Resources, Environment and Sustainability 4 (2021) 100024

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Environment and Sustainability

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

Perspective

Environmental sustainability in cement industry: An integrated approach for

green and economical cement production
Lochana Poudyal 1 , Kushal Adhikari ∗,1
Department of Civil, Environmental, & Construction Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords:
CO2 emissions
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Supplementary Cementing Materials (SCMs)
Nanotechnology and nano CaCO3
Sustainable cement production
Environmental sustainability
The carbon footprint of cement industries has been a major environmental issue in recent decades. Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS), use of Supplementary Cementing Materials (SCMs) as partial replacement to
cement, and use of nanotechnology are some approaches that are being tested and practiced for reducing the
carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions from the cement industries. Each of these approaches, however, comes with
their own limitations and the implementation in real industrial scenarios is yet a concern. This paper proposes
an integrated approach where CO2 captured from cement plant will be utilized within the plant for producing
nano calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ) for use in cement manufacturing process. This technology incorporates all
the above three approaches and help cement industries produce sustainable, durable, and economical cement
while reducing the CO2 emissions into the atmosphere: thus, leading towards green infrastructure and global
environmental sustainability. Additionally, adoption of this technology ensures proper dispersion of nano
materials thereby improving the performance of concrete. Further, this technology is economically attractive
to cement industries as they will have a new product (nano CaCO3 ) with much higher cost than cement with
potential of additional economic revenues.

1. Introduction energy efficiency, switching to alternative fuels, reducing the clinker

Cement industry is one of the leading contributors of greenhouse
gases after power plant industries. Approximately 4.1 billion metric
tons of cement are currently produced globally every year, accounting
for about 8 to 10 percent of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Wang,
2020), and is expected to continually increase in the future adding
more CO2 into the atmosphere. A study by Chatham house (McDonald
et al., 2019) showed that the cement industry should reduce the cement
clinker to 60% and then take special measures in capturing and storing
CO2 to control the impact of cement industry on environment by 2050.
1.1. Techniques for CO2 reduction in cement industries
The cement and concrete industry searches for ways to meet in-
creasing demand while reducing the carbon footprint of the concrete
produced. Techniques such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), ma-
terial substitution, alternative fuels and energy efficient technologies
have been identified as some of the approaches to produce more
sustainable cement (Habert et al., 2020; Ighalo and Adeniyi, 2020).
The roadmap, produced by the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD), the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the
Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI), identified four levers (improving
to cement ratio, and using emerging and innovative technologies) to
improve the carbon footprint of cement and concrete production (Sean
and Kevin, 2019).
1.1.1. Carbon capture and storage (CCS)
CCS technologies, including absorption, membrane-based processes,
mineral carbonation, and the use of oxyfuel, has been studied as
one of the prominent solutions to minimize CO2 emissions in the
atmosphere (Boot-Handford et al., 2014; Habert et al., 2020). Modi-
fied cement products such as CO2 concrete (Vance et al., 2015) and
several other new technologies, including Solidia technology, Car-
bicrete, and Carbon cure (Dean, 2020), are being examined to minimize
the CO2 emissions from cement production thereby making cement a
sustainable construction material.
However, most of the studies are either limited to application like
precast industries or utilizes the raw materials that are available on
a regional basis thus restricting their abundant use. Additionally, the
widespread concerns relating to long-term reliability and high capital
cost suggest that CCS alone may not be technically and commercially
viable option (Imbabi et al., 2012). Further, the CCS technologies
are associated with legal issues and uncertainties delaying large-scale
implementation (Habert et al., 2020; Van Vuuren et al., 2018).

∗ Correspondence to: Department of Civil, Environmental, & Construction Engineering, Texas Tech University, 911 Boston Ave, Lubbock TX, 79409, USA.
E-mail addresses: lochana.poudyal@ttu.edu (L. Poudyal), kushal.adhikari@ttu.edu (K. Adhikari).
1
Both the authors contributed equally.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2021.100024
Received 27 December 2020; Received in revised form 9 March 2021; Accepted 23 March 2021
Available online 27 March 2021
2666-9161/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Lishui Institute of Ecology and Environment, Nanjing University. This is an open
access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
L. Poudyal and K. Adhikari
1.1.2. Supplementary cementing materials (SCMs)
Other commonly used approach is the material substitution. SCMs
such as fly ash, slag, GGBFS (Ground-granulated blast-furnace slag),
limestone powder, silica fume, RHA (Rice Husk Ash), calcined clay,
metakaolin, and pumice has been used to partially replace the OPC
(Ordinary Portland Cement) (Hossain, 2005; Malhotra, 1993; Shariq
et al., 2008; Siddique and Klaus, 2009; Wang et al., 2018). These
materials help in improving the performance of concrete either by
pozzolanic or by cementitious reactions. However, all these SCMs come
with their own limitations (Habert et al., 2020; Poudyal et al., 2021a;
Snellings, 2016).
Fly ash is one of the widely used SCM that helps in improving the
durability factor of concrete, especially the alkali-silica reaction; the fu-
ture availability of fly ash however has already been a concern (Habert
et al., 2020; Poudyal et al., 2021a). Limestone dust is another widely
used SCM especially in European countries; the reduced later age
strength however limits the substitution levels above 15% (Lothenbach
et al., 2008; Poudyal et al., 2021b). Also, the availability of natural
pozzolans such as RHA, Pumice, and calcined clay are not distributed
equally over the world thus has concerns about long term availability.
1.1.3. Nanotechnology
As a recent development, nanotechnology has been introduced in
the field to compensate for the limitations of SCMs replacement in
cement (Florence and Konstantin, 2010; Norhasri et al., 2017; Poudyal,
2018; Poudyal et al., 2021b; Safiuddin et al., 2014; Shah et al., 2016;
Silvestre et al., 2016). Nanotechnology is the use of materials less
than 100 nano meters (10 thousand times smaller than a cement
particle) such as nano SiO2 , nano TiO2 , nano CaCO3 , nano Fe2 O3 ,
nano Zr2 O3 , nano Al2 O3 and nano graphene (CNTs and CNFs). Nano
materials change the structure of hydrated paste at a nano level thereby
improving both compressive and flexural strength, performance, and
durability dramatically (Florence and Konstantin, 2010; Norhasri et al.,
2017; Poudyal et al., 2021b).
Most nano materials, however, comes with high price potentially
increasing the cost of construction, and may not be a viable option for
construction industries. Further, the effectiveness of using nano materi-
als largely depends on proper dispersion of nano particles (Kawashima
et al., 2014), and techniques used for dispersion such as sonication2
are cost intensive for construction industries to adopt. Thus, the eco-
nomic and technical limitations of using nano materials have been a
bottleneck for cement industries to adopt at commercial scale.
1.1.4. Others
In addition to the above-mentioned three approaches, studies have
been done on finding an alternative binder to portland cement with
reduced environmental impacts (Gartner, 2004; Shi et al., 2019). For
instance — use of low CO2 binders such as belite-ye’eliminite-ferrite
cements where the clinkers are based on belite (that requires less tem-
perature than alite clinkers) and raw materials that are rich in calcium
sulfoaluminate ‘‘ye’eliminite’’ (Gartner, 2004; Shi et al., 2019). Another
such innovative alternative binder is the Alkali-activated binders which
commonly consists of two elements: a cementitious component and an
alkaline activator. Different industrial by-products and aluminosilicate
raw materials are used as cementitious materials and sodium silicate is
primarily used as the activator (Shi et al., 2019). The availability and
cost of raw materials, and the technical limitations have restricted their
applicability (Habert et al., 2011; Miller and Myers, 2019). Addition-
ally, this type of approach with entirely different chemical composition
of cement will require a lot of technical data and validation before it
can be made available in the market.
2
The process of separating agglomerated nano materials through use of
sound energy to disturb the sample and break its intermolecular interactions.
2
Resources, Environment and Sustainability 4 (2021) 100024
1.2. Research need
Regardless of extensive research on novel techniques of reducing
environmental impacts of cement production, commercial implementa-
tion has yet been a concern, and will occur only if there is a real synergy
between sustainability and profitability. Further, the implementation
will be more rapid only when the proposed approach takes into equal
consideration the multi-dimensions (social, economic, and environmen-
tal) of sustainability (Battelle, 2002; Ighalo and Adeniyi, 2020). Most of
the current studies, however, prioritizes on environmental aspects and
lack to explore the socio-economic aspects. The commercial rollout of
technology is impossible without the public acceptance and until the
plant owners and stakeholders see the economic values.
A recent paper by Habert et al. (2020) provides a comprehensive
review on decarbonization strategies, their environmental impacts,
technical feasibility, and limitations. Several techniques exist that can
cut off the CO2 emissions, however, they are either not feasible techno-
economically or are not reliable as a long-term solution. Additionally,
several technical complications arise when switching to a completely
new approach, as more investigations and research is required for
evaluating and validating the performance data (Gartner, 2004). This
paper, therefore, proposes an integrated approach for environmental
sustainability in cement industries where traditional approach of ce-
ment production is combined with modern and emerging technologies.
The proposed approach combines three key techniques of sustainable
cement production (CCS, material substitution, and use of nanotechnol-
ogy) and will help cement industries produce sustainable, durable, and
economical cement.
2. Use of Nano CaCO3 in cement industry
As compared to several other nano materials, nano CaCO3 is highly
economical. Nano CaCO3 costs only about US $150 per metric ton (Lei,
2021), which is comparable to the price of cement (US $ 124 per metric
ton) (Statista, 2021). The mentioned price for nano CaCO3 is from
China and huge variations in the price of nano CaCO3 , however, can
be observed across different nations (SkySpring Nanomaterials, 2019);
one of the reasons could be the production process of nano CaCO3 , and
could also be the consequence of supply–demand chain.
The low cost of nano CaCO3 but with similar effect as other nano
materials (Wengui et al., 2015) has led to the increased interest on
its use in concrete. Recent studies (Azmee and Shafiq, 2019; Camiletti
et al., 2013; Mishra and Tiwari, 2016; Poudyal et al., 2021b) have
shown that use of nano CaCO3 tremendously improved the early and
later ages strength of concrete. The findings from a comprehensive
testing by Poudyal et al. (2021b) further showed that addition of 1%
by weight of nano CaCO3 , as a partial replacement of cement, in
concrete improved porosity, resistance towards alkali-silica reaction
and scaling resistance thus improving the durability of concrete. Ta-
ble 1 presents the summary of improvements observed in OPC and
PLC (Portland Limestone Cement) concrete with 1% replacement of
nano CaCO3 (Poudyal et al., 2021b). The results presented are for
mixes without any superplasticizers and mixing of nano CaCO3 was
done manually, thus there is a potential that these results could further
be enhanced.
The use of nanotechnology has also helped in offsetting the un-
desirable properties of SCMs thereby allowing for increased replace-
ment percentage of cement with SCMs (Florence and Konstantin, 2010;
Norhasri et al., 2017; Poudyal et al., 2021b). As observed in Table 1,
PLC with 1% nano CaCO3 exceeded the performance of traditional
OPC. This indicates the possibility of increasing limestone powder in
PLC concrete while achieving the comparable performance as that of
OPC but with reduced cement clinkers. Further, it should be noted
that the improved performance of concrete will make them more
durable and sustainable thus reducing negative impacts from additional
manufacturing and construction process (Habert et al., 2020).
L. Poudyal and K. Adhikari
Table 1
Summary of testing results for OPC and PLC with nano CaCO3 .
Source: Adopted from Poudyal et al. (2021b).
Test/parameter measured OPC
Without With 1% % Without
nano nano changeb
CaCO3 a CaCO3
Compressive strength/ 56-days 42 47
strength (Mpa)
Rapid chloride penetration test/ 3915 2820 −28
Charges passed (coulumbs)
Alkali silica reaction/ 14 days 0.72 0.37 −49
expansion (%)
Scaling resistance/ Total mass 694 363 −48
loss after 50 cycles of freeze
and thaw (grams)
a Control sample.
b (−) ve sign in % change indicates reduction in measured value.
3. Integrated approach for producing new generation cement
If the cement industries were to capture CO2 and use it to pro-
duce nano CaCO3 within the plant itself, there is likely chance that
nanotechnology can be implied at commercial scale. Production of
nano CaCO3 in the cement plant itself and addition of these nano
materials to intergrind with the cement clinkers (and limestones as
SCM) will help in producing new generation cement. Fig. 1 shows
the schematic flow of the proposed integrated approach for producing
environment-friendly and sustainable cement.
In this approach, the CO2 will be captured from the flue gas com-
ing out of clinker production unit (calciner and kiln). The captured
and purified CO2 will be passed through the manufacturing chamber
where precipitated nano CaCO3 is produced via chemical synthesis
using ‘‘bottom up’’ approach. The bottom-up approach will utilize the
emitted CO2 in contrast to additional CO2 emission using ‘‘top-down’’
approach where energy intensive process is used for fine grinding
of limestone (Norhasri et al., 2017) In the ‘‘bottom-up’’ approach,
precipitated nano CaCO3 is produced by passing pure CO2 through
continuously stirred aqueous calcium solution thereby producing more
efficient and uniform precipitated nano material (Florence and Kon-
stantin, 2010). The source of calcium for this process could either be the
industrial waste including steel slag, cement and kiln dusts, or calcium
chloride from Solvay process (Batuecas et al., 2021; Chang et al.,
2017). The precipitated nano CaCO3 (in required amount) is added to
cement clinkers where the clinkers will be grinded together with nano
CaCO3 and raw limestone to produce blended Portland cement with
nano CaCO3 . The remaining nano CaCO3 will be marketed to other
industrials thus generating economic revenues for cement plants.
3.1. Environmental benefits
Despite numerous efforts, effective and economical strategies for
storage of captured CO2 have not yet been identified. The integrated
approach proposed in this paper avoids the need for storage as the
captured CO2 will be utilized within the cement plant for producing
nano CaCO3 . This helps limit the CO2 emissions into the environments
thus mitigating adverse environmental impacts of cement plant, while
also reducing the clinkers percentage in cement.
The LCA study by Batuecas et al. (2021) also shows that if nano
CaCO3 were to produce utilizing the captured CO2 from the cement
plant and were to replace Portland cement clinkers with approx. 2%
by weight, the CO2 emission would reduce from 0.96 kg CO2 eq./kg
cement to 0.3 kg CO2 eq./kg which is approximately 70% reduction.
Further the increased longevity of the structures due to improved
durability of cement will help limit the environmental impacts from
cement manufacturing and construction process.
3
Resources, Environment and Sustainability 4 (2021) 100024
PLC
With 1% % %
nano nano change change
CaCO3 CaCO3 wrt.
control
sample
11 41 45 9 7
5010 3370 −33 −14
0.56 0.46 −18 −36
338 147 −56 −79
3.2. Techno-economic benefits
The integrated approach of cement production solves the two
biggest limitation of using nanotechnology in industries — dispersion
and high cost of nano materials. First, it will help in the proper
dispersion of nano CaCO3 through high shear action in clinker mill
thereby improving the concrete performance. Second, the cement plant
will have additional source of revenue through selling of excess nano
CaCO3 to other industries such as plastic, paper, pharmaceutical and
rubber as only a small percentage (<2%) will go into the intergrinding
process. Thus, the higher capital cost in installing the CO2 capture
and nano CaCO3 production unit can be compensated by the extra
revenue coming from selling the nano CaCO3 . Additionally, nano
CaCO3 has a high stock market value due to its increasing demand
in multiple industries besides construction (Grandviewresearch, 2021).
The cost for nano CaCO3 in US is around US $89,000 per metric
ton (SkySpring Nanomaterials, 2019) while the cement is only about
US $124 per metric ton (Statista, 2021).
3.3. Social benefits
The proposed approach is likely to be accepted by the public as it
incorporates multiple stakeholders and industries while providing an
access to high quality product at a reasonable price. Additionally, the
direct and tangible benefits of reduced waste from industries and lower
CO2 emissions into the environment has greater potential in attracting
the social and political interest in this area. Lastly, this technology inte-
grates the new and emerging technologies into the existing traditional
approaches of cement production thereby producing the cement that
has wider applicability; thus, it is more likely that larger fraction of
the society and stakeholders will accept this integrated approach when
compared to other completely novel technologies of cement production
with limited applicability.
The integrated approach thus – (1) avoids the need of storage for
captured CO2 as it will be utilized within the cement plant for manufac-
ture of nano CaCO3 , (2) offsets the limitations of SCMs thus allowing for
larger reduction of cement clinkers thereby reducing the CO2 emissions,
(3) avoids the agglomeration issues through proper dispersion of nano
materials, and (4) generates potential economic revenues to cement
industries. All these benefits will eventually lead to production of next
generation cement thus helping to build green infrastructures meeting
the goals of global environmental sustainability, while also considering
the profitability of cement industries.
L. Poudyal and K. Adhikari Resources, Environment and Sustainability 4 (2021) 100024

Fig. 1. Schematic flow of the proposed integrated approach for producing next generation cement.

4. Prospects Declaration of competing interest

In addition to technological advancement and environmental bene- The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
fits, economic viability and public acceptance are key factors of concern cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
for the implementation of the proposed integrated approach. Collective influence the work reported in this paper.
efforts from all stakeholders, policymakers, and clients, along with clear
and transparent policies are, thus, needed for effective implementa-
Data availability statement
tion of the proposed approach. Further, more tangible measures of
economic, environmental, and societal impacts will help stakeholders
and the public to make more informed choices regarding sustainability. No data has been used in the manuscript.
Thus, a full lifecycle cost must be considered in an overall social, eco-
nomic, and environmental context of benefits and risks, as a part of an Acknowledgments
optimally efficient, sustainable, and economic approach. With more in-
depth research and practical implications of this integrated approach, a
The authors would like to thank Prof. Moon Won for his continual
new generation cement – sustainable, economical, and durable cement
guidance and support. Also, the authors are thankful to the support
– could be produced leading towards green infrastructure and global
from Department of Civil, Environmental, & Construction Engineering
environmental sustainability.
at Texas Tech University. All authors have seen and approved the final
version of the manuscript being submitted.
CRediT authorship contribution statement

Lochana Poudyal: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft (as- Funding source declaration
sist), Writing - review & editing. Kushal Adhikari: Conceptualization
(assist), Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. This study did not receive any funding or research grants.

4
L. Poudyal and K. Adhikari Resources, Environment and Sustainability 4 (2021) 100024

Permission note McDonald, L., Glasser, F.P., Imbabi, 2019. A new, carbon-negative precipitated calcium
carbonate admixture (PCC-A) for low carbon portland cements. Materials 12 (4),
554.
The manuscript does not have any content that needs permission
Miller, S.A., Myers, R.J., 2019. Environmental impacts of alternative cement binders.
from the published property. Proper acknowledgment and citation have Environ. Sci. Technol. 54 (2), 677–686.
been done when using any prior published material. Mishra, S., Tiwari, A., 2016. Effect on compressive strength of concrete by partial
replacement of cement with nano titanium dioxide and nano calcium carbonate. J.
References Civil Eng. Environ. Technol. 5 (3), 426–429.
Norhasri, M.M., Hamidah, M.S., Fadzil, A.M., 2017. Applications of using nano material
in concrete: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 133, 91–97.
Azmee, N.M., Shafiq, N., 2019. Investigating the impacts of ultra-fine calcium carbon-
Poudyal, L., 2018. Use of nanotechnology in concrete. (MS Thesis). Texas Tech
ate in high-volume fly ash concrete for structural rehabilitation for sustainable
University, Lubbock.
development. Sustainability 11 (17), 4671.
Poudyal, L., Adhikari, K., Moon, W., 2021a. Nano calcium carbonate (CaCO3)
Battelle, 2002. Towards a sustainable cement industry. In: World business council for
as a reliable, durable, and environment-friendly alternative to diminishing
sustainable development.
fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
Batuecas, E., Liendo, F., Tommasi, T., Bensaid, S., Deorsola, F.A., Fino, D., 2021.
349277611_Nano_calcium_carbonate_CaCO3_as_a_reliable_durable_and_environment-
Recycling CO2 from flue gas for CaCO3 nanoparticles production as cement filler:
friendly_alternative_to_diminishing_fly_ash (Accessed March 2021), Submitted for
A life cycle assessment. J. CO2 Utiliz. 45, 101446.
publication.
Boot-Handford, M.E., Abanades, J.C., Anthony, E.J., Blunt, M.J., Brandani, S., Mac Dow-
Poudyal, L., Adhikari, K., Won, M., 2021b. Mechanical and durability properties
ell, N., et al., 2014. Carbon capture and storage update. Energy Environ. Sci. 7 (1),
of portland limestone cement (PLC) incorporated with nano calcium carbonate
130–189.
(CaCO3). Materials 14, 905.
Camiletti, J., Soliman, A.M., Nehdi, M.L., 2013. Effects of nano-and micro-limestone
Safiuddin, M., Gonzalez, M., Cao, J., Tighe, S.L., 2014. State-of-the-art report on use
addition on early-age properties of ultra-high-performance concrete. Mater. Struct.
of nano-materials in concrete. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 15 (10), 940–949.
46 (6), 881–898.
Sean, Monkman, Kevin, Cail, 2019. Waste CO2 upcycling as a means to improve
Chang, R., Kim, S., Lee, S., Choi, S., Kim, M., Park, Y., 2017. Calcium carbonate pre-
ready mixed concrete. In: 15th International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement,
cipitation for CO2 storage and utilization: a review of the carbonate crystallization
Prague.
and polymorphism.. Front. Energy Res. 5, 17.
Shah, S.P., Hou, P., Konsta-Gdoutos, M.S., 2016. Nano-modification of cementitious
Dean, Oliver, 2020. This Is Construction, [Online]. Available: https://www.
material: Toward a stronger and durable concrete. J. Sustain. Cement-Based Mater.
thisisconstruction.com.au/blog/these-companies-are-turning-co2-into-concrete-
5 (1–2), 1–22.
could-it-be-the-solution-to-constructions-emissions-problem (Accessed 01 March
Shariq, M., Prasad, J., Ahuja, A.K., 2008. Strength development of cement mortar and
2021).
concrete incorporating GGBFS. Asian J. Civil Eng. 61–74.
Florence, Sanchez, Konstantin, Sobolev, 2010. Nanotechnology in concrete - a review.
Shi, C., Qu, B., Provis, J.L., 2019. Recent progress in low-carbon binders. Cem. Concr.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2060–2071.
Res. 122, 227–250.
Gartner, E., 2004. Industrially interesting approaches to low-CO2 cements. Cement
Siddique, R., Klaus, J., 2009. Influence of metakaolin on the properties of mortar and
Concrete Res. 34 (9), 1489–1498.
concrete: A review. Appl. Clay Sci. 43 (3–4), 392–400.
Grandviewresearch, 2021. Nano calcium carbonate market size, share | industry report.
Silvestre, J., Silvestre, N., De Brito, J., 2016. Review on concrete nanotechnology. Eur.
[Online]. Available: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/nano-
J. Environ. Civil Eng. 20 (4), 455–485.
calcium-carbonate-market (Accessed 2 March 2021).
SkySpring Nanomaterials, 2019. SkySpring Nanomaterials, [Online]. Available: https://
Habert, G., De Lacaillerie, J.D.E., Roussel, N., 2011. An environmental evaluation of
ssnano.com/inc/sdetail/calcium_carbonate_nanoparticles/244 (Accessed 02 March
geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends. J. Clean
2021).
Product. 19 (11), 1229–1238.
Snellings, R., 2016. Assessing, understanding and unlocking supplementary cementitious
Habert, G., Miller, S.A., John, V.M., Provis, J.L., Favier, A., Horvath, A., Scrivener, K.L.,
materials. RILEM Tech. Lett. 1, 50–55.
2020. Environmental impacts and decarbonization strategies in the cement and
Statista, 2021. www.statista.com, [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/
concrete industries. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1 (11), 559–573.
statistics/219339/us-prices-of-cement/#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20the%20cost%
Hossain, K.M.A., 2005. Volcanic ash and pumice as cement additives: pozzolanic, alkali-
20of,highest%20in%20the%20last%20years [Accessed 01 March 2021].
silica reaction and autoclave expansion characteristics. Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (6),
Van Vuuren, D.P., Stehfest, E., Gernaat, D.E., Van Den Berg, M., Bijl, D.L., De Boer, H.S.,
1141–1144.
et al., 2018. Alternative pathways to the 1.5 C target reduce the need for negative
Ighalo, J.O., Adeniyi, A.G., 2020. A perspective on environmental sustainability in the
emission technologies. Nature Climate Change 8 (5), 39.
cement industry. Waste Dispos. Sustain. Energy 1–4.
Vance, K., Falzone, G., Pignatelli, I., Bauchy, M., Balonis, M., Sant, G., 2015. Direct
Imbabi, M.S., Carrigan, C., McKenna, S., 2012. Trends and developments in green
carbonation of Ca (OH) 2 using liquid and supercritical CO2: implications for
cement and concrete technology. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 1 (2), 194–216.
carbon-neutral cementation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 54 (36), 8908–8918.
Kawashima, S., Seo, J.W.T., Corr, D., Hersam, M.C., Shah, S.P., 2014. Dispersion of
Wang, T., 2020. Statista 13, 2, [Online]. Available:
CaCO3 nanoparticles by sonication and surfactant treatment for application in fly
https://www.statista.com/statistics/219343/cement-production-
ash–cement systems. Mater. Struct. 47 (6), 1011–1023.
worldwide/#: :text=Cement%20production%20reached%20an%20estimated,in
Lei, Jie, 2021. Mineral. [Online]. Available: Accessed02March2021.
%202019%20in%20the%20U.S (Accessed 5 June 2020).
Lothenbach, B., Le Saout, G., Gallucci, E., Scrivener, K., 2008. Influence of limestone
Wang, Dehui, Shi, Caijun, Farzadnia, Nima, Shi, Zhenguo, Jia, Huangfei, 2018. A review
on the hydration of portland cements. Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (6), 848–860.
on effeccts of limestone powder on the properties of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
Malhotra, V.M., 1993. Fly ash, slag, silica fume, and rice husk ash in concrete: A review.
153–166.
Concr. Int. 15 (4), 23–28.
Wengui, Li, Zhengyu, Huang, Fangliang, Cao, Zhihui, Sun, Shah, Surendra P., 2015.
Effects of nano-silica and nano-limestone on flowability and mechanical properties
of ultra-high-performance concrete matrix. Constr. Build. Mater. 366–374.