Environmental implications of Geopolymers

29 June 2015 | Joseph Davidovits

How should we consider geopolymers? Many scientists and civil engineers are mistaking
alkali-activation for geopolymers, fuelling confusion, using them as synonyms without
understanding what they really are. We find in the literature either LCAs of geopolymer
cements/concretes or LCA of alkali-activated-materials. The latter encompass the specific
fields of alkali-activated slags, alkali-activated coal fly ashes, alkali-activated blended
Portland cement.
A dedicated Geopolymer Institute video deals with the major differences prevailing
between alkali-activated-materials and geopolymer cements: Why Alkali-Activated
Materials are NOT Geopolymers? http://www.geopolymer.org/faq/alkali-activatedmaterials-geopolymers. First, we explain the main differences between alkali-activatedconcrete, alkali-activated-slag, alkali-activated-fly ash on one hand and Slag-based
Geopolymer cement on the other hand, in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, longterm durability. In a second part, we comment the industrialization of Slag/fly ash-based
geopolymer cement/concrete by the company Wagners, Australia, and we focus on the
results provided by the carbonation testing data obtained for ordinary Portland cement,
alkali-activated-slag and Slag/fly ash-based geopolymer concrete EFC. The tests were
carried out at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology RMIT in Australia. Geopolymer
cement behaves like regular Portland cement, whereas alkali-activated-slag gets very bad
carbonation results.
Are geopolymers a new material, a new binder or new cement for concrete? Geopolymers
are all of these. They are new binders and resins for coatings and adhesives, fiber
composites, waste encapsulation and new cement for concrete. The wide variety of
applications includes: fire resistant materials, decorative stone artefacts, thermal insulation,
low-tech building materials, low energy ceramic tiles, refractory items, thermal shock
refractories, bio-technologies (materials for medicinal applications), foundry industry,
cements and concretes, composites for infrastructures repair and strengthening, high-tech
composites for aircraft interior and automobile, high-tech resin systems, radioactive and
toxic waste containment, arts and decoration, cultural heritage, archaeology and history of
sciences.
Geopolymers are not only cement/concrete. We have geopolymer resins and binders as well
as geopolymer cements. From a terminological point of view, cement is a geopolymer
binding system that hardens at room (ambient) temperature, like regular Portland cement. If
a geopolymer compound requires heat setting it may not be called geopolymer cement.
Therefore, a review of the environmental implications and Life Cycle Assessment LCA of
geopolymers must be split into two subthemes in order to cover the variety of applications,
namely:

Environmental implications of geopolymer resins/binders;

Environmental implications of geopolymer cements/concretes.

1. Environmental implications of geopolymer resins and binders: benefits and impact

(LCA)
The invention of geopolymer resins and binders goes back to 1972, when, in the aftermath
of various catastrophic fires in France causing hundreds of casualties in public buildings
which involved common organic plastic, research on non-flammable and non-combustible
plastic materials became our priority.
We founded a private research company in 1972, Cordi SA (called later CordiGopolymre), to develop new inorganic fire-resistant polymer materials which we called
geopolymers (mineral polymers resulting from geochemistry or geosynthesis). Still
today, the environmental impact LCA for organic polymers is limited in the data gathered
during manufacture, with very few or no data on service life and behaviour during fire.
We knew that we would not reach fire resistance and zero toxicity with organic chemistry.
We started to look at chemical reactions implying non-burnable materials, more specially
clays. We learned from a ceramicist team that it was possible to manufacture ceramic tiles
at low temperatures (< 200C). One component of clay, kaolinite, reacted with caustic soda
NaOH at 150C. The industrial application of this kaolinite reaction with alkali began in the
ceramic industry with Olsen in 1934 and was, later on, reinvented in 1970 by the Russian
team Berg et al. for the manufacture of ceramic wall tiles.
A scientific approach on the environmental benefits, different to modern environmental
impact LCA, was assessed in the 1990s when we started the development of fire resistant
geopolymer-fiber-composite panels for aircraft cabin interiors. The American Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) with R. Lyon initiated this R&D at the head of the Fire
Section of FAA (1999-2000). According to FAA, all major accidents involving cabin/cargo
fires would have been avoided with fireproof geopolymer composites. Indeed, all materials
presently used in aircraft constructions (aluminium and plastics) burn as evidenced by the
remaining hull of a Saudi Arabian Lockheed L-1011 in 1990. Although the plane landed
safely, all 301 aboard died before rescue crews could reach them. The fire started in the aft
cargo compartment and the crew failed to take immediate steps to evacuate the plane after
landing. Generally, when a plane crash-lands and catches fire, half the people who survive
the impact may not get out in time. That is because the plastics in the cabinthe seat
cushions, carpeting, walls and luggage binsare combustible. And when they burn, they
give off flammable gases that, in two minutes, can explode into a fireball. The main
objective of the FAA project was summarized in a short sentence: " Giving Survivors More
Time to Escape". It involved three partners: the Civil Engineering Department of Rutgers
University, USA. (P. Balaguru) in charge of the making of the geopolymer/carbon fiber
composite, the Fire Section of FAA, Atlantic City, USA (R. Lyon, 1997), where the testing
where performed, and our company Cordi-Gopolymre, Saint-Quentin, France, which
supplied the geopolymer, resins. The performances of the geopolymer/carbon fiber
composite were compared with those of the organic polymer matrices currently in use, such

as: thermoset (vinyl ester, epoxy), advanced thermoset (BMI, PI), phenolic, and
engineering thermoplastic (PPS, PEEK).
The present special issue, acknowledging the scarcity of publication on the problem, tries to
collect the best of the scientific production on the environmental implications of
geopolymer resins and binders used in industry applications.
LCA for organic polymers, with emphasis on the danger resulting from the emission of
toxic fumes during fire did not exist at that time, and even today. The Human Toxicity
Potential values found in the LCA for organic products (resins or plastics) do not include
any measurement of fire hazard. The human toxicity potential (HTP), a calculated index
that reflects the potential harm of a unit of chemical released into the environment, is based
on both the inherent toxicity of a compound and its potential dose. Total emissions can be
evaluated in terms of dichlorobenzene equivalence (carcinogens) and toluene equivalents
(noncarcinogens). The potential dose is calculated using a generic fate and exposure model
which determines the distribution of a chemical in a model environment and accounts for a
number of exposure routes, including inhalation, ingestion of produce, fish, and meat, and
dermal contact with water and soil. No mention of fire hazards and toxic fumes emissions.
Geopolymers are used commercially in foundries for the fabrication of sand cores for
aluminium casting. However, very little data are available in the literature. The main focus
is here dedicated to the elimination of the emission sources of organic resins during all
stages of the sand cores manufacture in aluminium foundries. There are highly volatile
components (amine, formaldehyde, furan, isocyanate, etc.) emitted during sand mixing,
core making, core storage, oven drying and cast of aluminium (with pyrolysis and
recombination products).
On the opposite, any geopolymer binder types are emission free. This topic was addressed
in two separated presentations at the Geopolymer Camp. One by Walllenhorst (2010) on the
very successful implementation of the Inotec Inorganic Moulding Material in the
automobile industry, involving Na-poly(siloxonate) type geopolymer (Na)-(Si-O-Si-O-SiO). The second, in 2014 by Krahula on the technology of mold and core production with
inorganic binder system Geopol, involving Na-poly(sialate-siloxo) type geopolymer (Na)(Si-O-Al-O-Si-O-).
The present selection of papers dedicated to the Environmental implications of geopolymer
resins and binders used in industry applications begins with the previously cited R. Lyon et
al. (1997) Fire resistant aluminosilicate composites, Technical Paper # 1 at
http://www.geopolymer.org/category/library/technical-papers/
It compares Geopolymer/Carbon-fiber composite to organic matrix composites being used
for infrastructure and transportation applications. At irradiance levels of 50 kW/m2 typical
of the heat flux in a well developed fire, glass- or carbon-reinforced polyester, vinyl ester,
epoxy, bismaleimide, cyanate ester, polyimide, phenolic, and engineering thermoplastic
laminates ignited readily and released appreciable heat and smoke, while carbon-fiber
reinforced geopolymer composites did not ignite, burn, or release any smoke even after
extended heat flux exposure. The geopolymer matrix is of the K-poly(sialate-multisiloxo)

type with a ratio Si:Al in the range of 18 to 35. The carbon fiber composite retains sixtythree percent of its original flexural strength after a simulated large fire exposure. This
paper was written almost 20 years ago. Though not specific as a modern LCA per se, it is
probably the most relevant paper of that period, even as it only scratches the surface of this
still largely unexplored research topic.
Another paper by the same group was published in 2000, (Hammel et al., 2000) in an
Elsevier publication. It is titled Strength retention of fire resistant aluminosilicatecarbon
composites under wetdry conditions, Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 107111.
A more recent paper by the well known racing cars manufacture McLaren, UK, The
development of a high temperature tensile testing rig for composite laminates, Composites:
Part A 52 (2013) 99105, by J. Mills-Brown et al. stresses the exceptional properties of a
geopolymer matrix of the polysialate type. This study aimed to develop a high temperature
tensile test capable of testing fiber reinforced composites up to 1000 C, in order to
understand the behavior of certain composites at these temperatures and produce data
suitable in the design of high temperature structures (mechanical strength as well as
emission and toxicity).
There exists only one LCA paper published in 2009 comparing a geopolymer mortar with
an organic lining. It is found at the end of one LCA for geopolymer concrete established by
a team at Bauhaus University, Weimar, Germany (Weil et al. 2009) on the protective
coatings of Portland cement based sewage pipes. Titled Life-cycle analysis of geopolymers,
by Weil et al. (2009), it is the Chapter 10 of the book Geopolymer, Structure, processing,
properties and industrial applications, edited by J. Provis and J. van Deventer, Woodhead
Publishing Limited. When increased resistance against acid is requested and/or a longer life
cycle is desired, concrete pipes are often lined with high-density polyethylene (HDPE). A
metakaolin/fly ash-based geopolymer grout reaches much lower values for all
environmental impact indicators considered, with and without consideration of raw material
transportation. This study did not address the issue of fire and toxic fume emission.
However, it is possible to compare the LCA of geopolymer resins with specific organic
molecules. In the following Table 1, we put the environmental impact of a petroleum based
epoxy resin taken from a paper published by La Rosa et al. (2014) Bio-based versus
traditional polymer composites. A life cycle assessment perspective, Journal of Cleaner
Production 74 (2014) 135-144, and the value for geopolymer resin constituents of the type
Na-PSS, poly(sialate-siloxo) involving NaOH powder, Na-silicate and metakaolin MK-750.
The values for geopolymer were taken from the paper by Habert et al. (2011), An
environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current
research trends, Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1229-1238, except for the Nasilicate value obtained from Fawer et al. (1999) Life Cycle Inventories for the Production
of Sodium Silicates, Int. J. LCA 4 (4) 207-212 (1999). (See the discussion below in LCA
for geopolymer cements/concretes).
Table 1: environmental impact of a petroleum based epoxy resin compared with
geopolymer resin constituents of the type Na-PSS, Na-poly(sialate-siloxo), comprising MK
= 353 kg, Na-Silicate =588 kg and NaOH=59 kg, for 1000 kg.

Petroleum
Units
Impact category

Abiotic
(ADP)

basedepoxy
resin

Depletion Kg
eq.

Sb

56.4

NaOH
powder

Na-silicate
3.3
37%% solid

Metakaolin Geopolymer
resin (NaMK-750 PSS)

16.40

7.22

0.168

5.27

Acidification
Potential (AP)

Kg SO2
40.3
eq.

10.7

5.22

0.32

3.81

Eutrophication
Potencial (EP)

Kg PO4
6.6
eq.

0.810

0.495

0.049

0.35

Kg CO2
6,663
eq.

2,024

425

92.4

282.6

Kg CFC1.26E-6
11 eq.

13.8E-5

8.82E-5

1.52E-6

6.05E-5

Kg 1.4490.44
DB eq.

957

803

23

536.75

240

212

32

150.11

46.6

8.96

0.323

8.13

Global Warming
Potential (GWP)

Ozone
Depletion

Layer

Potential (ODP)

Human
Potential

Toxicity

(HTP)

Freschwater Aquatic
Kg 1.4246.5
Ecotoxicity Potential DB eq.
(FAETP)

Territorial

Kg

1.4- 29.1

Ecotoxicity Potential
DB eq.
(TETP)
The geopolymer resin outperforms the epoxy resin value with respect to Global Warming
Potential by a factor of 23, as well as all others, except for Human Toxicity Potential, which
is a surprise. This is due to the high value given for this Na-silicate solution.
Several published LCAs of soluble silicates used in detergents are providing contradictory
results on Human Toxicity Potential values. According to some authors (Warne et al.
1999) , the solution form of sodium silicate was markedly more toxic than the solid form.
The difference in toxicity of these two forms is possibly due to the presence of NaOH in the
solution (14% mass/mass). We find this reasoning strange because there is no free NaOH in
Na-silicate 3.3 (37%%) solid solution, only Na-silicate oligomers. In addition, it is well
known for decades that it is harmless for human, according to all MSDS (Materials Safety
Data Sheets) available for commercial soluble silicates. May be, one database made a
mistake, and we hope to find it in the next future.
2. Environmental implications of geopolymer cements/concretes: environmental
benefits and impact (LCA)
There is often confusion between the meaning of the two terms cement and concrete. A
cement is a binder whereas concrete is the composite material resulting from the addition of
cement to stone aggregates. In other words, to produce concrete one purchases cement
(generally Portland cement) and adds stone aggregates to the concrete batch with water.
From a terminological point of view, cement is a geopolymer binding system that hardens
at room temperature, like regular Portland cement. If a geopolymer compound requires heat
setting it may not be called geopolymer cement. Geopolymer cement is an innovative
material and a real alternative to conventional Portland cement for use in transportation
infrastructure, construction and offshore applications. It relies on minimally processed
natural materials or industrial by-products to significantly reduce its carbon footprint, while
also being very resistant to many of the durability issues that can plague conventional
concretes.
Creating geopolymer cement requires an alumina silicate material, a user-friendly alkaline
reagent (sodium or potassium soluble silicates with a molar ratio MR SiO 2:M2O>1.50, M
being Na or K) and water. Room temperature hardening relies on the addition of calcium
cations, essentially iron blast furnace slag. The raw material MK-750 is a kaolinitic clay
calcined at 750C, hence the designation MK-750 in this paper.
Geopolymer cement is sometimes mixed up with alkali-activated cement and concrete, or
alkali-activated-material. Despite more than 50 years of trials in Eastern Europe
(Glukhovsky, 1965; Tailing and Brandstetr, 1989) and China (Shi et al., 2006), alkaliactivated materials are not manufactured separately and not sold to third parties as
commercial cement. The chemistry is used only in the making of alkali-activated concretes,

either with alkali-salts (Na2SO4, Na2CO3, etc.), alkali hydroxides (NaOH, KOH) and alkalisilicates, essentially on blast-furnace slag.
The first geopolymer cement was developed in the 1980s and was of the type (K,Na,Ca)poly(sialate) or metakaolin MK-750/slag/(Na,K) silicate -based geopolymer cement. It
resulted from the research developments carried out by Davidovits and Sawyer at Lone Star
Industries, USA and yielded to the invention of the well-known Pyrament cement. The
development of this new cement did not result from any ecological or environmental
concerns but focused on niche applications such as early high strength. It was discovered
that the addition of ground blast furnace slag, which is a latent hydraulic cementitious
product, to the poly(sialate) type of geopolymer resin described above in Section 1) for
geopolymer resin/binder, accelerates the setting time and significantly improves
compressive and flexural strength. The resulting Davidovits/Sawyer US patent was filed in
Feb. 22, 1984, and the patent US 4,509,985 was granted on April 9, 1985, titled 'Early
High-Strength Mineral Polymer'. The corresponding European Patent, filed in 1985, is
titled 'Early High-Strength Concrete Composition'. James Sawyer's team adapted the
geopolymeric cement formulations for use in the production of precast and prestressed
concrete (heat cured Pyrament), while also developing ultra-rapid high ultimate strength
cement (ambient temperature cured Pyrament). The latter enables pavement to be placed so
that heavy traffic can traverse in four hours.
At Lone Star, Heitzmann and Sawyer (1989) likewise blended Portland cement with
geopolymer. Their purpose was to take advantage of the good properties of geopolymer
cement along with the low manufacturing cost of Portland cement. The resulting Pyrament
Blended Cement (PBC) is very close to alkali-activated pozzolanic cement (US Patent
4,842,649). Pyrament PBC cement comprises 80% ordinary Portland cement and 20% of
geopolymeric raw materials, that is, calcium silicate and alumino-silicates MK-750. The
early-high-strength cement comprises an alkaline salt (K2CO3) and a retarder, citric acid. As
of fall 1993, Pyrament PBC concrete was listed for over 50 industrial facilities in the USA,
57 military installations in the USA, and 7 in other countries, and for non-military airports.
The US Army Corps of Engineers released a well-documented study on the properties of
Pyrament Blended Cements based concretes, which were performing better than had ever
been expected for high-quality concretes. Pyrament PBC manufacture stopped in 1997,
when Lone Star Industries was sold to a European cement company. After twenty five years
of heavy service at airports, the Pyrament PBC concretes are in excellent conditions
contrary to Portland cement concretes which had to be replaced or repaired (see
Geopolymer Camp 2011 Keynote Video State of Geopolymer R&D 2011
http://www.geopolymer.org/conference/gpcamp/gpcamp-2011 (at time 27:30).
In the 1980s, environmental concerns were only focusing on pollution produced by toxic
mining wastes and radioactive wastes, i.e. on the advantages of using geopolymer cement.
They were not dealing with the environmental impact of its production (LCA). The
Canadian governmental agency CANMET funded a research project into the solidification
of radioactive residues, jointly carried out by the companies Cordi- Gopolymre (France)
and Comrie (Toronto, Canada) (1987-1988). It was discovered that the MK-750/Slag/
(Na,K) silicate-based geopolymer cement had a very high potential for toxic and
radioactive waste management. Indeed, geopolymerization is a geosynthesis (a reaction that

chemically integrates minerals) that involves naturally occurring silico-aluminates. Silicon

and aluminium atoms react to form molecules that are chemically and structurally
comparable to those binding natural rock (cited in the paper by Davidovits, 1991).
Later on, the European research project GEOCISTEM (1994-1997) successfully tested this
technology in the context of the East-German mining and milling remediation project,
carried out by the German company Wismut. In other investigations carried out in 1998,
special emphasis had been laid on the solidification of sludge contaminated by decay
products of the U-238 and U-235 series, arsenic, and a variety of hydrocarbons. This sludge
stem from existing sedimentation ponds and, more importantly, from water treatment
plants which remove radioactive and heavy metals from mine effluents prior to their
discharge into rivers.
The disposal of radioactive and toxic sludge must meet at least two conditions:
1. Safe chemical encapsulation of the contaminants, i.e., prevention of their release
into ground and seepage water in order to minimize the health risks via the water
path. Contaminant release is controlled by the leaching properties of the
immobilization matrix.
2. Structural stability with respect to adverse environmental conditions such as rapid
changes of temperature and humidity, microbial and chemical aggression and
mechanical stress, in order to guarantee safe handling during operation time and
minimize the risk of uncontrolled spread of contaminated matter over the next
several hundred years.
These conditions cannot be reached with conventional Portland cement essentially because
of its very weak resistance to acids. Alkali-activated-materials are also providing bad
results due to high leachates of toxic cations. In fact, any safe heavy metals or radioactive
containment requires the implementation of a technology involving MK-750/K-silicatebased geopolymers, exclusively. The geopolymer tested was a commercial geopolymer of
the (K,Ca)poly(sialate-siloxo) (K,Ca)PSS, type, called Geopolymite 50 manufactured by
Cordi-Gopolymre, France. This is a MK-750 Ca/based geopolymer involving two
components: ?

100 parts A: powder (metakaolin MK-750 50, slag 50, mineral filler 20);

100 parts B: liquid (K-silicate with MR = 1.30) ?

This property of MK750/slag/(Na,K) silicate-based geopolymer cement was confirmed

later on by Perera et al. (2006) who went further and compared the stabilization efficiency
of fly ash-based and MK-750 based geopolymeric systems. 1 and 5 wt. % Cs and Sr were
added as the nitrates or hydroxides separately. The geopolymers were characterized by Xray diffraction analysis, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray
spectroscopy (EDS). PCT tests were carried out on selected materials, which were heated to
temperatures as high as 900C. They found that MK-750-based geopolymers have much

lower leach rates for Na and K than fly ash-based materials. Also the leach rates for Cs and
Sr are much lower than those for the fly ash based geopolymers.
Perera et al. (2005) had already confirmed the superiority of the metakaolin MK-750-based
geopolymer for the safe immobilization of Pb. In a geopolymer matrix prepared by mixing
a MK-750 precursor with a solution of silicate, 1 wt. % Pb as the nitrate was immobilized.
Under the United States Environmental Protection Agency test protocol the Pb release was
less than 5 ppm, the acceptable limit for landfills in the U.S.A. Electron microscopy
showed Pb was present in the major amorphous phase.
Consequently, any safe heavy metals or radioactive containment requires the
implementation of a technology involving MK-750-based geopolymers, exclusively. It is
precisely this method that was proposed initially by Davidovits at the beginning of his
study on toxic waste management in 1987.
After the first successful testing performed in the CANMET (1988) project, extensive
laboratory investigations were carried out later in 19961999 in Europe. The German
company Wismut and the Saxon State Office for Environment set up an intensive program
(Hermann et al. 1999). The Soviet-German company Wismut heavily extracted uranium
from 1945 until 1990, to the exclusive use of the former Soviet Union USSR for its nuclear
weapons. Wismut was the third world uranium producer during this period. The pilot-scale
experimentation fully reproduced the laboratory results. The pilot-scale experiment,
involving 20 tonnes of low level radioactive mining waste, impressively demonstrated the
technological maturity of the geopolymer technology presented at the Geopolymer
Conference 1999.
The first study on the environmental impact (LCA), with respect to Global Warming
Potential (GWP) related to the CO 2 emission comparison between Portland cement
manufacture and geopolymer cement started as early as 1990, at PennState Materials
Research Laboratory, Pennstate University, USA. Unfortunately, American Agencies (DOE
and EPA) stated that this was not an important issue and both institutions declined to
support research proposals. The theoretical studies were presented at several conferences,
Davidovits (1993, 1994). Ordinary Portland cement is a serious atmospheric pollutant.
Studies have shown that approximately 0.85 to 1.0 tons of carbon dioxide gas is released
into the atmosphere for every ton of Portland cement which is made anywhere in the world.
The Portland cement industry reacted strongly by lobbying the legal institutions so that they
delivered CO2 emission numbers, which did not include the part related to calcium
carbonate decomposition, focusing only on combustion emission. In 1997, UNs
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put the industrys total contribution to CO 2
emissions at 2.4%; the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory in Tennessee quoted 2.6 %, instead of including both sources: energy
(representing 45% of the CO2 emission) and decarbonation of calcium carbonate (the main
raw material) for 55%, totalizing 5,80 % of [world] 1997 CO2 emission. Eighteen years
later, the situation has worsened with Portland cement CO 2 emissions approaching 3 billion
tonnes a year (Hasanbeigi et al. 2012).

In 2002 at the World Climate Congress in Rio de Janeiro, statistics integrated the actual
values and the Portland cement industry started introducing so-called "blended cements",
involving the addition of mineral ingredients such as coal fly ash, so that today, 2015, the
reduction may reach a maximum of 30%-50%.
Geopolymer cements are manufactured in a different manner than that of Portland cement.
They do not require extreme high temperature kilns, with large expenditure of fuel, nor do
they require such a large capital investment in plant and equipment. Thermal processing of
naturally occurring alkali- silico-aluminates and alumino-silicates (geological resources
available on all continents) is providing suitable geopolymeric raw materials.
We mentioned above that the applications dealing with toxic/radioactive waste management
were carried out with commercial geopolymer cement called Geopolymite 50 (Davidovits,
1991) with the ratios MK-750/slag/K-silicate being 1/1/2 respectively. Due to the high
amount of K-silicate, this first geopolymer cement cannot be proposed as a valuable
replacement or competitor for Portland cement because it is too expensive. In addition, as
will be discussed below, the high amount of alkali-silicate is not appropriate with respect to
the Global Warning Potential in the environmental impact assessment LCA.
Therefore, as early as 1993, we set our effort in R&D projects dedicated to the strong
reduction of the alkali-silicate amount, for concrete and building applications. We already
mentioned the European R&D project GEOCISTEM. With the help of the geological team
involved in the project, this second generation of geopolymer cements was based on the
replacement of the alkali (Na,K)-silicates with a selection of cheap high alkali volcanic
tuffs. The project sought to manufacture cost-effectively geopolymer cements for
applications dealing with the long-term containment of hazardous and toxic wastes on one
hand, and in construction and civil engineering on the other hand, with strong CO 2
emission, up to 80% when compared with Portland cement.
This geopolymer cement of the second generation is coined "Rock-based geopolymer
cement". The manufacture includes the components with the ratios MK-750/slag/volcanic
tuffs/ alkali silicate being 1/1/2/1. Compared with the first generation, the amount of alkalisilicate solution is reduced from 50% by weight to 20% by weight. A more competitive
geopolymer cement with lower CO2 is obtained, according to the Davidovits patent (2003)
when instead of making a mixture of MK-750 and feldspathic-volcanic rock, one uses
naturally occurring geological products containing these two elements in-situ. Indeed,
kaolinite is the result of the weathering of feldspars and it is naturally found in weathered
granitic residual rocks. The weathered granitic residual rock consists of 20 to 40 percent by
weight of kaolinite and 80 to 60 percent by weight of feldspathic, and quartzitic residual
sand containing reactive silica. In order to have a maximum reactivity, the weathered
granitic residual rock in which kaolinization is very advanced, is calcined at a temperature
ranging between 650C and 800C and, on one hand, ground at an average grain size of 1525 microns for the feldspathic and quartzitic parts, the kaolinitic part, on the other hand,
having naturally a quite lower particle size. In that case, the make up of this rock-based
geopolymer cement comprised the ratios slag/weathered granite/ alkali silicate being
1.5/3.5/1. Compared to the first generation, the amount of alkali-silicate solution is reduced
from 50% by weight to 17% by weight.

It must be noted that these rock-based cements have very high mechanical strength, in the
range of 100-125 MPa compressive strength at 28 days. It seems obvious that a reduction of
the most expensive element, namely alkali-silicate solution, may go down to 10 % for a
regular cement/concrete of the type 30-35 MPa.
The energy needs and CO2 emissions calculations for this second generation of geopolymer
cements (Davidovits, 2013) are significantly reduced. In the most favourable case slag
availability as waste (no allocation) there is a reduction of 59% of the energy needs in
the manufacture of Rock-based geopolymer cement in comparison with Portland cement. ?
In the least favorable case slag manufacture (allocation) the reduction reaches 43%. ?
As for CO2 emission, in the most favorable case slag availability as waste (no allocation)
there is a reduction of 80% of the CO 2 emission during manufacture of Rock-based
geopolymer cement in comparison with Portland cement. ?In the least favorable case
slag manufacture (allocation) the reduction reaches 70%. ?
It was recently discovered that weathered basaltic rocks, lateritic type, also contain
kaolinitic species similarly to weathered granites. This geological resource comprises up to
40% by weight of kaolinitic clay and up to 40% iron oxides. This is a valuable raw material
for Rock-based geopolymer cements.
In other words, geological resources for Rock-based geopolymer cements are available
throughout all the five continents. When limestone, the main raw material in the production
of Portland, is not available, geopolymer cement has the potential to receive the same
traction in the market place as has Portland cement. We have seen that main categories of
materials from which geopolymer cements may be derived are MK-750/slag-based,
rock/slag-based. These geopolymer cements require blast furnace slag for their manufacture
and thus the geopolymer cement industry will be intrinsically linked with the availability of
slag by-products from the iron and steel industry. Or it must be manufactured as mentioned
above in the CO2 emissions calculations.
Concerning the environmental implications of Rock-based geopolymer cement, we must
rely on the fact that it contains MK-750 and, therefore, follow the rules developed above on
MK-750-based geopolymer cement.
There is a third category of geopolymer cement based on another industrial waste, coal fly
ash, essentially low calcium fly ash of class F. This material has been extensively studied
since year 2008. Looking in the database Science Direct on 14/04/2015, we found 1,102
occurrences with the keywords 'geopolymer + fly ash'. The majority of the scientific
articles were published in Construction and Building Materials (232), Cement and
Concrete Composites (82), Cement and Concrete Research (81), Ceramics International
(58) and Journal of Hazardous Materials (48).
As early as 1994, Davidovits mentioned the potential for this fly ash-based geopolymer
cement. Here is the excerpt of the paper available in the Geopolymer Institute Library,
Technical paper #5 Global Warming Impact on the Cement and Aggregates Industries: " ...
Development means implementing the use of electricity on one hand and building

infrastructures and houses on the other hand; in short, electricity and concrete. The byproduct of electricity production with coal firing is fly ash. The innovative step would be to
produce electricity and low- CO2 cement (geopolymeric cement), in the same plant, by
adapting and implementing fly-ash production into Geopolymeric raw material, without
any supplementary chemical- CO2 emission. .... , this would allow electricity utilities to
produce million of tonnes of low- CO2 fly ash-based Geopolymer cement. .... In other
words, implementing such a new technology would give a wide potential for any further
development of electricity production with coal firing plants."
Presently, we have two types based on Class F fly ashes:
- Type 1: alkali-activated fly ash material:? it uses high caustic NaOH (user-hostile) + fly
ash; after dissolution in the caustic slurry, the fly ash particles become embedded in an
alumino-silicate gel with Si:Al= 1 to 2, building a zeolitic type (chabazite-Na and sodalite)
matrix. In general, it requires heat hardening at 60-80C and is not manufactured separately
as a cement but used to directly manufacture fly-ash based concrete.
This alkali-activation of fly ash is very often qualified with the term "geopolymer"
which is totally wrong. These studies are interesting from a scientific point of view but are
generating confusion in the geopolymer manufacturing community. Despite the proven fact
of their dangerousness, their causticity, they are recommended as the "Current State of the
Art" in several review papers. Although, during the Geopolymer 2005 Conference in SaintQuentin, end users representatives complained about this situation, several scientists do not
take this situation into account and continue to promote highly corrosive systems in their
alkali-activated-materials AAM. This could explain why their cement technology does not
achieve any applications at all.
- Type 2: slag/fly ash-based geopolymer cement (user-friendly): it uses the incongruent
covalent bonding concept developed in Davidovits' book Geopolymer Chemistry and
Applications, which allows the fabrication of fly ash-based geopolymer with non corrosive
conditions in a user-friendly system. One obtains a room-temperature cement hardening
with user-friendly silicate solution + blast furnace slag + fly ash. The fly ash particles are
embedded in a geopolymeric matrix with Si:Al= 2, (Ca,K)-poly(sialate-siloxo). This
material resulted from the EU sponsored R&D project "Understanding and mastering coal
fired ash geopolymerization process in order to turn potential into profit", known under the
acronym GEOASH (2004-2007). In this project, since the idea is to use the geopolymer as
a cement, the curing is taking place at ambient temperature, with a modified (Ca,K)based
system that does not include MK-750. The Final Technical and Scientific Report was
presented mid 2008, and information were published, for example Nugteren et al. (2005),
Davidovits (2005), lvarez-Ayuso (2008), Davidovits et al. (2008), Izquierdo et al. (2009).
One finds a dedicated paper in the Geopolymer Institute Library, Technical paper #22:
GEOASH, ambient temp. hardening of fly ash-based geopolymer cements.
In the case of the slag/fly ash-based geopolymer cement (Type 2) (Davidovits et al. 2006),
the make up comprises the ratios slag/fly ash/ alkali silicate being 1/5/1. This is for cement
developing a compressive strength in the range of 100 MPa at 28 days. Compared with the
first generation, the amount of alkali-silicate solution is reduced from 50% by weight to

14% by weight. For a lower strength, in the range of 40 MPa, the ratios are 1/8/1, i.e. a
reduction of the amount of alkali-silicate solution down to 10 % by weight.
With respect to the environmental implications, according to Izquierdo et al. (2009), Type
1: alkali-activated fly ash material leads to products in which the mobility of oxyanionic
species is 5 to 50 times higher than the Type 2 slag/fly ash-based geopolymer cement (userfriendly). For example, Vanadium values are 10 mg/kg for geopolymer to be compared with
500 mg/kg for alkali-activated-materials. In the geopolymeric matrices, the cations are
fixed or trapped inside the synthesized poly(sialate) frameworks. Taking into account other
relevant properties (higher compressive strengths and lower conversion costs), it can be
concluded that the geopolymerization method is more attractive and safer than the simple
alkali-activation process.
Notwithstanding this fact, the majority of published Environmental Impact LCA studies are
dealing with alkali-activated materials. They ignore the evolution of the formulations for
geopolymer cement since its invention in 1983-85 (see Table 2), simply because it pertains
to industrial and commercial implementation, not to "regular" scientific studies. It is a fact
that the scientific community continues to neglect the patent literature.
The first LCA was presented at the Geopolymer Camp 2010 by Habert et al. (2010) (see at
http://www.geopolymer.org/conference/gpcamp/gpcamp-2010) and it was a shock for the
attendance. They claimed that, in terms of CO2 emission, geopolymer cement was not better
than Portland cement, and worse for other parameters. One of their studies involved a mix
design containing metakaolin MK-750 and Na-silicate and, because of the high amount of
alkali silicate needed in the formulation, they claimed that geopolymer cement emitted
twice the amount of Portland cement. This statement was taken for granted by other
scientists without any further consideration.
Habert et al. did not recognize that this formulation was not geopolymer cement but rather
a geopolymer resin/binder, because it does not harden at ambient temperature. This
geopolymer material was discussed in Section 1) above and its environmental impact
presented in comparison with organic resins/binders, not as a replacement of Portland
cement. Its Global Warming Potential was calculated to be 282.6 kg CO2 / 1000 kg,
compared to 6,663 kg CO2 for epoxy. We already mentioned the strong reductions in the
amount of alkali-silicate (K-silicate) that occurred in the various developments of the
geopolymer cement types, since 1985 until 2006. They are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Evolution of the amount in potassium-silicate % by weight of geopolymeric
formulation for room temperature hardening geopolymer cements since 1983-85 (see
explanation in the text).
Pyrament Geopolymite 50

Rock-based Rock-based Fly Ash-based

Fly Ash-based

(1985)

(1997)

(2006)

(1987)

(2002)

(2006)

50 %

50 %

100 MPa

50 MPa

100 MPa

40 MPa

20 %

17 %

14 %

10 %

LCA of commercialized geopolymer cement/concretes are seldom. This is due to

proprietary reasons. One is dedicated to the geopolymer concrete named E-Crete,
developed by the Australian company Zeobond and written on behalf of one of its licensees
(see
at
http://www.start2see.com.au/site/index.php/component/zj_fileseller/?
view=tag&tag=E-Crete&Itemid=). It is a slag/fly ash/alkali-silicate-based geopolymer
cement/concrete (Type 2). The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for E-Crete
compared to standard concrete is primarily attributed to savings achieved through the use of
a geopolymer binder. As E-Crete and standard concrete are similar in non-binder materials
used and behavior after production, there is some dilution of the benefits when measured
over the full life cycle (LCA). The greenhouse gas emissions during the life cycle of ECrete are approximately 62%-66% lower than emissions from the reference concrete. The
E-Crete geopolymer cement has ca. 80% lower embodied greenhouse gas intensity than an
equivalent amount of ordinary Portland cement binder used in reference concrete of a
similar strength, confirming the data published by the Geopolymer Institute.
-----------The present selection of papers dedicated to the Environmental benefits of geopolymer
cements begins with the previously cited Davidovits (1991) paper Geopolymers: Inorganic
Polymeric New Materials originally published in J. Thermal Analysis, Vol. 37, 1633-1656
(1991). It summarizes the work carried out for CANMET, Ottawa, Canada on toxic mining
wastes safe containment. Though not specific to Environmental benefits, this paper, written
almost 26 years ago is the most cited scientific paper on geopolymer science.
The applications in the foundry industry are the papers by Wallenhorst (2010), Industrial
application in Foundry Business and Krahula (2014)The technology of mould and core
production with inorganic binder system - Practical using in foundry industry Keynote
video here.
A review paper presented at the Geopolymer Conference 2002, Melbourne, Australia,
Environmentally Driven Geopolymer Cement Applications discusses the results obtained
either during the CANMET (1987-1988) project or during the GEOCISTEM and Wismut
(1998) pilot experimentations on Uranium mine tailings and radioactive sludge.
The paper Solidification of Various Radioactive Residues by Gopolymre With Special
Emphasis On Long-Term-Stability http://www.geopolymer.org/library/technical-papers/13solidifaction-of-various-radioactive-waste-geopolymer-long-term-stability by Herman et al.
(1999) describes with more details the pilot experimentation carried out at Wismut with the
MK-750/slag/K-silicate geopolymer cement type on radioactive waste safe containment.

The major role played by metakaolin MK-750-based geopolymer in radioactive waste

management is confirmed in a recent paper by Xu et al. (2014), DuraLith geopolymer
waste form for Hanford secondary waste: Correlating setting behaviour to hydration heat
evolution, Journal of Hazardous Materials 278 (2014) 3439.
The Environmental benefits of Type 2 fly ash-based geopolymer cement are presented in
Izquierdo et al. (2009) paper Coal fly ash-based geopolymers: microstructure and metal
leaching, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 166, 561566). The results are also summarized
in the Technical paper #22 by Davidovits et al. (2014) GEOASH: ambient temp. hardening
of fly ash-based geopolymer cements, http://www.geopolymer.org/library/technicalpapers/geoash-fly-ash-geopolymer.
Another paper by the same group (2010) The role of open and closed curing conditions on
the leaching properties of fly ash-slag-based geopolymers, Journal of Hazardous Materials
176 (2010) 623628, provides more details on the best experimental ambient temperature
curing method. It indicates that the discussed curing condition induces a significant effect
on several properties such as the leaching values of toxic metals.
----------The present selection of papers dedicated to the Environmental impact LCA of geopolymer
cements begins with the previously cited Davidovits (1994) paper Global Warming Impact
on the Cement and Aggregates Industry, http://www.geopolymer.org/library/technicalpapers/5-global-warming-impact-on-the-cement-and-aggregates-industry dedicated to the
low CO2 emission potential of geopolymer cements, when compared to Portland cement.
Although this first paper was written 21 years ago, all the calculation discussed in terms of
CO2 emission have been verified and actualized, for example in the paper by Hasanbeigi et
al. (2012) Emerging energy-efficiency and CO2 emission-reduction technologies for cement
and concrete production: A technical review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
16 (2012) 62206238.
Before starting the critical analysis of the LCA papers published in Elsevier's journals, the
paper Geopolymer cement review 2013, http://www.geopolymer.org/library/technicalpapers/21-geopolymer-cement-review-2013 , confirms the good CO2 emissions values
estimated for Rock-based geopolymer cements, as well as for Type 2 slag/fly ash-based
geopolymer cement. Compared to Portland cement, the reductions are in the range of 70 %
to 90 %. These values do not include any additional external constraints like transport from
or to the utility. They reflect the actual potential as soon as industrialization starts in full
swing.
We mentioned that the presentation at the Geopolymer Camp 2010 by Habert (2010) was a
shock for the attendance. We could get precise details in Habert et al. (2011) paper An
environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current
research trends, Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1229-1238. It is a welldocumented survey, which lists numerous mix-designs, the majority of them pertaining to
alkali-activated-materials, not to genuine geopolymer cements/concretes. In fact they took

each mineral ingredient separately, blast-furnace slag, fly ash, metakaolin, each of them
being "activated" by a Na-silicate solution. They studied their LCA implications and stated
that current alkali-activated mix designs made from fly ash alone or blast-furnace slag
alone emit less CO2 than Portland cement. However, this reduction is not sufficient to
achieve the objectives. This study also highlights that the environmental impact of alkaliactivated-materials stems from the use of the sodium silicate solution. In this case, the
sodium silicate solution would lead to a pollution transfer within all of the other
environmental impact categories.
The authors concluded that the ideal solution would be to strongly diminish the amount of
alkali-silicate and, consequently, to follow the genuine geopolymer methods discovered and
implemented by Davidovits. We quote: "...the solution, proposed by Davidovits, has the
advantage of using less [silicate] and slag than pure GBFS geopolymer concrete. This is
beneficial from an environmental point of view..." In other words: away from alkaliactivated-materials.
In fact, another paper by Ouellet-Plamondon and Habert (2014) confirms that their study
was dedicated to alkali-activated materials, not to geopolymer cements at all. It is found as
Chapter 25, of the Handbook of Alkali Activated Cements, Mortars and Concretes, and is
titled: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of alkali-activated cements and concretes.
Actually, the most important document is the LCA paper by Fawer et al. (1999) Life Cycle
Inventories for the Production of Sodium Silicates, Int. J. LCA 4 (4) 207-212 (1999). Life
Cycle Inventories were compiled by EMPA St. Gallen / Switzerland from 12 West
European silicate producers covering about 93% of the total alkaline silicate production in
Western Europe. The production routes for five typical commercial sodium silicate
products were traced back to the extraction of the relevant raw materials from the earth.
The CO2 emission for the glass sodium silicate Na-silicate 3.3 (WR) furnace lumps (100%)
is 1,066 kg /tonne, and for the solution Na-silicate 3.3 (WR) furnace route, 37% solid, 424
kg/tonne. This solution is precisely the major raw ingredient in all mix designs listed in
Habert's paper. Although Habert et al. write in their paper, quotation "data for sodium
silicate solution come from Fawer et al. (1999)", the value given in their Table 2 for the
solution (37% solid) is 1.14 kg CO 2 eq. This is in the range of the value for the solid glass
(100%), not diluted in water, in Fawer's paper, instead of the expected 0.424 kg CO 2 eq for
the solution (we mentioned this value in our Table 1 above). This is a methodological
flagrant error. We may therefore conclude that all the CO 2 emissions and environmental
impacts calculated in Habert et al. paper are wrong and must be roughly divided by 2.
We have the same situation in another paper by Turner and Collins (2013), Carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement
concrete, Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 125130. The Australian team
could not get any data from silicate producers. They calculated theoretically the CO 2
emissions for the Na-silicate glass (100%), got 1.222 kg CO 2 eq/kg for the emission arising
during manufacturing (i.e. a value higher than Fawer and Habert), added 30% more for
transport, and ended with a total emission estimate of 1.514 kg CO 2 eq per kg sodium
silicate solution. The problem is that, like in Habert et al. paper, they used this value,

estimated for the 100% solid lumps, on place of the actual value of the diluted silicate
solution (45% solid). Here too, the CO 2 emissions calculated are wrong and must be
roughly divided by 2.
The paper by McLellan et al. (2011) Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in
comparison to ordinary Portland cement, Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 10801090, provides accurate values for the silicate solution. The value found for the solid form,
100% concentration, was multiplied by 0.37 to get the value for the solution at 37%
concentration. Yet, the final conclusions are highly affected by the enormous transport
distances found in Australia. The source locations for the sodium silicate are China, India,
UK, and USA. They conclude that compared with emissions from Portland cement
concrete, emissions from geopolymer concrete can be 97% lower up to 14% higher. Each
application for geopolymers therefore needs to be assessed for its specific location, given
that the impact of location on overall sustainability is one of the determining factors.
Another paper providing the actual numbers for the sodium silicate solution, namely 0.445
CO2 kg-eq, was published by Heath et al. (2014), Minimising the global warming potential
of clay-based geopolymers, Journal of Cleaner Production 78 (2014) 75-83. This value is in
the range of the number given in Fawer et al. paper. Their target was to replace the
expensive metakaolin MK-750 by cheaper calcined meta-clays.
All LCAs published are also focusing on the amount of CO 2 that must be added to the
original manufacture emissions in order to reflect the long distances that the raw
ingredients and chemicals (metakaolin, slag, alkali-silicates) have to go all over before
reaching their destinations. Sometimes, these distances are enormous: 6000 km for
metakaolin or Na-silicate. This could contribute to a doubling of the Global Warming
Potential numbers.
We feel, there is something unfair in these calculations. Local special environmental impact
assessments are generalized to serve as references for the entire world. But the most
striking element is that each paper compares a well-established, 170 years old industry
involving hundreds of cement plants and terminals, with a start-up situation. Thinking in
terms of innovation and R&D results implementation, the authors would have been better
inspired in calculating at least 2 cases: first, their present laboratory situation, second, the
one that will prevail in 5-10 years from now when industrialisation starts in full swing.
There is a lack in the methodology as well as in standard procedures.
For people involved in R&D and innovation, the logic would have been to consider the
market forces. As a matter of fact, business will foster the manufacturing of the chemicals
and ingredients to take place as close as possible to the market. We know for example that a
global major alkali-silicate manufacturing company has launched the marketing of a
slag/fly ash-based geopolymer cement/concrete of Type 2 (see the geopolymer concrete
Alacrete at http://www.alacrete.in). It is logical to understand why their target is to cover
the emerging countries, India, Africa, and others, with alkali-silicates production sites
located close to the market and to the geopolymer cement manufacturing sites.

The editors hope this selection will inspire additional, and much-needed, research on the
environmental implications of genuine geopolymer cement mix designs, bearing in mind
that industrialization and commercialization already started with the production of
structural geopolymer concretes for public buildings and infrastructures (airport). See
Wagners' geopolymer concrete EFC at http://www.wagnerscft.com.au/products/efc and at
Geopolymer Institute News pages http://www.geopolymer.org/news.
References
Hammell J.A, Balaguru P.N, Lyon R.E, Strength retention of fire resistant aluminosilicate
carbon composites under wetdry conditions, Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 107111.
Mills-Brown J., Potter K., Foster S., Batho T., (2013) The development of a high
temperature tensile testing rig for composite laminates, Composites: Part A 52 (2013) 99
105.
Weil M., Dombrowski K., Buchwald A., (2009), Life-cycle analysis of geopolymers, in
Geopolymer, Structure, processing, properties and industrial applications, edited by J.
Provis and J. van Deventer, Woodhead Publishing Limited.
La Rosa A.D., Recca G., Summerscales J., Latteri A., Cozzo G., Cicala G., (2014), Biobased versus traditional polymer composites: A life cycle assessment perspective, Journal
of Cleaner Production 74 (2014) 135-144.
Habert G., dEspinose de Lacaillerie J.B., Roussel N., (2011), An environmental evaluation
of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends, Journal of
Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1229-1238.
Warne M. St. J., Schifko A. D., Toxicity of laundry detergent components to a freshwater
cladoceran and their contribution to detergent toxicity, Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety 44, 196-206 (1999).
Hasanbeigi Ali, Price Lynn, Lin Elina , Emerging energy-efficiency and CO2 emissionreduction technologies for cement and concrete production: A technical review, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (2012) 62206238.
lvarez-Ayuso E., Querol X., Alastuey A., Moreno N., Izquierdo M., Font O., Moreno T.,
Diez S., Ramonich E.V. and Barra M., (2008), Environmental, physical and structural
characterization of geopolymer matrices from coal (Co-) combustion fly ashes, Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 154, 175183.
Izquierdo M., Querol X., Davidovits J., Antenucci D., Nugteren H. and Fernndez- Pereira
C., (2009), Coal fly ash-based geopolymers: microstructure and metal leaching, Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 166, 561566.

Xu H., Gong W., Syltebo L., Lutze W., Pegg I. L., (2014), DuraLith geopolymer waste form
for Hanford secondary waste: Correlating setting behavior to hydration heat evolution,
Journal of Hazardous Materials 278 (2014) 3439.
Izquierdo M., Querol X., Phillipart C., Antenucci D., Towler M., (2010) The role of open
and closed curing conditions on the leaching properties of fly ash-slag-based geopolymers,
Journal of Hazardous Materials 176 (2010) 623628.
Ouellet-Plamondon C., Habert G., (2014), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of alkali-activated
cements and concretes, Handbook of Alkali Activated Cements, Mortars and Concretes, ed.
by Pacheco-Torgal et al., Woodhead Publishing, 2014.
Turner L. K., Collins F. G., (2013), Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: A
comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete, Construction and Building
Materials 43 (2013) 125130.
McLellan B. C., Williams R. P., Lay J., van Riessen A., Corder G. D., (2011), Costs and
carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary Portland cement,
Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1080-1090.
Heath A., Paine K., McManus M., (2014), Minimising the global warming potential of clay
based geopolymers, Journal of Cleaner Production 78 (2014) 75-83.
Further reading:
Lyon R.E, Foden A.J., Balaguru P.N., Davidovits J. and Davidovics M., (1997), Properties
of Geopolymer Matrix-Carbon Fiber Composites, Fire and Materials, 21, 6773.
Fawer M., Concannon M., Rieber W., (1999), Life Cycle Inventories for the Production of
Sodium Silicates, Int. J. LCA 4 (4) 207-212 (1999).
Glukhovsky V.D., (1965), Soil silicates, Their Properties, Technology and Manufacturing
and Fields of Application, Doct Tech Sc. Degree thesis, Civil Engineering Institute. Kiev.
Talling B. and Brandstetr J., (1989), Present state and future of alkali-activated slag
concrete, 3rd International Conference on the Use of Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag & Natural
Pozzolans in Concrete, ACI SP-114, Trondheim, Norway, vol. 2, 15191545.
Shi C., Krivenko P.V. and Roy D.M., (2006), Alkali-Activated Cements and Concretes,
Taylor
&
Francis
ed.,
London.
Davidovits J., (1991), Geopolymers: Inorganic Polymeric New Materials, J. Thermal
Analysis, Vol. 37, 1633-1656 (1991).

Perera D.S., Vance E.R., Aly Z., Davis J. and Nicholson C.L., (2006), Immobilization of Cs
and Sr in geopolymers with Si:Al molar ratio of 2, Ceramic Transactions, 176, 9196.?
Perera D.S., Aly Z., Vance E.R. and Mizumo M., (2005), Immobilization of Pb in a
geopolymer matrix, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 88 (9), 25862588.?
Hermann E., Kunze C., Gatzweiler R., Kiessig G. and Davidovits J., (1999), Solidification
of various radioactive residues by Geopolymere with special emphasis on long-term
stability, Geopolymer 99 Proceedings, 211228.
Davidovits J., (1993), Geopolymer Cements to minimize Carbon-Dioxide Green- house
Warming, Ceramic Transactions, 37, Cement-Based Materials: Present, Future and
Environmental Aspects, pp. 165182.
Davidovits J., (1994), Global Warming Impact on the Cement and Aggregates Industries,
World Resource Review, 6, No. 2, 263278.
Davidovits J. and Davidovits R., (2003), Poly(sialate-disiloxo)-based geopolymeric cement
and production method thereof, PCT Patent WO03/099738, US Patent US 7,229,491.
Davidovits J., Geopolymer cement review 2013, Geopolymer Institute Library, Technicalpapers #21.
Davidovits J., Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications, (2008-2011), 3rd ed. Institut
Gopolymre, Saint-Quentin, France.
Nugteren H., Davidovits J., Antenucci D., Fernndez Pereira C. and Querol X., (2005),
Geopolymerization of fly ash, WOCA 2005 Proceedings, World of Coal Ash Conference.
Davidovits J., (2005), Geopolymer chemistry and sustainable Development, The
poly(sialate) terminology: a very useful and simple model for the promotion and
understanding of green-chemistry, Geopolymer 2005 Proceedings, 915.
Davidovits J., Izquierdo M., Querol X., Antennuci D., Nugteren H., Butselaar- Orthlieb V.,
Fernndez-Pereira C. and Luna Y., (2008), The European Re- search Project GEOASH:
geopolymeric cement based on European fly-ashes, Proceedings 2nd Intern. Conf.
Ceramics ICC2, Verona, Italy.
Davidovits J., Izquierdo M., Querol X., Antennuci D. , Nugteren H., Butselaar-Orthlieb V.,
Fernndez-Pereira C. and Luna Y., (2014), The European Research Project GEOASH:
Geopolymer Cement Based On European Coal Fly Ashes, Technical Paper #22,
Geopolymer Institute Library, www.geopolymer.org (2014).
Davidovits J., Davidovits R. and Davidovits M., (2006), Ciment gopolymrique base de
cendres volantes et grande innocuit demploi, French Patent Application 06/06923;
International Patent Publication WO 2008/012438