Journal of Cleaner Production 152 (2017) 198e210

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Critical analysis of the Life Cycle Assessment of the Italian cement

industry
L. Moretti a, *, S. Caro b
a  di Roma, Rome, Italy
Department of Civil, Constructional and Environmental Engineering, Sapienza, Universita
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The interest for environmentally related issues in the construction industry has grown faster in recent
Received 7 December 2016 years, demonstrating the neccesity to promote both a more responsible use of non-renewable resources
Received in revised form and a better use of renewable resources. As a consequence, there is an increasing number of environ-
20 March 2017
mental documents and institutional acts on this topic that demonstrate the need for greener approaches
Accepted 20 March 2017
Available online 21 March 2017
in the area of construction engineering. The objective of this study is to evaluate the environmental
impact of the Italian gray cement and clinker industry, after distinguishing between the upstream and
the core phases of these processes. The study considered clinker and cement generated during 2014 in
Keywords:
Cement
eleven Italian plants that produced materials complying with the European standard EN 197-1 “Cement -
Clinker Part 1: Composition, specifications and conformity criteria for common cements”. The environmental
From cradle to gate assessment was conducted through a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of these industrial processes, following the
LCA standard EN 15804 “Sustainability of construction works, environmental product declarations, core rules
Ecoinvent for the product category of construction products” and the Product Category Rules (PCR) 2010:09 version
Best available techniques 2.1 “Cement”. The results permitted to construct the first sector Environmental Product Declaration
(EPD) related to cement production published until now by the International EPD System. The analysis of
the results demonstrated that among the different phases involved in the production process of these
materials (i.e. extraction and production of raw materials and fuels, transportation and core production
process), the core phase is responsible for most of the greenhouse emissions (i.e. more than 85% of the
total process for clinker, and more than 79% of the total process for cement), and the acidification and
eutrophization potential (i.e. 43% and 62% of the total process for clincker, and 33% and 55% of the total
process for cement). It was also found that the cement production is mainly responsible for the following
environmental impact categories: the overall electrical consumption required as part of these industrial
processes (116 kWh/Mg), the output flows of components for re-use and materials for recycling (0.21 and
0.17 kg/Mg, respectively), and the biogenic CO2 emissions (16 kg/Mg). The results highlight the envi-
ronmental benefits of applying Best Available Techniques (BAT) for this industry, as reported in the
European Reference document for the “Production of Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide”.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction are responsible for trapping heat in the atmosphere. According to

In recent years, the concern for the preservation of the envi-
ronment and the interest in environmental-related construction
issues have grown faster, becoming a main criterion for the
development of socioeconomic policies (Miccoli et al., 2014a,
2014b). Most of these efforts have focused on reducing the emis-
sions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), which
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: laura.moretti@uniroma1.it (L. Moretti).
the World Meteorological Organization’s Annual Greenhouse Gas
Bulletin (2016), the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmo-
sphere reached in 2015 the symbolic and significant milestone of
400 parts per million for the first time in history. In 2009, the In-
ternational Energy Agency and the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (2009) specifically investigated the
environmental impact of the cement industry, since this material e
which is used as binder in the construction of hydraulic concrete e
is the second most used substance around the world after water,
and its production is associated with high amounts of CO2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.136
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L. Moretti, S. Caro / Journal of Cleaner Production 152 (2017) 198e210
emissions, as demonstrated by several published studies (e.g. Cao
et al., 2016; Stafford et al., 2016a; Feiz et al., 2015). In fact, it is
estimated that this industry is responsible for generating approxi-
mately 5% of the current global man-made CO2 emissions
(Summerbell et al., 2016).
To produce cement, several materials including limestone, clay
and other clay-like materials are heated in rotary kilns at 1400
C to
form a solid substance called clinker. Clinker is then combined with
gypsum and other constituents to produce cement (Alunno
Rossetti, 2007).
There are various types of cement kilns currently used in Italy,
including the following:
 Lepol kiln, which uses a semi-dry process (i.e. in a nodulizing
pan, 11e14% of water is added to the dry raw materials, also
known as “raw meal”, before its burning);
 preheater with cyclones, which uses a dry process (i.e. the raw
mix powder is heated by the kiln exhaust gas before the initi-
ation of burning processes in the kiln);
 precalciner heater, which uses a dry process (i.e. the homoge-
nized raw meal is introduced into the top of the preheater tower
and it passes downwards through a series of cyclones to the
precalciner vessel at 850
C, where extra fuel is burned; at the
end of the precalcination phase, the feed is burnt in the kiln).
The type of kiln significatively affects the heat input require-
ment and the NOx (i.e. nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide) emissions
rate (Mikulci c et al., 2016). Among the three types of kilns, the
precalciner heater is considered the most efficient system, because
it facilitates the use of secondary fuels, as tired-derived fuels (TDF)
(Stafford et al., 2016b). Besides, this heater reduces the quantities of
non-renewable fuels needed for the kiln operation and the quantity
of iron added to the raw meal. Moreover, it also reduces the con-
sumption of urea or ammonia required for decreasing the amount
of NOx emissions, avoiding the risk of ammonia slip resulting from
the Selective Non-Cathalytic Reduction (SNC). It should be noted,
though, that the use of this type of kiln does not significately affects
the amount of CO2 emissions.
The production of cement releases greenhouse gas emissions
both chemically and physically: while the heating of limestone
chemically releases CO2, the burning of fossil fuels required to heat
the kiln indirectly results in physically produced CO2 (Bebi, 2007).
Chemical-emissions that derive from raw materials calcination
follow the equation:
CaCO3 þ heat/CaO þ CO2 ðgÞ
where CaCO3 is calcium carbonate, CaO is calcium oxide, and CO2(g)
is carbon dioxide.
While these emissions are not reducible, physical-emissions can
be cut down through the use of alternative fuels and/or by adopting
energy-saving technologies. For example, the use of alternative
fuels like biomass or waste materials could have an immediate
impact on the carbon profile of the cement industry (e.g. Supino
et al., 2016). However, it is important to stress that even though
political and research authorities consider carbon dioxide emission
as the main, and often the only, environmental impact category to
be assessed, a proper environmental evaluation of industrial
related processes requires a broader and more inclusive approach
(Seidel, 2016).
The standard EN 15804 “Sustainability of construction works,
environmental product declarations, core rules for the product
category of construction products” (EN, 2013) provides guidelines
to elaborate an unbiased set of data useful to examine and improve
the environmental performance of a building material. For
199
conducting a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of cement (i.e. a tech-
nique for assessing the potential environmental aspects associated
with a product) (ISO, 2006a), some pre-specified minimum re-
quirements are stated by the Product Category Rules (PCR) 2010:09
version 2.1 “Cement” (The International EPD® System, 2014).
Indeed, the cited documents can be used to prepare the Environ-
mental Product Declaration (EPD) of this material, in what it is
known as a type III label (ISO, 2006b). A type III label is a document
that quantifies the environmental impact of a product based on its
LCA, which is verified by a qualified third party.
Within this context, the Italian cement industry representative
body (AITEC) promoted the generation of the LCA of this material,
and the development of the sector Environmental Product Decla-
ration (EPD) of the average Italian Cement. The importance of
conducting such assessment is the fact that the Italian cement in-
dustry is the second European cement producer with over 21
million of Mg generated in 2014, which represents more than 13%
of the total production of the 28 European Union (EU) countries
(AITEC, 2015). Moreover, the EU cement industry, which “only”
represents 3.14% of the global cement production (China accounts
for 51.3%), is a world leader when it comes to innovation, research
and development.
In general, the results obtained from a LCA of the cement in-
dustry could be efficiently used to evaluate the environmental
impact of concrete materials (Moretti, 2014), to compare the impact
of different building materials (Moretti et al., 2013, 2016, 2017) and/
or to assess specific environmental performances of projects con-
structed with such materials (Loprencipe and Cantisani, 2015;
Loprencipe et al., 2015; Miccoli et al., 2014c). Moreover, they
could be used to pursue further research efforts (e.g. environmental
impact of building and civil constructions, etc.) and to perform
comparison studies with other industries. The methodology to
accomplish this goal consists on using the LCA formulas for cement,
after considering both the Life Cycle Inventory analysis (LCI) and
the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of the material (ISO, 1998,
2006c,b). Studies of this nature should also consider a “from cradle
to gate” boundary approach, including upstream and downstream
processes, as specified in The International EPD® system (2015).
The objective of this work is to assess and evaluate the Italian
gray clinker and cement produced during 2014 using a statistical
approach and LCA procedures. To accomplish this goal, a total of 11
plants among those associated to AITEC were considered as a
representative panel data set. Also, 29 different impact categories,
which are recommended by the standard EN 15804 and by other
European guidelines (de Baan et al., 2013; Benini et al., 2014), were
(1) included in the analysis. The study considered 10 different formulas
of clinker and 45 cement formulas defined in the European stan-
dard EN 197-1 (EN, 2000).
The interpretation of the LCA results, which followed existing
methodological recommendations (ISO, 2000), allowed comparing
the environmental impact of the materials, and identifying the
strengths and weaknesses of the processes evaluated. This, in turn,
is useful for improving and updating the technology used as part of
these industrial processes and boost competitiveness. In this re-
gard, it is important to mention that the Italian sector has con-
ducted significant investments to minimize the environmental
effects of these industrial production processes in recent years, at
the time that has promoted the generation of innovative cements
with a lower overall environmental impact. Therefore, the infor-
mation obtained from this study could be efficiently used to further
support these on-going efforts. The results from this work also
provide statistical information useful to analyse the Italian industry
(AITEC, 2016a), in the light of the Best Available Techniques
established by the European Integrated Pollution Prevention and
Control Bureau (European Commission, 2013). Finally, the results
200 L. Moretti, S. Caro / Journal of Cleaner Production 152 (2017) 198e210

may be also used to compare the EPD of these materials to the EDP  representativeness of at least 10% of the national production;
of other cements produced in Europe (European Cement Associa-  kiln type;
tion - Cembureau, 2015a,b,c), and to the first-ever EPD of cement in  plant productivity;
North America (NRMCA, 2015).  geographical position of plants;
 product typology (cement type and strength classes);
 use of natural and secondary fuels and raw materials; and
2. Data and methods
 range of energy consumption.
2.1. Cradle-to-gate analysis
The panel defined in this study considered 9 full cycle plants (i.e.
gray clinker and cement production), 1 mill cement plant (i.e. only
According to the General Programme Instructions for Environ-
milling of clinker and other constituents needed for cement pro-
mental Product Declarations (The International EPD® System, 2015)
duction) and 1 clinker plant (i.e. only clinker production). Thus, the
and the Product Category Rule (PCR) 2010:09 version 2.1 - Cement,
panel includes 45 cement types and covers 22% of Italian cement
the system boundaries for this study were defined as explained
production during the reference year. Besides, the selected plants
next.
are characterized for having Lepol kilns, rotary kilns with preheater,
The LCA study took into account all processes required to pro-
and precalciners with tertiary air.
duce clinker and cement (Fig. 1):
In terms of productivity, the annual production of the selected
plants ranges from 80,000 Mg to more than 100,0000 Mg of gray
 extraction and production of raw materials and fuels (module
clinker, and from 100,000 Mg to more than 1,000,000 Mg of gray
A1);
cement. This distribution is representative of the total Italian pro-
 transportation of raw materials, fuels and energy resources from
duction, as confirmed by the first LCA of the Italian cement devel-
the extraction location up to the plant gate, and internal trans-
oped by AITEC (2013).
port processes within the plant (module A2);
In terms of the representativeness of the geographical position
 production of clinker and cement (module A3).
of the plants, Fig. 2 compares the location of the plants that belong
to the panel with the location of all cement and clinker plants in the
Modules A1 and A2 are representative of the upstream pro-
country (AITEC, 2015). As observed from this figure, the location of
cesses, whereas module A3 represents the core production process.
the selected plants can be considered representative of the national
Other modules defined in the standard, such as Modules A4-A5 (i.e.
spatial distribution of cement and clinker plants.
construction process stage), B6-B7 (i.e. use stage, modules related
In terms of the cement type, the European standard EN 197-1
with the operation of the building), B1-B5 (i.e. use stage, modules
categorises cements into main five types, based on their
related with the building fabric), C1-C4 (i.e. end-of-life processes)
composition:
and D (i.e. supplementary information beyond the building life
cycle), were not included in this work. According to the standard EN
 CEM I is a Portland cement (>95% clinker);
15804, however, modules A1 to A3 are considered sufficient for
 CEM II is a Portland composite cement (65e94% clinker);
conducting a comprehensive “cradle to gate” LCA. The selected
 CEM III is a blastfurnace cement (5e64% clinker);
reference year for the analysis was defined as 2014 and the declared
 CEM IV is a pozzolanic cement (45e89% clinker);
unit was 1 Mg of gray clinker or cement produced in Italian cement
 CEM V is a composite cement (20e64% clinker).
plants.

Table 1 shows the composition of the cement types considered

2.2. Representativeness and relevance of the selected panel
Representativeness and relevance of the 11 plants included in
the panel are guaranteed because, as explained next, they satisfy
the typical recommended criteria in the following aspects (The
International EPD® System, 2014):
in this analysis, expressed as percentage by total mass of the ma-
terial. It is noteworthy that cement type CEM V was not considered
in the analysis due to its low production (only 2% of the total).
Table 2 compares the cement type production in the panel of
study with respect to the cement type production in Italy (AITEC,

A3
Pre-homogenization
of raw materials
A4-A5
Milling of crude
A1 B6-B7
meal
Extraction, B1-B5
A2 Homogenization
production of C1-C4
Transportation Calcination-burning
raw materials D
(both external of raw meal to
and fuels
and internal) clinker
Production of
Cooling Modules
correctives
Cement milling not
assessed
Storage and
packing
Waste management

Fig. 1. System boundaries of study.

 L. Moretti, S. Caro / Journal of Cleaner Production 152 (2017) 198e210 201

50%
45%
40%
Panel distribution
35%
Italian distribution
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
North Central South Islands

Fig. 2. Geographical cement production in Italy - year 2014.

Table 1
Percentage by mass composition of cement types.

Cement type Notation Clinker Blastfurnace slag Silica fume Pozzolana Fly ash Burnt shale Limestone Other constituents

I Portland cement I 95e100 0e5

II Portland-limestone cement II/A-LL 80e94 6-20 (LL) 0e5
II/A-L 80e94 6-20 (L) 0e5
II/B-LL 65e79 21-35 (LL) 0e5
III Blastfurnace cement III/A 35e64 36e65 0e5
IV Pozzolanic cement IV/A 65e89 11e35
IV/B 45e64 11e35

Note: This table is derived from the European standard EN 197-1 (2000). LL means limestone with the total organic carbon content 0.20% by mass; L means limestone with
the total organic carbon content 0.50% by mass; for each cement type, A and B refer to the clinker content.

2015). Data reported in this table demonstrate that the panel
properly represents the Italian production in terms of the type of
cement produced.
Existing data also show that the differences between the diverse
types of cement strengths produced in the selected panel and in the
totality of the Italian industry are below 2%, which makes it possible
to conclude that the panel ensures a good representation in terms
of this aspect.
Regarding the use of secondary fuels or raw materials in the
cement industry (as waste or by-products of chemical industry), it
is important to mention that these materials provide an alternative
in terms of an integrated waste management strategy, which saves
natural and non-renewable resources and permits to recover waste
in highly controlled conditions (Schneider et al., 2011). At the Eu-
ropean level, this strategy is considered a Best Available Technique
to reduce environmental impacts (Directive, 2003/53/EC). In 2014,
it is estimated that the use of alternative fuels in the Italian cement
industry avoided a total of 234 Mg of CO2 emissions (AITEC, 2016b).
In this reference year, the Italian clinker production used 5.3% of
thermal energy from biomass and the percentage of caloric sub-
stitution by means of alternative fuels was equal to 13.3% (AITEC,
2016b). Lower values of alternative fuels were reported to have
been used in the plants of the panel. During the reference year,
3.45% of the total thermal energy of the panel plants derived from
biomass, and the percentage of caloric substitution was 7.05%.
These differences related to energy consumption aspects between
the selected panel and the national industry were considered in the
interpretation phase of the study.
Finally, Table 3 compares the energy and fuel consumption of
the Italian cement industry and of the selected the panel (AITEC,
2015). All data refers to 1 Mg of produced cement. As observed
from this table, the panel accurately describes the electricity and
non-renewable fuels consumption of the Italian industry.
In conclusion, all previously presented data confirm and validate
the representativeness and relevance of the plants that were
included in the selected panel.

Table 3
Table 2 Energy consumption of cement production in Italy and in the selected panel pro-
Production of cement by type in Italy and in the considered panel - year 2014. duction - year 2014.

Cement type Italian production Panel production Energy consumption Italian production Panel production

CEM I 13.40% 11.46% Fossil and petcoke 0.070 Mg/Mg 0.073 Mg Mg

CEM II 67.50% 68.59% Heavy fuel oil 0.002 Mg/Mg 0.002 Mg/Mg
CEM III 4.20% 3.22% Methane 0.819 m3/Mg 0.768 m3/Mg
CEM IV 12.70% 16.73% Alternative fuels not available 0.057 Mg/Mg
CEM V 2.20% 0% Electricity 117 kW/Mg 116 kW/Mg
202 L. Moretti, S. Caro / Journal of Cleaner Production 152 (2017) 198e210

2.3. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
For each type of clinker and gray cement produced in the
selected plants, the EPD® system requires an LCI analysis, which
corresponds to the quantification of material flows, energy flows,
and environmental burdens associated with the production of a
predetermined amount of the product. The inventory analyses
conducted in this study considered all the material and energy
flows, according to the cut-off rules defined by the standard EN
15804. The data collection process for the inventory analysis in-
volves three different data categories (The International EPD®
System, 2015):
 primary data, also defined as “selected data”, which are pro-
vided by the producers through on-site surveys;
 secondary data, also defined as “selected generic data”, which is
available in the literature; and
 tertiary data, also defined as “other generic data”, which are
obtained through statistical data reported in the literature.
For the LCI analysis to be valid, the contribution of the tertiary
data should not exceed 10% of the overall environmental impact
from the product system.
In this study, primary data included the composition of the
clinker and cement materials (Table 4), energy consumption, and
emissions and waste production of each plant. Table 4 lists the
average amount of materials, including raw materials, products (i.e.
the result of another production process) and wastes, required to
produce the declared unit of clinker and cement (quantities
exceeding 1000 kg represent the water content of the components).
In this table, the values for the “average” materials were calculated
as the weighted average of all materials used or produced in the
selected plants.
As observed in Table 4, the natural raw materials used for clinker
production include calcareous raw materials and alumino-silicate,
whereas the natural raw materials used for cement production
vary according to the type of cement to be produced. Also, it is
noteworthy that gypsum, natural or chemical, is present in the
production of all types of cements, since it is used to control the
hardening rate of this material.
“Products” are used as constituents in these industrial processes
because they can correct the composition of the raw mix, e.g. iron
sulphate is a chromate-reducing agent (Erdem et al., 2011) which
permits to control the levels of soluble chromium (VI), as required
by the Chromium (VI) Directive 2003/53/EC. Without considering
clinker as a product in the cement composition, Table 4 shows that
the products used to obtain clinker and cement were respectively
1.43% and 7.88% by mass of the total components used to manu-
facture these materials. The most used product in the clinker pro-
duction was a secondary raw material obtained from the treatment
and recovery of slag from incinerated Municipal Solid Waste or
MSW (Officine dell’Ambiente, 2015). It is also relevant to highlight
that the products related to CEM III constitute 33.84% by mass of the
total materials used in the production (Table 4), mainly due to the
use of blastfurnace slag.
Data in Table 4 also shows that the wastes used for the pro-
duction of clinker and cement are 0.76% and 4.36% by mass of the
total materials used in the production of the materials, respectively.
Regarding the cement type, it was found that CEM IV uses the
majority of waste material for its production (i.e. 13.16%). In this
particular case, the main contribution to this value comes from fly
ashes.
In terms of the wastes resulting from the industrial production
of clinker and cement, only materials such as pallets, bags, poly-
ethylene film and refractories were considered in the study. These
data, in conjuction with those related to air emissions (dust emis-
sions included), were allocated to the clinker production. Besides,
only waste products from the ordinary production process were
accounted and allocated to the production of cement. No impacts
related to maintenance operations and the use of materials were
considered in the analysis, because a study conducted in 2003 by
Buzzi Unicem for the preparation of the first LCA of the Vernasca
(Italy) cement plant showed that these items have a negligible
impact in the analysis (Buzzi Unicem, 2003).
Data related to road, rail and sea transport of fuels and raw
materials, which affect the A2 phase of the LCA, are partially pri-
mary data. The producers provided information regarding modes of
transportation, the average distance from the plants, the amounts
transported in the cement plants and, when known, the upper
emissions limits of the tracks used to transport fuels and raw

Table 4
Raw materials for clinker and cement production in the selected plants.

Material Average Average CEM I CEM II CEM III CEM IV

clinker cement

(kg/Mg) (kg/Mg) (kg/Mg) (kg/Mg) (kg/Mg) (kg/Mg)

Natural raw Limestone 917.41 115.13 19.51 159.95 34.55 11.83

materials Clay 164.51
Mineral ore 2.49
Silica sand 15.14
Travertine 54.04
Gypsum 22.57 18.73 23.54 35.68 25.28
Pozzolana 3.13 26.2 0 0.29 0 155.31
Marl 437.47 14.99 0 21.09 0 3.13
Fluorite 0.74
Perlite 0.15 0 0 0 0.9
Products Clinker 765.88 929.42 767.08 584.67 685.2
Urea, ashes of pyrites, ammonia solution, ammonia, regenerated sand, iron oxide, sodium 23.3
bicarbonate, calcium hydroxide, by products of concrete production
Iron sulphate, additives, slag, calcium sulphate, sodium chloride, CKDþBPD 27.08 4.62 19.66 338.83 4.37
Waste Flake’s lamination, refractories, sludges, ashes from MSW, ashes from biomass, exhaust foundry 12.35
sand, synthetic calcium fluoride, ashes from coal combustion, iron oxides, recycled limestone,
recycled cement
Fly ash, chemical gypsum, recycled cement, chemical calcium sulphate 34.73 31.756 12.72 7.45 134.25

Total 1630.58 1006.73 1004.04 1004.33 1001.18 1020.27

Note: CKD refers to Cement Kiln Dust, BPD to Cement By-pass Dust and MSW to Municipal Solid Waste.
 L. Moretti, S. Caro / Journal of Cleaner Production 152 (2017) 198e210 203

Table 5
Secondary raw materials considered as “selected generic data” or “other generic data”.

Secondary raw material Information about the source

Synthetic calcium fluoride Obtained by the filtration of fluorine-rich process water

Calcium Sulphate By-product of aluminium fluoride production
Ashes of pyrites Material derived from database Ecoinvent 2.2
Sodium chloride Powder production of sodium chloride
Recycled cement Cement from silos
Iron silicate Material modelled using the database Ecoinvent 2.2
Iron sulphate By-product of dioxide titanium production or steel pickling
Slag Co-product of steelmaking
CKDþBPD Dust collected by a filter system during cement production
Ammonia solution By-product of methane refinery process
Urea Material obtained from the production of urea ammonium nitrate

Note: CKD corresponds to Cement Kiln Dust, and BPD to Cement By-pass Dust.

materials. These data allowed considering the transport as primary

data. When this information was not available, the authors
assumed the emissions-related data; in this case, the information
was classified as “selected generic data”.
Information about secondary raw materials, wastes used in the
production of cement, and clinker and alternative fuels were
considered secondary data. When available, the processes required
for their production were included as part of the analysis using the
Ecoinvent database (Pre  consultants, 2016). Otherwise, these data
were provided by the suppliers or obtained from existing envi-
ronmental databases available in the literature.
Finally, tertiary data were obtained by the production cycle of
the materials.
Tables 5 and 6 list secondary raw materials and wastes used as
“selected generic data” or “other generic data” in the evaluation of
the LCA of the clinker and cement production.
From the data listed in Table 6, only the impact of any work that
was necessary to use the waste in the plant was considered in the
analysis (e.g. consumption of electricity and heat), as well as the
impact related to its transportation. Consequently, the Polluter Pays
Principle was applied in this study, i.e. the environmental impact of
the production of residual materials was not considered as part of
the main analysis, and only transport and treatment, if any, were
included in the study.
2.4. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
Data collected in the LCI was modelled using the characteriza-
tion factors listed in EN 15804:2012 þ A1:2013. The concept of
characterization factors allows comparing the ability of different
substances to cause the same environmental impact. These factors
convert the assigned LCI results into a common unit of a category
indicator, expressed as equivalent (eq) due to the applied “con-
version” process, as explained by Equation (2):
X
IC ¼ CF ic ðxÞ$INVðxÞ (2)
x
where IC is the Impact Category, obtained from the inventory of the
substance x, INV(x), and CFic(x) is the characterization factor
assigned to the substance x for the calculation of IC.
The database Ecoinvent 2.2, integrated in the software package
SimaPro 8.0.5.13 (Pre  consultants, 2016), was used to assess the
impact categories listed in Table 7. It is important to stress that the
initial 26 impact categories listed in this table are defined as part of
the EN 15804 specification. However, the LCIA herein conducted
also included the following three additional impact parameters (i.e.
categories number 26 to 29 in Table 7): i) Land Use (LU), which is
one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss according to de Baan
et al. (2013), ii) Human Toxicity Potential (HTP), and iii) Ecotox-
icity (ET). These categories were considered due to the interest of
the European Community on these aspects. The methods used to
assess these additional parameters include the use of the following
software: i) ECO-Indicator 99 (E) V2.08 for LU (Pre  consultants,
2016), ii) CML 2 BASELINE 2000 V2.05 for HTP (Guine e et al.,
2002), and iii) ECO-Indicator 99 (E) V2.09 for ET (Pre  consultants,
2016).
The value of the impact category TRPE (number 10 in Table 7)
corresponds to the sum of the values of RPEnoRM and RPEasRM.
Similarly, the value of the impact category TnonRPE (number 13 in
Table 7) corresponds to the sum of the values of nonRPEnoRM and
nonRPEasRM.
For the Abiotic Depletion Potential-Elements category (ADP-E,
number 6 in Table 7), in addition to the elements listed in
EN15804:2014, other minerals were also considered. These min-
erals are specific of the production of clinker and cement and they
are related to the life cycle of the raw materials used in the pro-
duction of these materials. These substances and their character-
ization factors are:

Table 6
Waste considered as “selected generic data” or “other generic data”.

Waste Information about source

Recycled limestone Waste of limestone quarries

Ashes Waste of co-incineration or combustion of thermal power plants or biomass burning
Bottom ash Waste of co-incineration, combustion of thermal power plants, biomass burning or MSW combustion
Sludges Waste from concrete production, textile production or other industrial process
Chemical gypsum Waste of dioxide titanium production or of flue-gas desulphurization of fossil-fuel power plants
Refractories Waste from kiln maintenance
Flake’s lamination Waste from production of concrete reinforcing bars
Exhaust foundry sand Waste from foundry processes
204 L. Moretti, S. Caro / Journal of Cleaner Production 152 (2017) 198e210

Table 7
Impact categories considered in the LCIA.

Parameter Number Impact category Parameter Unit of measure expressed per

typology declared unit

Environmental 1 Global Warming Potential GWP kg CO2 eq

impacts 2 Ozone layer Depletion Potential ODP kg CFC11-eq
3 Acidification Potential of soil and water AP kg SO2 eq
4 Eutrophication Potential EP kg PO4 3- eq
5 Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential POCP kg C2H4 eq
6 Depletion of abiotic resources-elements ADP-E kg Sb eq
7 Depletion of abiotic resources-fossil fuels ADP-F MJ
Resources use 8 Use of renewable primary energy excluding renewable primary energy resources used as RPEnoRM MJ
raw materials
9 Use of renewable primary energy used as raw materials RPEasRM MJ
10 Total use of renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials TRPE MJ
11 Use of non-renewable primary energy excluding non-renewable primary energy resources nonRPEnoRM MJ
used as raw materials
12 Use of non-renewable primary energy used as raw materials nonRPEasRM MJ
13 Total use of non-renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials TnonRPE MJ
14 Use of secondary materials SRM kg
15 Use of renewable secondary fuels RSF MJ
16 Use of non-renewable secondary fuels nonRSF MJ
17 Net use of fresh water Water m3
Waste categories 18 Hazardous waste disposed (as defined by the Italian directives) HW kg
19 Non-hazardous waste disposed (as defined by the Italian directives) nonHW kg
20 Radioactive waste disposed (as defined by the Italian directives) RW kg
Electricity 21 Electricity consumption E kWh
consumption
Output flows 22 Components for re-use ReU kg
23 Materials for recycling ReC kg
24 Materials for energy recovery ERec kg
25 Exported energy ExE MJ
Biogenic emissions 26 Biogenic CO2 emissions BCO2 kg biogenic CO2
Additional 27 Land use LU PDF m2yr
parameters 28 Human Toxicity Potential HTP kg 1.4-DB eq
29 Ecotoxicity ET PAF m2yr

 Clay, bentonite, in ground: 3.59E-5 kg Sb eq/kg; of the analysed panel: 10 formulas of CEM I, 20 formulas of CEM II, 2
 Granite, in ground: 8.76E-11 kg Sb eq/kg; formulas of CEM III and 13 formulas of CEM IV.
 Gravel, in ground: 1.09E-11 kg Sb eq/kg; An initial observation from the data presented in Table 9 is that
 Pozzolan: 2.93E-12 kg Sb eq/kg; the clinker production strongly affects the environmental impact
 Sand, unspecified, in ground: 6.54E-12 kg Sb eq/kg; results of the different cement types. This is observed in the global
 Vermiculite, in ground: 5.65E-9 kg Sb eq/kg. warming potential or GWP values: higher cement contents (i.e.
average CEM I) are related to larger values of GWP, which has a
For the calculation of the biogenic CO2 emissions, the biogenic value similar to that of the average clinker. Indeed, the GWP result
content of different alternative fuels, listed in Table 8, was used. The obtained in Table 9 mainly derives from the clinker production. Due
biogenic content of these fuels contributes to the BCO2 impact to this condition, the lowest GWP value corresponds to CEM III,
category (number 26 in Table 7). which is the type of cement with the lowest clinker content
(Table 2). This type of cement presents the best environmental
performance compared to all other cement types since it presents
3. Results the lowest values of emissions and the minimum energy and water
consumption (i.e. ADP-F equal to 4628 MJ/Mg, nonRPEnoRM equal
The results obtained from the LCIA are summarized in Table 9 to 4847 MJ/Mg and Water equal to 1.35 m3). This result is due to fact
for the A1, A2 and A3 phases. Data in this table refer to the that a reduction of the clinker-to-cement ratio implies both lower
declared unit of the average produced gray clinker or cement (i.e. emissions and lower energy usage. Besides, considering that the
1 Mg). The results were obtained after considering the production “minus” sign in Table 9 refers to the cases where the overall cradle-
of a total of 45 different formulas of cement produced in the plants to gate process was not found to contribute to the investigated
impact category, it is possible to conclude that the production of
clinker and cement does not use raw materials as primary energy
Table 8
(both renewable, RPEasRM, and non-renewable, nonRPEasRM), that
Biogenic content of alternative fuels.
this production does not contribute to generate hazardous waste
Alternative fuel Biogenic content (% of fuel mass) (HW) or radioactive waste (RW), and that it does not contribute
Refuse-derived fuel 50 either to the export energy (ExE) or to the recovery energy (ERec)
Plastics 0 categories.
Tires 30
The authors analysed the data after breaking them down ac-
Oil emulsion 0
Solvents 0
cording to the type of kiln, because this factor plays a relevant role
Dried sewage sludges 90 in the formation of pollutants, as explained in the initial section of
Cutouts of not chlorinated rubber 0 this document. Fig. 3 shows the results of six of the most relevant
Animal feeds 100 impact categories (GWP, AP, EP, POCP, TRPE and TnonRPE) that were
 L. Moretti, S. Caro / Journal of Cleaner Production 152 (2017) 198e210 205

Table 9
Results of the LCIA.

Impact category Average clinker Average cement Average CEM I Average CEM II Average CEM III Average CEM IV Unit of measure

GWP 960 793 964 788 641 723 kg CO2 eq/Mg

ODP 5.19E-05 4.5E-05 5.4E-05 4.4E-05 4.0E-05 4.3E-05 kg CFC11-eq/Mg
AP 2 1.96 2.13 1.97 1.41 1.92 kg SO2 eq/Mg
EP 0.31 0.27 0.32 0.26 0.18 0.26 kg PO4 3- eq/Mg
POCP 0.47 0.5 0.51 0.51 0.38 0.48 kg C2H4 eq/Mg
ADP-E 6.99E-05 1.4E-04 1.1E-04 1.4E-04 1.5E-04 1.7E-04 kg Sb eq/Mg
ADP-F 5840 5250 6269 5173 4628 4987 MJ/Mg
RPEnoRM 89 247 203 262 107 239 MJ/Mg
RPEasRM e e e e e e MJ/Mg
TRPE 89 247 203 262 107 239 MJ/Mg
nonRPEnoRM 6026 5502 6545 5422 4847 5238 MJ/Mg
nonRPEasRM e e e e e e MJ/Mg
TnonRPE 6026 5502 6545 5422 4847 5238 MJ/Mg
SRM 36 86 67 59 345 163 kg/Mg
RSF 248 199 262 209 89 133 MJ/Mg
nonRSF 462 394 534 381 164 399 MJ/Mg
Water 1.08 1.67 1.47 1.74 1.35 1.62 m3/Mg
HW e e e e e e kg/Mg
nonHW 0 3 5 4 3 2 kg/Mg
RW e e e e e e kg/Mg
E 85 116 154 112 105 110 kWh/Mg
ReU 0.25 0.21 0.26 0.22 0.43 0.09 kg/Mg
ReC 0 0.17 0 0.22 0 0.1 kg/Mg
ERec e e e e e e kg/Mg
ExE e e e e e e MJ/Mg
BCO2 19.4 16.2 22.5 16.1 7.56 14 kg biogenic CO2/Mg
LU 4 6.61 5.66 6.94 3.28 6.58 PDF m2yr/Mg
HTP 58 59 65 59 48 56 kg 1,4-DB eq/Mg
ET 4 4.47 4.72 4.24 4.47 5.23 PAF m2yr/Mg

Note: please refer to the third and fourth columns of Table 7 for a full description of the acronyms used for the impact categories. The symbol “e” means that the overall cradle-
to gate process does not contribute to the investigated impact category.

100

90

80

70
GWP
60
AP
50
%

EP
40 POCP

30 TRPE
TnonRPE
20

10

0
A B C
Kiln type

Fig. 3. Clinker production process: comparison of the impact categories related to the type of kilns (“A” correspond to precalciners kilns with tertiary air, “B” to kilns with preheater,
and “C” to Lepol kilns). GWP: global warming potential; AP: acidification potential; EP: eutrophication potential; POCP: formation potential of tropospheric ozone; TRPE: total use of
renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials; and TnonRPE: total use of non-renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials.

obtained in this study for the clinker production, for the different
types of kiln. In this table, “A” refers to precalciners with tertiary air,
“B” to kilns with preheaters, and “C” to Lepol kilns. For each impact
category, the percentage values in this table correspond to the ratio
between the value obtained for each type of kiln and the maximum
value obtained among the three examined kiln types. Thus, for
example, a 95% of GWP for the “A” kiln means that precalciner kilns
with tertiary air emit on average 95% of the GWP emitted by kilns
with the preheater type “B”, which have a value of GWP equal to
100%. The results demonstrate that the cement kiln technology
mainly affects the energy consumption, as previously reported by
Nilsson et al. (2007).
206 L. Moretti, S. Caro / Journal of Cleaner Production 152 (2017) 198e210

The results presented in Fig. 3 indicate the relevant role of the
pre-calciner kiln (“A” in Fig. 3) in the overall environmental impact
of the clinker production. As observed in this figure, this type of kiln
presents the best performance in terms of atmospheric emissions
and fuel consumption, while the Lepol kilns are associated with the
highest values of emissions and fuel consumption, as already
demonstrated by Strazza et al. (2010). It is noticeable that these
results support existing recommendations provided by the Euro-
pean Reference document for the Production of Cement, Lime and
Magnesium Oxide (European Commission, 2013) that makes part of
the Best Available Techniques (BAT) for these industrial processes,
which recommends using a dry process kiln with multistage pre-
heating and precalcination because “In this type of kiln system,
exhaust gases and recovered waste heat from the cooler can be used to
preheat and precalcine the raw material feed before entering the kiln,
providing significant savings in energy consumption”.
As mentioned previously, data listed in Table 9 refer to the A1-
A3 processes (Fig. 1). Table 10, on the contrary, lists the percent-
age contribution of the core production processes or A3 phase
(Fig. 1) with respect to the overall cradle-to-gate analysis. Conse-
quently, the complementary percentage values of those presented
in Table 10, which are required to reach a total of 100%, corresponds
to the allocation of the A1-A2 phases.
Table 10 demonstrates that for both, clinker and cement pro-
duction, the impact of the core process, and therefore the clinker
production, is prevalent for most of the emission-related impact
categories.
According to the allocation criteria issued by EN 15804, the
emissions, waste production and electricity consumption in the
plants were allocated in the A3 phase of the LCIA. These criteria
explain the percentages of 0% that were obtained for the following
categories: Abiotic Depletion Potential Elements (ADP-E) and Fuels
(ADP-F), Renewable and non Primary Energy (TRPE and TnonRPE),
Secondary Raw Materials (SRM) and Renewable Secondary Fuels
(RSF), since these resources are obtained directly from the nature
and, therefore, they belong to the upstream process. In the up-
stream process of the clinker production, petcoke, and electricity
production and distribution are the cause of more than 90% of the
ADP-F.
The contribution of the A3 phase to the first seven impact cat-
egories listed in Tables 9 and 10 present a rather uniform distri-
bution between the examined cement types. The results also show
that the core processes of the production of clinker and cement
mainly contribute to GWP emissions: 86.65% for the average clinker
and 79.46% for the average cement. Besides, the emissions pro-
duced by the core process in the selected plants are significant for
AP (43.47% for average clinker and 33.86% for average cement), EP
(55.15% for average cement) and POCP (16.87% for average cement,
with the highest value of 22.29% for CEM IV). However, the values
obtained for CEM III show significant divergences compared to all
other cement type. This is mainly due to the composition of this
material (Table 2), which is characterized for having low values of
clinker content.
In the production of cement, Water and electricity consumption
(E) also show a decisive contribution from the core processes.
Indeed, clinker cooling (i.e. when it comes out the kiln) and cement
milling are responsible for 27.06% of the impact category Water in
the average clinker production, while the A3 phase of E corre-
sponds to more than 99% of the average clinker and cement pro-
duction. With respect to the other impact parameters, Ecotoxicity
(ET) and Human Toxicity Potential (HTP) were not found to be
significantly influenced by the final stage of the cement production,
with percentages of contribution of 7.95% and 9.88% for the average
cement, respectively. On the contrary, as observed in the results

Table 10
Percentage contribution of the A3 phase.

Impact category Average clinker Average cement Average CEM I Average CEM II Average CEM III Average CEM IV

Contribution of A3 phase/contribution of A1-A3 phases (%)

GWP 86.65% 79.46% 81.18% 80.16% 71.42% 77.54%

ODP e e e e e e
AP 43.47% 33.86% 34.23% 33.63% 16.32% 36.81%
EP 62.39% 55.15% 58.58% 55.15% 37.87% 53.79%
POCP 22.21% 16.87% 12.16% 17.31% 6.53% 22.29%
ADP-E e e e e e e
ADP-F e e e e e e
RPEnoRM e e e e e e
RPEasRM e e e e e e
TRPE e e e e e e
nonRPEnoRM e e e e e e
nonRPEasRM e e e e e e
TnonRPE e e e e e e
SRM e e e e e e
RSF e e e e e e
nonRSF e e e e e e
Water 27.06% 17.80% 15.76% 17.45% 7.67% 16.69%
HW e e e e e e
nonHW e 21.90% 0% 33.55% 0% 24.69%
RW e e e e e e
E 99.89% 99.95% 99.97% 99.94% 99.92% 99.95%
ReU 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
ReC e 100% e 100% e 100%
ERec e e e e e e
ExE e e e e e e
BCO2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
LU e e e e e e
HTP 11.37% 7.95% 7.76% 8.09% 4.10% 8.51%
ET 14.83% 9.88% 7.94% 11.24% 3.41% 10.50%

Note: please refer to the third and fourth columns of Table 7 for a full description of the acronyms used for the impact categories. The symbol “e” means that the A3 process
does not contribute to the investigated impact category.
 L. Moretti, S. Caro / Journal of Cleaner Production 152 (2017) 198e210 207

from Table 10, the core process of the cement production contrib-
utes to 100% of the output flows ReU and to the biogenic emissions
BCO2. Finally, it is noticeable that the impact factor ReC is null
during the overall “from cradle to gate” process (Table 9) for clinker,
average Cement I and average Cement III, while for the other two
cement types, the A3 phase constitutes the total contribution (i.e.
100%) for this impact factor (Table 10).
In order to better interpret the LCA results listed in Tables 9 and
10, the authors conducted a comprehensive statistical analysis. The
set of values for conducting this analysis corresponds to the results
of the different cement and clinker formulas for the 11 plants
analysed. For every impact category, the mean, standard deviation,
coefficient of variation (CV, defined as the ratio of the standard
deviation to the mean), maximum, minimum and excess kurtosis
values were calculated. Equation (3) presents the definition of the
excess kurtosis:
k ¼ b2  3
where b2 is the kurtosis index equal to (Equation (4))
.
b2 ¼ m4 m22
where m4 is the fourth sample moment about the mean, and m2 is
the second sample moment about the mean. For a normal standard
distribution, b2 is equal to 3 and k is 0. For other distributions, the
kurtosis describes the shape of the probability density distribution:
if k > 0, the curve is leptokurtic and it is more peaked than a normal
distribution, while if k < 0 the curve is platykurtic and its central
peak is lower and broader than that corresponding to a normal
distribution.
Opposite to what was done in Tables 9 and 10, the average
values in Table 11 were not weighted with respect to the mass
produced in each plant. That is, for each impact category, the
arithmetic mean of the environmental impacts obtained for each
plant was computed. The values of impact categories listed in this
table refer to the “from cradle to gate” analysis (i.e. phases A1 to
A3). The results obtained for the cement type CEM III are not herein
disclosed due to privacy reasons; although this information is
limited, since only two formulas of CEM III are currently produced
by two different plants of the analysed panel. It is relevant to
(3) mention that the statistical analysis summarized in Table 11 was
conducted for a subset of only 7 categories (GWP, ODP, AP, EP, POCP,
ADP-E, ADP-F) because:
(4)  these parameters have a direct, significant and tangible effect on
the environment (i.e. emissions and depletion);

Table 11
Statistical analysis of LCIA.

Impact category Statistical parameter Mean clinker Mean cement Mean CEM I Mean CEM II Mean CEM IV

GWP mean (kg CO2 eq/Mg) 964.3 801.6 972.3 794.1 710.9
standard deviation (kg CO2 eq/Mg) 42.2 125.0 47.9 82.6 73.6
CV 4% 16% 5% 10% 10%
maximum (kg CO2 eq/Mg) 1032.4 1045.5 1045.5 985.1 802.7
minimum (kg CO2 eq/Mg) 901.8 581.5 861.6 630.4 585.4
excess kurtosis 0.73 0.82 3.19 0.20 1.05
ODP mean (kg CFC11-eq/Mg) 5.24E-05 4.7E-05 5.6E-05 4.6E-05 4.22E-05
standard deviation (kg CFC11-eq/Mg) 1.18E-05 1.2E-05 9.8E-06 1.1E-05 1.18E-05
CV 22% 25% 18% 25% 28%
maximum (kg CFC11-eq/Mg) 6.41E-05 7.1E-05 6.4E-05 7.1E-05 5.61E-05
minimum (kg CFC11-eq/Mg) 3.17E-05 2.5E-05 3.3E-05 2.8E-05 2.53E-05
excess kurtosis 0.91 0.88 2.75 0.10 1.70
AP mean (kg SO2 eq/Mg) 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 1.9
standard deviation (kg SO2 eq/Mg) 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.6
CV 31% 30% 18% 32% 33%
maximum (kg SO2 eq/Mg) 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.0
minimum (kg SO2 eq/Mg) 1.4 1.2 1.7 1.3 1.2
excess kurtosis 4.77 0.52 2.96 0.20 0.98
EP mean (kg PO4 3- eq/Mg) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
standard deviation (kg PO4 3- eq/Mg) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
CV 21% 23% 16% 21% 22%
maximum (kg PO4 3- eq/Mg) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
minimum (kg PO4 3- eq/Mg) 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
excess kurtosis 1.47 1.29 0.90 1.30 1.43
POCP mean (kg C2H4 eq/Mg) 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5
standard deviation (kg C2H4 eq/Mg) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
CV 38% 40% 31% 42% 42%
maximum (kg C2H4 eq/Mg) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8
minimum (kg C2H4 eq/Mg) 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3
excess kurtosis 7.05 0.30 8.10 0.79 1.29
ADP-E mean (kg Sb eq/Mg) 7.44E-05 1.7E-04 1.4E-04 1.7E-04 1.76E-04
standard deviation (kg Sb eq/Mg) 2.42E-05 1.3E-04 1.2E-04 1.3E-04 1.11E-04
CV 33% 75% 87% 78% 63%
maximum (kg Sb eq/Mg) 1.27E-04 4.9E-04 4.9E-04 4.6E-04 4.42E-04
minimum (kg Sb eq/Mg) 4.36E-05 5.8E-05 6.9E-05 5.8E-05 7.89E-05
excess kurtosis 1.33 1.12 9.43 0.60 2.72
ADP-F mean (MJ) 5899.6 5450.7 6520.1 5337.4 4882.2
standard deviation (MJ) 1269.7 1281.1 1030.8 1203.0 1241.8
CV 22% 24% 16% 23% 25%
maximum (MJ) 7214.2 8101.7 7465.3 8101.7 6418.3
minimum (MJ) 3654.8 3100.5 3972.0 3333.1 3100.5
excess kurtosis 0.87 0.78 4.17 0.11 1.58

Note: please refer to the third and fourth columns of Table 7 for a full description of the acronyms used for the impact categories.
208 L. Moretti, S. Caro / Journal of Cleaner Production 152 (2017) 198e210
 they are correlated with other, not examined, impact categories.
For example, the use of petcoke impacts the production of CO2
emissions and other pollutants. Furthermore, electricity is a
secondary energy source, and the “costs” related to this infra-
structure are also considered as part of these 7 items;
 these 7 parameters are consistently selected to be analysed in
existing similar studies (e.g. Strazza et al., 2010; Stafford et al.,
2016a, 2016b).
The statistical results in Table 11 suggest that the global
warming potential impact category, or GWP, presents the lowest CV
values. Also, the normal-like distribution for this category was
found to be more peaked for CEM I. This could be partially
explained from the data listed in Table 10, which shows that the
core processes have a strong influence in the impact categories
related to emissions. In this sense, the improvement of technology-
related processes, the use of alternative fuel sources, and the pro-
duction of cement with low clinker content could let the sector to
reduce its environmental impact.
The ozone layer depletion potential results, or ODP, show that
the shape distribution for this impact category is less similar to a
normal distribution when compared to GWP, although they both
present the largest peaks for the CEM I material.
Data in Table 11 also show that the impact category presenting
the highest variability is ADP-E, or the depletion of abiotic
resources-elements. The main contribution to the obtained ADP-E
values derives from several sources, including not only raw mate-
rials but also electricity and petcoke and their transportation,
which could partially explain this result.
In terms of the eutrophication potential, or EP, the results reveal
that this category presents a low variability and that it has a kur-
tosis value close to 1 in all five examined scenarios, which means
that the normal standard distribution could properly describe the
behaviour of this parameter.
Besides, the difference between the maximum (8102 MJ/Mg)
and the minimum (3101 MJ/Mg) values of depletion of abiotic
resources-fossil fuels that were obtained for the cement produc-
tion, or ADP-F, points out the possibility of having a significant
reduction of the current mean energy required for the production
of clinker and cement.
Finally, the statistical analysis demonstrates that the parameter
GWP, which is the most commonly used to evaluate the environ-
mental impact of industrial processes, has a stable trend, which
explains why the cement industry is a global concern in terms of its
environmental impact. Also, the impact categories obtained for the
cement type CEM I consistently presented the highest values of
excess kurtosis due to the “simple” composition of this cement.
Moreover, the “simple” composition of this cement, which is the
most similar to clinker, produced the highest emissions and con-
sumption values. The other cement types show lower and, in some
cases, negative values of excess kurtosis, mainly due to the vari-
ability of their composition. The existence of this variability reveals
that there is a possibility for adopting technical strategies for
reducing the environmental impact related to cement production.
4. Conclusions
The interest in environmental-related development issues has
significantly increased in recent years. To analyse the environ-
mental effects of a specific process, several documents available in
the literature have quantified greenhouse gas emissions and,
particularly, CO2 emissions. Due to this approach, many interna-
tional research organizations have focused their attention on the
cement industry, because it contributes to 5% of the worldwide CO2
emissions. However, the environmental evaluation of this
production process requires a more thorough investigation since
the Global Warming Potential, or GWP, is only one - though the
most famous - of the environmental categories to be considered
when evaluating the impact of an industrial product. The scientific
experience gained in environmentally related issues demonstrates
that the exclusive consideration of CO2 emissions limits the possi-
bility of conducting a correct LCA, and promotes the chances of
selecting of a low CO2 material that could present unacceptable
environmental burdens.
This study focuses on the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of
the Italian cement industry, based on the standard EN 15804
“Sustainability of construction works, environmental product dec-
larations, core rules for the product category of construction
products” and the Product Category Rules (PCR) 2010:09 version 2.1
“Cement”. The work involved gray clinker and gray cement pro-
duction and it was conducted using information for 2014, for a
declared unit of 1 Mg of the final product (i.e. clinker or cement). A
total of 11 plants were included in the analysis, and 10 different
formulas of gray clinker and 45 formulas of gray cement were
considered, which involved CEM I, CEM II, CEM III and CEM IV types
of cement, as defined by the EN 197-1.
In the initial part of the study, representativeness and relevance
of the selected plants was demonstrated. Next, the average values
of 29 different environmental impact categories weighted by the
production mass in the respective plants were computed, according
to the standard EN 15804 and to some recent European guidelines.
The database Ecoinvent 2.2 was used to perform the LCIA for both
materials.
The results showed that the core process of cement production,
also known as the A3 phase, is responsible for the main contribu-
tion to GWP (793 kg/Mg) and electricity consumption (116 kWh/
Mg). These results are mainly due to the fact that more than 95% of
the energy needs of the Italian cement industry are satisfied
through the use of non-renewable primary energy sources. Indeed,
the use of non-Renewable Primary Energy excluding non-
renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials (non-
RPEnoRM) was found to be 6026 MJ/Mg for the production of the
average clinker and 5502 MJ/Mg for production of the average
cement, whereas the use of Renewable Primary Energy, excluding
renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials (RPE-
noRM) was only 89 MJ/Mg for the average clinker and 247 MJ/Mg
for the average cement.
It is important to highlight that the importance of this study is
that it provides results and statistics on the Italian cement industry
through a comprehensive assessment of its environmental impact.
Consequently, the LCA herein conducted provides data that could
be used to compare the environmental impact of the Italian cement
industry with other construction material industries or to cement
industries in other countries, as well as to evaluate the impact of
different products derived from this material.
Acknowledgment
The authors appreciate to financial support provided by the
Italian cement industry representative body.
Nomenclature
ADP-E Depletion of abiotic resources-elements (kg Sb eq)
ADP-F Depletion of abiotic resources-fossil fuels (MJ)
AITEC Italian cement industry representative body
AP Acidification Potential of soil and water (kg SO2 eq)
BAT Best Available Techniques
BCO2 Biogenic CO2 emissions (kg biogenic CO2)
BPD Cement By-pass Dust
 L. Moretti, S. Caro / Journal of Cleaner Production 152 (2017) 198e210 209

Cembureau European Cement Association Alunno Rossetti, V., 2007. Il calcestruzzo: materiali e tecnologia. Mc Graw Hill. ISBN:
9788838664595.
CEM I Cement type I
Bebi, G., 2007. Calcestruzzo in pratica. Edizioni ImReady.
CEM II Cement type II Benini, L., Mancini, L., Sala, S., Manfredi, S., Schau, E.M., Pant, R., 2014. Normalisation
CEM III Cement type III Method and Data for Environmental Footprints. http://dx.doi.org/10.2788/
CEM IV Cement type IV 16415.
Buzzi Unicem, 2003. LCA on the Vernasca Plant. Internal Document.
CEM V Cement type V Cao, Z., Shen, L., Zhao, J., Liu, L., Zhong, S., Sun, Y., Yang, Y., 2016. Toward a better
CFic(x) characterization factor assigned to the substance x practice for estimating the CO2 emission factors of cement production: an
CKD Cement Kiln Dust experience from China. J. Clean. Prod. 139, 527e539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.08.070.
CV Coefficient of variation Cembureau, 2015a. Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to EN
E Electricity consumption (kWh) 15804 and ISO 14025. Portland Cement (CEM I) Produced in Europe. http://
EP Eutrophication Potential (kg PO4 3- eq) www.cembureau.be/sites/default/files/6117%20-%20CEMBUREAU%20%20EPD%
20CEM%20I%20Feb%202015.pdf.
EPD Environmental Product Declaration Cembureau, 2015b. Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to EN
ERec Materials for energy recovery (kg) 15804 and ISO 14025. Portland Cement (CEM II) Produced in Europe. http://
ET Ecotoxicity (PAF m2yr) www.cembureau.be/sites/default/files/documents/CEMBUREAU%20%20EPD%
20CEM%20II%20%20Feb%202015.pdf.
ExE Exported energy (MJ) Cembureau, 2015c. Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) According to EN
GWP Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) 15804 and ISO 14025. Portland Cement (CEM III) Produced in Europe. http://
HTP Human Toxicity Potential (kg 1.4-DB eq) www.cembureau.be/sites/default/files/documents/CEMBUREAU%20%20EPD%
20CEM%20III%20%20Feb%202015.pdf.
HW Hazardous waste disposed (as defined by Italian
de Baan, L., Mutel, C.L., Curran, M., Hellweg, S., Koellner, T., 2013. Land use in life
directives) (kg) cycle assessment: global characterization factors based on regional and global
IC Impact category potential species extinction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (16), 9281e9290. http://
INV(x) inventory of the substance x dx.doi.org/10.1021/es400592q.
Directive 2003/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June
LU Land use (PDF m2yr) 2003 Amending for the 26th Time Council Directive 76/769/EEC Relating to
LCA Life Cycle Analysis Restrictions on the Marketing and Use of Certain Dangerous Substances and
LCI Life Cycle Inventory Preparations (Nonylphenol, Nonylphenol Ethoxylate and Cement). Official
Journal of the European Union, 178, 24e27.
LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment EN, 2000. EN 197-1: 2000. Cement Part 1: Composition, Specifications and Con-
MSW Municipal Solid Waste formity Criteria for Common Cements.
nonHW Non-hazardous waste disposed (as defined by Italian EN, 2013. EN 15804:2012þA1:2013. Sustainability of Construction Works e Envi-
ronmental Product Declarations e Core Rules for the Product Category of
directives) (kg) Construction Products.
nonRPEasRM Use of non-renewable primary energy used as raw Erdem, E., Donat, R., Esen, K., Tunc, T., 2011. Removal of soluble Cr(VI) in cements by
materials (MJ) ferrous sulphate monohydrate, solid lignin and other materials. Ceram. e Sili-
katy 55 (1), 85e93. http://hdl.handle.net/11499/48.
nonRPEnoRM Use of non-renewable primary energy excluding European Commission, 2013. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document
non-renewable primary energy resources used as for the Production of Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide: Industrial Emissions
raw materials (MJ) Directive 2010/75/EU: (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control).
Feiz, R., Ammenberg, J., Baas, L., Eklund, M., Helgstrand, A., Marshall, R., 2015.
nonRSF Use of non-renewable secondary fuels (MJ)
Improving the CO2 performance of cement, part I: utilizing life-cycle assess-
ODP Ozone layer Depletion Potential (kg CFC11-eq) ment and key performance indicators to assess development within the cement
PCR Product Category Rules industry. J. Clean. Prod. 98 (1), 272e281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
POCP Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (kg C2H4 eq) j.jclepro.2014.01.083.
Guinee, J.B., Gorree, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., van Oers, L., Wegener
ReU Components for re-use (kg) Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., de Bruijn, H., van Duin, R.,
ReC Materials for recycling (kg) Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2002. Life Cycle Assessment: an Operational Guide to the ISO
RPEnoRM Use of renewable primary energy excluding renewable Standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
International Energy Agency, 2009. Cement Technology Roadmap: Carbon Emis-
primary energy resources used as raw materials (MJ) sions Reductions up to 2050.
RPEasRM Use of renewable primary energy used as raw materials ISO, 1998. ISO 14041:1998. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -
(MJ) Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis.
ISO, 2000. ISO 14043:2000. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -
RSF Use of renewable secondary fuels (MJ) Life Cycle Interpretation.
RW Radioactive waste disposed (as defined by Italian ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040:2006. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -
directives) (kg) Principles and Framework.
ISO, 2006b. ISO 14025:2006. Environmental Labels and Declarations-Type III
SNC Selective Non-Cathalytic Reduction Environmental Declarations-Principles and Procedures.
Water Net use od freah water (m3) ISO, 2006c. ISO 14044:2006. Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment
SRM Use of secondary materials (kg) e Requirements and Guidelines.
Loprencipe, G., Cantisani, G., 2015. Evaluation methods for improving surface ge-
TDF Tired-Derived Fuels
ometry of concrete floors: a case study. Case Stud. Struct. Eng. 4, 14e25. http://
TnonRPE Total use of non-renewable primary energy resources dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csse.2015.06.002.
used as raw materials (MJ) Loprencipe, G., Cantisani, G., Di Mascio, P., 2015. Global assessment method of road
TRPE Total use of renewable primary energy resources used as distresses. Life-cycle of structural systems: design, assessment, maintenance
and management. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Life-
raw materials (MJ) cycle Civil Engineering, IALCCE 2014.
Miccoli, S., Finucci, F., Murro, R., 2014a. Criteria and procedures for regional envi-
ronmental regeneration: a European strategic project. Appl. Mech. Mater.
References 675e677, 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.675-677.401.
Miccoli, S., Finucci, F., Murro, R., 2014b. A monetary measure of inclusive goods: the
AITEC, 2013. Analisi del ciclo di vita “Produzione di cemento”. Internal document. concept of deliberative appraisal in the context of urban agriculture. Sustain-
AITEC, 2015. Rapporto annuale. http://www.aitecweb.com/Portals/0/pub/ ability 6 (12), 9007e9026. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su6129007.
Repository/Area%20Economica/Pubblicazioni%20AITEC/Relazione_Annuale_ Miccoli, S., Finucci, F., Murro, R., 2014c. Assessing project quality: a multidimen-
2014.pdf. sional approach. Adv. Mater. Res. 1030e1032, 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.
AITEC, 2016a. Environmental Product Declaration: Average Italian Cement. Regis- 1030-1032.2519.
tration number S-P-00880. http://gryphon.environdec.com/data/files/6/11845/ Mikul ci
c, H., Cabezas, H., Vujanovi c, M., Dui
c, N., 2016. Environmental assessment of
epd880it%20Average%20Italian%20cement.pdf. different cement manufacturing processes based on Emergy and Ecological
AITEC, 2016b. Rapporto di sostenibilita  AITEC 2014. http://www.aitecweb.com/ Footprint analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 130, 213e221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Portals/0/pub/Repository/Area%20Tecnica/Pubblicazioni/Rapporto_di_ j.jclepro.2016.01.087.
sostenibilit%C3%A0_AITEC_2014.pdf. Moretti, L., 2014. Technical and economic sustainability of concrete pavements.
210 L. Moretti, S. Caro / Journal of Cleaner Production 152 (2017) 198e210
Mod. Appl. Sci. 8 (3), 1e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/mas.v8n3p1.
Moretti, L., Di Mascio, P., D’Andrea, A., 2013. Environmental impact assessment of
road asphalt pavements. Mod. Appl. Sci. 7 (11), 1e11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/
mas.v7n11p1.
Moretti, L., Cantisani, G., Di Mascio, P., 2016. Management of road tunnels: con-
struction, maintenance and lighting costs. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 51,
84e89.
Moretti, L., Cantisani, G., Di Mascio, P., Caro, S., 2017. Technical and economic
evaluation of lighting and pavement in Italian road tunnels. Tunn. Undergr. Sp.
Technol. 65, 42e52.
Nilsson, L., Persson, P.O., Ryden, L., Darozhka, S., Zaliauskiene, A., 2007. Cleaner
Production: Technologies and Tools for Resource Efficient Production. The Baltic
University Press. ISBN 91-975526-1-5.
NRMCA, 2015. A Cradle-to-gate EPD of Five Cement Products According to ISO
14025 and ISO 21930.
Officine dell’Ambiente, 2015. Dichiarazione Ambientale di Prodotto (EPD) delle
materie prime seconde o aggregati di origine industriale. Sand Matrix. Regis-
tration number: S-P-00426.
 consultants, 2016. Software SimaPro.
Pre
Schneider, M., Romer, M., Tschudin, M., Bolio, H., 2011. Sustainable cement pro-
ductiondpresent and future. Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (7), 642e650. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.019.
Seidel, C., 2016. The application of life cycle assessment to public policy develop-
ment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 (3), 337e348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-015-1024-2.
Stafford, F.N., Raupp-Pereira, F., Labrincha, J.A., Hotza, D., 2016a. Life cycle assess-
ment of the production of cement: a Brazilian case study. J. Clean. Prod. 137,
1293e1299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.050.
Stafford, F.N., Dias, A.C., Arroja, L., Labrincha, J.A., Hotza, D., 2016b. Life cycle
assessment of the production of Portland cement: a Southern Europe case
study. J. Clean. Prod. 126, 159e165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.02.110.
Strazza, C., Del Broghi, A., Blengini, G.A., Gallo, M., 2010. Definition of the meth-
odology of a Sector EPD (Environmental Product Declaration): case study of the
average Italian cement. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15, 540e548. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11367-010-0198-x.
Summerbell, D.L., Barlow, C.Y., Cullen, J.M., 2016. Potential reduction of carbon
emissions by performance improvement: a cement industry case study. J. Clean.
Prod. 135, 1327e1339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.155.
Supino, S., Malandrino, O., Testa, M., Sica, D., 2016. Sustainability in the EU cement
industry: the Italian and German experiences. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 430e442.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.022.
The International EPD® System, 2014. Cement e Version 2.1. Product Category Rules
According to ISO 14025:2006. Product Group UN PCP 3744.
The International EPD® System, 2015. General Programme Instructions for the In-
ternational EPD® System_Version 2.5.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development/International Energy Agency,
2009. Cement Technology Roadmap 2009. Carbon Emissions Reductions up to
2050.
World Meteorological Organization, 2016. Annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.