriculture and
forest wastes [140–142], almond shells [143,144], olive residues [145], oil palm [146], food
residue [147], rice husk ash [148], natural gas [149], biogas [150], sewage sludge [151–153],
oil sludge [154], slaughterhouse residues [155], spent solvents [110], and solid recovered
fuels [156,157].
It is projected that the global utilization of AFs will increase from 3% in 2006 to around
37% by 2050, resulting in a contribution of approximately 15% towards the intended overall
reduction in CO2 emissions [5,34].

2.2. Substitution of Alternative Raw Materials (ARMs)

The process of the decarbonation of commonly used raw materials, primarily lime-
stone, results in the release of around 0.53 metric tons of CO2 for each metric ton of clinker
produced [153]. Utilizing waste and by-products that include valuable minerals, such
as calcium, silica, alumina, and iron, is a viable option to substitute for traditional raw
materials, including clay, shale, and limestone [15,158].
The incorporation of alternative materials into the clinker recipe necessitates a prudent
methodology, since any modification in the chemical composition of cement will have an
impact on the ultimate quality of the product [22,159].
Various industrial by-products and waste-derived materials have been investigated as
potential substitutes for limestone and clay in the production of cement. The objective is
to minimize the utilization of natural resources, decrease CO2 emissions, and reduce heat
consumption while ensuring that the manufacturing processes remain unaltered [159].
Some of the ARMs utilized in the raw meal for cement production are presented
in Table 2.

Table 2. Typical ARMs utilized as a partial replacement in the raw meal.

Sector Contribution
CDW [44,160–164], concrete waste [26,165–169], cement
waste [170–172], recycled aggregates (RAs) [173,174],
marble and brick waste [175], cement kiln dust [176,177],
Construction
ceramic wastes [178–180], recycled mortar or paste [181],
Industry
cellular concrete [182], asbestos cement tile waste [183],
inorganic construction waste [184], dam fine sediments
[185,186], and dredged sediments [187,188].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 9 of 50

Table 2. Cont.

Sector Contribution
Sewage sludge [189–196], blast furnace slag [197–202],
lime sludge [13,203,204], steel slag [201,205,206],
stainless steel slag [207], basic oxygen furnace slag
[208,209], calcium carbide slag [210], magnesium slag
[211], water purification sludge [212], heavy
metal-containing sludge [213], electric arc furnace slag
Manufacturing
[214], fly ash [197,198,200,215–222], red mud
Industry
[199,223–225], oil-based mud [226,227], iron ore tailings
[228,229], copper tailings [230], industrial hazardous
waste [231], paper pulp waste [232,233], marine
bio-refinery waste [234], glass waste [38,235], plastic
waste [236], fiber-cement waste [237], black dross
leached residue [238], and titanium dioxide waste [239].
Wood ash [240,241], biomass ash [110], sugar filter mud
Agricultural and Aquacultural [242,243], pulverized eggshell waste [244], bone ash
Industries [121], and pulverized oyster and scallop shell
waste [245].
Basalt rock [104,108,246], natural fluorapatite [247],
meta-schist [248], Callovo-Oxfordian argillite [249],
Natural sources
spent volcanic soil [18], calcined clay [250,251], and
spent limestone sorbent [252].
Municipal solid waste [253–255], contaminated soil
Other sources
[256], and mining waste [257].

2.2.1. Consideration of CC as SCM: Replacement of Portland Cement by CC

The materials evaluated in Table 2 have the potential to partially substitute for Portland
clinker by means of novel variations of already utilized SCMs. Among these materials,
calcined clay (CC) deserves particular attention.
By subjecting ordinary clay, which typically contains at least 40% kaolinite and is
widely available in the earth’s crust, to moderate heat treatment (about 700 and 850 ◦ C), it
can be transformed into a pozzolanic material called CC [258,259].
CCs, especially when combined with limestone, are being recognized as a highly
promising solution due to their excellent performance and the abundance of sufficient
reserves of these materials [260]. Limestone calcined clay (LC2) and limestone calcined clay
cement (LC3) systems exploit the synergistic effects of calcined clay and limestone, enabling
a significant decrease of up to 50% in the utilization of clinker [261]. Nevertheless, the clays
typically employed in LC3 systems consist of a minimum of 40% kaolinite [258,262].
Recently, there has been a significant increase in research [263–271] focused on the
potential utilization of CC as an SCM in the manufacturing of cement, with a particular
emphasis on advancing its economic viability [272].
Zhu et al. [273] conducted a study on the characteristics of LC2 blended cement and
compared them with fly ash (FA) and granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS). They reported
that the normal consistency of LC2 blended cement was greatly raised and the substitution
of LC2 at a rate of 60% resulted in an almost twofold increase in normal consistency.
Dhandapani et al. [274] reported that concrete produced with LC3 had superior
compressive strengths compared to concrete with equal combination proportions at all
ages up to 1 year.
The investigation carried out by Vaasudevaa et al. [275] involved the substitution of
cement in concrete with a combination of LC2 at a proportion of 45%. They concluded
that the compressive strength of steam-cured LC3 concrete after 1 day is comparable to
that of OPC concrete, exhibiting a similar strength enhancement resulting from the steam
curing conditions.
The study carried out by Aramburo et al. [276] aimed to evaluate the mechanical
properties and sulfate resistance of blended cements containing a significant amount of
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 10 of 50

CC as pozzolanic material. The objective was to demonstrate that these cements can
meet the requirements of CEM type IV/A-SR and IV/B-SR cements as defined by the
EN 197-1:2011 standard. The results obtained validated the increase in sulfate resistance
and the decrease in the mechanical strength of PC when it was replaced by CC (whose
matrix clay was kaolin doped with ≈50% quartz) in quantities greater than 40%. They also
stated that the blended cements with high percentages of CC replacement successfully met
the specified requirements regarding compressive and flexural strengths without prejudice
to its decrease observed with the increase in its replacement by PC. The reason for both
opposing behaviors, sulfatic and mechanical strengths, was the same: the very high, early,
and fast pozzolanic activity of its silica and reactive alumina contents especially (38.0%
and 15.0%, respectively) [277–279], which excessively decreases the [Ca (OH)] in the liquid
phase of its pastes. To verify this, the authors repeated the tests, replacing a small portion
of the CC used with slaked lime powder (calcium hydroxide, Ca (OH)). Both behaviors
contrasted again, but in the opposite direction; that is, the sulfate resistance decreased,
and the mechanical strengths increased, as when the replacement by PC was ≤40%. This
was similar to how it also increased its resistance to carbonation, which had also been
significantly diminished and seriously compromised, with an increase in the replacement
of CC by PC. The more impaired the material, the greater the 40% replacement was [280].
A study carried out by Yu et al. [281] investigated the practicality of creating a cost-
effective and environmentally friendly cement by combining LC2 at a significant proportion
of 50–80% relative to the weight of the cement. They reported that blended cements
containing 50–60% LC2 exhibit satisfactory compressive strength, decreased hydration
heat, reduced environmental effect, and lower material cost per unit strength but reduced
workability in comparison to plain Portland cement. This contrasts quite a bit with the
results of flexural and compressive strengths obtained by Arámburo et al. [276].
With regard to CO2 emissions, a review of the existing literature [82,260,267,281–288]
has revealed that CC can serve as a viable substitute due to its lower carbon emissions.
Specifically, LC3 technology offers advantages such as resource conservation, global scal-
ability, cost effectiveness, high performance, and ease of implementation on standard
construction sites.
A comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) study has been conducted by
Scrivener et al. [258] for the Cuban cement industry, covering the entire life cycle from
production to the factory gate. Remarkably, regardless of the technological level, LC3 ce-
ment consistently achieved an approximately 30% reduction in CO2 emissions. Moreover, it
has been observed that the lowest quality LC3 cement produced during the initial industrial
trial outperforms the highest quality OPC in terms of CO2 emissions. The primary factors
contributing to the large decrease in emissions were energy savings and the use of clinker
substitution. Additionally, it was observed that the grinding process using LC3 resulted in
a notable reduction in electricity usage compared to OPC, likely due to the softness of LC3.
Researchers at the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, have conducted another
comprehensive investigation using actual data from several cement factories [289]. This
investigation demonstrated a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions for LC3 compared to OPC at
the cement level.
Research conducted by Pillai et al. [283] has shown that structures constructed with
concrete containing LC3 have considerably longer service lives compared to those using
solely OPC as the binder (which also contrasts quite a bit with the carbonation results
obtained by Arámburo et al. [280]). Furthermore, it was discovered that LC3 concrete
has much lower CO footprints per year of service life compared to the OPC concrete that
was examined.
The work by Zhang et al. [284] highlighted a new application of LC3 in the production
of engineered cementitious composites (ECC) that possess exceptional tensile ductility and
strain hardening properties. From an environmental perspective, the utilization of LC3 in
ECC demonstrated a significant reduction in carbon emissions, with 28% less CO2 released
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 11 of 50

compared to the production of conventional concrete. However, there was only a modest
decrease in energy usage and manufacturing cost.
Guo et al. [285] examined recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) incorporating LC3. They
stated that the utilization of both RCA and LC3 exhibits significant promise in reducing the
environmental consequences associated with concrete manufacturing.
In their study, Barbhuiya et al. [288] stated that LC3 exhibits a substantial capacity to
diminish CO2 emissions in comparison to conventional cement. The authors reported that
research has demonstrated that LC3 has the capability to decrease CO2 emissions by as
much as 40% because of its reduced clinker concentration and the utilization of calcined
clay. Additionally, LC3 exhibited reduced production cost in comparison to conventional
cement due to its lower energy requirements during manufacturing and its ability to utilize
locally sourced raw materials.
Due to all of the above, CC has been identified as one of the most promising materials
that can help the cement industry achieve its emissions objectives, but perhaps not so
much in terms of the durability of the works built with its concretes, mortars, pastes, and
precast components.

2.2.2. Substitution of CDW as an ARM

The chemical and mineralogical properties of CDW are sufficient to qualify it as a
viable substitute raw material in the limestone–clay mixture produced during the manufac-
turing process of Portland clinker. The composition of CDW typically includes calcium,
silicon, aluminum, iron, and several trace elements, including magnesium, potassium, tita-
nium, and sulfur. These minor elements have the potential to contribute to the development
of the primary phases of Portland cement [163,169,180,290,291].
Furthermore, the substitution of CDW leads to a decrease in the generation of CO2 .
This waste serves as a source of CO2 that is separated from calcium oxide (CaO), thereby
reducing the decarbonation of limestone that occurs during the flaring process in the
manufacturing of clinker [163,180].
From the above-mentioned ARMs, CO2 emission related studies concerning CDW are
listed in Table 3.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 12 of 50

Table 3. CO2 emissions for CDW substituted in the raw meal.

CO2 Emission
Raw Materials (wt %) CO2 Emission by Ton
Reductions by Ton
Raw Mix
Reference CDW Type CDW Composition
Designation of Raw of of
of Raw
Limestone Clay Schist Waste Mix Clinker Clinker
Mix (%)
(kg/t) (kg/t) (%)
Hydrated HCW is obtained as a by-product from the efficient separation of fine recycled concrete OPp 76.00 - 24.00 - Significant reductions in CO2 emissions connected
[170] cement waste aggregates. CWp-A is prepared by replacing 30% weight of ordinary Portland powder CWp-A 53.00 - 17.00 30.00 with clinker/cement production are reported in
(HCW) by HCW. CWp-B is prepared with a higher amount of HCW, 55% in weight. CWp-B 25.00 - 20.00 55.00 both scenarios (low or high amounts of HCW).
C-REF 93.20 6.80 - 328.00 500.00 - -
Reusable or recyclable aggregate waste materials, such as soil from earthworks, bricks,
C-CCW-1 85.71 - 14.29 326.00 488.00 0.60 2.40
Civil tiles, cladding plates, mortar, concrete, and curbs, are used for CCW. CCW0–10: concrete
C-CCW-4 89.53 - 10.47 318.00 471.80 3.00 5.60
[44] construction (1%), mortar (47%), rock (2%), ceramic (13%), and soil (37%); CCW10–20: concrete (41%),
C-CCW0–10 90.14 - 9.86 312.00 459.50 4.90 8.10
waste (CCW) mortar (39%), rock (13%), and ceramic (7%); CCW20–40: concrete (57%), mortar (34%),
C-CCW10–20 90.90 - 9.10 324.00 488.00 1.20 2.40
rock (7%), and ceramic (2%).
C-CCW20–40 90.50 - 9.50 325.00 488.00 0.90 2.40
CL-AC0 94.53 5.47 - 335.00 503.76 - -
Asbestos CL-AC24 72.05 3.94 24.01 - - - -
[183] cement tile ACW in the form of aged tiles extracted from a roof. CL-AC49 48.82 2.36 48.82 319.01 468.45 4.77 7.00
waste (ACW) CL-AC74 24.82 0.72 74.46 303.06 434.84 9.53 13.68
CL-AC86 14.24 - 85.76 - - - -
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 13 of 50

According to Gastaldi et al. [170], the utilization of HCW as a substitute for naturally
mined minerals has the potential to decrease the consumption of non-renewable resources.
Hydrated cement is composed of amorphous calcium silicate and calcium aluminate
hydrates, as well as calcium hydroxide and a small quantity of calcium/magnesium
carbonate. It was found that ordinary Portland powder and samples demonstrate weight
losses of 29% and 20%, respectively. According to the authors, this implies that when
30% of HCW is utilized, it is possible to make a clinker with an equivalent mineralogical
composition that emits approximately one-third less CO2 during the combustion process. It
was also reported that the substitution of regular Portland clinker with recovered samples
containing HCW, Portland clinker, and gypsum results in a reduction in the emission of
CO2 . Specifically, when the replacement extent reaches 40%, the amount of CO2 released
during cement manufacturing drops by more than one-fourth compared to the scenario
without any replacement.
The primary aim of the research conducted by Santos and Cilla [183] was to generate
Portland clinker through the utilization of ACW as a mineralizer, thereby substituting a
portion of the traditional combination of limestone and clay. Based on the findings derived
from the experimental procedures and subsequent analyses conducted throughout the
course of this study, it was reported that ACW functions as a mineralizer, expediting the
reactions within the clinker formation process and augmenting the proportion of alite (C3 S)
present in the resulting clinker. Furthermore, it was observed that the integration of ACW
facilitated a reduction in the utilization of approximately 73.70% of limestone and 86.80% of
clay in the composition of the raw material blend employed in the manufacturing process
of Portland clinker. It was reported that the utilization of up to 74% ACW in the production
of eco-efficient cement through experimental means offers a viable solution from both
technical and environmental perspectives. This approach not only ensures the safe disposal
of hazardous waste, thereby eliminating its potential to cause cancer, but also has the
potential to decrease CO2 emissions by up to 13.68% and reduce energy consumption
by 10.13%.
Based on the findings derived from the study conducted by Costa and Ribeiro [44],
it can be inferred that the integration of the CCW technology has facilitated a reduction
in the utilization of roughly 8% of limestone in the raw mix to produce Portland clinker.
Consequently, its implementation has resulted in a decrease in the extraction of this natural
resource. It was reported that utilizing CCW offers a potential reduction of up to 8.1% in
CO2 emissions per ton of clinker produced, solely accounting for decarbonation-related
emissions. It was also stated that, when considering the entire process, including fuel com-
bustion, the reduction amounts to 4.9% compared to clinker produced using conventional
raw materials.
In summary, it is important to acknowledge that the implementation of ARMs in kiln
feeds has the potential to decrease specific CO2 emissions. However, the implementation of
partial raw material substitution has been limited due to several limitations. The utilization
of alternate materials in partial substitution of traditional clinker leads to a reduction in
initial strength and a constrained quantity of limestone [292]. Conversely, coal fire is subject
to ongoing regulatory limitations in Europe, hence posing increasing challenges in terms of
accessing fly ash [81,110].

2.3. Replacement of MAs in Portland Cement

Due to the production of GHGs, a majority of concrete mixtures use SCMs either
through the use of blended cements or by individually adding them to the mixer [217].
The incorporation of low-embodied carbon and low-energy elements in the substitution
of Portland cement can significantly diminish the overall environmental consequences of
binders and, as a result, of concrete [159,293]. These materials are commonly known as
MAs or SCMs. When they are included into concrete and mixed with Portland cement, they
create cementitious particles. However, on their own, they do not contain any cementitious
compounds [217].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 14 of 50

The selection of MAs for substituting Portland cement is contingent upon the geo-
graphical area and the specific solid waste or byproducts produced by industries or the
presence of naturally occurring minerals in these regions [37]. The utilization of MAs as
substitutes for Portland cement in concrete offers various sustainability benefits.
MAs typically consist of industrial waste products, natural pozzolans, and activated
minerals that possess either hydraulic or pozzolanic characteristics. When MAs are used
alone or in contact with water, they generally do not exhibit substantial hydraulic reactions
that contribute to the cementitious properties. Nevertheless, when exposed to alkaline
aqueous conditions or in the presence of calcium hydroxide, fine particles undergo a
chemical process known as the pozzolanic reaction. This reaction leads to the formation of
hydration products that resemble those seen in Portland cement systems [200,294,295].
A wide variety of materials are available for use as MAs, including natural MAs
(volcanic materials, including tuffs, ashes, pumicites, perlites, zeolites, etc.), calcined
natural MAs (calcined kaolinite clay or metakaolin), LC3 materials (limestone calcined
clay cement), by-product materials (agricultural wastes, CDW, ashes, glass, ferrous slags,
non-ferrous slags, basic oxygen furnaces, and electric arc furnaces) [200,295–298].
The substitution of Portland cement with solid waste derived from various economic
sectors has been extensively investigated in numerous studies as a promising alternative.
These studies aim to identify optimal circumstances for such replacements, considering the
necessary features for their effective application.
Some of the waste, by-products, recycled materials, and natural resources used as an
addition or as a partial replacement of Portland cement to produce concrete are presented
in Table 4.

Table 4. Minerals used as an addition or partial replacement for Portland cement to produce concrete.

Optimum Substitution
MA Mix Type References
(wt.%)
Agricultural Industry
Ordinary concrete <25 [299–308]
Eco-friendly concrete <30 [309–311]
Sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA)
Self-compacting concrete 15 [312]
Ultra-high-strength concrete 15–30 [313–315]
Ordinary concrete 10–25 [80,316–319]
Eco-friendly concrete 5–15 [320–324]
Self-compacting concrete 5–15 [325–327]
Rice husk ash (RHA)
Ultra-high-performance concrete 20 [328,329]
Pervious concrete 10–15 [330]
Recycled aggregate concrete 20 [331,332]
Ordinary concrete 10 [333–337]
Wood waste ash (WWA)
Self-compacting concrete 10 [338]
Ordinary concrete 10–20 [339–341]
Eco-friendly structural foamed concrete 25 [342]
Lightweight concrete 10–15 [343]
Sustainable lightweight foamed concrete 20 [344]
Palm oil fuel ash (POFA) Sustainable foamed concrete 15 [345]
Self-compacting concrete <70 [346–349]
Self-consolidating high-strength concrete <50 [350,351]
Structural lightweight aggregate concrete 37.5 [352]
Recycled aggregate concrete 20 [331,332]
Environmentally friendly lightweight concrete 15 [353]
Palm oil clinker powder (POCP) Lightweight concrete 15 [354]
Recycled aggregate concrete 15 [331,332]
Ordinary concrete 10–15 [355–359]
Green concrete 10–15 [16,323]
Eggshell powder (ESP)
Eco-friendly structural foamed concrete 5 [342]
Sustainable foamed concrete 5 [345]
Ordinary concrete 5 [360]
Olive waste ash (OWA)
High-strength concrete 5 [333]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 15 of 50

Table 4. Cont.

Optimum Substitution
MA Mix Type References
(wt.%)
Ordinary concrete 5–20 [361,362]
Sawdust ash (SDA)
Self-compacting concrete 10 [363,364]
Coconut shell ash (CNSA) Ordinary concrete 10 [365,366]
Wheat straw ash (WSA) Ordinary concrete 5 [317]
Ordinary concrete 10–20 [367]
Nano-POFA
Lightweight concrete 15 [354]
Nano-POCP Semi-lightweight concrete 10 [368]
Ordinary concrete 12.5 [367]
Nano-ESP
High-strength concrete 5 [369]
Aquacultural Industry
Ordinary concrete 5–15 [370–373]
Seashell powder (SSP)
High-strength concrete 5 [374]
Ordinary concrete 5–15 [375]
Oyster shell powder (OSP)
Green concrete <20 [376]
Periwinkle shell (PS) Ordinary concrete 5 [377]
Scallop shell (SLS) Ordinary concrete <10 [378]
Manufacturing Industry
Red ceramic waste (RCW) Structural concrete 20–40 [379]
Ordinary concrete 10–20 [380]
Ceramic waste powder (CWP) Self-consolidating concrete 15 [381]
High-performance concrete 25–35 [382,383]
Ordinary concrete 10–20 [384–391]
Recycled glass powder (RGP) Environmentally friendly concrete 25 [392,393]
Self-compacting concrete 24 [394]
Ordinary concrete 30 [395,396]
Self-compacting concrete 10–55 [325,397]
Fly ash (FA)
Pervious concrete 10–15 [330]
High-performance concrete 30 [398,399]
Granulated blast-furnace slag Ordinary concrete <50 [400]
(GGBFS) Recycled aggregate concrete <20 [401]
Ordinary concrete 20 [402]
Steel slag (SS)
High-early-strength concrete 30 [403]
Ordinary concrete 10 [358]
Silica fume (SF) Self-compacting concrete 10 [325]
Recycled aggregate concrete 10 [401]
Porcelain Tile Polishing Residue Ordinary concrete 10–40 [404]
(PPR) Self-compacting concrete 25 [405]
Electric Arc Furnace Dust
Ordinary concrete 10 [406]
(EAFD)
Ordinary concrete 12 [407]
Red mud (RM)
Sustainable concrete 10–15 [408]
Sewage sludge ash (SSA) Ordinary concrete 10 [409]
Ordinary concrete <15 [318,410,411]
Waste marble dust (WMD)
High-strength concrete 15 [412]
Titanium dioxide (TiO2 )
Blended cement concrete 3 [413]
nanoparticles
Coal bottom ash (CBA) Sustainable concrete 15 [414]
Copper Slag (CS) Ordinary concrete 10 [396,415]
Foundry sand waste (FSW) Ordinary concrete <30 [416,417]
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) waste
Green concrete 15–20 [296]
powder (WP)
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 16 of 50

Table 4. Cont.

Optimum Substitution
MA Mix Type References
(wt.%)
Others
Self-consolidating concrete 55 [397]
Limestone powder (LP)
Ultra-high-performance concrete 54 [418]
Metakaolin (MK) High-performance concrete 10 [399]
Volcanic ash (VA) Ordinary concrete 10–15 [419]
Crushed rock dust (CRD) Ordinary concrete 20 [294]
Municipal solid waste
Ordinary concrete <12 [297,420]
incineration ash (MSWI)

As presented in Table 4, MAs such as sugarcane bagasse ash, rice husk ash, palm oil
fuel ash, seashell powder, recycled glass powder, ceramic waste powder, fly ash, granulated
blast-furnace slag and limestone powder can be used in amounts as high as 30%, 25%, 70%,
20%, 25%, 35%, 55%, 50%, and 55% respectively as replacements for Portland cement for
various types of concrete production.
Nevertheless, the slow rate at which strength is developed in concrete that incorporates
MAs remains a significant obstacle. The utilization of MAs in concrete is accompanied by
significant quality control issues, mostly stemming from the diverse chemical and physical
properties exhibited by MAs. These properties are influenced by factors such as the source
and location of the materials, further complicating the task of ensuring consistent quality
in concrete production [37,292].

CO2 Reduction through the Partial Replacement of Portland Cement with MA

CO2 reduction by the partial replacement of Portland cement with MAs is reviewed
for two cases: first for binary blended cements in Table 5, and second for ternary blended
cements in Table 6.

Table 5. CO2 reduction through the partial replacement of Portland cement with AM (binary
blended cements).

Amounts of Optimum
Reference MA Mix Type Substitution Substitution Results for CO2 Emmisions
(wt.%) (wt.%)
Global warming values (kg CO2 eq) for BRH0%,
Biochar rice husk BRH5%, BRH10%, BRH15% and BRH20% are
[421] Ordinary concrete 5, 10, 15, 20 Not stated
(BRH) 2.51 × 10−5 , 2.41 × 10−5 , 2.3 × 10−5 , 2.2 × 10−5 ,
and 2.1 × 10−5 respectively.
The embodied carbon of 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%
[366] CNSA Ordinary concrete 5, 10, 15, 20 10 CSA is 4%, 7%, 11%, and 15% lower than that of
the control mix.
Calcium aluminate
[422] RHA 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10 5 5%RHA could reduce CO2 emissions by 18.75%.
cement concrete
Embodied carbon (kg CO2 /kg) for SDA is 0.0014.
The embodied carbon of concrete mixtures
[307] SDA Ordinary concrete 5, 10, 15, 20 <20 incorporating 20% SDA is approximately 20%
lower than that of the concrete mixtures
incorporating PC as the only binder.
Portland fly ash The CO2 -eq intensity values of control mix,
[307] cement 50, 60, 70 50 BA50, BA60 and BA70 concretes were 9.65, 6.17,
concrete 6.73, and 7.67 kg CO2 M-3/MPa, respectively.
SCBA The best environmental assessment results occur
Ultra-high-
when the SCBA substitution rate is 80%. The
[317] performance 20, 40, 60, 80 60
global warming potential data decreased by
concrete
17.47%.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 17 of 50

Table 5. Cont.

Amounts of Optimum
Reference MA Mix Type Substitution Substitution Results for CO2 Emmisions
(wt.%) (wt.%)
Compared to UHPC without CTWP, the energy
Ultra-high-
intensity, and CO2 emissions of UHPC with 55%
[382] Ceramic performance 15, 25, 35, 45, 55 25–35
CTWP were reduced by 41.0% and 33.1%,
concrete
respectively.
CO2 released from limestone calcination is 0.37
kg for the control sample (CAC0), 0.33 kg for
[423] CLBA Ordinary concrete 10, 20, 30, 40 <40
CAC10, 0.29 kg for CAC20, 0.26 kg for CAC30,
and 0.22 kg for CAC40.
Compared to commercial Grade 45 concrete, the
Green structural
[396] 20, 40, 60, 80, 98 <80 proposed concrete shows a reduction in CO2
concrete
emission of around 70%.
The replacement of FA0 with FA30 and FA40
FA High-strength could potentially reduce the carbon footprint by
[398] 30, 40 30–40
concrete 22.1% and 21.9% per m3 of
concrete, respectively.
Fly ash was found to be capable of reducing
[424] Ordinary concrete 25 25 concrete CO2 emissions by 13% to 15% in typical
concrete mixes.
Replacing 40% of GGBS with Portland cement in
[424] GGBFS Ordinary concrete 40 40 25 or 32 MPa concrete outputs results in a 22%
reduction in CO2 emissions.
For a compressive strength of 54 MPa at 91 days,
the emission was reduced from 564 kg
CO2 -eq/m3 of concrete for the reference mixture
[404] Ordinary concrete 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 10–30
to 473 kg CO2 -eq/m3 of concrete (i.e., 16%) for
30% replacement and to 349 kg CO2 -eq/m3 of
PPR concrete (i.e., 38%) for 50% addition.
For a compressive strength of 70 MPa, the
incorporation of PPR would reduce the emission
Self-compacting
[405] 10, 20, 30 <20 of CO2 -eq/m3 of concrete by up to 17% when
concrete
incorporating 127 kg of the residue per m3 of
concrete.
The climate change index for reference concrete
High-strength is 534.26 kg CO2 eq. Values for HSC-SF8,
[425] SF 8, 10, 12 12
concrete HSC-SF10, and HSC-SF12 are 520.75, 495.11 and
453.15, respectively.
The climate change index for reference concrete
High-strength is 534.26 kg CO2 eq. The climate change index for
[425] Nano silica (NS) 1, 2, 3 2
concrete HSC-NS1, HSC-NS2, and HSC-NS3 is 438.55,
426.70, and 415.56, respectively.
Self-compacting The concrete specimens have up to 32–45%
[348] 50, 60, 70 50–70
concrete reduced carbon dioxide emissions.
POFA Total CO2 emission values for mixes M0, M5,
Lightweight M10, M15, M20, and M25 were 0.477, 0.454,
[343] 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 10–15
concrete 0.430, 0.407, 0.384, and 0.361 CO2 -e/m3 ,
respectively.
The production of concretes made of
[426] Ordinary concrete 35–65 <50 limestone-rich cements exhibited roughly 25%
Limestone
less CO2 emissions.
For control mix, CO2 -eq is 5.69 × 102 kg/m3 .
Self-compacting
[397] 15, 25 <25 For 15% and 25% replacement levels, CO2 -eq is
concrete
4.87 × 102 and 25 4.34 × 102 , respectively.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 18 of 50

Table 6. CO2 reduction through partial replacement of Portland cement with AM (ternary blended
cements).

Amounts of Optimum
Reference MAs Mix Type Substitution Substitution Results for CO2 Emissions
(wt.%) (wt.%)
Using PL and BD can save costs of
Brick dust (BD) BD/LP: 15/5,
[427] Plain cement concrete 15/5 cement in the range of 7–12.5%, which
and LP 10/10, 7/13, 5/15
eventually reduces CO2 .
GWP impact values (kg CO2 eq) are
Biomass fly ash (BFA)
BFA/CFA: 10/10, 7.84 × 102 for the control mix, 6.62 × 102
[428] and coal fly Ordinary concrete 30/30
20/20, 30/30 for 10/10, 5.38 × 102 for 20/20, and
ash (CFA)
4.15 × 102 for 30/30.
Considering the cost/MPa, the results
SBA/CSA: 10/2,
show that the use of 20/4 had a higher
20/2, 30/2, 10/4,
Ultra-high-strength lower cost per m3 in comparison with all
[429] SCBA and CSA 20/4, 30/4, 10/6, 20/4
concrete concrete mixture. The reduction in
20/6, 30/6, 10/8,
concrete cost was 18.50% compared to
20/8, 30/8
the control mix.
Concrete mixtures incorporating 5%,
10%, 15%, and 20% BCM as partial
Corn cob ash (CCA) replacement of Portland cement have
and glass powder 4.3%, 8.3%, 12.7%, and 16.8% lower
CCA/GP: 2.5/2.5,
[430] (GP) as binary Ordinary concrete 5/5 embodied carbon control than the
5/5, 7.5/7.5, 10/10
cementitious mixtures without BCM. Similarly, the
material (BCM) incorporation of BCM into the mixtures
led to a reduction of approximately 21%
in the embodied energy of the concrete.
Mixed cathode ray
The GWP value is 1040 kg CO2 -eq. for
tubes (CRT)
[392] Ordinary concrete MRF/CRT: 17/3 17/3 the control mix and 849 kg CO2 -eq
and mixed-container
for 17/3.
glass (MRF)
CO2 emissions (kg CO2 /m3 ) are 453.97
Eco-friendly POFA/ESP: 20/5,
for control mix, 358.29 for 20/5, 339.61 for
[342] POFA and ESP structural foamed 20/10, 20/15, 25/5, 25/5
20/10, 320.93 for 20/15, 339.04 for 25/5,
concrete 25/10, 25/15
320.36 for 25/10, and 301.68 for 25/15.
Replacement of 20% of cement with CBA
Cane bagasse ash
CBA/WG: 15/5, and WG showed reductions in CO2
[431] (CBA) and waste Green concrete 15/5
10/10, 5/15 emissions of about 20% compared to
glass (WG)
control mix.
The use of ETC concretes has a very
SCBA/SF: 10/10,
Ecofriendly significant sustainability impact by
[311] SCBA and SF 20/20, 30/30, 30/30 and 20/20
ternary concrete contributing to the reduction in CO2
40/40, 50/50
emissions caused by Portland cement.
Limestone filler (LSF),
LSF/OIC: 20/7.5.
calcined orange illitic CO2 emissions (kg CO2 /m3 ) for control
LF/NP: 12.4/12.6.
[432] clay (OIC), natural Ordinary concrete 20% of LF mix is 399.8, 378.6 for 20/7.5, 380.6 for
LF/GGBS: 6/22;
pozzolan (NP) 12.4/12.6, 322.6 for 6/22, 341.7 for 11/11.
11/11
and GGBS
CO2 -eq (kg/m3 ) for control mix is
FA/LP: 30/15, 5.69 × 102 , 3.33 × 102 for 30/15,
40/15, 50/15, 2.82 × 102 for 40/15, 2.32 × 102 for
Self-consolidating
[397] FA and LP 60/15, 20/25, <50% 50/15, 1.83 × 102 for 60/15, 3.32 × 102
concrete
30/25, 40/25, for 20/25, 2.81 × 102 for 30/25,
50/25 2.31 × 102 for 40/25, 1.82 × 102
for 50/25.

Beside the studies presented in Table 5 and 6, there have been commentary research
on CO2 reduction by partly replacing Portland cement with different supplementary
cementing materials.
Soliman and Tagnit-Hamou [433], as well as Rajendran et al. [434], reported that the
substitution of 20%w.t. glass powder can significantly reduce the cost of ultra-high-strength
concrete and decrease the carbon footprint of a typical ultra-high-strength concrete.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 19 of 50

In their study, Soltanzadeh et al. [435] conducted an evaluation of the potential use
of waste seashells in the manufacturing of blended cement. The findings suggest that the
utilization of seashell powder as a substitute for Portland cement in the production of
blended cements has the potential to improve sustainability and reduce production costs.
In a study conducted by Qin et al. [436], pervious concrete samples were examined,
wherein a fraction of the Portland cement was substituted with crushed biochar. Based
on the results of the study, the researchers hypothesized that it is possible to reduce CO2
emissions by making pervious concrete by the substitution of powdered biochar for up to
6.5% of the cement’s weight.
For the studies presented in this section, it should be noted that a significant reduction
in CO2 emissions can be achieved by utilizing MAs as a substitute for Portland cement,
which in turn leads to a decrease in cement consumption and subsequently lower cement
output. Furthermore, the decrease in the disposal of non-biodegradable materials in land-
fills leads to the preservation of limited landfill capacity and mitigates the unsustainable
consequences associated with waste disposal in open areas.

2.4. Substitution of CDW as a MA

Concrete, masonry, and brick wastes are prominent among the various waste fractions,
exhibiting a significant proportion of approximately 80% in the overall global production
of CDW [66,437–439]. Researchers have proposed the recycling of this prominent part to
serve as a viable solution to address the sustainability issues encountered by the concrete
industry [71,440–446].
The recycling process involves the conversion of CDW into a reduced-sized fraction
through the utilization of mobile or fixed recycling plants [447]. The recycling process of
CDW primarily results in the production of three distinct fractions [84,448–450]. One of
these fractions includes a range of 25.00–5.00 mm, which is classified as recycled coarse
aggregate (RCA). Another fraction falls within the range of 5.00–0.15 mm and is referred to
as recycled fine aggregates (RFA). Lastly, there is a fraction that measures less than 0.15 mm,
known as recycled powder (RP).
It is important to highlight that in addition to the production of recycled coarse and fine
aggregates, a significant quantity of fine recycled powder (RP), comprising approximately
15–35% of the total processed CDW mass, is generated [448,449]. This fine powder lacks
a suitable destination and is typically disposed of in landfills [441,451]. The particulate
matter emanating from cement mortar, concrete, or bricks typically has a fine texture. The
observed range of diameters for the hybrid powder obtained from the crushing and sieving
location of CDW was found to vary between 45 and 150 µm [441].
Although the application of RCA has gained increasing popularity in the past years,
the possible use of RP as a partial replacement for Portland cement in concrete has received
significant attention due to its tiny particle size and consequential reactivity [452].
Nevertheless, the efficacy of RPs is contingent upon their primary sources, which
are impeded in their practical implementation due to their intricate components. When
comparing RPs to Portland cement, it is observed that RPs exhibit a greater degree of
irregularity and roughness in their shapes. Additionally, the little particles tend to cluster
on the larger ones, resulting in a higher water consumption requirement to obtain a desired
standard consistency [439,452].
The primary factor impeding the utilization of untreated RP derived from CDW in
cementitious materials is its inherent low activity. The untreated powder is primarily
comprised of inert hydrated materials, namely quartz or calcite [439,445].
Several modification approaches have been devised to enhance the characteristics of
untreated RP, including mechanical activation [453,454], CO2 curing treatment [455–458],
thermal treatment [445,459–461], tannic acid treatment [462], and chemical activators [463].
CDW-based material additions used as an addition or as a partial replacement of
Portland cement to produce concrete are presented in Table 7.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 20 of 50

Table 7. Substitution of CDW in Portland cement to produce concrete.

Particle Size or
Amount of Optimum
Treatment Median
Reference CDW Type Mix Type Materials Used in the Mix Substitution Substitution
Method Particle Size of
(wt.%) (wt.%)
CDW (d50)
Green
Dehydrated Cement (PO 52.5), DCP, LP,
ultra-high- 12.5, 25, 37.5,
[464] cement paste SF, sand, superplasticizer Heating <75 µm <25
performance 50
(DCP) (SP).
concrete
Cement (OPC), RP, natural
Ordinary Repeated
[444] RP coarse aggregate (NCA), <150 µm 10, 20, 30 10–20
concrete recycling
natural fine aggregate (NFA).
Ground
Structural Cement (OPC), GRC, mixed
[465] recycled NA Not stated 10, 25 10
concrete recycled CDW aggregate.
concrete (GRC)
Ultra-high-
Recycled brick Cement (PII 52.5R), RBP, SF
[466] performance NA d50: 9.8 µm 15, 30, 45 15
powder (RBP) sand, SP.
concrete
Ordinary Cement (OPC), RP, FA, sand,
[439] RP NA d50: 9.06 µm 15, 30, 45 15–30
concrete NCA, water reducing agent.
Cement (OPC-Grade C-53),
Waste brick Ordinary
[467] WBP, natural aggregate (NA), NA <75 µm 5, 10 10
powder (WBP) concrete
sand.
Green
Recycled
ultra-high- Cement (P.II 52.5R), RCP, SF,
[468] concrete NA d50: 12.04 µm 15, 30, 45 30
performance sand, SP.
powder (RCP)
concrete
Cement (PO 42.5), RP (brick
powder and concrete
[469] RP Green concrete NA d50: 17.15 µm 15, 30, 45 15
powder), NA, RA, river
sand, SP.
Humid Cement (OPC- PI 52.5),
Multiple d50: 26.5 µm, HHCWS of
hardened Ordinary HHCW, FA, GGBFS,
[470] wet 5.71 µm, and 5, 10, 15 2.52 µm at the
concrete waste concrete machine-made sand, river
grinding 2.52 µm dosage of 10%
(HHCW) sand, crushed stone, SP.
Ground
recycled Cement (CEM I 42.5 R OPC),
Ordinary 25% GR and
[471] masonry GR-RMA, NA, MRA, natural NA Not stated 25
concrete 25–50% MRA
aggregate sand, SP.
(GR-RMA)
Ordinary Cement (CEM I 42.5), RCP, 10, 20, 30, 40,
[472] RCP NA d50: 22 µm <10%
concrete NA, SP. 50
RBP can
Cement (OPC), RP (RCP, provide
d50: RCP:
Sustainable RBP), NCA, NFA, FA, GGFBS, equivalent
[473] RP NA 11.8 µm, RBP: 20
concrete air entrainer admixture, strength and
13.4 µm
water reducer admixture. even better
durability.
Cement (OPC), WP (mixture
[474] WP WP concrete of waste concrete and bricks), NA d50: 12.54 µm 15, 30, 45 15
NA, sand.
Reactive Cement (PO 42.5), RP
[475] RP powder (abandoned clay bricks and NA d50: 31.4 µm 5, 10, 15, 25 10
concrete cement solids), SF, SP.
Self-
Waste concrete Cement (OPC), WCP, GGBFS,
[476] consolidating NA d50: 90 µm 15, 30, 45 15
powder (WCP) NCA, NFA, SP.
concrete
Cement (OPC), RP (80% fired
Ordinary brick and 20% waste
[477] RP NA <75 µm 15, 30, 45 <30%
concrete concrete), NA, sand, water
reducer.
Waste brick Ordinary Cement (type II OPC), WBP, 10, 15, 20, 25,
[478] NA d50: 45 µm <20%
powder (WBP) concrete NCA, sand. 30, 40
Cement (ASTM C 150 Type I
Cement kiln Ordinary
[479] and Type V), CKD, NA not stated 5, 10, 15 5
dust (CKD) concrete
NCA, sand.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 21 of 50

Table 7. Cont.

Particle Size or
Amount of Optimum
Treatment Median
Reference CDW Type Mix Type Materials Used in the Mix Substitution Substitution
Method Particle Size of
(wt.%) (wt.%)
CDW (d50)
Self-
Cement (OPC Type I), CKD,
[480] CKD consolidating NA not stated 10, 20, 30, 40 20
NCA, sand, SP.
Concrete
Sustainable
Cement (PO42.5), RP, FA,
[449] RP recycled NA <45 µm 15, 30 15
NCA, NFA, river sand, SP.
concrete
Ceramic (fired Cement (CEM I 42.5 R),
clay-based) Structural ceramic (fired clay-based)
[481] NA not stated 25, 50 25
fraction of concrete fraction of CDW, NCA, RA,
CDW sand, SP.
High
performance
Cement (OPC), CKD, NCA,
[482] CKD self- NA <50 µm 10, 20, 30 <10%
mineral sand, SP.
compacting
concrete
Burnt clay and Blended Cement (OPC), burnt clay
[483] NA <75 µm 10, 20, 30, 40 <20%CKD
CKD concrete and CKD, NCA, NFA.
Cement (cement of Indian
Ordinary Bacterial
[484] CKD Standards (IS) mark 43 grade), not stated 5, 10, 15 10%
concrete treatment
CKD, NCA, NFA.
Cement (OPC), CBP d50: 300 µm,
Clay brick Ordinary
[485] (Recycled construction waste), NA 100 µm, 60 µm 10, 20, 25, 30 10%
powder (CBP) concrete
natural sand. and 40 µm
Construction
Small-scale Cement (42.5 OPC), CWBP
waste
[486] prefabricated (building demolition waste), NA d50: 8–16 µm 20, 30, 40 30
composite
concrete NCA, sand.
powder
Ordinary Cement (CEM I 42.5 R), GRC,
[487] GRC NA <147 µm 10, 25 25
concrete NCA, MRA.
Cement (OPC Type II), CKD, 10, 15, 20, 30,
[488] CKD Green concrete NA <45 µm <20%
FA, river sand, NCA, SP. 40
Cement (OPC), CBP (mainly,
Ordinary
[489] CBP bricks and tiles), NA, NA <63 µm 25 25
concrete
recycled gravel.

2.4.1. CO2 Reduction by the Partial Replacement of Portland Cement with CDW
Studies conducted regarding CO2 reduction by the partial replacement of Portland
cement with CDW and chemical properties of cementitious materials used in these studies
are presented in Tables 8 and 9.

Table 8. Chemical properties of cementitious materials used (%).

Loss-on-
Cementitious
Reference SiO2 Al2 O3 Fe2 O3 CaO MgO Na2 O K2 O SO3 Ignition
Material Type
(LOI)
OPC 19.383 4.581 3.282 63.074 2.786 0.175 1.027 3.498 1.540
[464]
DCP 19.967 4.997 4.125 62.405 1.849 0.137 0.781 2.949 2.261
OPC 18.700 5.100 2.600 65.100 1.800 0.200 0.500 3.000 2.500
[465]
GRC 46.100 3.800 1.500 40.000 0.500 0.300 1.200 0.400 6.200
[467] WBP 36.510 23.440 15.140 4.530 - - 1.510 - 4.520
OPC 23.770 4.960 4.130 60.320 2.680 0.320 0.620 2.260 2.380
[468]
RCP 39.830 12.500 6.010 18.660 1.970 0.850 2.340 2.040 16.750
OPC 19.240 4.080 3.250 62.470 4.190 - - 4.810 -
[469] Brick powder 65.240 18.080 4.250 1.470 2.190 - - 0.340 -
Concrete powder 31.850 7.040 4.840 48.950 1.850 - - 0.780 -
OPC 20.040 4.198 3.365 63.058 1.930 0.092 0.748 3.276 2.653
[470]
HHCW 29.689 7.948 2.453 31.713 2.728 0.842 1.078 0.685 21.986
[471] GR-RMA 60.000 19.000 6.000 - - - - - -
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 22 of 50

Table 8. Cont.

Loss-on-
Cementitious
Reference SiO2 Al2 O3 Fe2 O3 CaO MgO Na2 O K2 O SO3 Ignition
Material Type
(LOI)
OPC 21.300 3.200 2.900 64.300 2.100 0.260 0.420 3.100 1.350
[473] RCP 51.000 10.130 5.360 26.310 1.380 1.230 1.780 1.940 9.900
RBP 69.870 20.980 3.610 0.400 0.390 0.590 2.420 0.330 0.980
OPC 19.900 4.420 3.560 64.900 0.660 0.080 0.790 2.670 -
[449]
RP 57.010 10.930 3.450 21.300 1.820 1.580 2.220 1.170 -
OPC 21.700 5.100 3.400 65.000 1.400 0.300 0.550 1.500 1.050
[488]
CKD 11.690 3.250 2.400 44.900 0.800 0.290 0.500 0.000 36.000

Table 9. CO2 reduction by the partial replacement of Portland cement with CDW.

28 d Global
CO2
Compressive Warming
Reference Label Proportions w/b a SP b Emission
Strength Potential
(kg/m3 )
(MPa) (GWP)
DCP0 Control mix 0.5 33.00 105.00 377.00 1.000
DCP50 12.5%DCP1 0.5 33.00 102.00 337.00 0.894
[464] c DCP100 25%DCP1 0.5 33.00 100.50 298.00 0.790
DCP150 37.5%DCP1 0.5 33.00 95.50 258.00 0.684
DCP200 50%DCP1 0.5 33.00 83.00 219.00 0.581
NAC Control mix 0.45 - 36.80 - 1.000
RP1 10%RP 0.45 - 36.00 - 0.980
RP1 20%RP 0.45 - 33.50 - 0.950
RP1 30%RP 0.45 - 27.00 - 0.930
RP2 10%RP 0.45 - 35.50 - 0.950
[444] c
RP2 20%RP 0.45 - 32.00 - 0.900
RP2 30%RP 0.45 - 27.50 - 0.850
RP3 10%RP 0.45 - 34.00 - 0.930
RP3 20%RP 0.45 - 31.50 - 0.850
RP3 30%RP 0.45 - 27.50 - 0.780
NAC Control mix 0.56 1.0–1.5% 46.60 269.83 1.000
N10/0 10%GRC 0.58 1.0–1.5% 37.80 249.65 0.925
N25/0 25%GRC 0.60 1.0–1.5% 27.70 218.43 0.810
[465]
R0/50 0%GRC, 50% RA-CDW 0.59 1.0–1.5% 34.80 267.10 0.990
R10/50 10%GRC, 50% RA-CDW 0.61 1.0–1.5% 32.80 246.94 0.915
R25/50 25%GRC, 50% RA-CDW 0.63 1.0–1.5% 23.30 216.70 0.803
RCP0 Control mix 0.16 41.64 100.00 502.63 1.000
RCP15 15%RCP 0.16 40.06 82.80 501.75 0.998
[468] c
RCP30 30%RCP 0.16 39.08 96.10 500.86 0.996
RCP45 45%RCP 0.16 37.13 88.30 499.27 0.993
RAPC-0–0 Control mix 0.49 0.14 39.04 - 1.000
RAPC-0–15 15%RP 0.49 0.16 40.12 - 0.850
RAPC-0–30 30%RP 0.49 0.17 35.45 - 0.710
RAPC-0–45 45%RP 0.49 0.16 30.27 - 0.560
RAPC-30–0 30%RA + 0%RP 0.49 0.14 41.17 - 1.000
RAPC-30–15 30%RA + 15%RP 0.49 0.16 43.29 - 0.850
RAPC-30–30 30%RA + 30%RP 0.49 0.17 37.45 - 0.700
RAPC-30–45 30%RA + 30%RP 0.49 0.16 31.32 - 0.560
[469]
RAPC-50–0 50%RA + 0%RP 0.49 0.14 36.44 - 0.990
RAPC-50–15 50%RA + 15%RP 0.49 0.16 37.28 - 0.850
RAPC-50–30 50%RA + 30%RP 0.49 0.17 33.56 - 0.700
RAPC-50–45 50%RA + 45%RP 0.49 0.16 29.56 - 0.550
RAPC–100–0 100%RA + 0%RP 0.49 0.14 33.26 - 0.990
RAPC-100–15 100%RA + 15%RP 0.49 0.16 35.18 - 0.840
RAPC-100–30 100%RA + 30%RP 0.49 0.17 28.36 - 0.690
RAPC-100–45 100%RA + 30%RP 0.49 0.16 22.79 - 0.550
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 23 of 50

Table 9. Cont.

28 d
CO2 Global Warm-
a b Compressive
Reference Label Proportions w/b SP Emission ingPotential
Strength
(kg/m3 ) (GWP)
(MPa)
CC Control mix 0.45 6.20 51.2 407.00 1.000
C25 0%CDW + 25% MRA 0.45 6.20 51.7 399.00 0.980
C50 0%CDW + 50% MRA 0.45 6.20 51.1 351.00 0.862
[471]
R25/0 25%CDW 0.45 6.20 46.1 335.00 0.823
R25/25 25%CDW + 25% MRA 0.45 6.20 45.7 327.00 0.803
R25/R50 50%CDW + 50% MRA 0.45 6.20 41.2 319.00 0.784
RCP0 Control mix 0.55 3.00 51.60 333.00 1.000
RCP10 10%RCP 0.55 3.00 41.30 304.00 0.913
RCP20 20%RCP 0.55 3.00 31.70 275.00 0.826
[472]
RCP30 30%RCP 0.55 3.00 22.80 246.00 0.739
RCP40 40%RCP 0.55 3.00 13.60 217.00 0.652
RCP50 50%RCP 0.55 3.00 10.00 188.00 0.565
Control Control mix 0.36 2.16% 877.30 367.50 1.000
d RP1 15%RP 0.36 2.84% 613.92 325.00 0.884
[449] RP2 30%RP 0.36 3.52% 786.23 278.00 0.756
RP3 15%RP + 15%FA 0.36 2.50% 1298.73 275.60 0.750
Ctrl-W37 Control mix 0.37 0.33 53.41 510.77 1.000
C5W37 5%CKD 0.37 0.33 55.47 487.57 0.955
C10W37 10%CKD 0.37 0.33 52.13 464.36 0.909
C15W37 15%CKD 0.37 0.45 47.45 441.24 0.864
C20W37 20%CKD 0.37 0.54 41.42 418.10 0.819
C30W37 30%CKD 0.37 0.67 34.90 371.79 0.728
C40W37 40%CKD 0.37 1.63 28.09 326.07 0.638
Ctrl-W40 Control mix 0.40 0.00 52.23 476.71 1.000
C5W40 5%CKD 0.40 0.00 49.52 457.94 0.961
C10W40 10%CKD 0.40 0.00 43.24 433.78 0.910
C15W40 15%CKD 0.40 0.00 37.97 412.32 0.865
C20W40 20%CKD 0.40 0.00 36.93 390.85 0.820
C30W40 30%CKD 0.40 0.33 34.94 348.16 0.730
[488] C40W40 40%CKD 0.40 0.67 28.79 305.48 0.641
Ctrl-W45 Control mix 0.45 0.00 50.14 430.36 1.000
C5W45 5%CKD 0.45 0.00 46.93 411.29 0.956
C10W45 10%CKD 0.45 0.00 44.76 392.20 0.911
C15W45 15%CKD 0.45 0.00 40.75 373.13 0.867
C20W45 20%CKD 0.45 0.00 37.53 354.05 0.823
C30W45 30%CKD 0.40 0.00 34.79 315.89 0.734
C40W45 40%CKD 0.40 0.33 28.59 277.96 0.646
C5F15W37 5%CKD + 15%FA 0.37 0.33 55.93 419.60 0.822
C10F15W37 10%CKD + 15%FA 0.37 0.33 48.64 396.52 0.776
C5F15W40 5%CKD + 10%FA 0.40 0.00 45.69 392.52 0.823
C10F15W40 10%CKD + 15%FA 0.40 0.00 46.44 371.28 0.779
C5F15W45 5%CKD + 10%FA 0.45 0.00 44.19 355.83 0.827
C10F15W45 10%CKD + 15%FA 0.45 0.00 40.03 336.44 0.782
aWater–binder ratio. b Superplasticizer; if % is not stated, the values are in kg/m3 . c 28 day compressive stresses
are approximately derived from the figure. d Static yield stresses (Pa) are given in the study.

In their study, Qian et al. [464] examined a viable approach to the production of envi-
ronmentally friendly ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) through the integration of
recycled concrete waste coarse aggregate material (RCWCM). By subjecting RCWCM to a
heating treatment process, they produced DCP. Subsequently, DCP was employed in a pro-
gressive manner to substitute the Portland cement content, thereby being incorporated into
the formulation of UHPC utilizing the modified Andreasen and Andersen particle packing
model. The findings indicate that the substitution of up to 25% Portland cement with DCP
does not significantly affect the compressive strength variation of UHPC. Moreover, the
researchers utilized the EN ISO 14040 and EN ISO standards to evaluate the environmental
impact of UHPC by employing the carbon footprint metric. To establish the sustainability
and environmental cleanliness of the UHPC, this study undertook calculations to determine
CO2 emissions per unit of green UHPC with varying DCP levels. Additionally, the ratio of
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 24 of 50

CO2 emissions to compressive strength per unit of green UHPC was also evaluated. From
the results, it can be noticed that the inclusion of DCP yields advantageous outcomes in
enhancing the performance of UHPC from a sustainability perspective.
The objective of the study carried out by Kim and Jang [444] was to examine the
feasibility of closed-loop recycling for construction waste. Specifically, the focus was on
examining the impact of utilizing concrete powder, which is a byproduct of producing
recycled aggregates, on the fresh and hardened mechanical properties of concrete. The
authors assert that concretes produced using recycled materials such as RCA, RFA, and
RP exhibit a lower cost compared to natural coarse aggregate (NAC). However, it is
important to note that these recycled concretes also have reduced compressive strength.
Additionally, it was asserted that the utilization of RP as a substitute for Portland cement
yields environmental advantages, including reductions in CO2 emissions, the preservation
of natural resources, and the mitigation of landfill usage.
Cantero et al. [465] examined the cumulative impact of using ground recycled concrete
(GRC) as a Portland cement replacement along with the use of mixed recycled construction
and demolition waste aggregate (RA-CDW) in the context of structural concrete. The
mechanical performance of concrete mixes with GRC and recycled aggregate from CDW
(RA-CDW) was shown to be inferior compared to mixes made solely with natural aggregate
and cement. However, it is worth noting that the difference in performance was relatively
smaller when considering the corresponding replacement ratios. The authors did not
consider the emissions associated with manufacturing and transportation when assessing
the environmental impact of the mixtures in terms of CO2 emissions from materials. These
emissions were considered smaller than those created during material manufacturing. In
accordance with the provided statistics, the implementation of GRC resulted in a reduction
in CO2 emissions by 7.5% in N10/0, 18.7% in N25/0, 8.5% in R10/50, and 19.7% in R25/50.
The utilization of GRC, in conjunction with RA-CDW, has been found to augment the
environmental efficacy of concrete. When the replacement rate was set at 10%, the amount
of CO2 released during the manufacturing process of concrete decreased by 8.5% compared
to concrete produced with OPC and 100% natural aggregates (NA). Similarly, when the
replacement rate was increased to 25%, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with GRC
decreased by 19.7% compared to OPC-based concrete with 100% NA.
The study conducted by He et al. [468] aimed to evaluate the influence mechanism of
RCP on the multi-scale properties of UHPC mixtures. The findings of the study revealed
that the UHPC combination with 30% RCP exhibited a comparatively reduced strain in
early-age autogenous shrinkage, along with the highest mechanical characteristics. The
reference parameters used by the authors to assess UHPC’s positive environmental impact
included the mixture’s total carbon emissions and non-renewable energy consumption
(NREC). The study demonstrates that there is a decrease in the NREC per cubic meter of
UHPC mixture when the RCP substitution ratio increases. In parallel, it can be observed
that the augmentation in the substitution proportion of RCP leads to a corresponding
reduction in the carbon emissions per unit volume of UHPC mixture.
The objective of the study of Wu et al. [469] was to examine the characteristics of
pore structure, carbonation, and chloride ion permeability in recycled aggregate-powder
concrete (RAPC). The findings of the study indicate that there is a positive correlation
between the replacement rate of recycled aggregate (RA) and both the carbonation depth
and chloride ion permeability of RAPC. The research indicates that the inclusion of 15% RP
resulted in the enhanced performance of RAC. This addition has effectively addressed the
issue of by-products generated during the manufacturing of RA, leading to cost reduction
and a reduction in the adverse environmental effects associated with RAC production.
The durability of a concrete mixture containing ground recycled masonry aggregate
(GR-RMA) as a partial replacement for cement and coarse mixed recycled aggregate (MRA),
both obtained from CDW, was examined by Cantero et al. [471]. The investigation involved
the indirect characterization of pore system permeability by utilizing important indicators of
water transport. Based on the results obtained from the defined scenario, it was determined
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 25 of 50

that the optimal combinations of mechanical efficiency and durability were observed in
mixes with a 25% GR content as a replacement for Portland cement. Additionally, it was
found that the mixes with the highest environmental benefits in terms of reducing CO2
emissions were those that included both 25% GR and 25% to 50% MRA.
In the study done by Pešta et al. [473], the researchers evaluated the environmental
viewpoints pertaining to the utilization of RCP as a substitute for Portland cement. The
findings from the assessment of mechanical properties indicate that RCP exhibits favorable
characteristics as a substitute for Portland cement, particularly in scenarios with a low
degree of replacement. Furthermore, the findings of the environmental assessment provide
confirmation that the implementation of RCP resulted in a decrease in the adverse effects
of climate change, as well as potential effects in other related domains.
Singh et al. [449] examined the practical application of recycled fines (RFs), namely
RFA and RP, in the context of recycled concrete. The investigation focused on evaluating the
fresh qualities (empirical and rheological) of the recycled concrete. The findings indicated
that the decrease in slump was more pronounced in the series with RFA compared to
RP. According to the authors, the inclusion of RF in concrete mixtures not only enhances
material performance but also presents notable environmental advantages, specifically in
mitigating carbon emissions linked to the production of concrete.
Bagheri et al. [488] utilized varying quantities of CKD, a waste material, and FA, a
pozzolanic material, as replacements for Portland cement, both alone and in combination.
The comparison between the Taguchi technique and experimental outcomes for the purpose
of picking the most advantageous mixture designs revealed that the Taguchi approach
demonstrated appropriate selections within the range of optimal experimental results
taking into consideration the initial parameters. Furthermore, the values for the cost and
CO2 emission factors of each plan were determined by considering the CO2 production
cost associated with each material and the corresponding size of said material inside the
relevant plan. The observed decrease in cost of 23% resulting from the substitution of
Portland cement with cement additions, alongside the concurrent reduction in volume
within the C40W45 mixture, was found to be statistically significant. Additionally, it is
worth noting that the CO2 emission factor associated with the Ctrl-W37 value (510.8 kg/m3 )
exhibited a reduction of almost 50% when considering the C40F0W45 mixture (278 kg/m3 ).

2.4.2. Evaluation of CO2 Emissions with Respect to Compressive Strength

For the studies presented in Table 9, the global warming potential (GWP) was calculated
(Equation (2)) using the environmental parameter presented by Khodabakhshian et al. [490].
The GWP was formulated to quantify the alteration in the greenhouse effect resulting from
human-caused emissions and absorptions.

GWP = (0.885 × C ) + (0.0032 × A) + (0.0025 × W ) + (1.11 × SP) (1)

where C is the cement content of concrete (kg/m3 ), A is the aggregate content (kg/m3 ),
W is the water content (kg/m3 ), and SP is the superplasticizer content (kg/m3 ).
Figures 2–10 display the collected data on the GWP of the produced concrete, as well
as the ratio of GWP to compressive strength per unit of the concrete, for various levels of
CDW content. The second measure indicated above corresponds to the quantity of GWP
per unit of strength. A higher GWP/compressive strength ratio in the produced concrete
indicates a bigger quantity of carbon dioxide generated during the production of concrete,
provided that the compressive strength remains constant. Based on the results depicted in
the figures, it is evident that the inclusion of CDW has a positive impact on enhancing the
performance of concrete from a sustainability perspective.
 When comparing the identical strength conditions, the produced concrete including
DCP [464], RP [463], GRC [465], RCP [468,472], RAPC [469], GR-RMA [471], RF [449], and
CKD [488] exhibits a lower CO2 emission per unit volume compared to the reference sam-
ple. This indicates a higher efficiency in utilizing Portland cement in the produced con-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585
crete. In addition, the increase in all types of CDW contents leads to a significant reduction
26 of 50
in carbon dioxide emissions during the production of the concrete.

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 28[464],

Figure 2. GWP and GWP/compressive strength ratio of the concretes developed by Qian et al. of 52
Figure 2. GWP and GWP/compressive strength ratio of the concretes developed by Qian et al. [464],
(Data from
(Data from Qian
Qian et
et al.
al. [464]).
[464]).

Figure 3.
Figure 3. GWP
GWP and
and GWP/compressive
GWP/compressive strength
strength ratio
ratio of
of the
the concretes
concretes developed
developed by
by Kim
Kim et
et al.
al. [444],
[444],
(Data from
(Data from Kim
Kim et
et al.
al. [444]).
[444]).

Figure
Figure 4.4.GWP GWP and GWP/compressive
and GWP/compressive strengthstrength ratio
ratio of the of thedeveloped
concretes concretesbydeveloped
Cantero et by
al.
Cantero et al. [465], (Data from Cantero
[465], (Data from Cantero et al. [465]). et al. [465]).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 27 of 50
Figure 4. GWP and GWP/compressive strength ratio of the concretes developed by Cantero et al.
[465], (Data from Cantero et al. [465]).

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 29 of 52

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 29 of 52

Figure 5. GWP and GWP/compressive strength ratio of the concretes developed by He et al. [468],
Figure 5. GWP and GWP/compressive strength ratio of the concretes developed by He et al. [468],
(Data from He et al. [468]).
(Data from
Figure He etand
5. GWP al. [468]).
GWP/compressive strength ratio of the concretes developed by He et al. [468],
(Data from He et al. [468]).

Figure 6.
Figure 6.GWP
GWPand
andGWP/compressive
GWP/compressivestrength ratio ratio
strength of theofconcretes developed
the concretes by Wu et
developed byal.
Wu [469],
et al. [469],
(Data from
Figure 6. Wu et
GWP andal.GWP/compressive
[469]). strength ratio of the concretes developed by Wu et al. [469],
(Data from Wu et al. [469]).
(Data from Wu et al. [469]).

Figure 7. GWP and GWP/compressive strength ratio of the concretes developed by Cantero et al.
[471],
Figure(Data fromand
7. GWP Cantero et al. [471]). strength ratio of the concretes developed by Cantero et al.
GWP/compressive
Figure 7. GWP and GWP/compressive strength ratio of the concretes developed by
[471], (Data from Cantero et al. [471]).
Cantero et al. [471], (Data from Cantero et al. [471]).
 Sustainability
Sustainability 2024, 16,16,
2024, 585x FOR PEER REVIEW 30 of 52 28 of 50
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 30 of 52
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 30 of 52

Figure 8.
Figure 8. GWP
GWPand
andGWP/compressive
GWP/compressivestrength ratioratio
strength of the
ofconcretes developed
the concretes by Pešta
developed byetPešta
al. [472],
et al. [472],
(Data from
Figure Pešta
8. GWP andet GWP/compressive
al. [472]). strength ratio of the concretes developed by Pešta et al. [472],
(Data from Pešta et al. [472]).
Figure 8. GWP
(Data from and
Pešta etGWP/compressive
al. [472]). strength ratio of the concretes developed by Pešta et al. [472],
(Data from Pešta et al. [472]).

Figure 9. GWP and GWP/compressive strength ratio of the concretes developed by Singh et al. [449],
(Data from
Figure
Figure 9. Singh
9. GWP
GWP andetGWP/compressive
and al. [449]).
GWP/compressivestrength ratioratio
strength of the
ofconcretes developed
the concretes by Singh
developed by et al. [449],
Singh et al. [449],
Figure
(Data 9. GWP
from andetGWP/compressive
Singh al. [449]). strength ratio of the concretes developed by Singh et al. [449],
(Data from Singh et al. [449]).
(Data from Singh et al. [449]).

Figure 10. GWP and GWP/compressive strength ratio of the concretes developed by
Bagheri et al. [488], (Data from Bagheri et al. [488]).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 29 of 50

When comparing the identical strength conditions, the produced concrete including
DCP [464], RP [463], GRC [465], RCP [468,472], RAPC [469], GR-RMA [471], RF [449],
and CKD [488] exhibits a lower CO2 emission per unit volume compared to the reference
sample. This indicates a higher efficiency in utilizing Portland cement in the produced
concrete. In addition, the increase in all types of CDW contents leads to a significant
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions during the production of the concrete.

3. Conclusions
This paper presents a review of the utilization of CDW as a partial replacement for
Portland cement or as a partial replacement for raw materials in raw meal to produce
concrete. Based on the review above, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. CDW particles, which possess a comparable size range to cement particles, exhibit a
satisfactory level of reactivity that renders them suitable for utilization as supplemen-
tal cementitious materials in concrete;
2. The effective usage of the finest portion of CDW in the manufacturing of Portland
cement is a feasible approach;
3. An observed correlation exists between a rise in fineness and an increase in the
reactivity of CDW. It is recommended that the median diameter of CDW particles be
maintained below 30 µm during the process of concrete production;
4. Higher water-to-binder ratios have been found to result in a decrease in the compres-
sive strength of concrete made with CDW;
5. In terms of CO2 reduction, CDW as a partial replacement of Portland cement provides
equal or better results compared to various agricultural, industrial and municipal
waste materials in concrete production;
6. CDW as a partial replacement for Portland cement provides better CO2 reduction
results compared to CDW as a partial replacement for the natural materials in the
raw meal;
7. The application of a treatment on CDW has been shown to significantly enhance the
characteristics of the concrete while also facilitating the valorization of waste materials
and addressing pressing environmental concerns related to resource depletion, CO2
emissions, and waste formation;
8. The high fineness and reactivity of CDW (specifically RP, DCP, CKD, GRC, RCP,
HHCW, and RBP) have been observed to result in negligible adverse impacts on
compressive strength when up to 30% of Portland cement is replaced with CDW;
9. The utilization of CDW concrete results in a reduction in the preparation cost com-
pared to plain concrete while also leading to a drop in energy consumption and CO2
emissions during the concrete preparation process;
10. Given the extensive scope and widespread nature of concrete manufacturing, even
minor enhancements in the resource recovery efficiency of construction and demoli-
tion waste (CDW) can yield significant cost reductions and mitigate its detrimental
environmental impacts;
11. The use of SCM (CC, fly ash, silica fume, etc.) together with CDW as a replacement
for Portland cement provides beneficial ecological results; but if the substitution is
CC by PC, the beneficial ecological results are greater, and the greater the higher the
reactive alumina content, that is, the quality of its matrix clay, because its replacement
amount will be greater;
12. The combined effect of CDW as partial Portland cement replacement and mixed
recycled construction and demolition waste aggregate (RACDW) or RA in structural
concrete provides promising results;
13. The findings of the ecological assessment indicate that the substitution of Portland
cement with CDW can significantly decrease CO2 emissions per unit volume of
concrete while also ensuring the continued high performance of the concrete.
The results mentioned above suggest that incorporating CDW as a partial substitute
for Portland cement offers a viable approach to address many issues, including limited
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 30 of 50

disposal locations, environmental consequences, and cost reductions in the manufacturing

of concrete. Based on the available evidence, it can be inferred that the substitution of
Portland cement with CDW in the production of environmentally friendly concrete is a
justifiable approach. This innovation presents a novel concept for the development of
sustainable products in the foreseeable future.

Prospects and Recommendations

In the recent literature, various approaches to addressing sustainable production in
the cement industry have been examined, and notable advancements have been achieved
in the realm of research. The literature analysis revealed that the utilization of CDW in
the cement manufacturing process offers a technically, environmentally, and economically
advantageous approach when compared to traditional methods of cement manufacturing.
However, it is imperative to conduct a thorough and comprehensive study to validate or
make any adjustments to the stated conclusions of this review. More extensive investigation
is required for the following aspects:
• Low-emission cement production methods should be developed. Simultaneously,
efforts should be directed towards formulating strategies for incorporating CDW into
the industrial process;
• The CDW utilized in several investigations was acquired from a singular source of
concrete waste, and the experiments were carried out at the laboratory scale. In
practical applications, the underlying origin of CDW might exhibit a higher level of
complexity. Hence, to achieve generalizability, future research endeavors should duly
include the inherent diversity in the characteristics of CDW;
• The investigation of the long-term behavior and alteration of microstructure is crucial;
• Further exploration of treatment strategies for CDW is necessary to identify poten-
tial enhancements that do not have a negative impact on the Portland cement and
concrete quality. To enhance the performance of CDW, scholarly investigations have
emphasized the use of a combination of diverse treatment techniques as a feasible and
strategic approach. Hence, enhancing the methodologies employed for the treatment
of CDW holds significant importance;
• Additional research is needed to better investigate chemical recycling methods for
CDW. There is a need for additional economic, environmental, and feasibility analyses
to be conducted, ensuring that all procedures employed adhere to pertinent legal and
environmental requirements;
• Previous studies have documented a dearth of sufficient evidence pertaining to the
substitution of mixed CDW and recycled aggregate simultaneously, resulting in in-
congruities among the findings of various researchers. In forthcoming experimental
investigations, it is vital to allocate due consideration to these features;
• In contrast, manufacturing calcined clay in cement plants seems to be much more
feasible in all senses: the technical aspect of its manufacturing and of its quality
control, and the economic aspect. In addition, the amount of replacement by PC
for each construction purpose is relatively quick to determine and, consequently,
economical as well;
• Further research is needed to conduct further LCA studies to establish a comprehensive
and methodical comparison of the carbon footprint associated with CDW in contrast
to standard SCMs. It is important to evaluate various landfilling and downcycling
scenarios in these studies. The current LCA studies failed to incorporate the technical
and economic dimensions of CDW utilization in Portland cement, both as a raw
material and as a Portland cement replacement. The primary concern pertains to the
establishment of a life cycle costing analysis (LCC) for the purpose of ascertaining
the most economically advantageous choice among the available possibilities. The
second problem pertains to the examination of the environmental and economic
consequences in relation to varying distances, which influence the effects resulting
from transportation. Another suggestion is for analysts conducting LCA to undertake
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 31 of 50

a comparable investigation. Given the potential variability of inventory analysis across

different regions, it is imperative to enhance the accuracy of LCA data.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.K., S.C. and J.A.; methodology, K.K.; validation, K.K.,
S.C. and J.A.; formal analysis, K.K.; investigation, K.K.; resources, K.K., S.C. and J.A.; data curation,
K.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K.; writing—review and editing, K.K., S.C. and J.A.;
visualization, K.K.; supervision, J.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by Fundação Para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT)/MCTES through
national funds (PIDDAC) under the R&D Unit Centre for Territory, Environment and Construction
(CTAC) under reference UIDB/04047/2020.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

ACW Asbestos cement tile waste

AFs Alternative fuels
AP Acidification potential
ARMs Alternative raw materials
BCM Binary cementitious material
BD Brick dust
BFA Biomass fly ash
BRH Biochar rice husk
◦C Celsius
CaCO3 Calcium carbonate
CaO Calcium oxide
CBA Cane bagasse ash
CBP Clay brick powder
CC Calcined clay
CCA Corn cob ash
CCS Carbon capture and storage
CCW Civil construction waste
CDW Construction and demolition waste
CFA Coal fly ash
CI Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
CKD Cement kiln dust
CLBA Coal bottom ash
CNSA Coconut shell ash
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CRD Crushed rock dust
CS Copper slag
CWP Ceramic waste powder
d50 Mean or average particle size of a mineral
DCP Dehydrated cement paste
EAFD Electric arc furnace dust
ECC Engineered cementitious composites
ESP Eggshell powder
EU European Union
FA Fly ash
FP Fossil fuel depletion potential
FSW Foundry sand waste
GGBFS Granulated blast-furnace slag
GHG Greenhouse gas
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 32 of 50

GP Glass powder
GRC Ground recycled concrete
GR-RMA Ground recycled masonry aggregate
GWP Global warming potential
HCW Hydrated cement waste
HHCW Humid hardened concrete waste
kg-CO2 eq Kilogram of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram
kg-CO2 /m3 Kilogram of carbon dioxide equivalent per cubic meter
LC2 Limestone calcined clay
LC3 Limestone calcined clay cement
LCA Life cycle assessment
LCC Life cycle costing analysis
LOI Loss-on-ignition
LP Limestone powder
LSF Limestone filler
MA Mineral addition
MCRT Mixed cathode ray tubes
MPa Megapascal
MRA Mixed recycled aggregate
MRF Mixed container glass
MK Metakaolin
MSWI Municipal solid waste incineration ash
NA Natural aggregate
na Not applicable
µm Micrometers
NCA Natural coarse aggregate
NFA Natural fine aggregate
NP Natural pozzolan
NREC Non-renewable energy consumption
NS Nanosilica
ns Not stated
OIC Orange illitic clay
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
OSP Oyster shell powder
OWA Olive waste ash
PCC Portland clinker crude
POFA Palm oil fuel ash
POCP Palm oil clinker powder
ppmV Parts per million by volume
PPR Porcelain tile polishing residue
PS Periwinkle shell
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
RA Recycled aggregate
RA-CDW Recycled construction and demolition waste aggregate
RAPC Recycled aggregate powder concrete
RBP Recycled brick powder
RCA Recycled coarse aggregate
RCP Recycled concrete powder
RCW Red ceramic waste
RCWCM Recycled concrete waste coarse aggregate material
RF Recycled fine
RFA Recycled fine aggregate
RGP Recycled glass powder
RHA Rice husk ash
RM Red mud
RP Recycled powder
SCBA Sugarcane bagasse ash
SCMs Supplementary cementitious materials
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 33 of 50

SDA Sawdust ash

SF Silica fume
SLS Scallop shell
SP Superplasticizer
SS Steel slag
SSA Sewage sludge ash
SSP Seashell powder
TiO2 Titanium dioxide
UHPC Ultra-high-performance concrete
VA Volcanic ash
WBP Waste brick powder
WCP Waste concrete powder
WG Waste glass
WHR Waste heat recovery
WMD Waste marble dust
WP Waste powder
WSA Wheat straw ash
wt.% Weight percentage
WWA Wood waste ash

References
1. Schneider, M.; Romer, M.; Tschudin, M.; Bolio, H. Sustainable cement production—Present and future. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011,
41, 642–650. [CrossRef]
2. Antunes, M.; Santos, R.; Pereira, J.; Rocha, P.; Horta, R.; Colaço, R. Alternative clinker technologies for reducing carbon emissions
in cement industry: A critical review. Materials 2021, 15, 209. [CrossRef]
3. Mohamad, N.; Muthusamy, K.; Embong, R.; Kusbiantoro, A.; Hashim, M. Environmental impact of cement production and
Solutions: A review. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 48, 741–746. [CrossRef]
4. Khan, K.; Ahmad, W.; Amin, M.; Aslam, F.; Ahmad, A.; Al-Faiad, M. Comparison of Prediction Models Based on Machine
Learning for the Compressive Strength Estimation of Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Materials 2022, 15, 3430. [CrossRef]
5. Environment, U.N.; Scrivener, K.; John, V.; Gartner, E. Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO2
cement-based materials industry. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 114, 2–6.
6. Abdul-Wahab, S.; Al-Dhamri, H.; Ram, G.; Chatterjee, V. An overview of alternative raw materials used in cement and clinker
manufacturing. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2021, 14, 743–760. [CrossRef]
7. Belaïd, F. How does concrete and cement industry transformation contribute to mitigating climate change challenges? Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2022, 15, 200084. [CrossRef]
8. Nwankwo, C.; Bamigboye, G.; Davies, I.; Michaels, T. High volume Portland cement replacement: A review. Constr. Build. Mater.
2020, 260, 120445. [CrossRef]
9. Uwasu, M.; Hara, K.; Yabar, H. World cement production and environmental implications. Environ. Dev. 2014, 10, 36–47.
[CrossRef]
10. Guo, Y.; Luo, L.; Liu, T.; Hao, L.; Li, Y.; Liu, P.; Zhu, T. A review of low-carbon technologies and projects for the global cement
industry. J. Environ. Sci. 2023, 136, 682–697. [CrossRef]
11. ECA (European Cement Association). Global Cement Production. Available online: https://cembureau.eu/ (accessed on 10
September 2023).
12. Yang, K.; Jung, Y.; Cho, M.; Tae, S. Effect of supplementary cementitious materials on reduction of CO2 emissions from concrete. J.
Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 774–783. [CrossRef]
13. Singh, G.; Subramaniam, K. Production and characterization of low-energy Portland composite cement from post-industrial
waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 118024. [CrossRef]
14. Salas, D.; Ramirez, A.; Rodríguez, C.; Petroche, D.; Boero, A.; Duque-Rivera, J. Environmental impacts, life cycle assessment and
potential improvement measures for cement production: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 114–122. [CrossRef]
15. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Guidelines for Co-Processing Fuels and Raw Materials in Cement Manufacturing,
Version 2.0; WBCSD: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
16. Benhelal, E.; Zahedi, G.; Shamsaei, E.; Bahadori, A. Global strategies and potentials to curb CO2 emissions in cement industry. J.
Clean. Prod. 2013, 51, 142–161. [CrossRef]
17. Baidya, R.; Ghosh, S.; Parlikar, U. Sustainability of cement kiln co-processing of wastes in India: A pilot study. Environ. Technol.
2017, 38, 1650–1659. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Navia, R.; Rivela, B.; Lorber, K.; Méndez, R. Recycling contaminated soil as alternative raw material in cement facilities: Life cycle
assessment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2006, 48, 339–356. [CrossRef]
19. ASTM C 563-95; Standard Test Method for Optimum SO3 in Hydraulic Cement Using 24-h Compressive Strength. ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2001.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 34 of 50

20. Talero, R. Contribution to the Analytical and Physicochemical Study of the System: Pozzolanic Cements-Gypsum-Water (at 20 ±
2 ◦ C). Ph.D. Thesis, Ftad. de CC. Químicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 1986.
21. Xu, J.; Yi, B.; Fan, Y. A bottom-up optimization model for long-term CO2 emissions reduction pathway in the cement industry: A
case study of China. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2016, 44, 199–216. [CrossRef]
22. Mikulčić, H.; Klemeš, J.; Vujanović, M.; Urbaniec, K.; Duić, N. Reducing greenhouse gasses emissions by fostering the deployment
of alternative raw materials and energy sources in the cleaner cement manufacturing process. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 119–132.
[CrossRef]
23. Hussain, J.; Khan, A.; Zhou, K. The impact of natural resource depletion on energy use and CO2 emission in Belt & Road Initiative
countries: A cross-country analysis. Energy 2020, 199, 117409.
24. Blankendaal, T.; Schuur, P.; Voordijk, H. Reducing the environmental impact of concrete and asphalt: A scenario approach. J.
Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 27–36. [CrossRef]
25. Mishra, U.; Sarsaiya, S.; Gupta, A. A systematic review on the impact of cement industries on the natural environment. Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 18440–18451. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Kwon, E.; Ahn, J.; Cho, B.; Park, D. A study on development of recycled cement made from waste cementitious powder. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2015, 83, 174–180. [CrossRef]
27. Saravanan, A.; Vo, D.; Jeevanantham, S.; Bhuvaneswari, V.; Narayanan, V.; Yaashikaa, P.; Swetha, S.; Reshma, B. A comprehensive
review on different approaches for CO2 utilization and conversion pathways. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2021, 236, 116515. [CrossRef]
28. Olivier, J.; Schure, K.; Peters, J. Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2017 Report; PBL Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2017.
29. Benhelal, E.; Shamsaei, E.; Rashid, M. Challenges against CO2 abatement strategies in cement industry: A review. J. Environ. Sci.
2021, 104, 84–101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Usman, M.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Jahanger, A.; Ahmad, P. Pollution concern during globalization mode in financially resource-
rich countries: Do financial development, natural resources, and renewable energy consumption matter? Renew. Energy 2022, 183,
90–102. [CrossRef]
31. Afif, M.; Afif, A.; Apostoleris, H.; Gandhi, K.; Dadlani, A.; Ghaferi, A.; Torgersen, J.; Chiesa, M. Ultra-cheap renewable energy as
an enabling technology for deep industrial decarbonization via capture and utilization of process CO2 emissions. Energies 2022,
15, 5181. [CrossRef]
32. Chaudhury, R.; Sharma, U.; Thapliyal, P.; Singh, L. Low-CO2 emission strategies to achieve net zero target in cement sector. J.
Clean. Prod. 2023, 417, 137466.
33. Song, D.; Yang, J.; Chen, B.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A. Life-cycle environmental impact analysis of a typical cement production chain.
Appl. Energy 2016, 164, 916–923. [CrossRef]
34. Zhu, Q. CO2 Abatement in the Cement Industry; IEA Clean Coal Centre: London, UK, 2011.
35. Adesina, A. Recent advances in the concrete industry to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. Environ. Chall. 2020, 1, 100004.
[CrossRef]
36. Ghalandari, V.; Majd, M.; Golestanian, A. Energy audit for pyro-processing unit of a new generation cement plant and feasibility
study for recovering waste heat: A case study. Energy 2019, 173, 833–843. [CrossRef]
37. Kermeli, K.; Edelenbosch, O.; Crijns-Graus, W.; Van Ruijven, B.; Mima, S.; Van Vuuren, D.; Worrell, E. The scope for better
industry representation in long-term energy models: Modeling the cement industry. Appl. Energy 2019, 240, 964–985. [CrossRef]
38. Hossain, M.; Poon, C.; Lo, I.; Cheng, J. Comparative LCA on using waste materials in the cement industry: A Hong Kong case
study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120, 199–208. [CrossRef]
39. Ishak, S.; Hashim, H. Low carbon measures for cement plant–a review. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 260–274. [CrossRef]
40. Emissions, B.Z. Zero Carbon Industry Plan: Rethinking Cement; Beyond Zero Emissions: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2017.
41. Rissman, J.; Bataille, C.; Masanet, E.; Aden, N.; Morrow III, W.; Zhou, N.; Elliott, N.; Dell, R.; Heeren, N.; Huckestein, B.; et al.
Technologies and policies to decarbonize global industry: Review and assessment of mitigation drivers through 2070. Appl.
Energy 2020, 266, 114848. [CrossRef]
42. Chen, K.; Wang, J.; Yu, B.; Wu, H.; Zhang, J. Critical evaluation of construction and demolition waste and associated environmental
impacts: A scientometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 287, 125071. [CrossRef]
43. Baidya, R.; Ghosh, S. Low carbon cement manufacturing in India by co-processing of alternative fuel and raw materials. Energy
Sources A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2019, 41, 2561–2572. [CrossRef]
44. Costa, F.; Ribeiro, D. Reduction in CO2 emissions during production of cement, with partial replacement of traditional raw
materials by civil construction waste (CCW). J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123302. [CrossRef]
45. Ren, M.; Ma, T.; Fang, C.; Liu, X.; Guo, C.; Zhang, S.; Zhou, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Dai, H.; Huang, C. Negative emission technology is key to
decarbonizing China’s cement industry. Appl. Energy 2023, 329, 120254. [CrossRef]
46. Usón, A.; López-Sabirón, A.; Ferreira, G.; Sastresa, E. Uses of alternative fuels and raw materials in the cement industry as
sustainable waste management options. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 23, 242–260. [CrossRef]
47. Fairbairn, E.; Americano, B.; Cordeiro, G.; Paula, T.; Toledo Filho, R.; Silvoso, M. Cement replacement by sugar cane bagasse ash:
CO2 emissions reduction and potential for carbon credits. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 1864–1871. [CrossRef]
48. Tam, V.; Soomro, M.; Evangelista, A. A review of recycled aggregate in concrete applications (2000–2017). Constr. Build. Mater.
2018, 172, 272–292. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 35 of 50

49. Wu, H.; Zuo, J.; Zillante, G.; Wang, J.; Yuan, H. Status quo and future directions of construction and demolition waste research: A
critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 118163. [CrossRef]
50. Menegaki, M.; Damigos, D. A review on current situation and challenges of construction and demolition waste management.
Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2018, 13, 8–15. [CrossRef]
51. Medina, C.; Banfill, P.; De Rojas, M.; Frías, M. Rheological and calorimetric behaviour of cements blended with containing ceramic
sanitary ware and construction/demolition waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 40, 822–831. [CrossRef]
52. Ginga, C.; Ongpeng, J.; Daly, M. Circular economy on construction and demolition waste: A literature review on material recovery
and production. Materials 2020, 13, 2970. [CrossRef]
53. Islam, R.; Nazifa, T.; Yuniarto, A.; Uddin, A.; Salmiati, S.; Shahid, S. An empirical study of construction and demolition waste
generation and implication of recycling. Waste Manag. 2019, 95, 10–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Mália, M.; De Brito, J.; Pinheiro, M.; Bravo, M. Construction and demolition waste indicators. Waste Manag. Res. 2013, 31, 241–255.
[CrossRef]
55. Yuan, H.; Shen, L. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 670–679.
[CrossRef]
56. Merino, M.; Gracia, P.; Azevedo, I. Sustainable construction: Construction and demolition waste reconsidered. Waste Manag. Res.
2010, 28, 118–129. [CrossRef]
57. Kabirifar, K.; Mojtahedi, M.; Wang, C.; Tam, V. A conceptual foundation for effective construction and demolition waste
management. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2020, 1, 100019. [CrossRef]
58. Reis, G.; Quattrone, M.; Ambrós, W.; Cazacliu, B.; Sampaio, C. Current applications of recycled aggregates from construction and
demolition: A review. Materials 2021, 14, 1700. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Zheng, L.; Wu, H.; Zhang, H.; Duan, H.; Wang, J.; Jiang, W.; Dong, B.; Liu, G.; Zuo, J.; Song, Q. Characterizing the generation and
flows of construction and demolition waste in China. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 136, 405–413. [CrossRef]
60. Zhang, C.; Hu, M.; Maio, F.; Sprecher, B.; Yang, X.; Tukker, A. An overview of the waste hierarchy framework for analyzing
the circularity in construction and demolition waste management in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 803, 149892. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
61. Sáez, P.; Osmani, M. A diagnosis of construction and demolition waste generation and recovery practice in the European Union.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118400. [CrossRef]
62. Oliveira, T.; Dezen, B.; Possan, E. Use of concrete fine fraction waste as a replacement of Portland cement. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,
273, 123126. [CrossRef]
63. Akhtar, A.; Sarmah, A. Construction and demolition waste generation and properties of recycled aggregate concrete: A global
perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 262–281. [CrossRef]
64. Villoria-Sáez, P.; Porras-Amores, C.; Merino, M. Estimation of construction and demolition waste. In Advances in Construction and
Demolition Waste Recycling Management, Processing and Environmental Assessment, 1st ed.; Pacheco-Torgal, F., Ding, Y., Calengo, F.,
Tuladhar, R., Koutamanis, A., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2020; pp. 13–30.
65. Oikonomou, N. Recycled concrete aggregates. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2005, 27, 315–318. [CrossRef]
66. Huang, B.; Wang, X.; Kua, H.; Geng, Y.; Bleischwitz, R.; Ren, J. Construction and demolition waste management in China through
the 3R principle. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 129, 36–44. [CrossRef]
67. Hoang, N.; Ishigaki, T.; Kubota, R.; Yamada, M.; Kawamoto, K. A review of construction and demolition waste management in
Southeast Asia. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2020, 22, 315–325. [CrossRef]
68. Fischer, C.; Werge, M.; Reichel, A. EU as a Recycling Society. In European Topic Centre on Resource Waste Management; Working
Paper 2/2009; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2009.
69. Mohammed, M.; ElKady, H.; Abdel-Gawwad, H. Utilization of construction and demolition waste and synthetic aggregates. J.
Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 103207. [CrossRef]
70. Mah, C.; Fujiwara, T.; Ho, C. Environmental impacts of construction and demolition waste management alternatives. Chem. Eng.
Trans. 2018, 63, 343–348.
71. Alsheyab, M. Recycling of construction and demolition waste and its impact on climate change and sustainable development. Int.
J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 19, 2129–2138. [CrossRef]
72. Ferronato, N.; Moresco, L.; Lizarazu, G.; Portillo, M.; Conti, F.; Torretta, V. Comparison of environmental impacts related to
municipal solid waste and construction and demolition waste management and recycling in a Latin American developing city.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 22, 1–5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73. Tafesse, S.; Girma, Y.; Dessalegn, E. Analysis of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of construction waste and
management practices. Heliyon 2022, 8, 09169. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Sun, X.; Xu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Nai, C.; Dong, L.; Liu, J.; Huang, Q. Evolution of geomembrane degradation and defects in a landfill:
Impacts on long-term leachate leakage and groundwater quality. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 335–345. [CrossRef]
75. Nodehi, M.; Taghvaee, V. Applying circular economy to construction industry through use of waste materials: A review of
supplementary cementitious materials, plastics, and ceramics. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2022, 2, 987–1020. [CrossRef]
76. Contreras, M.; Teixeira, S.; Lucas, M.; Lima, L.; Cardoso, D.; Da Silva, G.; Gregório, G.; De Souza, A.; Dos Santos, A. Recycling
of construction and demolition waste for producing new construction material (Brazil case-study). Constr. Build. Mater. 2016,
123, 594–600. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 36 of 50

77. Long, H.; Liao, Y.; Cui, C.; Liu, M.; Liu, Z.; Li, L.; Hu, W.; Yan, D. Assessment of popular techniques for co-processing municipal
solid waste in Chinese cement kilns. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2022, 16, 51. [CrossRef]
78. Ferronato, N.; Rada, E.; Portillo, M.; Cioca, L.; Ragazzi, M.; Torretta, V. Introduction of the circular economy within developing
regions: A comparative analysis of advantages and opportunities for waste valorization. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 230, 366–378.
[CrossRef]
79. Kaza, S.; Yao, L.; Bhada-Tata, P.; Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050; World
Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
80. Alex, J.; Dhanalakshmi, J.; Ambedkar, B. Experimental investigation on rice husk ash as cement replacement on concrete
production. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 127, 353–362. [CrossRef]
81. Gartner, E.; Hirao, H. A review of alternative approaches to the reduction of CO2 emissions associated with the manufacture of
the binder phase in concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2015, 78, 126–142. [CrossRef]
82. Miller, S.; John, V.; Pacca, S.; Horvath, A. Carbon dioxide reduction potential in the global cement industry by 2050. Cem. Concr.
Res. 2018, 114, 115–124. [CrossRef]
83. Ali, M.; Saidur, R.; Hossain, M. A review on emission analysis in cement industries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011,
15, 2252–2261. [CrossRef]
84. Rocha, J.; Toledo Filho, R.; Cayo-Chileno, N. Sustainable alternatives to CO2 reduction in the cement industry: A short review.
Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 57, 436–439. [CrossRef]
85. Sahoo, N.; Kumar, A.; Samsher, S. Review on energy conservation and emission reduction approaches for cement industry.
Environ. Dev. 2022, 44, 100767. [CrossRef]
86. Poudyal, L.; Adhikari, K. Environmental sustainability in cement industry: An integrated approach for green and economical
cement production. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 4, 100024. [CrossRef]
87. Kunche, A.; Mielczarek, B. Application of system dynamic modelling for evaluation of carbon mitigation strategies in cement
industries: A comparative overview of the current state of the art. Energies 2021, 14, 1464. [CrossRef]
88. Plaza, M.; Martínez, S.; Rubiera, F. CO2 capture, use, and storage in the cement industry: State of the art and expectations. Energies
2020, 13, 5692. [CrossRef]
89. Ahmed, M.; Bashar, I.; Alam, S.; Wasi, A.; Jerin, I.; Khatun, S.; Rahman, M. An overview of Asian cement industry: Environmental
impacts, research methodologies and mitigation measures. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 1018–1039. [CrossRef]
90. Wang, Y.; Höller, S.; Viebahn, P.; Hao, Z. Integrated assessment of CO2 reduction technologies in China’s cement industry. Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control 2014, 20, 27–36. [CrossRef]
91. Dinga, C.; Wen, Z. China’s green deal: Can China’s cement industry achieve carbon neutral emissions by 2060? Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2022, 155, 111931. [CrossRef]
92. Zhang, C.; Yu, B.; Chen, J.; Wei, Y. Green transition pathways for cement industry in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021,
166, 105355. [CrossRef]
93. Panjaitan, T.; Dargusch, P.; Wadley, D.; Aziz, A. Meeting international standards of cleaner production in developing countries:
Challenges and financial realities facing the Indonesian cement industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 318, 128604. [CrossRef]
94. Junianto, I.; Sunardi; Sumiarsa, D. The Possibility of Achieving Zero CO2 Emission in the Indonesian Cement Industry by 2050: A
Stakeholder System Dynamic Perspective. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6085. [CrossRef]
95. Watari, T.; Cao, Z.; Hata, S.; Nansai, K. Efficient use of cement and concrete to reduce reliance on supply-side technologies for
net-zero emissions. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 4158. [CrossRef]
96. Ghacham, A.; Pasquier, L.; Cecchi, E.; Blais, J.; Mercier, G. Valorization of waste concrete through CO2 mineral carbonation:
Optimizing parameters and improving reactivity using concrete separation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 869–878. [CrossRef]
97. Jaiboon, N.; Wongsapai, W.; Daroon, S.; Bunchuaidee, R.; Ritkrerkkrai, C.; Damrongsak, D. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential
from waste heat recovery for power generation in cement industry: The case of Thailand. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 638–643. [CrossRef]
98. Worrell, E.; Martin, N.; Price, L. Potentials for energy efficiency improvement in the US cement industry. Energy 2000,
25, 1189–1214. [CrossRef]
99. Deja, J.; Uliasz-Bochenczyk, A.; Mokrzycki, E. CO2 emissions from Polish cement industry. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2010,
4, 583–588. [CrossRef]
100. Supino, S.; Malandrino, O.; Testa, M.; Sica, D. Sustainability in the EU cement industry: The Italian and German experiences. J.
Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 430–442. [CrossRef]
101. Garðarsdóttir, S.; Normann, F.; Skagestad, R.; Johnsson, F. Investment costs and CO2 reduction potential of carbon capture from
industrial plants–A Swedish case study. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2018, 76, 111–124. [CrossRef]
102. Beguedou, E.; Narra, S.; Afrakoma Armoo, E.; Agboka, K.; Damgou, M. Alternative Fuels Substitution in Cement Industries for
Improved Energy Efficiency and Sustainability. Energies 2023, 16, 3533. [CrossRef]
103. Rahman, A.; Rasul, M.; Khan, M.; Sharma, S. Recent development on the uses of alternative fuels in cement manufacturing
process. Fuel 2015, 145, 84–99. [CrossRef]
104. Hassaan, M. Basalt rock as an alternative raw material in Portland cement manufacture. Mater. Lett. 2001, 50, 172–178. [CrossRef]
105. Tsiliyannis, A. Alternative fuels in cement manufacturing: Modeling for process optimization under direct and compound
operation. Fuel 2012, 99, 20–39. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 37 of 50

106. Bourtsalas, A.; Zhang, J.; Castaldi, M.; Themelis, N.; Karaiskakis, A. Use of non-recycled plastics and paper as alternative fuel in
cement production. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 8–16. [CrossRef]
107. Chatterjee, A.; Sui, T. Alternative fuels–effects on clinker process and properties. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 123, 105777. [CrossRef]
108. Favier, A.; De Wolf, C.; Scrivener, K.; Habert, G. A Sustainable Future for the European Cement and Concrete Industry: Technology
Assessment for Full Decarbonisation of the Industry by 2050; ETH Zurich: Zurich, Switzerland, 2018.
109. Pardo, N.; Moya, J.; Mercier, A. Prospective on the energy efficiency and CO2 emissions in the EU cement industry. Energy 2011,
36, 3244–3254. [CrossRef]
110. Kusuma, R.; Hiremath, R.; Rajesh, P.; Kumar, B.; Renukappa, S. Sustainable transition towards biomass-based cement industry: A
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 163, 112503. [CrossRef]
111. Rahman, A.; Rasul, M.; Khan, M.; Sharma, S. Assessment of energy performance and emission control using alternative fuels in
cement industry through a process model. Energies 2017, 10, 1996. [CrossRef]
112. Thomas, S. Use of alternative fuels in the cement industry. In Refra Technik Seminar; REFRATECHNIK: Duesseldorf, Germany,
2010; p. 47.
113. Cascarosa, E.; Gasco, L.; García, G.; Gea, G.; Arauzo, J. Meat and bone meal and coal co-gasification: Environmental advantages.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 59, 32–37. [CrossRef]
114. Gulyurtlu, I.; Boavida, D.; Abelha, P.; Lopes, M.; Cabrita, I. Co-combustion of coal and meat and bone meal. Fuel 2005,
84, 2137–2148. [CrossRef]
115. Fryda, L.; Panopoulos, K.; Vourliotis, P.; Kakaras, E.; Pavlidou, E. Meat and bone meal as secondary fuel in fluidized bed
combustion. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2007, 31, 2829–2837. [CrossRef]
116. Cascarosa, E.; Gasco, L.; Gea, G.; Sánchez, J.; Arauzo, J. Co-gasification of meat and bone meal with coal in a fluidised bed reactor.
Fuel 2011, 90, 2798–2807. [CrossRef]
117. Ariyaratne, W.; Malagalage, A.; Melaaen, M.; Tokheim, L. CFD modelling of meat and bone meal combustion in a cement rotary
kiln–Investigation of fuel particle size and fuel feeding position impacts. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2015, 123, 596–608. [CrossRef]
118. Kantorek, M.; Jesionek, K.; Polesek-Karczewska, S.; Ziółkowski, P.; Badur, J. Thermal utilization of meat and bone meals.
Performance analysis in terms of drying process, pyrolysis and kinetics of volatiles combustion. Fuel 2019, 254, 115548. [CrossRef]
119. Kantorek, M.; Jesionek, K.; Polesek-Karczewska, S.; Ziółkowski, P.; Stajnke, M.; Badur, J. Thermal utilization of meat-and-bone
meal using the rotary kiln pyrolyzer and the fluidized bed boiler–The performance of pilot-scale installation. Renew. Energy 2021,
164, 1447–1456. [CrossRef]
120. Cascarosa, E.; Gea, G.; Arauzo, J. Thermochemical processing of meat and bone meal: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012,
16, 942–957. [CrossRef]
121. Duvallet, T.; Jewell, R. Recycling of bone ash from animal wastes and by-products in the production of novel cements. J. Am.
Ceram. Soc. 2023, 106, 3720–3735. [CrossRef]
122. Galvagno, S.; Casciaro, G.; Casu, S.; Martino, M.; Mingazzini, C.; Russo, A.; Portofino, S. Steam gasification of tyre waste, poplar,
and refuse-derived fuel: A comparative analysis. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 678–689. [CrossRef]
123. Rovira, J.; Mari, M.; Nadal, M.; Schuhmacher, M.; Domingo, J. Partial replacement of fossil fuel in a cement plant: Risk assessment
for the population living in the neighborhood. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 5372–5380. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
124. Reza, B.; Soltani, A.; Ruparathna, R.; Sadiq, R.; Hewage, K. Environmental and economic aspects of production and utilization of
RDF as alternative fuel in cement plants: A case study of Metro Vancouver Waste Management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013,
81, 105–114. [CrossRef]
125. Shumal, M.; Jahromi, A.; Ferdowsi, A.; Dehkordi, S.; Moloudian, A.; Dehnavi, A. Comprehensive analysis of municipal solid
waste rejected fractions as a source of Refused Derived Fuel in developing countries (case study of Isfahan-Iran): Environmental
Impact and sustainable development. Renew. Energy 2020, 146, 404–413. [CrossRef]
126. Kahawalage, A.; Melaeen, M.; Tokheim, L. Opportunities and challenges of using SRF as an alternative fuel in the cement industry.
Clean. Waste Syst. 2023, 4, 100072. [CrossRef]
127. Sagala, G.; Kristanto, G.; Kusuma, M.; Rizki, S. Assessment of municipal solid waste as refuse derived fuel in the cement industry.
Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2018, 8, 1062–1070. [CrossRef]
128. Świechowski, K.; Syguła, E.; Koziel, J.; St˛epień, P.; Kugler, S.; Manczarski, P.; Białowiec, A. Low-temperature pyrolysis of
municipal solid waste components and refuse-derived fuel—Process efficiency and fuel properties of carbonized solid fuel. Data
2020, 5, 48. [CrossRef]
129. Sharma, P.; Sheth, P.N.; Mohapatra, B. Recent Progress in Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Co-processing in Cement Production: Direct
Firing in Kiln/Calciner vs Process Integration of RDF Gasification. Waste Biomass Valorization 2022, 13, 4347–4374. [CrossRef]
130. Pieper, C.; Liedmann, B.; Wirtz, S.; Scherer, V.; Bodendiek, N.; Schaefer, S. Interaction of the combustion of refuse derived fuel
with the clinker bed in rotary cement kilns: A numerical study. Fuel 2020, 266, 117048. [CrossRef]
131. St˛epień, P.; Pulka, J.; Serowik, M.; Białowiec, A. Thermogravimetric and calorimetric characteristics of alternative fuel in terms of
its use in low-temperature pyrolysis. Waste Biomass Valorization 2019, 10, 1669–1677. [CrossRef]
132. Aranda, U.; Ferreira, G.; Bribián, Z.; Vásquez, Z. Study of the environmental performance of end-of-life tyre recycling through a
simplified mathematical approach. Therm. Sci. 2012, 16, 889–899. [CrossRef]
133. Vasiliu, L.; Gencel, O.; Damian, I.; Harja, M. Capitalization of tires waste as derived fuel for sustainable cement production.
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2023, 56, 103104. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 38 of 50

134. Kishan, G.; Sakthivel, M.; Vijayakumar, R.; Lingeshwaran, N. Life cycle assesment on tire derived fuel as alternative fuel in
cement industry. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 47, 5483–5488. [CrossRef]
135. Breyer, S.; Mekhitarian, L.; Rimez, B.; Haut, B. Production of an alternative fuel by the co-pyrolysis of landfill recovered plastic
wastes and used lubrication oils. Waste Manag. 2017, 60, 363–374. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
136. Chakritthakul, S.; Kuprianov, V. Co-firing of eucalyptus bark and rubberwood sawdust in a swirling fluidized-bed combustor
using an axial flow swirler. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 8268–8278. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
137. Steenari, B.; Lindqvist, O. Fly ash characteristics in co-combustion of wood with coal, oil or peat. Fuel 1999, 78, 479–488. [CrossRef]
138. Nielsen, C. Utilisation of straw and similar agricultural residues. Biomass Bioenergy 1995, 9, 315–323. [CrossRef]
139. Jensen, P.; Sander, B.; Dam-Johansen, K. Pretreatment of straw for power production by pyrolysis and char wash. Biomass
Bioenergy 2001, 20, 431–446. [CrossRef]
140. Walker, N.; Bazilian, M.; Buckley, P. Possibilities of reducing CO2 emissions from energy-intensive industries by the increased use
of forest-derived fuels in Ireland. Biomass Bioenergy 2009, 33, 1229–1238. [CrossRef]
141. Werther, J.; Saenger, M.; Hartge, E.; Ogada, T.; Siagi, Z. Combustion of agricultural residues. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2000,
26, 1–27. [CrossRef]
142. Hossain, M.; Poon, C.; Wong, M.; Khine, A. Techno-environmental feasibility of wood waste derived fuel for cement production.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 663–671. [CrossRef]
143. Caballero, J.; Conesa, J.; Font, R.; Marcilla, A. Pyrolysis kinetics of almond shells and olive stones considering their organic
fractions. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 1997, 42, 159–175. [CrossRef]
144. Rapagna, S.; Latif, A. Steam gasification of almond shells in a fluidised bed reactor: The influence of temperature and particle size
on product yield and distribution. Biomass Bioenergy 1997, 12, 281–288. [CrossRef]
145. Rodríguez, G.; Lama, A.; Rodríguez, R.; Jiménez, A.; Guillén, R.; Fernández-Bolanos, J. Olive stone an attractive source of
bioactive and valuable compounds. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 5261–5269. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
146. Shuit, S.; Tan, K.; Lee, K.; Kamaruddin, A. Oil palm biomass as a sustainable energy source: A Malaysian case study. Energy 2009,
34, 1225–1235. [CrossRef]
147. Papanikola, K.; Papadopoulou, K.; Tsiliyannis, C.; Fotinopoulou, I.; Katsiampoulas, A.; Chalarakis, E.; Georgiopoulou, M.;
Rontogianni, V.; Michalopoulos, I.; Mathioudakis, D.; et al. Food residue biomass product as an alternative fuel for the cement
industry. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 35555–35564. [CrossRef]
148. Henry, C.; Lynam, J. Embodied energy of rice husk ash for sustainable cement production. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2020,
2, 100004. [CrossRef]
149. Nhuchhen, D.; Sit, S.; Layzell, D. Alternative fuels co-fired with natural gas in the pre-calciner of a cement plant: Energy and
material flows. Fuel 2021, 295, 120544. [CrossRef]
150. Yasmin, N.; Grundmann, P. Adoption and diffusion of renewable energy—The case of biogas as alternative fuel for cooking in
Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 101, 255–264. [CrossRef]
151. Xie, L.; Tao, L.; Gao, J.; Fei, X.; Xia, W.; Jiang, Y. Effect of moisture content in sewage sludge on air gasification. J. Fuel Chem.
Technol. 2010, 38, 615–620. [CrossRef]
152. Nipattummakul, N.; Ahmed, I.; Kerdsuwan, S.; Gupta, A. Hydrogen and syngas production from sewage sludge via steam
gasification. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35, 11738–11745. [CrossRef]
153. Fang, P.; Tang, Z.; Huang, J.; Cen, C.; Tang, Z.; Chen, X. Using sewage sludge as a denitration agent and secondary fuel in a
cement plant: A case study. Fuel Process. Technol. 2015, 137, 1–7. [CrossRef]
154. Huang, M.; Ying, X.; Shen, D.; Feng, H.; Li, N.; Zhou, Y.; Long, Y. Evaluation of oil sludge as an alternative fuel in the production
of Portland cement clinker. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 152, 226–231. [CrossRef]
155. Kääntee, U.; Zevenhoven, R.; Backman, R.; Hupa, M. Cement manufacturing using alternative fuels and the advantages of
process modelling. Fuel Process. Technol. 2004, 85, 293–301. [CrossRef]
156. Aldrian, A.; Sarc, R.; Pomberger, R.; Lorber, K.; Sipple, E. Solid recovered fuels in the cement industry–semi-automated sample
preparation unit as a means for facilitated practical application. Waste Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 254–264. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
157. Thomanetz, E. Solid recovered fuels in the cement industry with special respect to hazardous waste. Waste Manag. Res. 2012,
30, 404–412. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
158. Wang, Y.; Yi, H.; Tang, X.; Wang, Y.; An, H.; Liu, J. Historical trend and decarbonization pathway of China’s cement industry: A
literature review. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 891, 164580. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
159. Coffetti, D.; Crotti, E.; Gazzaniga, G.; Carrara, M.; Pastore, T.; Coppola, L. Pathways towards sustainable concrete. Cem. Concr.
Res. 2022, 154, 106718. [CrossRef]
160. Kara, M.; Kilic, Y.; Erenoglu, T. An experimental study on construction and demolition waste usage as secondary raw material for
cement production. World J. Innov. Res. 2017, 2, 1–7.
161. De Schepper, M.; Vernimmen, L.; De Belie, N.; De Buysser, K.; Van Driessche, I. The assessment of clinker and cement regenerated
from completely recyclable concrete. In Proceedings of the 13th ICCC International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement,
Madrid, Spain, 3–8 July 2011.
162. Marroccoli, M.; Telesca, A.; Ibris, N.; Naik, T. Construction and demolition waste as raw materials for sustainable cements. In
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies, Las Vegas, NV, USA,
7–11 August 2016.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 39 of 50

163. Galbenis, C.; Tsimas, S. Use of construction and demolition wastes as raw materials in cement clinker production. China
Particuology 2006, 4, 83–85. [CrossRef]
164. Garzón, E.; Martínez-Martínez, S.; Pérez-Villarrejo, L.; Sánchez-Soto, P. Assessment of construction and demolition wastes (CDWs)
as raw materials for the manufacture of low-strength concrete and bases and sub-bases of roads. Mater. Lett. 2022, 320, 132343.
[CrossRef]
165. Liu, Y.; Yang, C.; Wang, F.; Hu, S.; Zhu, M.; Hu, C.; Lu, L.; Liu, Z. Evaluation on recycled clinker production and properties from
regeneration of completely recycle concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 301, 123882. [CrossRef]
166. De Schepper, M.; De Buysser, K.; Van Driessche, I.; De Belie, N. The regeneration of cement out of Completely Recyclable Concrete:
Clinker production evaluation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 38, 1001–1009. [CrossRef]
167. Diliberto, C.; Lecomte, A.; Mechling, J.; Izoret, L.; Smith, A. Valorisation of recycled concrete sands in cement raw meal for cement
production. Mater. Struct. 2017, 50, 127. [CrossRef]
168. Haiyan, Y.; Zhixiao, R.; Cuina, Q.; Lintong, H. Experimental study on recycled cement prepared from waste concrete. Ferroelectrics
2021, 570, 218–227. [CrossRef]
169. Schoon, J.; De Buysser, K.; Van Driessche, I.; De Belie, N. Fines extracted from recycled concrete as alternative raw material for
Portland cement clinker production. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015, 58, 70–80. [CrossRef]
170. Gastaldi, D.; Canonico, F.; Capelli, L.; Buzzi, L.; Boccaleri, E.; Irico, S. An investigation on the recycling of hydrated cement from
concrete demolition waste. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015, 61, 29–35. [CrossRef]
171. Zhutovsky, S.; Shishkin, A. Recycling of hydrated Portland cement paste into new clinker. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 280, 122510.
[CrossRef]
172. Miao, X.; Fang, Y.; Gong, Y.; Gu, Y.; Zhu, C. Recycling waste hardened mortar and paste from concrete to produce cement: State
of the art. Mater. Res. Innov. 2015, 19 (Suppl. S6), S6-121–S6-124. [CrossRef]
173. Krour, H.; Trauchessec, R.; Lecomte, A.; Diliberto, C.; Barnes-Davin, L.; Bolze, B.; Delhay, A. Incorporation rate of recycled
aggregates in cement raw meals. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 248, 118217. [CrossRef]
174. Kumar, G.; Deoliya, R. Recycled cement and recycled fine aggregates as alternative resources of raw materials for sustainable
cellular light weight flowable material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 326, 126878. [CrossRef]
175. Kirgiz, M. Use of ultrafine marble and brick particles as raw materials in cement manufacturing. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 2929–2941.
[CrossRef]
176. Maslehuddin, M.; Al-Amoudi, O.; Shameem, M.; Rehman, M.; Ibrahim, M. Usage of cement kiln dust in cement products–research
review and preliminary investigations. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 2369–2375. [CrossRef]
177. Soares, E.; Castro-Gomes, J.; Sitarz, M.; Zdeb, T.; Hager, I.; Hassan, K.; Al-Kuwari, M. Feasibility for co-utilisation of Carbonated
Reactive Magnesia Cement (CRMC) and industrial wastes in circular economy and CO2 mineralisation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022,
323, 126488. [CrossRef]
178. Puertas, F.; García-Díaz, I.; Barba, A.; Gazulla, M.; Palacios, M.; Gómez, M.; Martínez-Ramírez, S. Ceramic wastes as alternative
raw materials for Portland cement clinker production. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2008, 30, 798–805. [CrossRef]
179. Puertas, F.; García-Díaz, I.; Palacios, M.; Gazulla, M.; Gómez, M.; Orduña, M. Clinkers and cements obtained from raw mix
containing ceramic waste as a raw material. Characterization, hydration and leaching studies. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2010,
32, 175–186. [CrossRef]
180. Puertas, F.; Barba, A.; Gazulla, M.; Gómez, M.; Palacios, M.; Martínez-Ramírez, S. Ceramic wastes as raw materials in Portland
cement clinker fabrication: Characterization and alkaline activation. Mater. Constr. 2006, 56, 73–84. [CrossRef]
181. Liu, Y.; Yang, C.; Wang, F.; Hu, S.; Zhu, M.; Hu, C.; Lu, L. Performance evaluation of regenerated clinker from completely
recyclable mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 309, 125184. [CrossRef]
182. Schoon, J.; De Buysser, K.; Van Driessche, I.; De Belie, N. Feasibility study on the use of cellular concrete as alternative raw
material for Portland clinker production. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 48, 725–733. [CrossRef]
183. Santos, T.; Cilla, M. Use of asbestos cement tile waste (ACW) as mineralizer in the production of Portland cement with low CO2
emission and lower energy consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 335, 130061. [CrossRef]
184. Kim, J.; Tae, S.; Kim, R. Theoretical study on the production of environment-friendly recycled cement using inorganic construction
wastes as secondary materials in South Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4449. [CrossRef]
185. Faure, A.; Smith, A.; Coudray, C.; Anger, B.; Colina, H.; Moulin, I.; Thery, F. Ability of two dam fine-grained sediments to be used
in cement industry as raw material for clinker production and as pozzolanic additional constituent of portland-composite cement.
Waste Biomass Valorization 2017, 8, 2141–2163. [CrossRef]
186. Faure, A.; Coudray, C.; Anger, B.; Moulin, I.; Colina, H.; Izoret, L.; Théry, F.; Smith, A. Beneficial reuse of dam fine sediments as
clinker raw material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 218, 365–384. [CrossRef]
187. Anger, B.; Moulin, I.; Commene, J.; Thery, F.; Levacher, D. Fine-grained reservoir sediments: An interesting alternative raw
material for Portland cement clinker production. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. 2019, 23, 957–970. [CrossRef]
188. Aouad, G.; Laboudigue, A.; Gineys, N.; Abriak, N. Dredged sediments used as novel supply of raw material to produce Portland
cement clinker. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2012, 34, 788–793. [CrossRef]
189. Rodríguez, N.; Granados, R.; Blanco-Varela, M.; Cortina, J.; Martínez-Ramírez, S.; Marsal, M.; Guillem, M.; Puig, J.; Fos, C.;
Larrotcha, E.; et al. Evaluation of a lime-mediated sewage sludge stabilisation process. Product characterisation and technological
validation for its use in the cement industry. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 550–560. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 40 of 50

190. Valderrama, C.; Granados, R.; Cortina, J.; Gasol, C.; Guillem, M.; Josa, A. Comparative LCA of sewage sludge valorisation as both
fuel and raw material substitute in clinker production. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 51, 205–213. [CrossRef]
191. Lin, K.; Lo, K.; Hung, M.; Cheng, T.; Chang, Y. Recycling of spent catalyst and waste sludge from industry to substitute raw
materials in the preparation of Portland cement clinker. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2017, 27, 251–257. [CrossRef]
192. Yen, C.L.; Tseng, D.H.; Lin, T.T. Characterization of eco-cement paste produced from waste sludges. Chemosphere 2011, 84, 220–226.
[CrossRef]
193. Rezaee, F.; Danesh, S.; Tavakkolizadeh, M.; Mohammadi-Khatami, M. Investigating chemical, physical and mechanical properties
of eco-cement produced using dry sewage sludge and traditional raw materials. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 749–757. [CrossRef]
194. Valderrama, C.; Granados, R.; Cortina, J. Stabilisation of dewatered domestic sewage sludge by lime addition as raw material for
the cement industry: Understanding process and reactor performance. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 232, 458–467. [CrossRef]
195. Lin, K.; Chiang, K.; Lin, C. Hydration characteristics of waste sludge ash that is reused in eco-cement clinkers. Cem. Concr. Res.
2005, 35, 1074–1081. [CrossRef]
196. Liu, G.; Yang, Z.; Chen, B.; Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Su, M.; Ulgiati, S. Scenarios for sewage sludge reduction and reuse in
clinker production towards regional eco-industrial development: A comparative emergy-based assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,
103, 371–383. [CrossRef]
197. Chen, I.; Juenger, M. Incorporation of waste materials into Portland cement clinker synthesized from natural raw materials. J.
Mater. Sci. 2009, 44, 2617–2627. [CrossRef]
198. Baltakys, K.; Dambrauskas, T.; Rubinaite, D.; Siauciunas, R.; Grineviciene, A. Formation and hydration of eco-friendly cement
using industrial wastes as raw materials. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 14742. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
199. Flegar, M.; Serdar, M.; Londono-Zuluaga, D.; Scrivener, K. Regional waste streams as potential raw materials for immediate
implementation in cement production. Materials 2020, 13, 5456. [CrossRef]
200. Miller, S. Supplementary cementitious materials to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from concrete: Can there be too much of a
good thing? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 587–598. [CrossRef]
201. Zhang, T.; Yu, Q.; Wei, J.; Zhang, P. Efficient utilization of cementitious materials to produce sustainable blended cement. Cem.
Concr. Compos. 2012, 34, 692–699. [CrossRef]
202. Jiang, W.; Li, X.; Lv, Y.; Jiang, D.; Liu, Z.; He, C. Mechanical and hydration properties of low clinker cement containing high
volume superfine blast furnace slag and nano silica. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 238, 117683. [CrossRef]
203. Xu, W.; Xu, J.; Liu, J.; Li, H.; Cao, B.; Huang, X.; Li, G. The utilization of lime-dried sludge as resource for producing cement. J.
Clean. Prod. 2014, 83, 286–293. [CrossRef]
204. Ping, L.; Zhao, G.; Lin, X.; Gu, Y.; Liu, W.; Cao, H.; Huang, J.; Xu, J. Feasibility and carbon footprint analysis of lime-dried sludge
for cement production. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2500. [CrossRef]
205. Tsakiridis, P.; Papadimitriou, G.; Tsivilis, S.; Koroneos, C. Utilization of steel slag for Portland cement clinker production. J.
Hazard. Mater. 2008, 152, 805–811. [PubMed]
206. Gao, T.; Dai, T.; Shen, L.; Jiang, L. Benefits of using steel slag in cement clinker production for environmental conservation and
economic revenue generation. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 282, 124538.
207. Iacobescu, R.; Angelopoulos, G.; Jones, P.; Blanpain, B.; Pontikes, Y. Ladle metallurgy stainless steel slag as a raw material in
Ordinary Portland Cement production: A possibility for industrial symbiosis. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 872–881.
208. Carvalho, S.; Vernilli, F.; Almeida, B.; Oliveira, M.; Silva, S. Reducing environmental impacts: The use of basic oxygen furnace
slag in portland cement. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 385–390.
209. Carvalho, S.; Vernilli, F.; Almeida, B.; Demarco, M.; Silva, S. The recycling effect of BOF slag in the Portland cement properties.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 216–220.
210. Gong, X.; Zhang, T.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Z.; Liu, J.; Cao, J.; Wang, C. Recycling and utilization of calcium carbide slag-current status
and new opportunities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 159, 112133.
211. Li, H.; Huang, Y.; Yang, X.; Jiang, Z.; Yang, Z. Approach to the management of magnesium slag via the production of Portland
cement clinker. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2018, 20, 1701–1709.
212. Chen, H.; Ma, X.; Dai, H. Reuse of water purification sludge as raw material in cement production. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2010,
32, 436–439.
213. Shih, P.; Chang, J.; Lu, H.; Chiang, L. Reuse of heavy metal-containing sludges in cement production. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005,
35, 2110–2115.
214. Bernardo, G.; Marroccoli, M.; Nobili, M.; Telesca, A.; Valenti, G. The use of oil well-derived drilling waste and electric arc furnace
slag as alternative raw materials in clinker production. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 52, 95–102.
215. Liu, G.; Zhan, J.; Zheng, M.; Li, L.; Li, C.; Jiang, X.; Wang, M.; Zhao, Y.; Jin, R. Field pilot study on emissions, formations and
distributions of PCDD/Fs from cement kiln co-processing fly ash from municipal solid waste incinerations. J. Hazard. Mater. 2015,
299, 471–478. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
216. Pan, J.; Huang, C.; Kuo, J.; Lin, S. Recycling MSWI bottom and fly ash as raw materials for Portland cement. Waste Manag. 2008,
28, 1113–1118. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
217. Vargas, J.; Halog, A. Effective carbon emission reductions from using upgraded fly ash in the cement industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,
103, 948–959. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 41 of 50

218. Krammart, P.; Tangtermsirikul, S. Properties of cement made by partially replacing cement raw materials with municipal solid
waste ashes and calcium carbide waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2004, 18, 579–583. [CrossRef]
219. Kleib, J.; Aouad, G.; Abriak, N.; Benzerzour, M. Production of Portland cement clinker from French municipal solid waste
incineration bottom ash. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 15, 00629. [CrossRef]
220. Lam, C.; Barford, J.; McKay, G. Utilization of municipal solid waste incineration ash in Portland cement clinker. Clean Technol.
Environ. Policy. 2011, 13, 607–615. [CrossRef]
221. Lederer, J.; Trinkel, V.; Fellner, J. Wide-scale utilization of MSWI fly ashes in cement production and its impact on average heavy
metal contents in cements: The case of Austria. Waste Manag. 2017, 60, 247–258. [CrossRef]
222. Wanga, L.; Jin, Y.; Nieb, Y.; Li, R. Recycling of municipal solid waste incineration fly ash for ordinary Portland cement production:
A real-scale test resources. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 1428–1435. [CrossRef]
223. Liu, X.; Zhang, N. Utilization of red mud in cement production: A review. Waste Manag. Res. 2011, 29, 1053–1063. [CrossRef]
224. Ren, C.; Wang, W.; Yao, Y.; Wu, S.; Yao, X. Complementary use of industrial solid wastes to produce green materials and their role
in CO2 reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119840. [CrossRef]
225. Ribeiro, D.; Labrincha, J.; Morelli, M. Potential use of natural red mud as pozzolan for Portland cement. Mater. Res. 2011, 14, 60–66.
[CrossRef]
226. Abdul-Wahab, S.; Al-Dhamri, H.; Ram, G.; Black, L. The use of oil-based mud cuttings as an alternative raw material to produce
high sulfate-resistant oil well cement. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122207. [CrossRef]
227. Abdul-Wahab, S.; Al-Rawas, G.; Ali, S.; Al-Dhamri, H. Impact of the addition of oil-based mud on carbon dioxide emissions in a
cement plant. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 4214–4225. [CrossRef]
228. Young, G.; Yang, M. Preparation and characterization of Portland cement clinker from iron ore tailings. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019,
197, 152–156. [CrossRef]
229. Luo, L.; Zhang, Y.; Bao, S.; Chen, T. Utilization of iron ore tailings as raw material for Portland cement clinker production. Adv.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 2016, 1596047. [CrossRef]
230. Cheng, Y.; Qi, R.; Hou, J.; Huang, Q. Feasibility study on utilization of copper tailings as raw meal and addition for low carbon
Portland cement production. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 382, 131275. [CrossRef]
231. Sadala, S.; Dutta, S.; Raghava, R.; Jyothsna, T.; Chakradhar, B.; Ghosh, S. Resource recovery as alternative fuel and raw material
from hazardous waste. Waste Manag. Res. 2019, 37, 1063–1076. [CrossRef]
232. Buruberri, L.; Seabra, M.; Labrincha, J. Preparation of clinker from paper pulp industry wastes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2015, 286, 252–260.
[CrossRef]
233. Simão, L.; Jiusti, J.; Lóh, N.; Hotza, D.; Raupp-Pereira, F.; Labrincha, J.; Montedo, O. Waste-containing clinkers: Valorization of
alternative mineral sources from pulp and paper mills. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2017, 109, 106–116. [CrossRef]
234. Ravi, M.; Murugesan, B.; Jeyakumar, A.; Raparthi, K. A review on utilizing the marine biorefinery waste in construction raw
materials to reduce land pollution and enhance green environment. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 21, 43–62. [CrossRef]
235. Bădănoiu, A.; Moant, ă, A.; Dumitrescu, O.; Nicoară, A.; Trus, că, R. Waste Glass Valorization as Raw Material in the Production of
Portland Clinker and Cement. Materials 2022, 15, 7403. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
236. Adela, Y.; Berhanu, M.; Gobena, B. Plastic wastes as a raw material in the concrete mix: An alternative approach to manage plastic
wastes in developing countries. Int. J. Waste Resour. 2020, 10, 1–7.
237. Schoon, J.; Van der Heyden, L.; Eloy, P.; Gaigneux, E.; De Buysser, K.; Van Driessche, I.; De Belie, N. Waste fibrecement: An
interesting alternative raw material for a sustainable Portland clinker production. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36, 391–403.
[CrossRef]
238. Tsakiridis, P.; Oustadakis, P.; Agatzini-Leonardou, S. Black dross leached residue: An alternative raw material for Portland cement
clinker. Waste Biomass Valorization 2014, 5, 973–983. [CrossRef]
239. Mariani, B.; Andrade, J.; Amorim, N.; Ribeiro, D. Effect of the incorporation of TiO2 waste (UOW) in the formation of the
mineralogical phases of Portland clinker. Ambiente Construído 2019, 19, 57–71. [CrossRef]
240. Teker, E.; Andreas, L.; Cwirzen, A.; Habermehl-Cwirzen, K. Wood Ash as Sustainable Alternative Raw Material for the Production
of Concrete—A Review. Materials 2023, 16, 2557. [CrossRef]
241. Carević, I.; Serdar, M.; Štirmer, N.; Ukrainczyk, N. Preliminary screening of wood biomass ashes for partial resources replacements
in cementitious materials. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 1045–1064. [CrossRef]
242. Li, H.; Xu, W.; Yang, X.; Wu, J. Preparation of Portland cement with sugar filter mud as lime-based raw material. J. Clean. Prod.
2014, 66, 107–112. [CrossRef]
243. Li, H.; Xu, J.; Wu, J.; Xu, W.; Xu, Y. Influence of sugar filter mud on formation of Portland cement clinker. J. Wuhan Univ.
Technol.-Mater. Sci. Ed. 2013, 28, 746–750. [CrossRef]
244. Her, S.; Park, J.; Li, P.; Bae, S. Feasibility study on utilization of pulverized eggshell waste as an alternative to limestone in raw
materials for Portland cement clinker production. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 324, 126589. [CrossRef]
245. Her, S.; Park, T.; Zalnezhad, E.; Bae, S. Synthesis and characterization of cement clinker using recycled pulverized oyster and
scallop shell as limestone substitutes. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123987. [CrossRef]
246. Abdel-Latief, M.; El-Sayed, M.; Shahien, M.; Zayed, A. A new insight upon the use of weathered basalt as alternative raw material
in Portland clinker production. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 885–896. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 42 of 50

247. Boughanmi, S.; Labidi, I.; Megriche, A.; El Maaoui, M.; Nonat, A. Natural fluorapatite as a raw material for Portland clinker. Cem.
Concr. Res. 2018, 105, 72–80. [CrossRef]
248. Korkmaz, A.; Hacıfazlıoğlu, H. An Alternative Raw Material for Portland Cement Clinker Preparation: Meta-Schist. Preprint.
2023. Available online: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-2578354/v1 (accessed on 18 October 2023).
249. Kleib, J.; Amar, M.; Aouad, G.; Bourbon, X.; Benzerzour, M.; Abriak, N. The Use of Callovo-Oxfordian Argillite as a Raw Material
for Portland Cement Clinker Production. Buildings 2022, 12, 1421. [CrossRef]
250. Malacarne, C.; Longhi, M.; Silva, M.; Gonçalves, J.; Rodríguez, E.; Kirchheim, A. Influence of low-grade materials as clinker
substitute on the rheological behavior, hydration and mechanical performance of ternary cements. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021,
15, 00776. [CrossRef]
251. Onanga, G.; Manuku, E.; Khalifa, R.; Lofongo, D.; Preat, A.; Nkula, V.; Osomba, D. Production of an Eco-Cement by Clinker
Substitution by the Mixture of Calcined Clay and Limestone, Songololo (DR Congo). J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 2023, 11, 67–80.
[CrossRef]
252. Telesca, A.; Calabrese, D.; Marroccoli, M.; Tomasulo, M.; Valenti, G.; Duelli, G.; Montagnaro, F. Spent limestone sorbent from
calcium looping cycle as a raw material for the cement industry. Fuel 2014, 118, 202–205. [CrossRef]
253. Kikuchi, R. Recycling of municipal solid waste for cement production: Pilot-scale test for transforming incineration ash of solid
waste into cement clinker. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2001, 31, 137–147. [CrossRef]
254. Liang, X.; Dang, W.; Yang, G.; Zhang, Y. Environmental feasibility evaluation of cement co-production using classified domestic
waste as alternative raw material and fuel: A life cycle perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 326, 116726. [CrossRef]
255. Krammart, P.; Tangtermsirikul, S. A study on cement made by partially replacing cement raw materials with municipal solid
waste ash and calcium carbide waste. Sci. Asia 2003, 29, 77–84. [CrossRef]
256. Li, Y.; Wang, H.; Zhang, J.; Wang, J.; Miao, W. The industrial practice of POPs contaminated soil as alternative raw materials in
clinker production. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2012, 16, 641–645. [CrossRef]
257. Eugenio, T.; Narciso, C.; Fagundes, J.; Henriques, A.; Mendes, R. Study on the use of mining waste as raw material for extruded
fiber cement production. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 63, 105547. [CrossRef]
258. Scrivener, K.; Martirena, F.; Bishnoi, S.; Maity, S. Calcined clay limestone cements (LC3 ). Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 114, 49–56.
[CrossRef]
259. Fernandez, R.; Martirena, F.; Scrivener, K. The origin of the pozzolanic activity of calcined clay minerals: A comparison between
kaolinite, illite and montmorillonite. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41, 113–122. [CrossRef]
260. Ferreiro, S.; Herfort, D.; Damtoft, J. Effect of raw clay type, fineness, water-to-cement ratio and fly ash addition on workability
and strength performance of calcined clay–limestone Portland cements. Cem. Concr. Res. 2017, 101, 1–12. [CrossRef]
261. Krishnan, S.; Emmanuel, A.; Shah, V.; Parashar, A.; Mishra, G.; Maity, S.; Bishnoi, S. Industrial production of limestone calcined
clay cement: Experience and insights. Green Mater. 2019, 7, 15–27. [CrossRef]
262. Scrivener, K.; Avet, F.; Maraghechi, H.; Zunino, F.; Ston, J.; Hanpongpun, W.; Favier, A. Impacting factors and properties of
limestone calcined clay cements (LC3 ). Green Mater. 2019, 7, 3–14. [CrossRef]
263. Wild, S.; Khatib, J.; Jones, A. Relative strength, pozzolanic activity and cement hydration in superplasticised metakaolin concrete.
Cem. Concr. Res. 1996, 26, 1537–1544. [CrossRef]
264. Malhotra, V. Mineral Admixtures, Concrete Construction Engineering Handbook; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1997; Chapter 2.
265. Sabir, B.; Wild, S.; Bai, J. Metakaolin and calcined clays as pozzolans for concrete: A review. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2001, 23, 441–454.
[CrossRef]
266. Siddique, R.; Klaus, J. Influence of metakaolin on the properties of mortar and concrete: A review. Appl. Clay Sci. 2009, 43, 392–400.
[CrossRef]
267. Aramburo, C.; Pedrajas, C.; Rahhal, V.; González, M.; Talero, R. Calcined clays for low carbon cement: Rheological behaviour in
fresh Portland cement pastes. Mater. Lett. 2019, 239, 24–28. [CrossRef]
268. Pedrajas, C.; Aramburo, C.; Talero, R. Sulphate durability of low carbon cements with high contents of calcined clay. Reasons for
the resistant phenomenon. Mater. Today Proc. 2023. [CrossRef]
269. Li, X.; Dengler, J.; Hesse, C. Reducing clinker factor in limestone calcined clay-slag cement using CSH seeding–A way towards
sustainable binder. Cem. Concr. Res. 2023, 168, 107151. [CrossRef]
270. Rathnarajan, S.; Dhanya, B.; Pillai, R.; Gettu, R.; Santhanam, M. Carbonation model for concretes with fly ash, slag, and limestone
calcined clay-using accelerated and five-year natural exposure data. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022, 126, 104329. [CrossRef]
271. Bhattacherjee, S.; Jain, S.; Santhanam, M. A method to increase the workability retention of concrete with limestone calcined
clay based cementitious system using a dispersing agent containing sodium hexametaphosphate. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022,
132, 104624. [CrossRef]
272. Khan, M.; Nguyen, Q.; Castel, A. Performance of limestone calcined clay blended cement-based concrete against carbonation.
Adv. Cement Res. 2019, 32, 481–491. [CrossRef]
273. Zhu, H.; Chen, W.; Cheng, S.; Yang, L.; Wang, S.; Xiong, J. Low carbon and high efficiency limestone-calcined clay as supplementary
cementitious materials (SCMs): Multi-indicator comparison with conventional SCMs. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 341, 127748.
[CrossRef]
274. Dhandapani, Y.; Sakthivel, T.; Santhanam, M.; Gettu, R.; Pillai, R. Mechanical properties and durability performance of concretes
with Limestone Calcined Clay Cement (LC3 ). Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 107, 136–151. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 43 of 50

275. Vaasudevaa, B.; Dhandapani, Y.; Santhanam, M. Performance evaluation of limestone-calcined clay (LC2 ) combination as a
cement substitute in concrete systems subjected to short-term heat curing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 302, 124121. [CrossRef]
276. Aramburo, C.; Pedrajas, C.; Talero, R. Portland cements with high content of calcined clay: Mechanical strength behaviour and
sulfate durability. Materials 2020, 13, 4206. [CrossRef]
277. Trusilewicz, L.; Fernández-Martínez, F.; Rahhal, V.; Talero, R. TEM and SAED characterization of metakaolin. Pozzolanic activity.
J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2012, 95, 2989–2996. [CrossRef]
278. UNE 80225:2012 Standard; Methods of Testing Cement. Chemical Analysis. Determination of Reactive SiO Content in Cements,
Pozzolans and Fly Ash. AENOR: Madrid, Spain, 2012.
279. Talero, R. New Wet Chemical Analysis Method to Determine the Reactive Alumina Content of Natural and Artificial Pozzolans; Private
Document; Rafael Talero: Madrid, Spain, 2017.
280. Arámburo, C. Sulfatic and Mechanical-Strength Behavior of Portland Cements with High Pozzolan Contents (>40%): Its
Chemical-Physical Basis and Justification of Other Possible Consequences. Ph.D. Thesis, UPM, Madrid, Spain, 2019.
281. Yu, J.; Wu, H.; Mishra, D.; Li, G.; Leung, C. Compressive strength and environmental impact of sustainable blended cement with
high-dosage Limestone and Calcined Clay (LC2 ). J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123616. [CrossRef]
282. Raut, S.; Olcun, S.; Butler, L. Evaluating the use of limestone calcined clay cement and recycled concrete aggregates for reducing
the carbon footprint of concrete structures. Mater. Today Proc. 2023. [CrossRef]
283. Pillai, R.; Gettu, R.; Santhanam, M.; Rengaraju, S.; Dhandapani, Y.; Rathnarajan, S.; Basavaraj, A. Service life and life cycle
assessment of reinforced concrete systems with limestone calcined clay cement (LC3 ). Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 118, 111–119.
[CrossRef]
284. Zhang, D.; Jaworska, B.; Zhu, H.; Dahlquist, K.; Li, V. Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC) with limestone calcined clay
cement (LC3 ). Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 114, 103766. [CrossRef]
285. Guo, M.; Gong, G.; Yue, Y.; Xing, F.; Zhou, Y.; Hu, B. Performance evaluation of recycled aggregate concrete incorporating
limestone calcined clay cement (LC3 ). J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 366, 132820. [CrossRef]
286. Huang, W.; Kazemi-Kamyab, H.; Sun, W.; Scrivener, K. Effect of replacement of silica fume with calcined clay on the hydration
and microstructural development of eco-UHPFRC. Mater. Des. 2017, 121, 36–46. [CrossRef]
287. Joseph, S.; Dhandapani, Y.; Geddes, D.; Zhao, Z.; Bishnoi, S.; Vieira, M.; Riding, K. Mechanical properties of concrete made with
calcined clay: A review by RILEM TC-282 CCL. Mater. Struct. 2023, 56, 84. [CrossRef]
288. Barbhuiya, S.; Nepal, J.; Das, B. Properties, compatibility, environmental benefits and future directions of limestone calcined clay
cement (LC3 ) concrete: A review. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 79, 107794. [CrossRef]
289. Gettu, R.; Patel, A.; Rathi, V.; Prakasan, S.; Basavaraj, A.; Palaniappan, S.; Maity, S. Influence of supplementary cementitious
materials on the sustainability parameters of cements and concretes in the Indian context. Mater. Struct. 2019, 52, 10. [CrossRef]
290. Hoenig, V.; Schall, A.; Sultanov, N.; Papkalla, S.; Ruppert, J. Status and Prospects of Alternative Raw Materials in the European Cement
Sector; The European Cement Research Academy (ECRA): Düsseldorf, Germany, 2022.
291. He, Z.; Zhu, X.; Wang, J.; Mu, M.; Wang, Y. Comparison of CO2 emissions from OPC and recycled cement production. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2019, 211, 965–973. [CrossRef]
292. Thapa, V.; Waldmann, D.; Simon, C. Gravel wash mud, a quarry waste material as supplementary cementitious material (SCM).
Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 124, 105833. [CrossRef]
293. Aprianti, E.; Shafigh, P.; Bahri, S.; Farahani, J. Supplementary cementitious materials origin from agricultural wastes–A review.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 74, 176–187. [CrossRef]
294. Kumar, N.; Ram, K. Experimental study on properties of concrete containing crushed rock dust as a partial replacement of cement.
Mater. Today Proc. 2018, 5, 7240–7246. [CrossRef]
295. Juenger, M.; Siddique, R. Recent advances in understanding the role of supplementary cementitious materials in concrete. Cem.
Concr. Res. 2015, 78, 71–80. [CrossRef]
296. Manjunatha, M.; Seth, D.; Balaji, K.; Bharath, A. Engineering properties and environmental impact assessment of green concrete
prepared with PVC waste powder: A step towards sustainable approach. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, 01404. [CrossRef]
297. Alderete, N.; Joseph, A.; Van den Heede, P.; Matthys, S.; De Belie, N. Effective and sustainable use of municipal solid waste
incineration bottom ash in concrete regarding strength and durability. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 167, 105356. [CrossRef]
298. Panesar, D.; Zhang, R. Performance comparison of cement replacing materials in concrete: Limestone fillers and supplementary
cementing materials—A review. Construct. Build. Mater. 2020, 251, 118866. [CrossRef]
299. Cordeiro, G.; Toledo Filho, R.; Tavares, L.; Fairbairn, E. Ultrafine grinding of sugar cane bagasse ash for application as pozzolanic
admixture in concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2009, 39, 110–115. [CrossRef]
300. Nuntachai, C.; Chai, J.; Kraiwood, K. Utilization of bagasse ash as a pozzolanic material in concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009,
23, 3352–3358.
301. Gar, P.; Suresh, N.; Bindiganavile, V. Sugar cane bagasse ash as a pozzolanic admixture in concrete for resistance to sustained
elevated temperatures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 153, 929–936.
302. Jha, P.; Sachan, A.; Singh, R. Agro-waste sugarcane bagasse ash (ScBA) as partial replacement of binder material in concrete.
Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 44, 419–427. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 44 of 50

303. Shafiq, N.; Hussein, A.; Nuruddin, M.; Al Mattarneh, H. Effects of sugarcane bagasse ash on the properties of concrete. In
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Engineering Eustainability; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2016; Volume 171,
pp. 123–132.
304. Bahurudeen, A.; Kanraj, D.; Dev, V.; Santhanam, M. Performance evaluation of sugarcane bagasse ash blended cement in concrete.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015, 59, 77–88. [CrossRef]
305. Zaheer, M.; Tabish, M. The Durability of Concrete Made Up of Sugar Cane Bagasse Ash (SCBA) as a Partial Replacement of
Cement: A Review. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2023, 48, 4195–4225. [CrossRef]
306. Prabhath, N.; Kumara, B.; Vithanage, V.; Samarathunga, A.; Sewwandi, N.; Maduwantha, K.; Madusanka, M.; Koswattage, K. A
review on the optimization of the mechanical properties of sugarcane-bagasse-ash-integrated concretes. J. Compos. Sci. 2022, 6,
283. [CrossRef]
307. Chindaprasirt, P.; Kroehong, W.; Damrongwiriyanupap, N.; Suriyo, W.; Jaturapitakkul, C. Mechanical properties, chloride
resistance and microstructure of Portland fly ash cement concrete containing high volume bagasse ash. J. Build. Eng. 2020,
31, 101415. [CrossRef]
308. Neto, J.; de França, M.; de Amorim Junior, N.; Ribeiro, D. Effects of adding sugarcane bagasse ash on the properties and durability
of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 266, 120959. [CrossRef]
309. Zareei, S.; Ameri, F.; Bahrami, N. Microstructure, strength, and durability of eco-friendly concretes containing sugarcane bagasse
ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 184, 258–268. [CrossRef]
310. Yogitha, B.; Karthikeyan, M.; Reddy, M. Progress of sugarcane bagasse ash applications in production of Eco-Friendly concrete-
Review. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 33, 695–699. [CrossRef]
311. Landa-Ruiz, L.; Landa-Gomez, A.; Mendoza-Rangel, J.; Landa-Sanchez, A.; Ariza-Figueroa, H.; Méndez-Ramírez, C.; Santiago-
Hurtado, G.; Moreno-Landeros, V.; Croche, R.; Baltazar-Zamora, M. Physical, mechanical and durability properties of ecofriendly
ternary concrete made with sugar cane bagasse ash and silica fume. Crystals 2021, 11, 1012. [CrossRef]
312. Wagh, M.; Waghe, U. Development of self-compacting concrete blended with sugarcane bagasse ash. Mater. Today Proc. 2022,
60, 1787–1792. [CrossRef]
313. Rajasekar, A.; Arunachalam, K.; Kottaisamy, M.; Saraswathy, V. Durability characteristics of Ultra High Strength Concrete with
treated sugarcane bagasse ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 171, 350–356. [CrossRef]
314. Huang, P.; Huang, B.; Li, J.; Wu, N.; Xu, Q. Application of sugar cane bagasse ash as filler in ultra-high performance concrete. J.
Build. Eng. 2023, 71, 106447. [CrossRef]
315. Rukzon, S.; Chindaprasirt, P. Utilization of bagasse ash in high-strength concrete. Mater. Des. 2012, 34, 45–50. [CrossRef]
316. Ozturk, E.; Ince, C.; Derogar, S.; Ball, R. Factors affecting the CO2 emissions, cost efficiency and eco-strength efficiency of concrete
containing rice husk ash: A database study. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 326, 126905. [CrossRef]
317. Bheel, N.; Awoyera, P.; Shar, I.; Sohu, S.; Abbasi, S.; Krishna Prakash, A. Mechanical properties of concrete incorporating rice husk
ash and wheat straw ash as ternary cementitious material. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 2977428. [CrossRef]
318. Varadharajan, S.; Jaiswal, A.; Verma, S. Assessment of mechanical properties and environmental benefits of using rice husk ash
and marble dust in concrete. Structures 2020, 28, 389–406. [CrossRef]
319. Khan, R.; Jabbar, A.; Ahmad, I.; Khan, W.; Khan, A.; Mirza, J. Reduction in environmental problems using rice-husk ash in
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 30, 360–365. [CrossRef]
320. Memon, M.; Jhatial, A.; Murtaza, A.; Raza, M.; Phulpoto, K. Production of eco-friendly concrete incorporating rice husk ash and
polypropylene fibres. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 39168–39184. [CrossRef]
321. Thomas, B. Green concrete partially comprised of rice husk ash as a supplementary cementitious material–A comprehensive
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 3913–3923. [CrossRef]
322. Gursel, A.; Maryman, H.; Ostertag, C. A life-cycle approach to environmental, mechanical, and durability properties of “green”
concrete mixes with rice husk ash. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 823–836. [CrossRef]
323. Jhatial, A.; Goh, W.; Mo, K.; Sohu, S.; Bhatti, I. Green and sustainable concrete—The potential utilization of rice husk ash and egg
shells. Civ. Eng. J. 2019, 5, 74–81. [CrossRef]
324. Lim, J.; Raman, S.; Lai, F.; Zain, M.; Hamid, R. Synthesis of nano cementitious additives from agricultural wastes for the
production of sustainable concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 1150–1160. [CrossRef]
325. Nuruddin, M.; Chang, K.; Azmee, N. Workability and compressive strength of ductile self compacting concrete (DSCC) with
various cement replacement materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 55, 153–157. [CrossRef]
326. Sathurshan, M.; Yapa, I.; Thamboo, J.; Jeyakaran, T.; Navaratnam, S.; Siddique, R.; Zhang, J. Untreated rice husk ash incorporated
high strength self-compacting concrete: Properties and environmental impact assessments. Environ. Chall. 2021, 2, 100015.
[CrossRef]
327. Raisi, E.; Amiri, J.; Davoodi, M. Influence of rice husk ash on the fracture characteristics and brittleness of self-compacting
concrete. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2018, 199, 595–608. [CrossRef]
328. Huang, H.; Gao, X.; Wang, H.; Ye, H. Influence of rice husk ash on strength and permeability of ultra-high performance concrete.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 149, 621–628. [CrossRef]
329. Hakeem, I.; Agwa, I.; Tayeh, B.; Abd-Elrahman, M. Effect of using a combination of rice husk and olive waste ashes on
high-strength concrete properties. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, 01486. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 45 of 50

330. Subramaniam, D.; Sathiparan, N. Comparative study of fly ash and rice husk ash as cement replacement in pervious concrete:
Mechanical characteristics and sustainability analysis. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2022, 16, 1–8. [CrossRef]
331. Alnahhal, M.; Alengaram, U.; Jumaat, M.; Abutaha, F.; Alqedra, M.; Nayaka, R. Assessment on engineering properties and CO2
emissions of recycled aggregate concrete incorporating waste products as supplements to Portland cement. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,
203, 822–835. [CrossRef]
332. Alabi, S.; Mahachi, J. Mechanical properties of sustainable concrete made with ceramic and sandcrete block wastes. Mater. Today
Proc. 2022, 62, 44–48. [CrossRef]
333. Tamanna, K.; Raman, S.; Jamil, M.; Hamid, R. Utilization of wood waste ash in construction technology: A review. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2020, 237, 117654. [CrossRef]
334. Siddique, R. Utilization of wood ash in concrete manufacturing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 67, 27–33. [CrossRef]
335. Hamid, Z.; Rafiq, S. A comparative study on strength of concrete using wood ash as partial replacement of cement. IOP Conf. Ser.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 955, 012043. [CrossRef]
336. Al-Kharabsheh, B.; Arbili, M.; Majdi, A.; Ahmad, J.; Deifalla, A.; Hakamy, A. A review on strength and durability properties of
wooden ash based concrete. Materials 2022, 15, 7282. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
337. Hamid, Z.; Rafiq, S. An experimental study on behavior of wood ash in concrete as partial replacement of cement. Mater. Today
Proc. 2021, 46, 3426–3429. [CrossRef]
338. Bhat, J. Mechanical behaviour of self compacting concrete: Effect of wood ash and coal ash as partial cement replacement. Mater.
Today Proc. 2021, 42, 1470–1476. [CrossRef]
339. Sooraj, V. Effect of palm oil fuel ash (POFA) on strength properties of concrete. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2013, 3, 1–7.
340. Panchal, J.N.; Challagulla, S.P.; Kishore, I.S. Influence of palm oil fuel ash on strength properties of concrete. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater.
Sci. Eng. 2021, 1197, 012082. [CrossRef]
341. Hamada, H.; Jokhio, G.; Yahaya, F.; Humada, A.; Gul, Y. The present state of the use of palm oil fuel ash (POFA) in concrete.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 175, 26–40. [CrossRef]
342. Jhatial, A.; Goh, W.; Mastoi, A.; Rahman, A.; Kamaruddin, S. Thermo-mechanical properties and sustainability analysis of
newly developed eco-friendly structural foamed concrete by reusing palm oil fuel ash and eggshell powder as supplementary
cementitious materials. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 38947–38968. [CrossRef]
343. Islam, M.; Mo, K.; Alengaram, U.; Jumaat, M. Mechanical and fresh properties of sustainable oil palm shell lightweight concrete
incorporating palm oil fuel ash. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 115, 307–314. [CrossRef]
344. Alnahhal, A.; Alengaram, U.; Yusoff, S.; Singh, R.; Radwan, M.; Deboucha, W. Synthesis of sustainable lightweight foamed
concrete using palm oil fuel ash as a cement replacement material. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 35, 102047. [CrossRef]
345. Jhatial, A. Thermomechanical evaluation of sustainable foamed concrete incorporating palm oil fuel ash and eggshell powder. J.
Eng. Res. 2021, 9, 64–79. [CrossRef]
346. Al-Mughanam, T.; Aldhyani, T.; Alsubari, B.; Al-Yaari, M. Modeling of compressive strength of sustainable self-compacting
concrete incorporating treated palm oil fuel ash using artificial neural network. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9322. [CrossRef]
347. Ranjbar, N.; Behnia, A.; Alsubari, B.; Birgani, P.; Jumaat, M. Durability and mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete
incorporating palm oil fuel ash. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 723–730. [CrossRef]
348. Alsubari, B.; Shafigh, P.; Jumaat, M. Utilization of high-volume treated palm oil fuel ash to produce sustainable self-compacting
concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 982–996. [CrossRef]
349. Alsubari, B.; Shafigh, P.; Ibrahim, Z.; Alnahhal, M.; Jumaat, M. Properties of eco-friendly self-compacting concrete containing
modified treated palm oil fuel ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 158, 742–754. [CrossRef]
350. Alsubari, B.; Shafigh, P.; Jumaat, M. Development of self-consolidating high strength concrete incorporating treated palm oil fuel
ash. Materials 2015, 8, 2154–2173. [CrossRef]
351. Alsubari, B.; Shafigh, P.; Jumaat, M.; Alengaram, U. Palm oil fuel ash as a partial cement replacement for producing durable
self-consolidating high-strength concrete. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2014, 39, 8507–8516. [CrossRef]
352. Shafigh, P.; Mahmud, H.; Jumaat, M.; Ahmmad, R.; Bahri, S. Structural lightweight aggregate concrete using two types of waste
from the palm oil industry as aggregate. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 80, 187–196. [CrossRef]
353. Ahmmad, R.; Alengaram, U.; Jumaat, M.; Sulong, N.; Yusuf, M.; Rehman, M. Feasibility study on the use of high-volume palm oil
clinker waste in environmental friendly lightweight concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 135, 94–103. [CrossRef]
354. Hamada, H.; Al-Attar, A.; Tayeh, B.; Yahaya, F. Optimizing the concrete strength of lightweight concrete containing nano palm oil
fuel ash and palm oil clinker using response surface method. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, 01061. [CrossRef]
355. Jhatial, A.; Sohu, S.; Memon, M.; Bhatti, N.; Memon, D. Eggshell powder as partial cement replacement and its effect on the
workability and compressive strength of concrete. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci. 2019, 6, 71–75.
356. Mahmood, L.; Rafiq, S.; Mohammed, A. A review study of eggshell powder as cement replacement in concrete. Sulaimania J. Eng.
Sci. 2022, 9, 25–37. [CrossRef]
357. Hamada, H.; Tayeh, B.; Al-Attar, A.; Yahaya, F.; Muthusamy, K.; Humada, A. The present state of the use of eggshell powder in
concrete: A review. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101583. [CrossRef]
358. Sohu, S.; Bheel, N.; Jhatial, A.; Ansari, A.; Shar, I. Sustainability and mechanical property assessment of concrete incorporating
eggshell powder and silica fume as binary and ternary cementitious materials. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 58685–58697.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 46 of 50

359. Arif, S.; Rokiah, O.; Khairunisa, M.; Chong, B.; Chek, Y.; Youventharan, D.; Ramadhansyah, P.; Doh, S. Compressive Strength
of Concrete containing Eggshell Powder as Partial Cement Replacement. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 682, 012031.
[CrossRef]
360. Tayeh, B.; Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Zeyad, A.; Al-Harazin, S. Properties and durability of concrete with olive waste ash as a partial
cement replacement. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2021, 11, 59–71.
361. Ikponmwosa, E.; Falade, F.; Fashanu, T.; Ehikhuenmen, S.; Adesina, A. Experimental and numerical investigation of the effect of
sawdust ash on the performance of concrete. J. Build. Pathol. Rehabil. 2020, 5, 15. [CrossRef]
362. Raheem, A.; Olasunkanmi, B.; Folorunso, C. Saw dust ash as partial replacement for cement in concrete. Organ. Technol. Manag.
Constr. 2012, 4, 474–480. [CrossRef]
363. Elinwa, A.; Ejeh, S.; Mamuda, A. Assessing of the fresh concrete properties of self-compacting concrete containing sawdust ash.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 1178–1182. [CrossRef]
364. Ayuba, S.; Uche, O.; Haruna, S.; Mohammed, A. Durability properties of cement–saw dust ash (SDA) blended self compacting
concrete (SCC). Niger. J. Technol. 2022, 41, 212–221. [CrossRef]
365. Nagarajan, V.; Devi, S.; Manohari, S.; Santha, M. Experimental study on partial replacement of cement with coconut shell ash in
concrete. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2014, 3, 651–661.
366. Berenguer, R.; Capraro, A.; de Medeiros, M.; Carneiro, A.; De Oliveira, R. Sugar cane bagasse ash as a partial substitute of Portland
cement: Effect on mechanical properties and emission of carbon dioxide. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 103655. [CrossRef]
367. Hamada, H.; Tayeh, B.; Yahaya, F.; Muthusamy, K.; Al-Attar, A. Effects of nano-palm oil fuel ash and nano-eggshell powder on
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 261, 119790. [CrossRef]
368. Hamada, H.; Alattar, A.; Yahaya, F.; Muthusamy, K.; Tayeh, B. Mechanical properties of semi-lightweight concrete containing
nano-palm oil clinker powder. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2021, 121, 102977. [CrossRef]
369. Amin, M.; Attia, M.; Agwa, I.; Elsakhawy, Y.; Abu El-hassan, K.; Abdelsalam, B. Effects of sugarcane bagasse ash and nano
eggshell powder on high-strength concrete properties. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, 01528. [CrossRef]
370. Hamada, H.; Abed, F.; Tayeh, B.; Al Jawahery, M.; Majdi, A.; Yousif, S. Effect of recycled seashells on concrete properties: A
comprehensive review of the recent studies. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 376, 131036. [CrossRef]
371. Bamigboye, G.; Nworgu, A.; Odetoyan, A.; Kareem, M.; Enabulele, D.; Bassey, D. Sustainable use of seashells as binder in concrete
production: Prospect and challenges. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 34, 101864. [CrossRef]
372. Bamigboye, G.; Enabulele, D.; Odetoyan, A.; Kareem, M.; Nworgu, A.; Bassey, D. Mechanical and durability assessment of
concrete containing seashells: A review. Cogent Eng. 2021, 8, 1883830. [CrossRef]
373. Tayeh, B.; Hasaniyah, M.; Zeyad, A.; Yusuf, M. Properties of concrete containing recycled seashells as cement partial replacement:
A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237, 117723. [CrossRef]
374. Shetty, P.; Rao, A.; Pai, B.; Kamath, M. Performance of high-strength concrete with the effects of seashell powder as binder
replacement and waste glass powder as fine aggregate. J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 92. [CrossRef]
375. Ruslan, H.; Muthusamy, K.; Mohsin, S.; Jose, R.; Omar, R. Oyster shell waste as a concrete ingredient: A review. Mater. Today Proc.
2022, 48, 713–719. [CrossRef]
376. Liu, S.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, B.; Zou, Z.; Liu, Q.; Teng, Y.; Zhang, L. Sustainable Use of Waste Oyster Shell Powders in a Ternary
Supplementary Cementitious Material System for Green Concrete. Materials 2022, 15, 4886. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
377. Ruslan, H.; Muthusamy, K.; Mohsin, S.; Kirgiz, M. Periwinkle Shell as Mixing Ingredient in Concrete: A Review. Construction
2021, 1, 21–30. [CrossRef]
378. El Mendili, Y.; Benzaama, M. Investigation of Mechanical and Thermal Performance of Concrete with Scallop Shells as Partial
Cement Replacement: Alternative Binder and Life Cycle Assessment. CivilEng 2022, 3, 760–778. [CrossRef]
379. Pavesi, T.; Rohden, A.; Garcez, M. Supporting circular economy through the use of red ceramic waste as supplementary
cementitious material in structural concrete. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2021, 23, 2278–2296. [CrossRef]
380. El-Dieb, A.; Kanaan, D. Ceramic waste powder an alternative cement replacement–Characterization and evaluation. Sustain.
Mater. Technol. 2018, 17, 00063. [CrossRef]
381. Subaşı, S.; Öztürk, H.; Emiroğlu, M. Utilizing of waste ceramic powders as filler material in self-consolidating concrete. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2017, 149, 567–574. [CrossRef]
382. Xu, K.; Huang, W.; Zhang, L.; Fu, S.; Chen, M.; Ding, S.; Han, B. Mechanical properties of low-carbon ultrahigh-performance
concrete with ceramic tile waste powder. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 287, 123036. [CrossRef]
383. Kannan, D.; Aboubakr, S.; El-Dieb, A.; Taha, M. High performance concrete incorporating ceramic waste powder as large partial
replacement of Portland cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 144, 35–41. [CrossRef]
384. Du, H.; Tan, K. Properties of high volume glass powder concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017, 75, 22–29. [CrossRef]
385. Shi, C.; Zheng, K. A review on the use of waste glasses in the production of cement and concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007,
52, 234–247. [CrossRef]
386. Elaqra, H.; Abou Haloub, M.; Rustom, R. Effect of new mixing method of glass powder as cement replacement on mechanical
behavior of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 203, 75–82. [CrossRef]
387. Rahman, S.; Uddin, M. Experimental investigation of concrete with glass powder as partial replacement of cement. Civ. Eng.
Archit. 2018, 6, 149–154. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 47 of 50

388. Raydan, R.; Khatib, J.; Jahami, A.; El Hamoui, A.; Chamseddine, F. Prediction of the mechanical strength of concrete containing
glass powder as partial cement replacement material. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2022, 7, 311. [CrossRef]
389. Deschamps, J.; Simon, B.; Tagnit-Hamou, A.; Amor, B. Is open-loop recycling the lowest preference in a circular economy?
Answering through LCA of glass powder in concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 185, 14–22. [CrossRef]
390. Kalakada, Z.; Doh, J.; Chowdhury, S. Glass powder as replacement of cement for concrete–an investigative study. Eur. J. Environ.
Civ. 2022, 26, 1046–1063. [CrossRef]
391. Hilton, B.; Bawden, K.; Winnebeck, K.; Chandrasiri, C.; Ariyachandra, E.; Peethamparan, S. The functional and environmental
performance of mixed cathode ray tubes and recycled glass as partial replacement for cement in concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2019, 151, 104451. [CrossRef]
392. Khan, F.; Shahzada, K.; Ullah, Q.; Fahim, M.; Khan, S.; Badrashi, Y. Development of environment-friendly concrete through
partial addition of waste glass powder (WGP) as cement replacement. Civ. Eng. J. 2020, 6, 2332–2343. [CrossRef]
393. Yu, J.; Lu, C.; Leung, C.; Li, G. Mechanical properties of green structural concrete with ultrahigh-volume fly ash. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2017, 147, 510–518. [CrossRef]
394. younis Khudair, A.; Mohammed, M.K.; Hama, S.M. Optimization of glass powder content in self-compacting concrete as partial
replacement of cement. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 928, 022140. [CrossRef]
395. da Silva, S.; de Oliveira Andrade, J. Investigation of mechanical properties and carbonation of concretes with construction and
demolition waste and fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 153, 704–715. [CrossRef]
396. Dandautiya, R.; Singh, A. Utilization potential of fly ash and copper tailings in concrete as partial replacement of cement along
with life cycle assessment. Waste Manag. 2019, 99, 90–101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
397. Celik, K.; Meral, C.; Gursel, A.; Mehta, P.; Horvath, A.; Monteiro, P. Mechanical properties, durability, and life-cycle assessment of
self-consolidating concrete mixtures made with blended Portland cements containing fly ash and limestone powder. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 2015, 56, 59–72. [CrossRef]
398. Nath, P.; Sarker, P.; Biswas, W. Effect of fly ash on the service life, carbon footprint and embodied energy of high strength concrete
in the marine environment. Energy Build 2018, 158, 1694–1702. [CrossRef]
399. Kumar, R.; Shafiq, N.; Kumar, A.; Jhatial, A. Investigating embodied carbon, mechanical properties, and durability of high-
performance concrete using ternary and quaternary blends of metakaolin, nano-silica, and fly ash. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021,
28, 49074–49088. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
400. Samad, S.; Shah, A.; Limbachiya, M. Strength development characteristics of concrete produced with blended cement using
ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) under various curing conditions. Sādhanā 2017, 42, 1203–1213. [CrossRef]
401. Habibi, A.; Ramezanianpour, A.; Mahdikhani, M. RSM-based optimized mix design of recycled aggregate concrete containing
supplementary cementitious materials based on waste generation and global warming potential. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021,
167, 105420. [CrossRef]
402. Jalil, A.; Khitab, A.; Ishtiaq, H.; Bukhari, S.; Arshad, M.; Anwar, W. Evaluation of steel industrial slag as partial replacement of
cement in concrete. Civ. Eng. J. 2019, 5, 181–190. [CrossRef]
403. Kim, Y.; Hanif, A.; Usman, M.; Munir, M.; Kazmi, S.; Kim, S. Slag waste incorporation in high early strength concrete as cement
replacement: Environmental impact and influence on hydration & durability attributes. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3056–3065.
404. Santos, H.; Jochem, L.; de Matos, P.; Casagrande, C.; Marinho, É.; Szelag, ˛ M.; de Nóbrega, A. Porcelain Tile Polishing Residue in
Concrete as an Additive or Replacement for Portland Cement. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2824. [CrossRef]
405. de Matos, P.; Prudêncio, L., Jr.; de Oliveira, A.; Pelisser, F.; Gleize, P. Use of porcelain polishing residue as a supplementary
cimentitious material in self-compacting concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 193, 623–630. [CrossRef]
406. Alizadeh, M.; Momeni, M. The effect of the scrap/DRI ratio on the specification of the EAF dust and its influence on mechanical
properties of the concrete treated by its dust. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 112, 1041–1045. [CrossRef]
407. Chavan, S.; Salokhe, S.; Nadagauda, P.; Patil, S.; Mane, K. An investigational study on properties of concrete produced with
industrial waste red mud. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 42, 733–738. [CrossRef]
408. Qureshi, H.; Ahmad, J.; Majdi, A.; Saleem, M.; Al Fuhaid, A.; Arifuzzaman, M. A Study on Sustainable Concrete with Partial
Substitution of Cement with Red Mud: A Review. Materials 2022, 15, 7761. [CrossRef]
409. Nakic, D. Environmental evaluation of concrete with sewage sludge ash based on LCA. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2018, 16, 193–201.
410. Aliabdo, A.; Abd Elmoaty, M.; Auda, E. Re-use of waste marble dust in the production of cement and concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2014, 50, 28–41. [CrossRef]
411. Varadharajan, S. Determination of mechanical properties and environmental impact due to inclusion of flyash and marble waste
powder in concrete. Structures 2020, 25, 613–630. [CrossRef]
412. Evram, A.; Akçaoğlu, T.; Ramyar, K.; Çubukçuoğlu, B. Effects of waste electronic plastic and marble dust on hardened properties
of high strength concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 263, 120928. [CrossRef]
413. Praveenkumar, T.; Vijayalakshmi, M.; Meddah, M. Strengths and durability performances of blended cement concrete with TiO2
nanoparticles and rice husk ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 217, 343–351. [CrossRef]
414. Bheel, N.; Khoso, S.; Baloch, M.; Benjeddou, O.; Alwetaishi, M. Use of waste recycling coal bottom ash and sugarcane bagasse
ash as cement and sand replacement material to produce sustainable concrete. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 52399–52411.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 48 of 50

415. de Pedro, J.; Lagao, J.; Ongpeng, J. Life Cycle Assessment of Concrete Using Copper Slag as a Partial Cement Substitute in
Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Buildings 2023, 13, 746. [CrossRef]
416. Makul, N.; Sua-Iam, G. Innovative utilization of foundry sand waste obtained from the manufacture of automobile engine parts
as a cement replacement material in concrete production. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 199, 305–320. [CrossRef]
417. Makul, N.; Sokrai, P. Influences of fine waste foundry sand from the automobile engine-part casting process and water-
cementitious ratio on the properties of concrete: A new approach to use of a partial cement replacement material. J. Build. Eng.
2018, 20, 544–558. [CrossRef]
418. Huang, W.; Kazemi-Kamyab, H.; Sun, W.; Scrivener, K. Effect of cement substitution by limestone on the hydration and
microstructural development of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC). Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017, 77, 86–101. [CrossRef]
419. Meddah, M. Durability performance and engineering properties of shale and volcanic ashes concretes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015,
79, 73–82. [CrossRef]
420. Vaičienė, M.; Simanavičius, E. The effect of municipal solid waste incineration ash on the properties and durability of cement
concrete. Materials 2022, 15, 4486. [CrossRef]
421. Campos, J.; Fajilan, S.; Lualhati, J.; Mandap, N.; Clemente, S. Life cycle assessment of biochar as a partial replacement to Portland
cement. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 479, 012025. [CrossRef]
422. Abolhasani, A.; Samali, B.; Aslani, F. Rice husk ash incorporation in calcium aluminate cement concrete: Life cycle assessment,
hydration and strength development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1012. [CrossRef]
423. Ibeto, C.; Obiefuna, C.; Ugwu, K. Environmental effects of concretes produced from partial replacement of cement and sand with
coal ash. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 17, 2967–2976. [CrossRef]
424. Flower, D.; Sanjayan, J. Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2007, 12, 282–288.
[CrossRef]
425. Fallah-Valukolaee, S.; Mousavi, R.; Arjomandi, A.; Nematzadeh, M.; Kazemi, M. A comparative study of mechanical properties
and life cycle assessment of high-strength concrete containing silica fume and nanosilica as a partial cement replacement.
Structures 2022, 46, 838–851. [CrossRef]
426. Tayeh, B.; AlSaffar, D.; Askar, L.; Jubeh, A. Effect of incorporating pottery and bottom ash as partial replacement of cement.
Karbala Int. J. Mod. Sci. 2019, 5, 9. [CrossRef]
427. Basit, A.; Khan, M.A.; Ahmed, I.; Khan, M.N.; Umar, M. Effect of brick dust and lime powder on the performance of plain cement
concrete. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 414, 012008. [CrossRef]
428. Teixeira, E.; Mateus, R.; Camoes, A.; Bragança, L.; Branco, F. Comparative environmental life-cycle analysis of concretes using
biomass and coal fly ashes as partial cement replacement material. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2221–2230. [CrossRef]
429. Maglad, A.; Amin, M.; Zeyad, A.; Tayeh, B.; Agwa, I. Engineering properties of ultra-high strength concrete containing sugarcane
bagasse and corn stalk ashes. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 23, 3196–3218. [CrossRef]
430. Bheel, N.; Adesina, A. Influence of binary blend of corn cob ash and glass powder as partial replacement of cement in concrete.
Silicon 2021, 13, 1647–1654. [CrossRef]
431. Perez, O.; Florez, D.; Vergara, L.; Benavides, K. Innovative use of agro-waste cane bagasse ash and waste glass as cement
replacement for green concrete. Cost analysis and carbon dioxide emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 379, 134822. [CrossRef]
432. Cordoba, G.; Barquero, M.; Bonavetti, V.; Irassar, E. Sustainability of concretes with binary and ternary blended cements
considering performance parameters. Cement 2023, 13, 100077. [CrossRef]
433. Soliman, N.; Tagnit-Hamou, A. Development of ultra-high-performance concrete using glass powder–Towards ecofriendly
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 125, 600–612. [CrossRef]
434. Rajendran, R.; Sathishkumar, A.; Perumal, K.; Pannirselvam, N.; Lingeshwaran, N.; Madavarapu, S. An experiment on concrete
replacing binding material as waste glass powder. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 47, 5447–5450. [CrossRef]
435. Soltanzadeh, F.; Emam-Jomeh, M.; Edalat-Behbahani, A.; Soltan-Zadeh, Z. Development and characterization of blended cements
containing seashell powder. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 161, 292–304. [CrossRef]
436. Qin, Y.; Pang, X.; Tan, K.; Bao, T. Evaluation of pervious concrete performance with pulverized biochar as cement replacement.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 2021, 119, 104022. [CrossRef]
437. Gálvez-Martos, J.; Styles, D.; Schoenberger, H.; Zeschmar-Lahl, B. Construction and demolition waste best management practice
in Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 166–178. [CrossRef]
438. Neto, R.; Gastineau, P.; Cazacliu, B.; Le Guen, L.; Paranhos, R.; Petter, C. An economic analysis of the processing technologies in
CDW recycling platforms. Waste Manag. 2017, 60, 277–289. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
439. Xiao, J.; Ma, Z.; Sui, T.; Akbarnezhad, A.; Duan, Z. Mechanical properties of concrete mixed with recycled powder produced from
construction and demolition waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 720–731. [CrossRef]
440. Yuan, F.; Shen, L.; Li, Q. Emergy analysis of the recycling options for construction and demolition waste. Waste Manag. 2011,
31, 2503–2511. [CrossRef]
441. Zhang, H.; Zhang, C.; He, B.; Yi, S.; Tang, L. Recycling fine powder collected from construction and demolition wastes as partial
alternatives to cement: A comprehensive analysis on effects, mechanism, cost and CO2 emission. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 71, 106507.
[CrossRef]
442. Zito, S.; Irassar, E.; Rahhal, V. Recycled Construction and Demolition Waste as Supplementary Cementing Materials in Eco-
Friendly Concrete. Recycling 2023, 8, 54. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 49 of 50

443. Li, L.; Liu, Q.; Huang, T.; Peng, W. Mineralization and utilization of CO2 in construction and demolition wastes recycling for
building materials: A systematic review of recycled concrete aggregate and recycled hardened cement powder. Sep. Purif. Technol.
2022, 298, 121512.
444. Kim, J.; Jang, H. Closed-loop recycling of C&D waste: Mechanical properties of concrete with the repeatedly recycled C&D
powder as partial cement replacement. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 343, 130977.
445. Wu, H.; Xu, J.; Yang, D.; Ma, Z. Utilizing thermal activation treatment to improve the properties of waste cementitious powder
and its newmade cementitious materials. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 322, 129074.
446. Alghamdi, H. A review of cementitious alternatives within the development of environmental sustainability associated with
cement replacement. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 42433–42451.
447. Villanueva, A.; Delgado, L.; Luo, Z.; Eder, P.; Catarino, A.; Litten, D. Study on the Selection of Waste Streams for End-of-Waste
Assessment; JRC Scientific and Technical Reports; European Commission: Seville, Spain, 2010; Volume 24362.
448. Rocha, J.; Toledo Filho, R. The utilization of recycled concrete powder as supplementary cementitious material in cement-based
materials: A systematic literature review. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 76, 107319. [CrossRef]
449. Singh, A.; Miao, X.; Zhou, X.; Deng, Q.; Li, J.; Zou, S.; Duan, Z. Use of recycled fine aggregates and recycled powders in sustainable
recycled concrete. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 77, 107370. [CrossRef]
450. Gebremariam, A.; Vahidi, A.; Di Maio, F.; Moreno-Juez, J.; Vegas-Ramiro, I.; Łagosz, A.; Mróz, R.; Rem, P. Comprehensive study
on the most sustainable concrete design made of recycled concrete, glass and mineral wool from C&D wastes. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2021, 273, 121697.
451. Sun, Z.; Liu, F.; Tong, T.; Qi, C.; Yu, Q. Hydration of concrete containing hybrid recycled demolition powders. J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
2017, 29, 04017037. [CrossRef]
452. Duan, Z.; Hou, S.; Xiao, J.; Li, B. Study on the essential properties of recycled powders from construction and demolition waste. J.
Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 119865. [CrossRef]
453. Mucsi, G.; Halyag Papné, N.; Ulsen, C.; Figueiredo, P.; Kristály, F. Mechanical activation of construction and demolition waste in
order to improve its pozzolanic reactivity. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 3416–3427. [CrossRef]
454. Tang, Q.; Ma, Z.; Wu, H.; Wang, W. The utilization of eco-friendly recycled powder from concrete and brick waste in new concrete:
A critical review. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 114, 103807. [CrossRef]
455. Mehdizadeh, H.; Ling, T.; Cheng, X.; Pan, S.; Hung Mo, K. CO2 Treatment of Hydrated Cement Powder: Characterization and
Application Consideration. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2021, 33, 04021041. [CrossRef]
456. Zajac, M.; Skocek, J.; Durdzinski, P.; Bullerjahn, F.; Skibsted, J.; Haha, M. Effect of carbonated cement paste on composite cement
hydration and performance. Cem. Concr. Res. 2020, 134, 106090. [CrossRef]
457. Qin, L.; Gao, X. Recycling of waste autoclaved aerated concrete powder in Portland cement by accelerated carbonation. Waste
Manag. 2019, 89, 254–264. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
458. Lu, B.; Shi, C.; Zhang, J.; Wang, J. Effects of carbonated hardened cement paste powder on hydration and microstructure of
Portland cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 186, 699–708. [CrossRef]
459. Bogas, J.; Carriço, A.; Pereira, M. Mechanical characterization of thermal activated low-carbon recycled cement mortars. J. Clean.
Prod. 2019, 218, 377–389. [CrossRef]
460. Ma, Z.; Shen, J.; Wu, H.; Zhang, P. Properties and activation modification of eco-friendly cementitious materials incorporating
high-volume hydrated cement powder from construction waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 316, 125788. [CrossRef]
461. Ma, Z.; Yao, P.; Yang, D.; Shen, J. Effects of fire-damaged concrete waste on the properties of its preparing recycled aggregate,
recycled powder and newmade concrete. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2021, 15, 1030–1045. [CrossRef]
462. Wang, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, H.; Fang, Y.; Shen, W.; Chen, P.; Xu, Y. Eco-friendly treatment of recycled concrete fines as supplementary
cementitious materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 322, 126491. [CrossRef]
463. Zhang, D.; Zhang, S.; Huang, B.; Yang, Q.; Li, J. Comparison of mechanical, chemical, and thermal activation methods on the
utilisation of recycled concrete powder from construction and demolition waste. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 61, 105295. [CrossRef]
464. Qian, D.; Yu, R.; Shui, Z.; Sun, Y.; Jiang, C.; Zhou, F.; Ding, M.; Tong, X.; He, Y. A novel development of green ultra-high
performance concrete (UHPC) based on appropriate application of recycled cementitious material. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,
261, 121231. [CrossRef]
465. Cantero, B.; Bravo, M.; De Brito, J.; del Bosque, I.; Medina, C. Mechanical behaviour of structural concrete with ground recycled
concrete cement and mixed recycled aggregate. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 122913. [CrossRef]
466. He, Z.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, M.; Shi, J.; Du, S.; Liu, B. Autogenous shrinkage and nano-mechanical properties of UHPC containing
waste brick powder derived from construction and demolition waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 306, 124869. [CrossRef]
467. Arif, R.; Khitab, A.; Kırgız, M.; Khan, R.; Tayyab, S.; Khan, R.; Anwar, W.; Arshad, M. Experimental analysis on partial replacement
of cement with brick powder in concrete. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 15, 00749. [CrossRef]
468. He, Z.; Han, X.; Zhang, M.; Yuan, Q.; Shi, J.; Zhan, P. A novel development of green UHPC containing waste concrete powder
derived from construction and demolition waste. Powder Technol. 2022, 398, 117075. [CrossRef]
469. Wu, Y.; Liu, C.; Liu, H.; Hu, H.; He, C.; Song, L.; Huang, W. Pore structure and durability of green concrete containing recycled
powder and recycled coarse aggregate. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 53, 104584. [CrossRef]
470. He, X.; Ma, Q.; Su, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Tan, H.; Peng, K.; Zhao, R. Humid hardened concrete waste treated by multiple wet-grinding
and its reuse in concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 350, 128485. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 585 50 of 50

471. Cantero, B.; del Bosque, I.; de Rojas, M.; Matías, A.; Medina, C. Durability of concretes bearing construction and demolition waste
as cement and coarse aggregate substitutes. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022, 134, 104722. [CrossRef]
472. Pešta, J.; Ženíšek, M.; Kočí, V.; Pavlů, T. Environmental perspectives of recycled concrete powder as cement replacement. AIP
Conf. Proc. 2021, 2322, 020028.
473. Likes, L.; Markandeya, A.; Haider, M.; Bollinger, D.; McCloy, J.; Nassiri, S. Recycled concrete and brick powders as supplements
to Portland cement for more sustainable concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 364, 132651. [CrossRef]
474. Ma, Z.; Liu, M.; Duan, Z.; Liang, C.; Wu, H. Effects of active waste powder obtained from C&D waste on the micro properties and
water permeability of concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 257, 120518.
475. Zhu, P.; Mao, X.; Qu, W.; Li, Z.; Ma, Z. Investigation of using recycled powder from waste of clay bricks and cement solids in
reactive powder concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 113, 246–254. [CrossRef]
476. Kim, Y. Quality properties of self-consolidating concrete mixed with waste concrete powder. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 135,
177–185. [CrossRef]
477. Ma, Z.; Li, W.; Wu, H.; Cao, C. Chloride permeability of concrete mixed with activity recycled powder obtained from C&D waste.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 199, 652–663.
478. Heidari, A.; Hasanpour, B. Effects of waste bricks powder of Gachsaran company as a pozzolanic material in concrete. Asian J.
Civ. Eng. 2013, 14, 755–763.
479. Maslehuddin, M.; Al-Amoudi, O.; Rahman, M.; Ali, M.; Barry, M. Properties of cement kiln dust concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
2009, 23, 2357–2361. [CrossRef]
480. Abd El-Mohsen, M.; Anwar, A.; Adam, I. Mechanical properties of self-consolidating concrete incorporating cement kiln dust.
HBRC J. 2015, 11, 1–6. [CrossRef]
481. Cantero, B.; Sáez del Bosque, I.; Matías, A.; Sánchez de Rojas, M.; Medina, C. Inclusion of construction and demolition waste as a
coarse aggregate and a cement addition in structural concrete design. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2019, 19, 1338–1352. [CrossRef]
482. Najim, K.; Al-Jumaily, I.; Atea, A. Characterization of sustainable high performance/self-compacting concrete produced using
CKD as a cement replacement material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 103, 123–129. [CrossRef]
483. Al-Rezaiqi, J.; Alnuaimi, A.; Hago, A. Efficiency factors of burnt clay and cement kiln dust and their effects on properties of
blended concrete. Appl. Clay Sci. 2018, 157, 51–64. [CrossRef]
484. Siddique, R.; Rajor, A. Influence of bacterial treated cement kiln dust on the properties of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014,
52, 42–51.
485. Ge, Z.; Gao, Z.; Sun, R.; Zheng, L. Mix design of concrete with recycled clay-brick-powder using the orthogonal design method.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 31, 289–293. [CrossRef]
486. Xue, C.; Shen, A.; Guo, Y.; He, T. Utilization of construction waste composite powder materials as cementitious materials in
small-scale prefabricated concrete. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 2016, 8947935. [CrossRef]
487. Cantero, B.; Bravo, M.; de Brito, J.; Sáez del Bosque, I.; Medina, C. Thermal performance of concrete with recycled concrete
powder as partial cement replacement and recycled CDW aggregate. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4540. [CrossRef]
488. Bagheri, S.; Koushkbaghi, M.; Mohseni, E.; Koushkbaghi, S.; Tahmouresi, B. Evaluation of environment and economy viable
recycling cement kiln dust for use in green concrete. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101809. [CrossRef]
489. Juan-Valdés, A.; Rodriguez-Robles, D.; Garcia-Gonzalez, J.; de Rojas Gómez, M.; Guerra-Romero, M.; De Belie, N.; Morán-del
Pozo, J. Mechanical and microstructural properties of recycled concretes mixed with ceramic recycled cement and secondary
recycled aggregates. A viable option for future concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 270, 121455. [CrossRef]
490. Khodabakhshian, A.; de Brito, J.; Ghalehnovi, M.; Asadi Shamsabadi, E. Mechanical, environmental and economic performance
of structural concrete containing silica fume and marble industry waste powder. Construct. Build. Mater. 2018, 169, 237–251.
[CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.