infrastructures
Article
Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle and Economic Assessment of
Sustainable Concrete Mixes—Alkali-Activated Concrete (AAC)
and Bacterial Concrete (BC)
Kruthi Kiran Ramagiri 1, * , Ravali Chintha 1 , Radha Kiranmaye Bandlamudi 1 , Patricia Kara De Maeijer 2
and Arkamitra Kar 1
1
2
*
Citation: Ramagiri, K.K.; Chintha, R.;
Bandlamudi, R.K.; Kara De Maeijer, P.;
Kar, A. Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle and
Economic Assessment of Sustainable
Concrete Mixes— Alkali-Activated
Concrete (AAC) and Bacterial
Concrete (BC). Infrastructures 2021, 6,
104. https://doi.org/10.3390/
infrastructures6070104
Academic Editor: Ali Behnood
Department of Civil Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science-Pilani, Hyderabad Campus,
Hyderabad 500078, Telangana, India; h20191430099@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in (R.C.);
p20180462@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in (R.K.B.); arkamitra.kar@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in (A.K.)
EMIB, Faculty of Applied Engineering, University of Antwerp, Groenenborgerlaan 171,
2020 Antwerp, Belgium; patricija.karademaeijer@uantwerpen.be
Correspondence: p20170008@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in
Abstract: The negative environmental impacts associated with the usage of Portland cement (PC)
in concrete induced intensive research into finding sustainable alternative concrete mixes to obtain
“green concrete”. Since the principal aim of developing such mixes is to reduce the environmental
impact, it is imperative to conduct a comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA). This paper examines
three different types of sustainable concrete mixes, viz., alkali-activated concrete (AAC) with natural
coarse aggregates, AAC with recycled coarse aggregates (RCA), and bacterial concrete (BC). A detailed environmental impact assessment of AAC with natural coarse aggregates, AAC with RCA,
and BC is performed through a cradle-to-gate LCA using openLCA v.1.10.3 and compared versus
PC concrete (PCC) of equivalent strength. The results show that transportation and sodium silicate
in AAC mixes and PC in BC mixes contribute the most to the environmental impact. The global
warming potential (GWP) of PCC is 1.4–2 times higher than other mixes. Bacterial concrete without
nutrients had the lowest environmental impact of all the evaluated mixes on all damage categories,
both at the midpoint (except GWP) and endpoint assessment levels. AAC and BC mixes are more
expensive than PCC by 98.8–159.1% and 21.8–54.3%, respectively.
Keywords: life cycle assessment (LCA); bacterial concrete (BC); environmental impact assessment;
alkali-activated concrete (AAC); alkali-activated binder (AAB); recycled coarse aggregates
Received: 28 June 2021
Accepted: 13 July 2021
Published: 15 July 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
1. Introduction
To mitigate the worst health impacts of climate change, global annual greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions must be halved by 2030 and attain net-zero by 2050 [1] or incur
the marginal expense of negative emissions. This expense could be in the range of USD
100–300/t CO2 -Eq. depending on the cost of biomass or direct CO2 capture through carbon
capture and storage [2]. The global energy-associated CO2 emissions from the building
sector alone accounted for 38% of the total emissions in 2019 [3]. The Paris Agreement,
an international legal treaty adopted by 196 states, aims to limit global warming to 1.5 ◦ C
compared to pre-industrial levels [4]. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates
that to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the direct and indirect CO2 emissions from
the building sector should decline by 50% and 60%, respectively, by 2030 [3]. Portland
cement (PC) is the primary contributor of emissions in the building sector, accounting
for approximately 14% of non-energy use CO2 emissions, owing to its significant use
and innate characteristics of its manufacturing process [5]. Energy conservation, carbon
extraction, and the use of alternative materials are some of the strategies for reducing CO2
pollution associated with the use of PC, which were lately introduced [6].
4.0/).
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6070104
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/infrastructures
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
2 of 21
Recent research reports the use of materials such as calcined clay, marble dust, and
granite dust as PC replacements for improving the sustainability of concrete production [7,8]. Utilizing industrial wastes, bio-wastes, and agro-wastes with alternative activations such as alkali-activation and carbonation has been performed in various applications [9–11]. Alkali-activated binders (AABs) have shown significant potential in replacing
PC in concrete mixes [12–14]. AAB concrete, viz., alkali-activated concrete (AAC), produced by the activation of aluminosilicate-rich industrial wastes with an alkaline activator,
exhibits superior mechanical and durability performance and a lower carbon footprint than
PC concrete (PCC) [15]. The commonly used precursors in AAC are fly ash and ground
granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS, further referred to as slag). There is extensive literature available on fly ash-based AAC compared to slag-based AAC [16]. Furthermore,
previous research shows that slag can be effectively used as a precursor when used in
combination with other alternative binders such as fly ash or glass powder [11]. However,
the latest tendency of the application of alternative binders has to also be investigated in
depth in regard to the environmental impact.
In addition to the emissions associated with binders used in concrete, the use of
natural aggregates (NA) (usually limestone or granite) results in resource scarcity, deterring
its sustainable development. NA can be replaced with recycled aggregates, resulting
in the twofold advantage of minimizing the extraction of non-renewable sources and
environmental impact from disposed of resources. Construction and demolition waste
(CDW) generated in India is estimated to be about 100 million tonnes yearly. The utilization
of CDW in India constitutes only 10–30% of the generation. In the European Union (EU),
for example, 850 million tonnes are generated per year and 70% are set to be recycled by
2020 according to the Waste Framework Directive [17]. Usually, CDW is primarily used for
land-leveling and backfilling projects, while the remaining is disposed of in landfills [18].
CDW from building-derived materials (BDM) can be a potential partial replacement of
NA in PC and AAC [19,20]. The effect of incorporating recycled coarse aggregates (RCA)
on the mechanical properties and durability of PCC has been extensively reported in the
literature [21–23]. The lower replacement levels of about 20% of NA with RCA did not alter
the mechanical performance of PCC [22]. However, a further increase in the replacement
percentage reduced the mechanical strength. This reduction in strength is attributed to
increased porosity and a weak interfacial transition zone (ITZ) between aggregates and
the matrix [24]. AAB concrete exhibited a higher potential for the replacement of NA with
RCA. The change in compressive strength is reported in the range of 20% when 50% of NA
is replaced with RCA [25]. Due to the increased porosity, the addition of RA has a negative
impact on the durability of PCC. However, because of the higher alkaline environment of
the alkali-activated systems, recycled aggregates could be more suitable for use [25]. It is
evident from the existing literature that alternative binders and RCA could be used as a
complete or partial substitute for their conventional counterparts.
However, the main rationale for their use is to improve sustainable development,
which necessitates a rigorous environmental assessment to determine their efficacy. A few
studies reported that replacing PCC with AAC can reduce the emissions associated with
climate change by 9–80% compared to PCC [26,27]. This significant disparity in emissions’
mitigation by AAC is due to differences in the types of precursors and activators, mix
proportions, transit distances, and the type of production and sources of raw materials.
There have been relatively few investigations on the environmental effects of RCA inclusion in AAC. The treatment procedures used to improve the quality of RCA can result
in additional environmental burdens. Since the adhered matrix is the phase increasing
porosity, treatment approaches are commonly used to extract it from the surface of RCA.
The treatment approaches include either dissolving RCA in a solvent or imposing internal
tension at their ITZ to isolate them from the adhered hardened binder. The treatment
processes used in previous studies on AAC are ultrasonic cleaning [28], pre-saturation [29],
carbon dioxide sequestration (CS) [30], nitric acid dissolution [29], thermal expansion [31],
the freeze–thaw method [32], microwave heating [33], mechanical grinding [34], and the
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
3 of 21
heating and rubbing method [35]. Most of the above-mentioned treatment processes are
energy and/or resource-intensive. Using RCA treated through CS improved the compressive strength by approximately nine times due to more stable polymorphs. Furthermore,
CS-treated RCA can reduce GHG emissions by 50% compared to NA cured under ambient
conditions [30]; however, they increased the cost/m3 of concrete owing to the higher cost of
RCA. Furthermore, to promote in situ applications of AAC with RCA, a detailed environmental analysis is necessary. As a preliminary step, the present study aims to evaluate the
environmental and economic impact of untreated (virgin) BDM used as coarse aggregates
in AAC.
The other aspect of concrete structures that can incur high cost is their repair and
maintenance. The proclivity of concrete for cracking is the primary factor compromising its
structural integrity, serviceability, and durability. Conventional rehabilitation and maintenance are effective strategies for prolonging the service life of concrete structures. However,
the repair and maintenance cost of concrete cracking can be 84% to 125% higher than the
actual construction cost/m3 [36]. The USA spends USD 266.5 billion on infrastructure
maintenance and repair, accounting for 65% of all public infrastructure expenditures [37].
Infrastructure assessment, repair, and maintenance account for nearly 33% and 45% of the
annual civil engineering budgets in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom, respectively [38,39]. According to recent estimates, India spends about 1.08% of its annual GDP
on infrastructure repair and maintenance [40]. Furthermore, depending on the location
of the crack, its extent, and the service needs for infrastructures such as highways, there
might be situations where repair is impractical. Self-healing concrete can be very beneficial
in these circumstances by automatically healing fractures without the need for external
intervention [41].
Self-healing can be achieved through two different mechanisms, viz., autogenous and
autonomous healing. Autogenous healing refers to reactions and/or processes originating
from the cementitious system, such as calcium hydroxide carbonation, crack blockage
caused by impurities in water and loose concrete particles, and ongoing hydration of
cement [42], whereas autonomous healing comprises the utilization of additions/methods
such as bacteria, shape memory alloy capsules, and electrodeposition technology. Autonomous healing via the addition of mineral-depositing bacteria is one of the most efficient
and potentially sustainable methodologies [43].
The bacteria added along with the nutrients to the concrete mix is activated when it
encounters the moisture through the newly formed cracks and begins the precipitation
of calcium carbonate through metabolism. There are three major metabolic pathways to
precipitate calcium carbonate, viz., the hydrolysis of urea, the oxidation of organic compounds, and denitrification depending on the type of bacteria [43–45]. Different ureolytic
bacteria such as Sporosarcina ureae, Bacillus sphaericus, Bacillus megaterium, Proteus vulgaris,
Proteus mirabilis, Bacillus subtilis, and Sporosarcina pasteurii have been used in self-healing
concrete [46]. Denitrifying bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Diaphorobacter
nitroreducens and aerobic heterotrophic bacteria (which produces calcium carbonate by the
oxidation of organic compounds) such as Bacillus pseudoformus and Bacillus cohnii are also
used in successfully developing self-healing behavior in concrete [45,46].
Bacterial concrete is reported to enhance compressive strength by approximately
40% under simulated cracks by healing them [47]. There is an optimum concentration
of bacteria that shows a positive effect on the compressive strength of bacterial concrete
with fly ash, and it is reported to be 105 cells/mL for Sporoscarcina pasteurii bacteria [48].
Studies show that the direct inclusion of bacteria, that is, without immobilization or
encapsulation, improved compressive strength in the range of 15–32% [49,50], flexural
strength by 11% [49], and split tensile strength by 14–16% [49,50]. The immobilization and
encapsulation of bacteria are known to improve the self-healing efficiency of concrete [51].
Limestone powder [52], iron oxide nano-sized particles [53], crushed brick aggregate [54],
graphite nanoplatelets [55], expanded perlite [56], and porous ceramsite particles [57] are
used for the immobilization of bacteria in concrete. Though efficient, the shortcoming of
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
4 of 21
protective materials is their varying efficiencies depending on the type. Encapsulation
resulted in a healing rate of 70 to 100% for cracks in the range of 0.3 mm [58]. Typically
used Ca-precursors for aerobic respiration in bacterial concrete are calcium acetate, calcium
lactate, calcium nitrate, and calcium formate [59]. Calcium nitrate acts as an accelerator
when added to concrete, reducing the setting times, accelerating hydration, and decreasing
compressive strength [59,60]. It is reported that calcium lactate used in the range of 1–2%
by mass of cement improved its compressive strength; however, there are contradictory
studies on its effect on setting times [59,61]. Calcium formate and calcium acetate are also
found to be suitable Ca-precursors based on compressive strength investigations [59]. It
is evident that there is extensive literature reported on the mechanical performance of
bacterial concrete. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no studies on
the environmental assessment of bacterial concrete.
The present study performs a comprehensive life cycle assessment of three different
sustainable concrete mixes: alkali-activated concrete (AAC) with natural coarse aggregates,
(2) AAC with recycled coarse aggregates, and bacterial concrete (BC) with and without
Ca-precursors. AAC with natural coarse aggregates, AAC with RCA, and BC are evaluated
using a cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA) and compared to PCC of equal strength.
The influence of mix proportions on the environmental impact of three distinct AAC mixes
and two distinct BC mixes is investigated. The life cycle impact assessment is performed
both at midpoint and endpoint damage categories using ReCiPe 2016 methodology. Simple
cost analysis, including electricity, water tariffs and transportation charges in the Indian
context, is presented.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
The precursors considered in the present study are class F fly ash, slag, and Portland
cement (PC). Class F fly ash utilized in this investigation is obtained from the National
Thermal Power Corporation in Ramagundam, India. Slag is acquired from JSW Ltd.
in Vijayanagar, India. In the current investigation, Type I Portland cement of 53 grade
complying to the standards IS [62] and ASTM [63] requirements is used. The properties of
the precursors are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Specifications of precursors.
Specification
Fly Ash
Slag
PC
CaO (%)
SiO2 (%)
Al2 O3 (%)
MgO (%)
SO3 (%)
Fe2 O3 (%)
TiO2 (%)
K2 O (%)
Na2 O (%)
MnO (%)
LOI (%)
Strength activity index (%)
d50 (µm)
Blaine fineness (m2 /kg) *
Specific gravity
3.80
48.81
31.40
0.70
0.91
7.85
2.93
1.52
1.04
3.00
96.46
51.90
327.00
2.06
37.63
34.81
17.92
7.80
0.20
0.66
0.21
1.41
114.46
13.93
386.00
2.71
65.23
18.64
5.72
0.85
2.34
4.54
0.5
0.59
1.69
285.00
-
* Supplied by manufacturer.
Locally available river sand and crushed rock fines (CRF) are used as fine aggregates in
the present study. Crushed granite with a nominal maximum size of 10 mm is used as coarse
aggregate. River sand and crushed granite aggregates comply with standard specifications
of IS 383:2016 [64]. For recycled aggregate concrete, tested concrete specimens are crushed
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
5 of 21
through a jaw crusher and sieved to obtain aggregates with a nominal maximum size of
10 mm. The obtained recycled coarse aggregates are used without any treatment in their
virgin form. The properties of aggregates are presented in Table 2. Figure 1 illustrates the
gradation curve of river sand and CRF.
Table 2. Physical properties of aggregates.
Aggregate
Specific Gravity
Water Absorption (%)
Fineness Modulus
Natural coarse aggregate
River sand
Crushed rock fines
2.72
2.65
2.65
0.10
0.50
0.36
3.62
2.89
Figure 1. Grading curves of fine aggregates.
As activators, sodium silicate (29.4% SiO2 , 14.7% Na2 O, and 55.9% H2 O) and sodium
hydroxide (food-grade, 99% purity) from Hychem Laboratories are utilized in the preparation of AAC mixes.
A denitrifying bacterium Pseudomonas putida GAP P-45 purchased from the Microbial
Type Culture Collection and Gene Bank (MTCC) Chandigarh is used in BC mixes. Commercially available nutrient broth with 15 g peptone, 3 g yeast extract, 1 g glucose, and 6 g
NaCl acquired from Hychem Laboratories is used as the culture medium to cultivate the
bacteria. Calcium formate and calcium nitrate obtained from Krishna Chemicals are used
as nutrients for bacteria.
Polycarboxylic ether (PCE)-based superplasticizer supplied by BASF is used. Regular
tap water free from any deleterious materials is used in concrete mix preparation.
2.2. Mix Proportions
In the present study, three different types of concrete mixes are prepared: AAC, BC,
and PCC. Furthermore, by varying mix proportions, 3 AAC mixes and 2 BC mixes are
investigated. The details of the mixes are provided in Table 3.
The mixes are selected in such a way that they have equivalent or comparable compressive strength. AAC mixes are denominated based on their activator modulus (ratio of
SiO2 /Na2 O in the activating solution). AAC-0.7 has only fly ash as a precursor with an activator modulus of 0.7. In contrast, AAC-1 and AAC-1.4 have fly ash and slag as precursors
with activator modulus of 1 and 1.4, respectively. AAC-R has a similar mix proportion to
AAC-1.4, with 50% of natural coarse aggregates replaced with RCA. The water content is
reduced to ensure sufficient strength development, and hence the workability is improved
by PCE-based SP.
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
6 of 21
Table 3. Mix proportions of AAC, BC and PCC, in [kg/m3 ].
Mix
AAC-0.7
AAC-1
AAC-1.4
AAC-R
BC-N
BC
PCC
Fly ash
Slag
PC
Sodium silicate
Sodium hydroxide
CRF
River sand
Calcium nitrate
Calcium formate
Coarse aggregate
RCA
Nutrient broth
Water
SP
Density
425.00
70.13
25.08
676.49
1014.74
68.06
2280
280.00
120.00
115.07
24.93
651.00
1209.00
85.37
2485
280.00
120.00
129.43
10.57
651.00
1209.00
77.38
2477
280.00
120.00
129.00
10.60
653.00
645.00
645.00
67.60
3.14
2553
115.00
335.00
750.00
4.78
11.96
1020.00
0.67
157.00
2.00
2396
115.00
335.00
750.00
1020.00
0.67
157.00
2.00
2380
450.00
623.00
1084.00
150.00
2307
PC—Portland cement; CRF—Crushed rock fines; RCA—Recycled coarse aggregate; SP—Superplasticizer.
2.3. Methods
2.3.1. Preparation of Alkali-Activated Concrete Specimens
The activator with a combination of sodium silicate solution and sodium hydroxide
pellets is prepared a day before the casting in order to allow sufficient time for heat
dissipation. The mixing procedure is commenced with batching, followed by blending
of dry materials, viz., coarse aggregates, fine aggregates, and precursors (fly ash and/or
slag) in the order mentioned. The uniform blending of dry ingredients is followed by the
gradual addition of activator with simultaneous mixing. A measured quantity of additional
water is then added and mixed to obtain a homogenous mixture. Specimens are cast in
three approximately equal layers, and each layer is compacted using a needle vibrator. The
surface of the specimens is finished using a trowel. Molds are then sealed with a plastic
sheet to minimize moisture loss. Throughout this study, all the AAC specimens are allowed
to cure for at least 24 h in the molds.
The time for demolding the specimens is varied depending on the fly ash content
in the mix, owing to its slow reactivity. All the specimens are demolded after gaining
sufficient strength to prevent any damage. The AAC-0.7 specimens are demolded at the
age of 7 days, as they exhibited the slowest final setting times. AAC-1, AAC-1.4, and
AAC-R specimens are demolded at the age of 2 days. On demolding, the specimens are
cured until 7-day age underwater and then under ambient laboratory conditions until the
commencement of tests. The average ambient temperature was 25 ◦ C, and the relative
humidity was in the range of 60–75% in Hyderabad during the experimental activities. This
curing regime is selected based on the recommendations of previous research on blended
AAC [65,66].
2.3.2. Preparation of Bacterial Concrete Specimens
Bacterial Growth Conditions and Gram Staining
The culture medium and all the related equipment are sterilized in an autoclave at
121 ◦ C for 30 min. The sterilized culture medium is then inoculated with the activated
bacterial strain and then placed in an incubator operating at 170 rpm and 37 ◦ C for 24 h.
The bacterium is further sub-cultured before being inoculated into the sterilized nutrient
broth solution and cultured for 24 h under optimal growth conditions. During this time, the
bacterial cell concentration is ensured through the optical density/absorbance at 600 nm
(OD600 ) of the culture broth at regular intervals.
Gram staining is a technique used to distinguish between Gram-positive and Gramnegative bacteria based on the physical and chemical characteristics of their cell walls. The
current study utilizes a Gram-negative bacterial strain, and this test is performed to ensure
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
7 of 21
that the culture did not include any Gram-positive or other microorganisms. Gram staining
is dependent on the bacteria’s ability to preserve their original color, which is dependent
on the cell wall structure. Gram-positive bacteria are characterized by periwinkle color,
whereas Gram-negative are characterized through amaranth color [67]. The test procedure
commenced by placing the bacteria from the prepared culture on a clean glass slide
with a sterile loop. Following this, the slide is heat-fixed by running it over the flame
multiple times while ensuring maintenance of the appropriate temperature range. Care is
taken to avoid excessive heating as it can result in staining abnormalities and disrupt the
morphology of cells. This is followed by four steps of staining. In the first step, the slide is
flooded with crystal violet (C25 N3 H30 Cl) for 60 s and then washed with tap water. Step 2
entails exposing the slide to Gram’s iodine for 90 s to bind and encapsulate the crystal
violet in the cell, followed by washing the slide with tap water. The third step is to destain
the smear with 95% ethanol until the thinnest sections of the smear become colorless before
rinsing it with water. The fourth step includes flooding the slide with safranin (pink color)
for 60 s and rinsing with tap water. Then, the slide is allowed to air-dry. The recorded
micrograph of Gram-negative bacteria is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Gram staining of Pseudomonas putida.
Casting
The coarse aggregates, CRF, PC, and fly ash are dry mixed, followed by addition of
nutrients (calcium nitrate and calcium formate). The required quantities of nutrients are
added in case of BC-N mix, while a part of the water is replaced by bacterial solution with
the proviso that the water-to-cement ratio is maintained. The specimens are cast following
a similar procedure as AAC mixes and cured in water for 28 days until testing.
The preparation of PCC specimens is similar to BC mixes, except for the mixing water
free from bacteria and nutrients.
2.3.3. Compressive Strength
The test procedure complies with ASTM standard [68] regulations and is performed
on a HEICO compression testing machine (CTM) with a capacity of 2000 kN. The specimens
are ensured to surface dry before testing. The specimens are tested in a load control set-up
at a loading rate of 0.25 ± 0.05 MPa/s.
2.3.4. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Goal and Scope
The primary aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the environmental impact of
preparing different sustainable concrete mixes. The environmental impacts are evaluated
for a functional unit of 1 m3 of concrete with equivalent 28-day compressive strengths
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
8 of 21
in the range of 40–57 MPa. The mix selection also entails an equivalent curing regime,
viz., curing under ambient conditions (20–27 ◦ C) and relative humidity of 60–100%. Seven
concrete mixes are evaluated for their environmental impact using cradle-to-gate life cycle
assessment (LCA). These seven mixes are: (i) AAC with fly ash as a precursor, activator
modulus of 0.7 and a water–solids ratio of 0.2; (ii) AAC with fly ash and slag as precursors,
activator modulus of 1 and a water-to-solids ratio of 0.3; (iii) AAC with fly ash and slag
as precursors, activator modulus of 1.4 and a water-to-solids ratio of 0.3; (iv) AAC-1.4
with equal proportions of natural and recycled coarse aggregates; (v) BC with nutrients,
calcium nitrate and calcium formate; (vi) BC without nutrients, calcium nitrate and calcium
formate; (vii) PCC.
In this study, the cradle-to-gate LCA technique is used, including estimations of
all emissions and energy consumption from raw material acquisition through concrete
preparation. As the major goal of this study is to compare different sustainable concrete
mixes, the consumption and disposal phases are not studied, and the environmental effect
from these phases is presumed to be similar. The analysis is performed using openLCA
v.1.10.3. The system boundary for the mixes investigated in this study from cradle-to-gate
is presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3. System boundary for cradle-to-gate LCA.
Life Cycle Inventory Analysis
The required data to perform LCA are categorized into two groups: the data associated
with emissions and energy consumptions of materials and transportation specified in the
system boundary, and those related to electricity consumption associated with RCA and
sterilization and incubation associated with preparing the bacterial solution. The emission
and energy consumption data for the materials available in the Ecoinvent database (v. 3.7.1)
are used [69]. The electricity consumption is calculated based on the specification of the
equipment used and the duration or quantity of material processed depending on its
energy consumption. The calculated electricity consumption for the services used in the
present study is listed in Table 4. The energy consumption per unit quantity (jaw crusher)
or time (autoclave and incubator) provided by the manufacturer in the datasheet is used.
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
9 of 21
Table 4. Energy consumption data of services.
Service
Electricity Consumption (kWh)
Jaw crusher
Autoclave
Incubator
1.61
1.00
4.08
The data for yeast extract are not available in the Ecoinvent database; hence, an
alternative for yeast extract production is used in the present study. Previous studies using
yeast extract as one of the ingredients show that soybean meal is a potential alternative
compared to other alternatives such as fish-powder waste, white gluten waste, perilla
meal, sesame meal, and wheat bran [70,71]. Furthermore, the energy consumption per unit
(kg) production of soybean meal and yeast extract are approximately equivalent [72,73].
Therefore, soybean meal is used to simulate the energy consumption by yeast extract
production in the present study. The environmental burden associated with peptone
production is not considered in this study as per the recommendations in the existing
literature [74]. Table 5 presents the freight distances and unit cost of raw materials used in
the current study in INR. The transportation distances are calculated from the source of
their manufacturing to the laboratory where specimens are prepared.
Table 5. Freight distances and unit cost of raw materials and services.
Raw Material
Distance (km)
Cost/kg (Including Freight, INR)
Fly ash
Slag
PC
Sodium silicate
Sodium hydroxide
CRF
River sand
Calcium nitrate
Calcium formate
Coarse aggregate
RCA
Nutrient broth
Water
SP
Electricity
202.0
438.0
231.0
22.8
28.4
24.2
217.0
22.8
22.8
24.2
29.2
39.7
-
4.8
6.6
8.3
80.2
106.2
0.7
1.5
210.0
96.0
1.8
2800.0
0.035
232.5
6.7
The cost of electricity and water is obtained by the guidelines issued by Telangana
State Electricity Regulatory Commission, an Indian government regulatory body. The tariff
charge per unit of energy consumption (kWh) for industries or commercial use is INR
6.70 [75].
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
The environmental impact of a product is quantified through life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) [76]. ReCiPe 2016, following a hierarchist perspective, is used in the
present study. Eleven midpoint indicators are evaluated in this study, which includes
global warming potential (GWP), fossil depletion potential (FDP), freshwater ecotoxicity
(FETP), freshwater eutrophication (FEP), human toxicity potential (HTP), marine ecotoxicity potential (METP), marine eutrophication potential (MEP), ozone depletion potential
(ODP), photochemical oxidant formation potential (POFP), terrestrial acidification potential
(TAP), and terrestrial ecotoxicity potential. The endpoint assessment includes three areas of
protection, viz., quality of ecosystem, human health, and resource depletion. The openLCA
v 1.10.3, an open-source software developed by Hildenbrand et al. [77], is used to evaluate
the impacts for each product within the system boundary.
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
10 of 21
3. Results
3.1. Compressive Strength
The compressive strength of different mixes used in the present study is illustrated
in Figure 4. The overall standard deviation in the compressive strength of different mixes
is 5.50. Hence, the selected mixes are categorized as having equivalent or comparable
compressive strength.
Figure 4. Compressive strength test results.
3.2. Life Cycle Assessment
3.2.1. Midpoint Assessment
Figure 5 presents the results from midpoint impact assessment using ReCiPe 2016
v1.13. It is observed that of all the materials and services considered for four AAC mixes
in the present study, transportation followed by sodium silicate contributed the most to
climate change. The contributions from transportation and sodium silicate for different
AAC mixes vary in the range of 46–53% and 33–21%, respectively. A lower contribution
from sodium silicate is identified in AAC-0.7, owing to a lower quantity of sodium silicate
compared to the other three AAC (AAC-1, AAC-1.4, and AAC-R) mixes. Transportation
entails the combustion of fossil fuels, which results in the release of GHG emissions to the
environment. The primary pollutants released due to the combustion of fuels are GHG
emissions (CO2 , CH4 , N2 O), ozone precursors (CO, NOx , non-methane volatile organic
compounds (NMVOCs)), particulate matter, and toxic materials (furans and dioxins) [78].
In addition to climate change, transportation is the primary contributor to fossil
depletion (51–57%), marine eutrophication (46–52%), photochemical oxidant formation
(61–67%), terrestrial acidification (47–53%), and terrestrial ecotoxicity (66–73%) in AAC
mixes. Fossil depletion due to transportation is attributed to the use of fuels. In the case
of marine eutrophication, excess availability of nitrogen and/or phosphorus can increase
phytoplankton production, disrupt the energy balance of the marine ecosystem, and result
in the acidification of the ocean [79]. Fossil fuel combustion during transportation releases
NOx in addition to other pollutants. If released in higher quantities, NOx can contribute to
the formation of smog and acid rain, subsequently redepositing to the land and/or aquatic
ecosystems [80]. The higher contribution of transportation to photochemical oxidant
formation is due to the release of NMVOCs. These pollutants, released due to the partial
combustion of fuel, react with nitrogen oxide in the presence of light, resulting in the
formation of photochemical ozone [81]. Acidification is caused by air pollutants such as
SO2 , NH3 , and NOx acidifying rivers/streams and soil. These pollutants are also released
during the combustion of fossil fuels during transportation. Acidification aggravates trace
metal mobilization and leaching in soil, causing harm to aquatic and terrestrial animals
and plants by disrupting their energy balance [82]. Terrestrial ecotoxicity is ascribed to the
release of heavy metals by road transportation. It is reported in the literature that one of the
significant sources of heavy metal emissions to the environment is road transportation. The
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
11 of 21
major sources of heavy metal emissions from road transportation include three sources of
tailpipe emissions: (i) the attrition of engines or after-treatment systems, (ii) lubricants, and
(iii) fuel, and non-tailpipe emissions from the attrition of tires or brakes, and road abrasion.
In the present investigation, it is identified that petrol (petrol, low sulfur: ecoinvent 3.7.1) is
the primary source of these trace metal emissions to the environment. The primary trace
metals due to road transportation include arsenic (As), lead (Pb), selenium (Se), chromium,
copper (Cu), cadmium (Cd), zinc (Zn), and mercury (Hg) [83].
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 5. Cont.
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
12 of 21
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
Figure 5. Environmental impacts (%) of different concrete mixes on midpoint damage categories: (a) Climate change,
(b) Fossil depletion, (c) Freshwater ecotoxicity, (d) Freshwater eutrophication, (e) Human toxicity, (f) Marine ecotoxicity,
(g) Marine eutrophication, (h) Ozone depletion, (i) Photochemical oxidant formation, (j) Terrestrial acidification, and
(k) Terrestrial ecotoxicity.
The other significant contributor to the environmental impact of AAC mixes is sodium
silicate, as identified from Figure 5. The contribution of sodium silicate varies in the range
of 49–59% for freshwater ecotoxicity, 39–56% for freshwater eutrophication, 30–44% for
human toxicity, 46–57% for marine ecotoxicity, and 36–57% for ozone depletion. The
hydrothermal dissolution of silica sand in sodium hydroxide solution used to produce
sodium silicate is considered in the present study. The procedure is carried out in an auto-
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
13 of 21
clave, followed by filtration. The production process of sodium silicate entails substantial
energy consumption, which is reported as approximately 1.5 kWh/kg for the hydrothermal
process [84]. The principal cause of the aforementioned environmental impacts by sodium
silicate is electricity consumption during the manufacturing process of sodium silicate and
sodium hydroxide (utilized as one of the raw materials for sodium silicate manufacture). In
the present study, electricity generated by coal combustion is selected. Coal-fired electricity
generation plants release trace metals, SO2 , NO2 , and particulate matter (PM2.5 ) [85]. The
principal source for ecotoxicity (freshwater and marine) is trace metals comprising Hg, As,
Se, Pb, Cd, and Cr, of which Hg is of critical concern. Coal-fired power plants account
for more than one-third of all mercury emissions attributed to human activities [86]. The
release of SO2 , NO2 , and PM2.5 , in addition to trace metals, affects human health. The
ozone depletion contributed by sodium silicate is also due to electricity consumption.
Mining, plant operation, and the emission of halons 1211, 1301 used as fire suppressants
and coolants in gas pipeline distribution all contribute to ozone depletion from coal-fired
power plants [87].
PC is the principal contribution from the mixes BC-N, BC, and PC to climate change
(68–75%), fossil depletion (39–47%), freshwater ecotoxicity (46–54%), freshwater eutrophication (62–65%), human toxicity (47–54%), marine ecotoxicity (46–52%), marine eutrophication (48–56%), photochemical oxidant formation (41–51%), and terrestrial acidification
(47–56%). The calcination phase of PC production results in about 0.525 kg/kg of CO2 emissions. However, depending on the clinker/PC ratio, the emissions ratio can vary between
0.5 and 0.95, and the remainder is attributed to fuel and electricity consumption [88]. The
fossil depletion by PC production can be attributed to the utilization of natural resources as
raw materials and fuel consumption. The emissions contributing to ecotoxicity (freshwater
and marine) and human toxicity are trace metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
dioxins, and particulate matter. Raw materials and fuel are sources for trace metals, and an
incomplete combustion of fuel results in the emission of VOCs. The sources of particulate
matter include raw material crushing, grinding and drying facilities, clinker combustion
process, PC grinding, and the dispatch of PC [89]. Marine eutrophication is primarily
caused by NOx emitted during the production of PC.
However, transportation is responsible for most of the ozone depletion (61–65%) and
terrestrial ecotoxicity (63–70%) resulting from the preparation of BC-N, BC, and PC mixes.
The reasoning behind the contribution of transportation to ozone depletion and terrestrial
ecotoxicity is similar to that of AAC mixes. Fuel combustion also releases ozone precursors,
NOx , CO, and hydrocarbons. The following series of reaction equations elucidate the
conversion of ozone precursors to ozone.
NO2 + hν → NO + O
O + O2 → O3
NO + HO2 → NO2 + OH
The availability of H2 O is from the oxidation of CO or hydrocarbons.
CO + OH → CO2 + H
H + O2 → HO2
Figure 6 presents the normalized midpoint impact indicators for all the mixes. The
ReCiPe normalization factors are provided in Table 6.
CO
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
H
OH → CO
O → HO
H
14 of 21
Figure 6. Normalized impacts of different concrete mixes on midpoint damage categories.
Table 6. Normalization scores for ReCiPe 2016 methodology [90].
Indicator
ReCiPe Midpoint (H)
GWP
FDP
FETP
FEP
HTP-cancer
HTP-no cancer
METP
MEP
ODP
POFP
TAP
TETP
5.51 × 1013
3.93 × 1012
1.74 × 1011
4.48 × 109
7.10 × 1010
2.16 × 1014
3.00 × 1011
3.18 × 1010
4.14 × 108
1.42 × 1011
2.83 × 1011
1.05 × 1014
The overall contribution of individual blends to the impact categories can be effectively
interpreted using Figure 6. The GWP of PC is approximately twice that of AAC-0.7 and
1.4 times that of BC-N. AAC-0.7 has lower environmental impacts among the AAC mixes
across all the impact categories. This is attributed to a lower content of alkaline activators,
viz., sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide used in AAC-0.7 compared to other AAC
mixes. AAC-1, AAC-1.4, and AAC-R show the highest environmental impacts for all the
damage categories, excluding POFP and TAP. This is ascribed to the manufacturing process
of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide. Furthermore, there is negligible variance in
the impacts exhibited by these three mixes due to the usage of an equivalent number of
activators. BC-N and BC have lower environmental impacts for all the damage categories,
excluding GWP. The higher GWP of BC-N and BC is attributed to the use of PC as the
binder. The lower impacts for all the other damage categories are attributed to two factors:
the usage of a lower PC content (335 kg/m3 ) compared to PCC (450 kg/m3 ) and the
complete replacement of silica sand with CRF as fine aggregates. The CRF are not allotted
any environmental burden in the present study and are considered as waste generated
from the stone grinding. Furthermore, the usage of CRF eliminates the environmental
impacts associated with the mining of sand from natural reserves.
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
15 of 21
PCC has the highest POFP and TAP in addition to GWP. The calcination phase in
the production of PC is the primary supplier of CO2 emissions and consequently to
climate change. A reported quantity of 0.525 kg CO2 /kg of clinker is produced during the
decarbonization of limestone in the kiln. The fuel and electricity consumption result in
0.335 kg CO2 and 0.05 kg CO2 emissions per kg of cement [91]. The VOCs emitted during
incomplete combustion contribute to photochemical oxidant formation, whereas NOx ,
SOx and their associated compounds contribute to terrestrial acidification. Approximately
0.0023–0.138 kg VOCs/tonne of clinker are emitted due to the incomplete combustion of
fuel during PC production [89]. NOx and other nitrogen compounds are released when
a fuel nitrogen combines with oxygen in the flame, or due to a combination of ambient
nitrogen and oxygen in the combustion air. The nitrogen-related emissions are in the range
of 0.33–4.67 kg/tonne of clinker. The source of SOx and other sulfur compounds is fuel
and raw materials with a high volatile sulfur content, and their emissions are in the range
of 11.12 kg/tonne of clinker.
3.2.2. Endpoint Assessment
Figure 7 presents the endpoint assessment of different AAC, BC and PCC mixes used
in the present study.
Figure 7. Endpoint environmental impact assessment of different concrete mixes.
The production of all the AAC and BC mixes has a lower negative impact on the
quality of the ecosystem than PCC. The ecosystem quality value of AAC mixes ranges
between 10.12 (AAC-0.7) and 13.09 (AAC-1). In contrast, PCC has a value of 13.59, which
is 25.6% and 3.6% higher than AAC-0.7 and AAC-1, respectively. The emissions from
the production process of PC have a detrimental effect on ecosystem quality, whereas in
AAC mixes, sodium silicate followed by transportation (service) contribute adversely to
the ecosystem quality. Of all the mixes, BC exhibited a lower impact on the quality of
the ecosystem, with an endpoint value of 8.91, which is 34.4% lower than PC. The raw
materials and/or services contributing to the GWP, FEP, FETP, TETP, TAP, and METP are
associated with ecosystem quality.
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
16 of 21
PCC has the highest impact on human health with an endpoint value of 20.69, followed
by AAC-1 with an endpoint value of 14.96. As evident from Figure 7, about 62.5% of the
total impact on human health is caused by the use of PC and 29.7% by transportation in
the PCC mix. In AAC-1, 29.2% of the overall impact on human health is contributed by
sodium silicate and about 43.8% by transportation. BC has the lowest impact on human
health of all the mixes, with an endpoint value of 13.7, which is 33.8% lower than the PCC
mix. The raw materials and/or services considered in the present study and discussed in
the midpoint assessment contributing to particulate matter, HTP, and GWP are associated
with adverse effects on human health.
AAC mixes show the highest resource depletion compared to other mixes. AAC-1 has
the highest resource depletion value of 18.66, of which 45.8% is contributed by transportation and 21.8% by sodium silicate. The endpoint values of AAC-1 and AAC-1.4 differ only
by 1.5%; however, this difference is attributed to sodium hydroxide. The electrolytic phase
of the chloralkali process using diaphragm technology to produce sodium hydroxide is
reported to consume 2.97 kWh/kg of electricity [92]. This electricity consumption by the
manufacturing process of sodium hydroxide is approximately thrice as high as PC and
twice as high as sodium silicate production. When individually considered, the environmental impact due to the production of sodium hydroxide is higher than sodium silicate.
However, due to its usage in lower quantities in the present study, the effect of sodium
hydroxide on different damage categories is minimal. BC has the lowest resource depletion
score of 9.14, which is approximately half of ACC-1.
When an individual type of concrete mix is considered, AAC-0.7 has the lowest
environmental impact on all three areas of protection: ecosystem quality, human health,
and resource depletion of all the AAC mixes. This is attributed to the lower quantity
of sodium silicate used in AAC-0.7 compared to other AAC mixes. In the case of BC
mixes, due to eliminating environmental impacts associated with the use of calcium
nitrate and calcium formate, BC exhibited lower environmental impacts on all three areas
of protection. When all the mixes in the present study are considered, BC exhibits the
lowest environmental impact. Despite the similar binder used in BC and PCC mixes, the
lower environmental impacts by BC are attributed to the lower PC content, the complete
replacement of sand with CRF, and the transportation effect. Though in the case of BC
the number of raw materials is higher compared to PCC, the overall quantity multiplied
by a distance given as input to transportation is approximately half (45.8% lower) of the
PCC mix.
3.3. Economic Assessment
A sustainable concrete mix should also be economically viable to promote its in situ
applications and commercial use. Therefore, a cost analysis is performed for the mixes
investigated in the present study and the results are presented in Figure 8.
The cost of AAC mixes ranging between INR 13172 and INR 17168 is 98.8–159.1%
higher than PCC. BC mixes have an overall cost of INR 8074–10226, which is approximately
21.8–54.3% higher than PCC. Sodium silicate used in AAC contributes to 42.7–62.7%,
lowest in AAC-0.7 and highest for AAC-1.4. Though the unit cost of sodium hydroxide
is high, the higher contribution from sodium silicate is attributed to its higher proportion
in these mixes. Analogously, owing to higher quantities of sodium hydroxide in AAC0.7 and AAC-1, its contribution to the total cost is 20.2% and 15.4%, respectively. The
contribution from PC ranging between 27.2% and 34.4% is highest in BC-N and BC mixes.
The coarse aggregates and nutrient broth result in 17.9–22.7% and 18.3–23.2%, respectively.
Since the overall cost of BC mix is lower than BC-N (by 21.0%) owing to the omission of
nutrients, the contribution from coarse aggregates and nutrient broth is higher in the BC
mix. Calcium nitrate and calcium formate together account for 21.0% of the overall cost
of the combination, with approximately equal individual contributions. The cost of water
and electricity is negligible compared to raw materials and transportation.
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
17 of 21
Figure 8. Cost estimate of different concrete mixes.
4. Conclusions
This study performs a comprehensive life cycle assessment of three different sustainable concrete mixes: (1) alkali-activated concrete (AAC) with natural coarse aggregates,
(2) AAC with recycled coarse aggregates, and (3) bacterial concrete (BC). All the selected
mixes are compared for their environmental impact versus Portland cement concrete (PCC)
of equivalent strength. The environmental implications of three different AAC mixes with
natural coarse aggregates and two different BC mixes (with and without nutrients) are
evaluated as a function of mix proportions. A simplified cost analysis is performed in the
Indian context. The findings are summarized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For different AAC mixtures, contributions from transportation and sodium silicate are
the highest for different midpoint damage categories.
Portland cement is the principal contributor from the BC and PCC mixes to various
midpoint damage categories.
PCC has a GWP that is almost twice that of AAC with an activator modulus of 0.7
(AAC-0.7) and 1.4 times that of BC with nutrients.
Owing to lower quantities of alkaline activators and only fly ash as a precursor, AAC0.7 has the lowest environmental impact of all AAC mixes. The electricity consumption
by recycled coarse aggregates (RCA) increased the environmental impact caused by
AAC with RCA.
PCC and AAC with an activator modulus of 1 (AAC-1) have the most detrimental
effect on the quality of ecosystems and human health. AAC-1 has the highest resource
depletion value (18.66) of all the mixes.
BC (bacterial concrete without nutrients) has the lowest environmental effect of the
evaluated mixes for all midpoint damage categories except GWP and endpoint damage
categories. BC has the lowest resource depletion value (9.14), which is almost half of
ACC-1.
The cost of AAC mixes is 98.8–159.1%, and the cost of BC mixes is 21.8–54.3% higher
than PCC.
Sodium silicate in AAC mixes, PC, coarse aggregates, and nutrient broth in BC mixes
have the highest contribution to the total cost.
The present study provides a detailed LCA of bacterial concrete, which is not reported
in the existing literature. A comprehensive comparison of the environmental impact of
different concrete mixes at midpoint and endpoint damage levels and a cost analysis would
assist the industry and policymakers in identifying a viable, sustainable alternative.
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
18 of 21
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.K.R. and A.K.; methodology, K.K.R.; software, K.K.R.
and R.C.; validation, K.K.R., R.C. and R.K.B.; formal analysis, K.K.R., R.C., and A.K.; investigation,
K.K.R., R.C. and R.K.B.; data curation, K.K.R., R.C., R.K.B., and A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K.R. and A.K.; writing—review and editing, P.K.D.M.; supervision, A.K. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study does not involve any studies on humans or
animals.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear
in the submitted article. Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study is
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Rogelj, J.; Shindell, D.; Jiang, K.; Fifita, S.; Forster, P.; Ginzburg, V.; Handa, C.; Kheshgi, H.; Kobayashi, S.; Kriegler, E.; et al. Global
Warming of 1.5 ◦ C—Chapter 2 Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5 ◦ C in the Context of Sustainable Development; Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 93–174.
Keith, D.W.; Holmes, G.; Angelo, D.S.; Heidel, K. A process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Joule 2018, 2, 1573–1594.
[CrossRef]
UNEP. Building Sector Emissions Hit Record High, but Low-Carbon Pandemic Recovery Can Help Transform Sector. Available online: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/building-sector-emissions-hit-record-high-low-carbon-pandemic
(accessed on 15 June 2021).
UNFCCC. Adoption of the Paris Agreement; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland,
2015. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).
Huang, L.; Krigsvoll, G.; Johansen, F.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X. Carbon emission of global construction sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2018, 81, 1906–1916. [CrossRef]
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]
Danish, A.; Mosaberpanah, M.A.; Salim, M.U.; Fediuk, R.; Rashid, M.F.; Waqas, R.M. Reusing marble and granite dust as cement
replacement in cementitious composites: A review on sustainability benefits and critical challenges. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102600.
[CrossRef]
Rakhimova, N.R.; Rakhimov, R.; Morozov, V.; Eskin, A. Calcined low-grade clays as sources for zeolite containing material. Period.
Polytech. Civ. Eng. 2021, 65, 204–214. [CrossRef]
Barbuta, M.; Bucur, R.D.; Cimpeanu, S.M.; Paraschiv, G.; Bucur, D. Wastes in Building Materials Industry; IntechOpen: London, UK,
2015; Volume 1, pp. 81–99. [CrossRef]
Shao, Y.; Mahoutian, M.; Ghouleh, Z. Carbonation-activated steel slag binder as alternative cementing material. ACI Spec. Publ.
2017, 320, 21.1–21.14.
Marvila, M.T.; Azevedo, A.R.G.D.; Matos, P.R.D.; Monteiro, S.N.; Vieira, C.M.F. Rheological and the fresh state properties of
alkali-activated mortars by blast furnace slag. Materials 2021, 14, 2069. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ramagiri, K.K.; Kar, A. Effect of high-temperature on the microstructure of alkali-activated binder. Mater. Today 2020, 28,
1123–1129. [CrossRef]
Ramagiri, K.K.; Patil, S.; Mundra, H.; Kar, A. Laboratory investigations on the effects of acid attack on concrete containing
portland cement partially replaced with ambient-cured alkali-activated binders. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2020, 10, 221–236. [CrossRef]
Ramagiri, K.K.; Chauhan, D.R.; Gupta, S.; Kar, A.; Adak, D.; Mukherjee, A. High-temperature performance of ambient-cured
alkali-activated binder concrete. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2021, 6, 71. [CrossRef]
Torres-Carrasco, M.; Puertas, F. La activación alcalina de diferentes aluminosilicatos como una alternativa al Cemento Portland:
Cementos activados alcalinamente o geopolímeros. Rev. Ing. Constr. 2017, 32, 5–12. [CrossRef]
Provis, J.L.; Bernal, S.A. Geopolymers and related alkali-activated materials. Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 2014, 44, 299–327. [CrossRef]
Villoria 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]
NITI Aayog. Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy-Current Status and Way Forward; National Institution for Transforming India:
New Delhi, India, 2019.
Akhtar, A.; Sarmah, A.K. Construction and demolition waste generation and properties of recycled aggregate concrete: A global
perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 262–281. [CrossRef]
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
19 of 21
Pyngrope, M.; Hossiney, N.; Chen, Y.; Thejas, H.K.; Sarath, C.K.; Alex, J.; Lakshmish Kumar, S. Properties of alkali-activated
concrete (AAC) incorporating demolished building waste (DBW) as aggregates. Cogent Eng. 2021, 8, 1870791. [CrossRef]
Xiao, J.Z.; Li, J.B. Study on relationships between strength indexes of recycled concrete. J. Build. Mater. 2005, 2, 197–201.
(In Chinese) [CrossRef]
Li, X. Recycling and reuse of waste concrete in China: Part I. Material behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2008, 53, 36–44. [CrossRef]
Kwan, W.H.; Ramli, M.; Kam, K.J.; Sulieman, M.Z. Influence of the amount of recycled coarse aggregate in concrete design and
durability properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 26, 565–573. [CrossRef]
Liu, Q.; Xiao, J.; Sun, Z. Experimental study on the failure mechanism of recycled concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41, 1050–1057.
[CrossRef]
Abdollahnejad, Z.; Mastali, M.; Falah, M.; Luukkonen, T.; Mazari, M.; Illikainen, M. Construction and Demolition Waste as
Recycled Aggregates in Alkali-Activated Concretes. Materials 2019, 12, 4016. [CrossRef]
Turner, L.K.; Collins, F.G. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 -e) emissions: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 43, 125–130. [CrossRef]
Fořt, J.; Vejmelková, E.; Koňáková, D.; Alblová, N.; Čáchová, M.; Keppert, M.; Rovnaníková, P.; Černý, R. Application of waste
brick powder in alkali activated aluminosilicates: Functional and environmental aspects. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 194, 714–725.
[CrossRef]
Katz, A. Properties of concrete made with recycled aggregate from partially hydrated old concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33,
703–711. [CrossRef]
Movassaghi, R. Durability of Reinforced Concrete Incorporating Recycled Concrete as Aggregate (RCA). Master’s Thesis,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2006. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10012/2884 (accessed on 1 June
2021).
Mastali, M.; Abdollahnejad, Z.; Pacheco-Torgal, F. 15—Carbon dioxide sequestration of fly ash alkaline-based mortars containing
recycled aggregates and reinforced by hemp fibers: Mechanical properties and numerical simulation with a finite element method.
In Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Cementitious Construction Materials; Woodhead Publishing: New Delhi, India, 2018; pp. 373–391.
[CrossRef]
de Juan, M.S.; Gutiérrez, P.A. Study on the influence of attached mortar content on the properties of recycled concrete aggregate.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 872–877. [CrossRef]
Abbas, A.; Fathifazl, G.; Burkan Isgor, O.; Razaqpur, A.; Fournier, B.; Foo, S. Proposed Method for Determining the Residual
Mortar Content of Recycled Concrete Aggregates. J. ASTM Int. 2007, 5, 1–12. [CrossRef]
Akbarnezhad, A.; Ong, K.C.G.; Zhang, M.H.; Tam, C.T.; Foo, T.W.J. Microwave-assisted beneficiation of recycled concrete
aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 3469–3479. [CrossRef]
Yanagibashi, K.; Inoue, K.; Seko, S.; Tsuji, D. A study on cyclic use of aggregate for structural concrete. In Proceedings of the SB05:
The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, Japan, 27–29 September; pp. 9–11.
Shima, H.; Tateyashiki, H.; Matsuhashi, R.; Yoshida, Y. An Advanced Concrete Recycling Technology and its Applicability
Assessment through Input-Output Analysis. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2005, 3, 53–67. [CrossRef]
Sidiq, A.; Setunge, S.; Gravina, R.J.; Giustozzi, F. Self-repairing cement mortars with microcapsules: A microstructural evaluation
approach. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 232, 117239. [CrossRef]
Kane, J.W.; Tomer, A. Shifting into an Era of Repair: Us Infrastructure Spending Trends. Brookings. Available online: https:
//www.brookings.edu/research/shifting-into-an-era-of-repair-us-infrastructure-spending-trends/ (accessed on 15 June 2021).
Alves, L.; Alves, L.; Mello, M.; Barros, S.D. Characterization of bioconcrete and the properties for self-healing. Proceedings 2019,
38, 4. [CrossRef]
ONS. Construction Output in Great Britain: May 2016, Office for National Statistics. Available online: https://www.ons.gov.
uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/bulletins/constructionoutputingreatbritain/may2016 (accessed on 1 June
2021).
Best, R.D. Global Investments on the Construction and Maintenance of Infrastructure as Share of GDP in 2018. Available
online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/566787/average-yearly-expenditure-on-economic-infrastructure-as-percent-ofgdp-worldwide-by-country/ (accessed on 15 June 2021).
Wu, M.; Johannesson, B.; Geiker, M. A review: Self-healing in cementitious materials and engineered cementitious composite as a
self-healing material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 28, 571–583. [CrossRef]
Termkhajornkit, P.; Nawa, T.; Yamashiro, Y.; Saito, T. Self-healing ability of fly ash–cement systems. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2009, 31,
195–203. [CrossRef]
Jonkers, H.M.; Thijssen, A.; Muyzer, G.; Copuroglu, O.; Schlangen, E. Application of bacteria as self-healing agent for the
development of sustainable concrete. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 230–235. [CrossRef]
De Muynck, W.; De Belie, N.; Verstraete, W. Microbial carbonate precipitation in construction materials: A review. Ecol. Eng. 2010,
36, 118–136. [CrossRef]
Erşan, Y.Ç.; Hernandez-Sanabria, E.; Boon, N.; de Belie, N. Enhanced crack closure performance of microbial mortar through
nitrate reduction. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2016, 70, 159–170. [CrossRef]
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
20 of 21
Zhang, W.; Zheng, Q.; Ashour, A.; Han, B. Self-healing cement concrete composites for resilient infrastructures: A review. Compos.
B. Eng. 2020, 189, 107892. [CrossRef]
Achal, V.; Mukerjee, A.; Sudhakara Reddy, M. Biogenic treatment improves the durability and remediates the cracks of concrete
structures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 48, 1–5. [CrossRef]
Chahal, N.; Siddique, R.; Rajor, A. Influence of bacteria on the compressive strength, water absorption and rapid chloride
permeability of fly ash concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 28, 351–356. [CrossRef]
Sonali Sri Durga, C.; Ruben, N.; Sri Rama Chand, M.; Venkatesh, C. Performance studies on rate of self healing in bio concrete.
Mater. Today 2020, 27, 158–162. [CrossRef]
Jena, S.; Basa, B.; Panda, K.C.; Sahoo, N.K. Impact of Bacillus subtilis bacterium on the properties of concrete. Mater. Today 2020,
32, 651–656. [CrossRef]
Khaliq, W.; Ehsan, M.B. Crack healing in concrete using various bio influenced self-healing techniques. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016,
102, 349–357. [CrossRef]
Shaheen, N.; Khushnood, R.A.; Ud din, S. Bioimmobilized limestone powder for autonomous healing of cementitious systems: A
feasibility study. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 2018, 7049121. [CrossRef]
Khushnood, R.A.; ud din, S.; Shaheen, N.; Ahmad, S.; Zarrar, F. Bio-inspired self-healing cementitious mortar using Bacillus
subtilis immobilized on nano-/micro-additives. J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 2018, 30, 3–15. [CrossRef]
Manzur, T.; Rahman, F.; Afroz, S.; Huq, R.S.; Efaz, I.H. Potential of a microbiologically induced calcite precipitation process for
durability enhancement of masonry aggregate concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2017, 29, 04016290. [CrossRef]
Papanikolaou, I.; Arena, N.; Al-Tabbaa, A. Graphene nanoplatelet reinforced concrete for self-sensing structures—A lifecycle
assessment perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 118202. [CrossRef]
Alazhari, M.; Sharma, T.; Heath, A.; Cooper, R.; Paine, K. Application of expanded perlite encapsulated bacteria and growth
media for self-healing concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 160, 610–619. [CrossRef]
Xu, J.; Wang, X.; Zuo, J.; Liu, X. Self-Healing of Concrete Cracks by Ceramsite-Loaded Microorganisms. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng.
2018, 2018, 5153041. [CrossRef]
Wang, J.; Van Tittelboom, K.; De Belie, N.; Verstraete, W. Use of silica gel or polyurethane immobilized bacteria for self-healing
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 26, 532–540. [CrossRef]
Luo, M.; Qian, C. Influences of bacteria-based self-healing agents on cementitious materials hydration kinetics and compressive
strength. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 121, 659–663. [CrossRef]
Wang, J.Y.; Soens, H.; Verstraete, W.; De Belie, N. Self-healing concrete by use of microencapsulated bacterial spores. Cem. Concr.
Res. 2014, 56, 139–152. [CrossRef]
Paine, K. Bacteria-based self-healing concrete: Effects of environment, exposure and crack size. In Proceedings of the RILEM
Conference on Microorganisms-Cementitious Materials Interactions, Delft, The Netherlands, 23 June 2016; Wiktor, V., Jonkers, H.,
Bertron, A., Eds.; RILEM Publications S.A.R.L.: Paris, France, 2016.
BIS. IS 12269 Ordinary Portland Cement, 53 Grade—Specification; Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 2013.
ASTM. C150/C150M Standard Specification for Portland Cement; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
BIS. IS 383 Coarse and Fine Aggregate for Concrete—Specification (Third Revision); Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi, India,
2016.
El-Hassan, H.; Ismail, N. Effect of process parameters on the performance of fly ash/GGBS blended geopolymer composites. J.
Sustain. Cem.-Based Mater. 2018, 7, 122–140. [CrossRef]
El-Hassan, H.; Shehab, E.; Al-Sallamin, A. Influence of different curing regimes on the performance and microstructure of
alkali-activated slag concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2018, 30, 04018230. [CrossRef]
Salmasi, F.; Mostofinejad, D. Investigating the effects of bacterial activity on compressive strength and durability of natural
lightweight aggregate concrete reinforced with steel fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 251, 119032. [CrossRef]
ASTM. C39/C39M-18 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens; ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
Moreno Ruiz, E.; Valsasina, L.; FitzGerald, D.; Symeonidis, A.; Turner, D.; Müller, J.; Minas, N.; Bourgault, G.; Vadenbo, C.;
Ioannidou, D.; et al. Documentation of Changes Implemented in Ecoinvent Database v3. 7 & v3. 7.1; Ecoinvent Association: Zürich,
Switzerland, 2020. Available online: https://www.ecoinvent.org/files/change_report_v3_7_1_20201217.pdf (accessed on 15 June
2021).
Sahnoun, M.; Kriaa, M.; Elgharbi, F.; Ayadi, D.-Z.; Bejar, S.; Kammoun, R. Aspergillus oryzae S2 alpha-amylase production under
solid state fermentation: Optimization of culture conditions. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2015, 75, 73–80. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hong, M.; Jang, I.; Son, Y.; Yi, C.; Park, W. Agricultural by-products and oyster shell as alternative nutrient sources for microbial
sealing of early age cracks in mortar. AMB Express 2021, 11, 11. [CrossRef]
Kumar, L.R.; Yellapu, S.K.; Zhang, X.; Tyagi, R.D. Energy balance for biodiesel production processes using microbial oil and scum.
Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 272, 379–388. [CrossRef]
Hill, J.; Nelson, E.; Tilman, D.; Polasky, S.; Tiffany, D. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and
ethanol biofuels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 11206. [CrossRef]
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 104
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
21 of 21
Myhr, A.; Røyne, F.; Brandtsegg, A.S.; Bjerkseter, C.; Throne-Holst, H.; Borch, A.; Wentzel, A.; Røyne, A. Towards a low CO2
emission building material employing bacterial metabolism (2/2): Prospects for global warming potential reduction in the
concrete industry. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0208643. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
TSERC. Retail Supply Tariff Order for FY 2018-19—Salient Features. Available online: https://tserc.gov.in/file_upload/uploads/
Tariff%20Orders/Tariff%20Schedule/Tariff%20Schedule%20for%20FY2018-19.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).
BIS. IS/ISO 14040 Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment; Requirements and Guidelines; Bureau of Indian Standards:
New Delhi, India, 2006.
Hildenbrand, J.; Srocka, M.; Siroth, A. Why We Started the Development of OpenLCA. Available online: https://www.openlca.
org/the-idea/ (accessed on 26 June 2021).
Ntziachristos, L.; Samaras, Z. EMEP/EEA Emission Inventory Guidebook 2009; European Environment Agency (EEA): Copenhagen,
Denmark, 2009.
Jessen, C.; Roder, C.; Villa Lizcano, J.F.; Voolstra, C.R.; Wild, C. In-situ effects of simulated overfishing and eutrophication on
benthic coral reef algae growth, succession, and composition in the central Red Sea. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66992. [CrossRef]
Selman, M.; Greenhalgh, S. Eutrophication: Sources and Drivers of Nutrient Pollution. WRI Policy Note, Water Quality:
Utrophication and Hypoxia. Available online: https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/pdf/eutrophication_sources_and_drivers.
pdf (accessed on 26 June 2021).
Hauschild, M.; Potting, J. Spatial Differentiation in Life Cycle Impact Assessment-The EDIP2003 Methodology. Available
online: https://lca-center.dk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Spatial-differentiation-in-life-cycle-impact-assessment-the-EDIP2
003-methodology.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2021).
Kim, T.H.; Chae, C.U. Environmental impact analysis of acidification and eutrophication due to emissions from the production of
concrete. Sustainability 2016, 8, 578. [CrossRef]
Pulles, T.; Denier van der Gon, H.; Appelman, W.; Verheul, M. Emission factors for heavy metals from diesel and petrol used in
European vehicles. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 61, 641–651. [CrossRef]
Fawer, M.; Concannon, M.; Rieber, W. Life cycle inventories for the production of sodium silicates. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1999, 4,
207. [CrossRef]
Koiwanit, J.; Manuilova, A.; Chan, C.; Wilson, M.; Tontiwachwuthikul, P. A comparative study of human health impacts due to
heavy metal emissions from a conventional lignite coal-fired electricity generation station, with post-combustion, and oxy-fuel
combustion capture technologies. In Greenhouse Gases: Selected Case Studies; Manning, A., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2016.
[CrossRef]
Castleden, W.M.; Shearman, D.; Crisp, G.; Finch, P. The mining and burning of coal: Effects on health and the environment. Med.
J. Aust. 2011, 195, 333–335. [CrossRef]
Atilgan, B.; Azapagic, A. Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity from fossil fuels in Turkey. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106,
555–564. [CrossRef]
Worrell, E.; Price, L.; Martin, N.; Hendriks, C.; Meida, L.O. Carbon dioxide emissions from the global cement industry. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 2001, 26, 303–329. [CrossRef]
Schorcht, F.; Kourti, I.; Scalet, B.M.; Roudier, S.; Sancho, L.D. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Production of
Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide; European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies:
Seville, Spain, 2013.
Huijbregts, M.A.; Steinmann, Z.J.; Elshout, P.M.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.D.M.; Hollander, A.; Zijp, M.; van Zelm, R.
ReCiPe2016. A Harmonized Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level. Report I: Characterization; RIVM
Report 2016-0104; National Institute for Human Health and the Environment: Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2016. Available online:
https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2016-0104.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).
Bosoaga, A.; Masek, O.; Oakey, J.E. CO2 capture technologies for cement industry. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 133–140. [CrossRef]
EuroChlor. The European chlor-alkali industry: An Electricity Intensive Sector Exposed to Carbon Leakage. Brussels, Belgium.
2010. Available online: https://www.eurochlor.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/3-2-the_european_chlor-alkali_industry_
-_an_electricity_intensive_sector_exposed_to_carbon_leakage.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2021).