Journal of Environmental Management 249 (2019) 109362

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

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

Research article

A comparative life cycle assessment for sustainable cement production in T

Turkey
Simge Çankaya*, Beyhan Pekey
Department of Environmental Engineering, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, 41380, Turkey

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Recently, a considerable increase has occurred in cement manufacturing, which is a highly energy intensive,
Alternative fuel and raw material resource consuming, and carbon emission industry based on industrialization and urbanization. In order to
Cement minimize the adverse effects from this industry on climate change, ecosystem quality, human health, and re-
Clinker sources for cement production, it is very important to assess the potential environmental impacts of the cement
Environmental impact
production process. In this study, a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of cement production with tradi-
Life cycle assessment
tional raw material and fuel (traditional scenario [TS]) and alternative raw material and fuel (alternative sce-
nario [AS]) usage were performed in accordance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
14040 and 14044 standards. The scope of the study was determined as “cradle to gate” including raw material
acquisition, transportation, and manufacturing stages. The functional units were 1 ton of clinker and 1 ton of
cement. SimaPro 8.0.4 software was used for the LCA, and impact assessment was carried out using the IMPACT
2002 + method. As a result of the LCA for clinker production, the overall environmental impact was reduced by
approximately 12% in the AS. According to damage assessment, the effects on climate change, human health,
ecosystem quality, and resources decreased 1.4%, 27%, 10%, and 11%, respectively. The use of alternative fuel
and raw material had approximately 3% positive impact on overall environmental burden of clinker production.
Considering cement types, the lowest environmental impacts were determined for CEM IV and CEM II based on
trass usage.

1. Introduction
Cement production is a complex process that includes the use of a
high quantity of raw materials and fuels (petroleum coke, coal, natural
gas, fuel oil, biomass or some wastes) and energy (electricity and heat)
in addition to auxiliaries, air, and water (Valderrama et al., 2012;
Galvez-Martos and Schoenberger, 2014), and as a result of this raw
material use and processing, this process has a significant environ-
mental impact (Georgiopoulou and Lyberatos, 2018). Although cement
production causes the formation of wastewater, solid waste, and noise,
the main environmental issues are associated with energy consumption
and air emissions (Schorcht et al., 2013. Approximately 5%–7% of total
global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and 3% of total greenhouse gas
emissions are derived from cement production (Galvez-Martos and
Schoenberger, 2014). Additionally, it accounts for approximately
12–15% of the total industrial energy use worldwide (Aranda-Usón
et al., 2012).
Turkey is the fourth largest cement producer in the world (USGS,
2017). There are 52 integrated cement plants, and cement production
has increased by 46% over the past decade in Turkey (TCMA, 2018).
Clinker production is the most important stage of cement produc-
tion in terms of energy input and emission potential (EEA, 2016). While
approximately half of CO2 emissions related to clinker production is
derived from the combustion of fossil fuels, remaining portion is de-
rived from the calcination of limestone (Gürsel, 2014). Additionally,
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and other sulfur compounds, dust, volatile organic
compounds (VOC), polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans
(PCDDs and PCDFs, respectively), metals and their compounds, hy-
drogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl), carbon monoxide (CO),
and ammonia (NH3) have been listed as being related to cement pro-
duction (BAT, 2013).
In order to reduce emissions, conserve non-renewable fossil fuels,
save fuel costs, and avoid the negative impacts of waste incineration
and landfilling, some options have been offered such as reducing
clinker/cement ratio, using wastes as raw material or fuel, and im-
proving the current technology (Stafford et al., 2016a; Hasanbeigi et al.,
2012). Among them, alternative fuel and raw material (AFR) usage
(which is called co-processing) is practiced in many countries

*
Corresponding author. Department of Environmental Engineering, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey.
E-mail addresses: simge.taner@kocaeli.edu.tr (S. Çankaya), bpekey@kocaeli.edu.tr (B. Pekey).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109362
Received 11 December 2018; Received in revised form 4 April 2019; Accepted 3 August 2019
0301-4797/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Çankaya and B. Pekey
worldwide. The most common wastes are refused-derived fuel (RDF),
residual oil, used tires, plastic waste, sewage sludge, solvent, waste
paint, waste paper, wood, and agricultural biomass (Lamas et al., 2013;
Ariyaratne, 2009). Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is the homogenous por-
tion of municipal solid waste (MSW) and is preferred as an alternative
fuel due to its high calorific value, low moisture content, and low ni-
trogen and sulfur contents in comparison to fossil fuels (Hasanbeigi
et al., 2012; Rahman et al., 2015). Residual oil is a hazardous waste that
originates from automotive, railway, marine, farm, and industrial
sources. Recently, it has been increasingly used in cement kiln because
of its high calorific value (33–41 MJ/kg) and minimal processing costs.
However, this oil is more concentrated with heavy metals, sulfur,
phosphorus, and total halogens in comparison to crude-based heavy
fuel oils (Rahman et al., 2015; Ariyaratne, 2009). Dried sludge is also
used as an alternative fuel in cement kilns. Although dried sewage
sludge usage in cement kilns presents the multiple advantages of fuel
and raw material reduction and environmental savings on human
health, ecosystem, and resources, sludge drying is highly energy-in-
tensive because of various complications associated with it. Energy
consumption of sludge drying process varies widely according to the
type of technology used (Valderrama et al., 2013; Jungbluth et al.,
2007). Therefore, it is significant to assess the environmental impact of
a drying process before implementing it (Ariyaratne, 2009; Haque et al.,
2015).
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is one of the most common methods,
and it addresses the environmental aspects and potential environmental
impacts (such as resource use and release to water, air, and soil)
throughout a product's life cycle from raw material acquisition through
production, use, end-of-life treatment, recycling, and final disposal
(“cradle to-grave”) (ISO 14040).
Recently, environmental impacts of clinker and cement production
have been evaluated using LCA method by different researchers.
Georgiopoulou and Lyberatos (2018) have evaluated the environmental
impacts of the use of alternative fuels (RDF, TDF, and biological sludge)
and they have concluded that RDF is the most environmentally friendly
option. In another scientific study, LCA was performed to compared the
environmental impact of urban sewage sludge use as alternative fuel or
raw material in clinker production (Valderrama et al., 2013) and the
results indicated that fuel substitution represents a significant en-
vironmental improvement compared to the raw material substitution.
Hong and Li (2011) have also concluded that the sewage sludge in
cement production had little or no effect on reducing the overall en-
vironmental impacts. Many researchers have also compared the best
available technologies with building scenarios. Song et al. (2016) have
suggested the installation of heat recovery and cogeneration system to
reduce the environmental impact of electricity consumption in cement
production. On the other hand, many studies have compared the en-
vironmental impacts of different cement products (Huntzinger and
Eatmon, 2009; Feiz et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2017).
In Turkey, only a few studies have approached AFR usage in the
cement production sector with an LCA according to our knowledge
(Hacıyusufoğlu et al., 2017; Çankaya and Pekey, 2018; Abuşoğlu et al.,
2017 , Morsali, 2016; Gürsel, 2014). Gürsel (2014) have conducted LCA
Table 1
The amount of clinker and other additives and electricity consumed to produce 1 ton of cement.
Scenario Cement Type Clinker (%) Gypsum (%)
TS CEM I 0.93 0.06
CEM II 0.83 0.06
CEM IV 0.71 0.06
OWC 0.92 0.05
AS CEM I 0.92 0.05
CEM II 0.77 0.05
CEM IV 0.55 0.05
OWC 0.95 0.05
2
Journal of Environmental Management 249 (2019) 109362
to analyze and understand key parameters that can reduce GHG emis-
sions from the Turkish cement and concrete manufacturing. Abuşoğlu
et al. (2017) have performed comparative LCA for existing sewage
sludge incineration plant based on a fluidized bed combustor (FBD) and
a hypothetical cement kiln facility using sludge as a secondary fuel.
Hacıyusufoğlu et al. (2017) have also performed a comparative LCA for
cement and concrete production using RDF as an alternative fuel. Our
study has a novelty in terms of investigate environmental impacts of the
use of dried sludge, RDF, and residual oil as a secondary fuel in clinker
and cement production. The study is based on data collected from a
cement plant in Turkey. A “cradle-to-gate” LCA of clinker and cement
production for traditional scenario (TS) and alternative scenario (AS)
were performed with SimaPro 8.0.4. In the scope of this study, not only
global warming potential (GWP) was assessed, but also a total of 15
impact categories, including acidification, eutrophication, mineral ex-
traction, and others, were considered. Additionally, an uncertainty
analysis that has been applied in a limited number of studies was per-
formed to determine the significance of the results based on a Monte
Carlo simulation.
2. Material and methods
A case-specific LCA was used to assess the environmental impacts of
different cement types in Kocaeli, Turkey by following the International
Organization for Standards (ISO) 14040 and 14044. LCA is divided into
four main stages according to the ISO 14040: (1) goal and scope defi-
nition; (2) inventory analysis; (3) life cycle impact assessment; and (4)
life cycle interpretation.
2.1. Details of cement plant
The selected cement plant is the largest plant in Turkey with a 4
million tone/year production capacity and three dry process rotary
kilns with multistage-preheaters and pre-calciners. It is an integrated
cement plant which has a three quarry of limestone (2) and marl (1).
Four different types of cement are manufactured in the plant and in-
clude CEM I, CEM II, CEM IV, and OWC. The percentage of clinker and
other additives needed to produce one ton of cement are presented in
Table 1. Cement production consists of four main stages in the plant: (1)
raw material preparation; (2) raw meal mills; (3) clinker burning; and
(4) cement grinding. The thermal energy needed to produce one ton
clinker is 3337 MJ in cement kiln.
Sustainable production is accomplished through sludge drying
technology, waste heat recovery (WHR) technology (18 MW/h of ca-
pacity), and RDF feeding system (5 t/hour of capacity) in the plant.
Sewage sludge, which has a moisture content of 80% (maximum), is
dehydrated and granulated in the sludge drying plant before being used
in clinker production. The plant was started in 2009 and its capacity is
250 t of wet sludge per day. This is the first plant in Turkey in terms of
energy recovery and integration with the cement sector. The process
consists of three main sub-systems: (1) thermal energy recovery; (2)
drying process, and (3) alternative fuel usage. A dried sludge with a
calorific value of 2500–3500 kcal/kg and moisture content of 10% (w/
Limestone (%) Trass (%) Electricity (kWh)
0.01 – 109.85
0.01 0.10
0.01 0.23
0.03 –
0.03 – 114.67
0.04 0.15
0.03 0.37
– –
S. Çankaya and B. Pekey
Fig. 1. System boundaries of “cradle to gate” cement production, including material flow and emissions (Adapted from Huntzinger and Eatmon, 2009).
w) is used as alternative fuel in clinker production. Inputs and outputs
of the sludge drying system are shown in supplementary material
(Table A1). The WHR plant was started in 2013, and it provides ap-
proximately 25% of electricity consumption of the cement plant.
2.2. Goal, scope and functional unit
First, system boundaries were determined, and a functional unit was
chosen in order to define the goal and scope of the LCA study. The goal
of this study was to assess and compare the environmental impacts of
two different scenarios in cement production to reduce traditional fuel
and raw material usage: (1) TS (in 2007) ) and (2) AS (in 2013).
The scope of this LCA was determined as a cradle to gate approach,
which goes from the raw material supply and preparation to cement
grinding/packaging (Fig. 1). Four types of cement are produced in the
plant, but clinker is the same for all cement types. Therefore, two dif-
ferent functional units were used in this study: (1) 1 tone clinker (from
mining process to clinker production) and (2) 1 tone cement (for ce-
ment grinding/packaging process) as proposed by some researchers
(Garcia-Gusano et al., 2015a; Li et al., 2015). The LCA approach was
performed for four processes: (1) raw material preparation; (2) raw
meal mills; (3) clinker burning; and (4) cement grinding.
Transportation of all raw materials and fuels were also included in
this study. Infrastructure and facilities are excluded because their im-
pact was too small.
2.3. Life cycle inventory analysis
For the life cycle inventory analysis, site-specific data were obtained
from the plant. Additionally, Ecoinvent and USLCI databases were used
for inventories when necessary. Electricity production is obtained from
natural gas (28.5%), coal (36.4%), hydropower (22.4%), wind (6.3%),
geothermal (2.3%), solar energy (2.4%) and other sources (1.6%) in
Turkey (EMRA, 2018). Data of electricity production mix for Turkey
was obtained from Ecoinvent database. Limestone and clay quarrying
data were obtained from USLCI database. Trass, which is used as an
additive in CEM II and CEM IV, refers to natural pozzolan in this study.
The life cycle impact assessment tool SimaPro 8.0.4 (Pre
Consultants, 2008) was used to identify the environmental impacts of
inventory elements, build the product assemblies and life cycles for
clinker and four different cement products.
Data for 2007 and 2013 were used to determine and compare the
environmental impact of AFR usage in cement manufacturing. In 2007,
3
Journal of Environmental Management 249 (2019) 109362
a substitution rate of 0.09% (by thermal energy) for RDF and sub-
stitution rate of 0.2% (by mass) for alternative raw materials were used.
Therefore, the 2007 scenario was considered as the TS. In 2013, a
thermal substitution rate of 3.5% (by thermal energy) for alternative
fuels (dried sludge, RDF, and residual oil) and a substitution rate of 1%
(by mass) for alternative raw materials were used. Additionally, WHR
system was taken into operation in the year of 2013. Therefore, this
scenario was considered as the AS. Details of inputs and outputs of both
scenarios are presented in supplementary material (Table A2).
RDF production in a sorting plant, in which RDF was selected and
prepared for fuel use, and transport to the cement plant was also in-
cluded in this study. The composition of RDF and electricity con-
sumption to produce RDF was obtained from the literature. RDF con-
tains 66% waste textile, 17% waste paper, 13.3% waste plastic bags,
and 3.6% polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic. The calorific value
of the RDF used in this study was 4000 kcal/kg (Kara et al., 2009). The
amount of electrical energy in order to produce 1 ton of RDF was ac-
cepted as 373.4 kWh (Grzesik and Malinowski, 2016). The transporta-
tion distance of RDF was obtained from the cement plant.
Air emissions (CO, NO, NO2, and particulate matter) from cement
production facilities which were stated in Table A2 as output, and air
emissions (H2S, NH3, VOC, NO, and NO2) from sludge drying plant
which were stated in Table A1 as output were provided through direct
measurement from the cement plant.
2.4. Life cycle impact assessment
The IMPACT 2002 + method, which is a combination of four
methods (IMPACT 2002; Eco-indicator 99, CML, and IPCC), was se-
lected in order to assess the environmental impacts of clinker and dif-
ferent cement types in this study. It is based on a structured midpoint-
and damage-oriented approach of life cycle impact assessment
(Frischknecht et al., 2007; Humbert et al., 2014). The mid-point impact
categories evaluated in this study were carcinogens, non-carcinogens,
respiratory inorganics, ionizing radiation, ozone layer depletion, re-
spiratory organics, aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, terres-
trial acidification/nutrition, land occupation, aquatic acidification,
aquatic eutrophication, global warming, non-renewable energy, and
mineral extraction. The end-point impact categories were human
health, ecosystem quality, climate change, and resources. Additionally,
normalization and weighting, which are optional stages to facilitate the
interpretation of results, were performed (ISO 14040).
S. Çankaya and B. Pekey
2.5. Uncertainty analysis
Uncertainty analysis is a systematic procedure used to quantify the
uncertainty introduced in the results of a life cycle inventory analysis
due to the cumulative effects of model imprecision, input uncertainty,
and data variability (ISO, 14040). Huijbregts (1998) stated that there
were six different uncertainties and variabilities: (1) parameter un-
certainty; (2) model uncertainty; (3) uncertainty due to choices; (4)
spatial variability; (5) temporal variability; and (6) variability between
objects and sources. Although a range of available approaches for un-
certainty analysis have been reviewed by researchers in the LCIA phase,
and among them, the Monte Carlo simulation, is a stochastic model,
was the most commonly recommended. Monte Carlo simulations have
now been built into commercial LCA software such as SimaPro (PRé-
Consultants, 2004); nevertheless, it is still only applied in few LCA
studies (Güereca et al., 2015; Guo and Murphy, 2012).
In this study, an uncertainty analysis was performed with a Monte
Carlo simulation in order to estimate the uncertainties and compare the
significance of the results for both scenarios. Because the site-specific
information did not contain any uncertainty ranges, an uncertainty
analysis was conducted with the data from statistical sources. The re-
quirements of an uncertainty analysis are 1000 iterations and a 95%
confidence interval (CI).
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Life cycle impact assessment for clinker production
3.1.1. Traditional scenario (TS)
The characterization results of the 1 ton of clinker production are
presented in Fig. 2. The environmental burdens were assessed and in-
terpreted for six production categories: (1) clinkerization (calcinations
and fuel burning); (2) raw material usage; (3) electricity consumption;
(4) transportation; (5) fuel usage (including refinery operations); and
(6) AFR usage. As can be seen in Fig. 2, clinkerization shows a high
contribution to global warming (93%), terrestrial acid./nutri. (77%),
and aquatic acidification (62%). This result is compatible with Güereca
et al. (2015), who determined that the kiln process presented high
contributions to GWP, acidification, eutrophication, and photochemical
oxidation.
Fig. 2. Characterization results of 1 ton of clinker production for the traditional scenario (TS).
4
Journal of Environmental Management 249 (2019) 109362
The highest adverse effects of raw material usage were seen with
respect to the mineral extraction impact category. Mineral extraction
was significantly influenced by raw material usage (91%). Additionally,
about 85% of aquatic ecotoxicity, 84% of terrestrial ecotoxicity, 53% of
respiratory organics, 52% of land occupation, 40% of ionizing radia-
tion, 34% of non-carcinogens, and 32% of ozone layer depletion can be
associated with raw material usage (Fig. 2).
Electricity consumption contributes to environmental categories
such as carcinogens (80%), respiratory inorganics (62.5%), and non-
carcinogens (48.4%), which are generally associated with human
health. Additionally, it also contributes a minor amount of non-re-
newable energy (27%).
Transportation has adverse effects on land occupation, ionizing ra-
diation, ozone layer depletion, and respiratory organics (ranging from
16% to 24%).
Fossil fuel usage (such as petroleum coke, lignite, fuel oil, and
natural gas) for producing clinker adversely affects non-renewable en-
ergy (59%), aquatic eutrophication (81%), and ozone layer depletion
(29%) as can be seen in Fig. 2.
In order to determine the significance level of production stages in
terms of environmental aspects, normalization and weighting were
performed, and the results are presented in Fig. 3. When Fig. 3 was
examined, it was determined that clinkerization generates 60% of
overall environmental burden followed by electricity consumption
(27% of overall environmental burden). There is no important effect of
AFR usage in TS because the substitution was too low.
3.1.2. Alternative scenario (AS)
The characterization results of 1 ton of clinker production for the AS
were presented in Fig. 4. The environmental burdens were assessed and
interpreted for seven production categories: (1) clinkerization (calci-
nations and fuel burning); (2) raw material usage; (3) alternative raw
material usage; (4) electricity consumption; (5) transportation; (6) fuel
usage; and (7) alternative fuel usage.
It is conspicuous that clinkerization has adverse effects on GWP,
terrestrial acid./nutri., and aquatic acidification in a manner similar to
the TS (Fig. 4). GWP was mostly affected by clinkerization (94%) in
accordance with other studies (Güereca et al., 2015; Galvez-Martos and
Schoenberger, 2014; Valderrama et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2010;
Huntzinger and Eatmon, 2009; Stafford et al., 2016a).
S. Çankaya and B. Pekey Journal of Environmental Management 249 (2019) 109362

Fig. 3. Single scores of different production stages for the TS.

Concerning aquatic acidification, it was determined that 1.05 kg
SO2-eq and 61% of this value (0.68 kg SO2-eq.) was derived from
clinkerization, 16% from electricity consumption, 12% from raw ma-
terial usage, and 2% from fuel usage. Stafford et al. (2016b) also con-
cluded that clinkerization yields a high contribution to acidification
potential (48%), which is compatible with results from this study. It is
also stated in the literature that most of the SO2 emissions arise from
the kiln due to fuel combustion and processing of the raw materials in
the kilns (Stafford et al., 2016b).
Terrestrial acid./nutri. potential, calculated as 6.75 kg SO2-eq, is
mostly influenced by clinkerization (5.3 kg SO2-eq; 75%) followed by
raw material usage (13%), electricity (6.5%), and transportation
(4.6%). This result is compatible with the results of scientific studies
performed by Güereca et al. (2015); Huntzinger and Eatmon (2009),
and Genon and Brizio (2008), who state RDF co-processing in cement
kilns reduces the acidification potential because RDF generates lower
nitrogen (NOx) and sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions than coke (Güereca
et al., 2015).
It was conspicuous that alternative raw material usage has a positive
impact on land occupation, ionizing radiation, aquatic ecotoxicity,
ozone layer depletion, carcinogens, and non-carcinogens. The results
showed that substitution rate of 1% for alternative raw material reduces

Fig. 4. Contribution of each processing stage to the impact categories.

5
S. Çankaya and B. Pekey
27% of land occupation, 24% of ionizing radiation, and 24% of aquatic
ecotoxicity.
Fossil fuel usage (such as petroleum coke, lignite, fuel oil, and
natural gas) to produce clinker adversely affects non-renewable energy
(66%) aquatic eutrophication (85%), and ozone layer depletion (40%)
based on mining and refinery activities.
Electricity consumption contributes to 76% of carcinogens and 58%
of respiratory inorganics. Approximately 20% of the renewable energy
category is associated with electricity consumption. This ratio was de-
termined as 59% for TS. The reason for this reduction as determined in
the AS is likely due to an environmental saving of electrical energy from
using the WHR system. Because technology used in the cement pro-
duction industry mainly affected energy saving and emissions released,
WHR system is considered as a valuable alternative approach to im-
proving overall energy efficiency and sustainability in cement industry
(El Atasi, 2013). In the cement plant selected in this study, approxi-
mately 25% of total electrical energy to produce clinker supplies with
the WHR system and the plant saves on purchased electricity in terms of
environmental and economical. In the literature, WHR used in cement
production reduced 20% of fossil fuel usage and 8% of CO2 emissions
(Benhelal et al., 2013). Song et al. (2016) also determined a 4% re-
duction for GWP with using WHR system. In this study, waste heat
recovery reduced GWP by approximately 1%. With the use of the WHR
system in 2013, the plant reduced all mid-point impacts from ap-
proximately 1% (global warming) to 32% (carcinogens).
Normalized and weighted impacts of 1 ton of clinker production are
presented in Fig. 5. According to Fig. 5, clinkerization constitutes 67%
of overall environmental burdens followed by electricity consumption
(22%). It was detected that AFR usage has a 3% positive impact on
overall environmental burdens.
3.1.3. Comparison of scenarios and process contribution analysis
The characterizations results of two scenarios are comparatively
presented in Table 2. According to Table 2, all impact categories de-
creased, except for mineral extraction. Non-carcinogens, carcinogens,
and land occupation decreased significantly.
Electricity consumption caused the maximum environmental load
with respect to carcinogens and non-carcinogens. Calcareous marl
usage also produced an important environmental load with respect to
carcinogens. However, RDF, dried sewage sludge, and fly ash usage
caused a significant reduction in both carcinogens and non-carcinogens
Fig. 5. Single scores of different production processes associated with the alternative scenario (AS).
6
Journal of Environmental Management 249 (2019) 109362
according to the process contribution analysis in SimaPro. Process
contributions of carcinogens (a) and non-carcinogens (b) are presented
in Fig. 6.
A considerable decrease (24%) has also been determined with re-
spect to ozone layer depletion as can be seen in Table 2. Ozone layer
depletion occurs if the rate of ozone destruction is increased due to
anthropogenic emissions of recalcitrant chemicals containing chlorine
or bromine atoms, and it is measured as CFC-11 eq. (Stafford et al.,
2016b). For TS, the adverse effect of clinker production on ozone layer
depletion was evaluated as 2.52E-06 kg CFC-11 eq., and 29% of this
value (7.3E-07 kg CFC-11 eq.) was associated with fuel usage. For AS,
ozone layer depletion was evaluated as 1.92E-06 kg CFC-11-eq., and
52.6% of this value (1.01E-06 kg CFC-11 eq.) was associated with fuel
usage. Güereca et al. (2015) stated that petroleum coke produces
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions during their manufacture at the
refinery. In this study, although ozone layer depletion associated with
fuel usage increased, a total ozone layer depletion impact category
decreased significantly for AS. This decrease may result from less or no
use of fossil fuels, depending on AFR usage. In the literature, it was
determined that ozone layer depletion derived from the 1 ton of clinker
production ranged from 5.11E-04 to 6.40E-08 (Güereca et al., 2015;
Valderrama et al. 2012, 2013; Saade et al., 2015; Georgiopoulou and
Lyberatos, 2018; Aranda-Usón et al., 2012) in accordance with this
study.
Land occupation was associated with traffic area (road, rail net-
works), mineral extraction sites, dump sites, arable land, forests, con-
struction sites, and industrial areas in SimaPro software. The con-
tribution of the processes associated with land occupation for TS and AS
is presented in Fig. 7. According to Fig. 7, marl mining, lignite mining,
and transportation caused important environmental loads to land oc-
cupation for both scenarios. Fly ash, which is used as alternative raw
material, is the main reason for the reduction in the land occupation
category for AS.
It is conspicuous that the mineral extraction category increased
significantly (61%) in AS. The contributors to this category are pre-
sented Fig. 8. As can be seen from Fig. 8, bauxite mining is the highest
contributor to mineral extraction. This result can be explained based on
the incremental increase in the amount of bauxite needed to produce 1
ton of clinker and change of bauxite supply chain according to Fig. 8
and a contribution analysis.
The dominant mid-point impact categories after normalization were
S. Çankaya and B. Pekey Journal of Environmental Management 249 (2019) 109362

Table 2
Life cycle impact assessment mid-point of a 1 ton clinker.
Impact category Unit TS (2007) AS (2013) Change (%)

Carcinogens kg C2H3Cl eq 1.78E+00 8.46E-01 −52.6

Non-carcinogens kg C2H3Cl eq 4.72E-01 −1.17E+00 −349
Respiratory inorganics kg PM2.5 eq 5.83E-01 4.36E-01 −25.3
Ionizing radiation Bq C-14 eq 1.71E+02 1.21E+02 −29.2
Ozone layer depletion kg CFC-11 eq 2.52E-06 1.92E-06 −23.9
Respiratory organics kg C2H4 eq 2.83E-02 2.23E-02 −21.0
Aquatic ecotoxicity kg TEG water 9.75E+03 7.99E+03 −18.0
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg TEG soil 2.59E+03 2.48E+03 −4.29
Terrestrial acid/nutri kg SO2 eq 8.41E+00 6.75E+00 −19.8
Land occupation m2org.arable 9.94E-01 5.80E-01 −41.7
Aquatic acidification kg SO2 eq 1.33E+00 1.05E+00 −21.2
Aquatic eutrophication kg PO4 P-lim 1.08E-01 1.04E-01 −3.56
Global warming kg CO2 eq 8.90E+02 8.78E+02 −1.40
Non-renewable energy MJ primary 2.17E+03 1.93E+03 −11.3
Mineral extraction MJ surplus 6.91E+00 1.12E+01 +61.8

Fig. 6. Process contribution of carcinogens (a) and non-carcinogens (b).

determined as global warming, respiratory inorganics, non-renewable
energy, and terrestrial ecotoxicity. Major process and substance con-
tributors in mid-point and end-point impact are also given in Table 3.
While a high level of climate change category is substantially associated
with CO2, fossil (approximately 99% for both scenarios), high level of
human health category is related to particles and NO2 according to the
contribution analysis (Table 3). Electricity contribution in global
warming was determined as approximately 5% (42.3 kg CO2 eq./
t.clinker) for TS and 3% (28.5 kg CO2eq/t.clinker) for AS. This
reduction can be explained with the use of WHR in AS. It was also
determined that non-renewable energy and terrestrial ecotoxicity are
related to mining operations for both scenarios.
Considering the results in terms of end-point impact, the relation-
ship between electricity process and human health, raw material
quarrying operations, and ecosystem quality, clinker production pro-
cess and climate change, and lignite mining and resources is quite re-
markable.
The normalized results of end-point impacts are also shown

Fig. 7. Process contribution of land occupation to TS (a) and AS (b).

7
S. Çankaya and B. Pekey Journal of Environmental Management 249 (2019) 109362

Fig. 8. Process contribution of mineral extraction for TS (a) and AS (b).

Table 3
Major process and substance contributions in mid-point and end-point impact.
Scenario Stage Category Substance (% contribution) Process (% contribution)

AS Mid-point Global warming CO2, fossil (99.7%) Clinker production (95.9%)

Electricity, medium voltage, TR (3.25%)
Respiratory inorganics Particulates, < 2.5 μm (61.1%) Electricity, medium voltage, TR (56.4%)
Non-renewable energy Coal, brown (69%) Lignite, mine operation (63.9%)
Terrestrial ecotoxicity Aluminium (86.3%) Limestone quarry operation (42.1%)
End-point Human health Particulates, < 2.5 μm (61.3%) Electricity, medium voltage, TR (57.6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (25.2%)
Ecosystem quality Aluminium (62.7%) Calcareous marl production (33%)
Limestone quarry operation (31.7%)
Climate change CO2, fossil (99.7%) Clinker production (95.9%)
Resources Coal, brown (68.6%) Lignite, mine operation (63.5%)
TS Mid-point Global warming CO2, fossil (99.6%) Clinker production (92.6%)
Electricity, medium voltage, TR (4.75%)
Respiratory inorganics Particulates, < 2.5 μm (62.8%) Electricity, medium voltage, TR (62.4%)
Non-renewable energy Coal, brown (62.9%) Lignite, mine operation (51.5%)
Terrestrial ecotoxicity Aluminium (79.1%) Calcareous marl production (59.7%)
End-point Human health Particulates, < 2.5 μm (61.8%) Electricity, medium voltage, TR (62.6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (22.6%) Clinker production (20.8%)
Ecosystem quality Aluminium (53.9%) Calcareous marl production (44.7%)
Climate change CO2, fossil (99.6%) Clinker production (92.6%)
Resources Coal, brown (62.7%) Lignite, mine operation (51.3%)

comparatively in Fig. 9 for both scenarios. Climate change constitutes
about 55% of overall environmental burdens, and human health con-
stitutes about 35% of overall environmental burdens for TS. These va-
lues are 61% and 29%, respectively, for AS. The results indicate that the
impact associated with climate change and human health made sig-
nificant contributions to the overall environmental impact. This result
is compatible with those reported in the literature (Ali et al. 2014; Ruan
and Unluer, 2016; Abuşoğlu et al., 2017).
The reduction on damage to human health, ecosystem quality, re-
sources, and climate change was evaluated as 27%, 10%, 11%, and
1.4%; respectively. Climate change effects derived from clinker pro-
duction were assessed by a number of researchers, and different values
were determined according to the waste type, substitution rate, and
process type. Aranda-Usón et al. (2012) determined an approximate
10% reduction in climate change effect per ton clinker production with
dried sludge usage (thermal substitution rate of 5%). Boesch et al.
(2009) determined a 0.3% reduction for climate change effect after co-
processing 20 kg dried sewage sludge. Some of the studies investigated
RDF use as an alternative fuel to produce clinker (Panahandeh et al.,
2017; Strazza et al., 2011; Stafford et al., 2016a; Güereca et al., 2015).
Panahandeh et al. (2017) evaluated the GWP of 1 ton of clinker with a
5% RDF substitution as 790 kg CO2-eq. Güereca et al. (2015) also de-
termined the reduction of GWP for 1 ton of clinker as approximately
3.6% with a thermal substitution of 20% RDF.
In this study, climate change (CC) effects were determined as 890 kg
CO2-eq/clinker and 878 kg CO2-eq/t.clinker for TS and AS, respectively.
The result shows that AFR usage saves 12 kg CO2-eq per ton of clinker
produced. These values are compatible with other scientific studies. In
the literature, the GWP derived from 1 ton of clinker production with
traditional methods ranged from 790 kg CO2-eq to 1243 kg CO2-eq
(Valderrama et al. 2012, 2013; Panahandeh et al., 2017; Aranda-Usón
et al., 2012; Güereca et al., 2015; Boesch et al., 2009; Boesch and
Hellweg, 2010). On the other hand, for 1 ton of clinker production with
alternative methods (AFR usage or alternative technology usage), GWPs
range from 780 kg CO2-eq to 938 kg CO2-eq. per ton clinker according
to the literature (Valderrama et al. 2012, 2013; Panahandeh et al.,
2017; Güereca et al., 2015).
3.2. Life cycle impact assessment of cement production
The comparative characterization results of different cement types
for the two scenarios are given in Table 4.
According to the TS results, CEM IV has generally low adverse im-
pact on the environment, because of the low clinker:cement ratio
compared with other cement types. It has the lowest contribution to
carcinogens, respiratory inorganics, ozone layer depletion, aquatic

8
S. Çankaya and B. Pekey Journal of Environmental Management 249 (2019) 109362

Fig. 9. Damage assessment results for TS and AS.

ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, terrestrial acid./nutri., aquatic
acidification and eutrophication, global warming, non-renewable en-
ergy, and mineral extraction. In contrast, it presents a high contribution
to non-carcinogens, ionizing radiation, and land occupation.
When the GWP of cement was taken into account for TS, it was
determined CEM I has the highest GWP (850 kg CO2 eq./t.cement). This
value was 766, 666, and 841 kg CO2eq/t.cement for CEM II, CEM IV,
and OWC, respectively. CEM IV has the lowest GWP.
According to the damage assessment results, climate change, human
health, resources, and ecosystem quality constitutes 49%, 41%, 8.7%,
and 1.3% of overall environmental burdens for CEM I and OWC, re-
spectively. These values were 47%, 43%, 9.2%, and 1.4% and 48%,
42%, 9.2%, and 1.35% for CEM II and CEM IV, respectively.
For the AS, it was determined that CEM IV presented the lowest
contribution to carcinogens, respiratory inorganics, aquatic and ter-
restrial ecotoxicity, terrestrial acid./nutri., aquatic acidification and
eutrophication, global warming, non-renewable energy, and mineral
extraction similar to that seen in TS. In contrast, CEM IV presented a
high contribution to ionizing radiation and land occupation followed by
CEM II. This situation can be explained by the mining and transporta-
tion process of trass which is used as additive in CEM IV.
In order to investigate the contribution of additives, transport, and
electricity consumption of cement grinding/packaging process, con-
tribution analysis was conducted and the results were given in
Supplementary material (Table B1). According to this table, trass has
4.34% and 1.57% contribution to overall environmental burden of CEM

Table 4
Characterization results of different cement types (per ton cement).
Impact category Unit OWC (TS) OWC (AS) CEM IV (TS) CEM IV (AS) CEM II (TS) CEM II (AS) CEM I (TS) CEM I (AS)

Mid-point impacts:
Carcinogens kg C2H3Cl eq 2.34E+00 1.80E+00 2.10E+00 1.57E+00 2.24E+00 1.96E+00 2.36E+00 1.76E+00
Non-carcinogens kg C2H3Cl eq 5.70E-01 −9.29E-01 5.88E-01 −2.91E-01 5.79E-01 −6.01E-01 5.77E-01 −8.95E-01
Respiratory inorganics kg PM2.5 eq 7.16E-01 6.69E-01 6.08E-01 4.91E-01 6.70E-01 6.58E-01 7.25E-01 6.53E-01
Ionizing radiation Bq C-14 eq 1.84E+02 1.49E+02 1.94E+02 1.70E+02 1.90E+02 1.63E+02 1.88E+02 1.46E+02
Ozone layer depletion kg CFC-11 eq 2.67E-06 2.27E-06 2.67E-06 2.29E-06 2.68E-06 2.35E-06 2.71E-06 2.22E-06
Respiratory organics kg C2H4eq 3.08E-02 2.72E-02 3.08E-02 2.74E-02 3.09E-02 2.84E-02 3.12E-02 2.67E-02
Aquatic ecotoxicity kg TEG water 9.99E+03 8.66E+03 8.63E+03 6.74E+03 9.39E+03 8.10E+03 1.00E+04 8.58E+03
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg TEG soil 2.65E+03 2.62E+03 2.41E+03 2.16E+03 2.55E+03 2.47E+03 2.67E+03 2.58E+03
Terrestrial acid/nutri kg SO2eq 8.11E+00 6.90E+00 6.66E+00 4.67E+00 7.49E+00 6.01E+00 8.20E+00 6.71E+00
Land occupation m2org.arable 1.08E+00 7.35E-01 1.40E+00 1.32E+00 1.23E+00 9.90E-01 1.11E+00 7.22E-01
Aquatic acidification kg SO2eq 1.36E+00 1.18E+00 1.16E+00 8.70E-01 1.27E+00 1.09E+00 1.37E+00 1.15E+00
Aquatic eutrophication kg PO4 P-lim 1.06E-01 1.09E-01 8.51E-02 6.85E-02 9.73E-02 9.35E-02 1.08E-01 1.06E-01
Global warming kg CO2eq 8.41E+02 8.64E+02 6.66E+02 5.29E+02 7.66E+02 7.21E+02 8.50E+02 8.38E+02
Non-renewable energy MJ primary 2.30E+03 2.25E+03 2.00E+03 1.69E+03 2.18E+03 2.10E+03 2.33E+03 2.19E+03
Mineral extraction MJ surplus 6.57E+00 1.09E+01 5.47E+00 6.95E+00 6.11E+00 9.17E+00 6.65E+00 1.06E+01
End-point impacts:
Human health DALY 0.00051 0.00047 0.000434 0.000348 0.000477 0.000465 0.000516 0.00046
Ecosystem quality PDF.m2.yr 31.05468 29.10121 27.96735 23.74615 29.7369 27.25878 31.33507 28.63683
Climate change kg CO2eq 840.7388 864.2397 665.5409 528.883 765.8461 720.7201 849.8529 837.5508
Resources MJ primary 2307.301 2262.569 2008.392 1697.826 2182.32 2109.707 2332.889 2199.719

9
S. Çankaya and B. Pekey
IV and CEM II; respectively. Transport of additives has the lowest
contributions on overall environmental burden for each cement pro-
duct. It also determined that the highest contribution to carcinogens
was related to the electricity consumption needed to produce 1 ton of
CEM II according to the contribution analysis. Contribution of elec-
tricity consumption of cement grinding/packaging process for CEM II
was found as higher than other cement products (Table B1).
When the GWP was taken into account for AS, it was determined
that OWC had the highest GWP (864 kg CO2 eq./t.cement). This value
was 838, 721, and 529 kg CO2eq/t.cement for CEM I, CEM II, and CEM
IV, respectively. A number of studies have indicated that each tone of
cement releases 572–972 kg CO2 into the atmosphere (Garcia-Gusano
et al. 2015a, García-Gusano et al., 2015b; Feiz et al., 2015; Chen et al.
2010, 2015; Stafford et al., 2016a; Song et al., 2016; Moretti and Caro,
2017; Boesch and Hellweg, 2010; Huntzinger and Eatmon, 2009). The
variability of the CO2 amount released into the atmosphere may depend
on a wide variety of factors such as cement type produced, clinker:ce-
ment ratio, alternative technologies, and AFR usage.
According to the damage assessment results for AS, climate change,
human health, resources, and ecosystem quality constituted 51%, 39%,
8.7%, and 1.2% of overall environmental burdens for CEM I and OWC,
respectively. These values were 47%, 42%, 9%, and 1.3% and 46%,
43%, 9.7%, and 1.5% for CEM II and CEM IV, respectively.
When the characterization results of cement types for the two sce-
narios were compared, it was determined that almost all environmental
impact categories (except from mineral extraction) showed a decrease
in AS compared to TS. Carcinogens and non-carcinogens impact cate-
gories decreased significantly. In contrary, mineral extraction increased
in various ratios from 27% (CEM IV) to 66% (OWC) in AS. According to
the inventory and contribution analyses, this result may be explained
by the increasing amount of bauxite used per ton of cement.
When impact categories were assessed based on cement types, the
highest reductions were generally seen with respect to CEM IV. Global
warming, aquatic eutrophication, non-renewable energy, and terrestrial
ecotoxicity reduced by 21%, 29%, 16%, and 10%, respectively, for CEM
IV. However, these values ranged from 1% to 5% for the other cement
types (CEM I, CEM II and OWC). While terrestrial acid./nutri., aquatic
acidification, and aquatic ecotoxicity reduced by 30%, 25%, and 22%
for CEM IV, respectively, they ranged from 12% to 20% for other ce-
ment types. The results showed that global warming, aquatic eu-
trophication, non-renewable energy, terrestrial ecotoxicity, terrestrial
acid./nutri., aquatic acidification, and aquatic ecotoxicity decreased
depending on the decrease in the amount of clinker to produce 1 ton of
cement. Besides, the lowest reductions for ionizing radiation and land
occupation were determined for CEM IV and CEM II (12% and 5%,
respectively). It is thought that this result could be associated with trass
usage and transportation processes needed to produce CEM IV and CEM
II.
Overall environmental burdens (mPt) of different cement types for
Fig. 10. Comparison of overall environmental burdens (mPt) of different cement types.
10
Journal of Environmental Management 249 (2019) 109362
the two scenarios are comparatively presented in Fig. 10. It was de-
termined that overall environmental burden of each cement type de-
creased in AS in comparison to TS. The highest reduction was de-
termined in CEM IV (20%) followed by CEM I (6%), CEM II (4%), and
OWC (2%).
As can be seen in Fig. 10, climate change decreased in AS com-
parison to TS for CEM I, CEM II and CEM IV. The highest reduction was
determined for CEM IV (21%). These values were 1.4% and 5.8% for
CEM I and CEM II, respectively. On the contrary, the ecopoint of cli-
mate change increased for OWC in AS comparison to TS. This result can
be explained by the clinker:cement ratio. While the clinker:cement ratio
of OWC was 0.92 in TS, it was 0.95 in AS. The decrease in human health
category was determined as 11%, 3%, 20%, and 8% for CEM I, CEM II,
CEM IV, and OWC, respectively. While decreases in ecosystem quality
were 9%, 8%, 15%, and 6%, decreases in resources were 6%, 3%, 15%,
and 2% for CEM I, CEM II, CEM IV, and OWC, respectively.
3.3. Uncertainty analysis
The results of the uncertainty analysis were given in Supplementary
Material (Appendix C). Uncertainties for mid-point impacts of TS and
AS were given in Table C1 and Table C2; respectively. Mineral ex-
traction, land occupation, and toxicity related impacts have high degree
of uncertainty for TS. Considering AS, human health related impacts
(carcinogens and non-carcinogens) have also high degree of uncertainty
in addition to the toxicity related impacts. On the contrary, the un-
certainties on respiratory inorganics, terrestrial acid./nutri., and
aquatic acidification are relatively low for both scenarios.
Results of Monte Carlo simulation for comparing TS and AS were
presented in Figure C1. It remarked that AS is always better for non-
carcinogens (100%). Additionally, AS preceded TS with respect to the
carcinogens (85%), land occupation (73%), and ionizing radiation
(70%) categories. On the other hand, it was only better by 49% and
33% of the iterations for terrestrial ecotoxicity and mineral extraction.
When damage assessment results were examined (Figure C2), it was
determined that AS preceded TS with respect to human health and
resources (71% and 62%, respectively). However, there was no sig-
nificant difference between the two scenarios for climate change and
ecosystem quality.
4. Conclusions
In this study, the environmental impact of clinker and cement
production was assessed from a life cycle perspective comparatively
with two scenarios: TS and AS. GWP, respiratory inorganics, and non-
renewable energy were determined as the most significant impact ca-
tegories according to the normalization results. It is concluded that
changing the traditional materials and fuels by alternative materials
and fuels at a 3% substitution rate lead to a 12 kg CO2-eq/t.clinker
S. Çankaya and B. Pekey
saving. Considering cement types, the highest improvement on overall
environmental burdens was determined for CEM IV (20%).
The uncertainty analysis showed that AS is always better for non-
carcinogens (100% of iteration). It gives better results with respect to
62% of the iterations for overall environmental burdens compared with
TS.
In this study, the substitution rate of fossil fuel by alternative fuel is
very low (3%) when compared to other studies; however, the results
obtained from this study are compatible with the literature. It is also
vital to increase the replacement primary fuels with alternative fuels in
order to conserve non-renewable energy sources and the environment,
and reduce the emissions (especially associated with climate change
and human health) and waste disposal sites. The results have also in-
dicated that GWP was not significantly reduced only by the replace-
ment of fossil fuel with alternative fuels (dried sludge, RDF, and re-
sidual oil) for clinker and cement types, except for CEM IV. This result
confirms the importance of the alternative technologies (WHR system)
and clinker:cement ratio on the environmental effects of cement pro-
duction.
The results of this study are beneficial for comparatively assessing
the impact of clinker and cement production on climate change, eco-
system quality, resources, and human health, investigate the environ-
mental impacts of use of different waste types (dried sludge, residual
oil, RDF) and substitution rates for clinker/cement production, and
develop decision mechanisms with a life cycle perspective. These re-
sults could be useful for waste managers at cement plants and decision
makers in Turkey. However, inputs and outputs within the scope of the
study were assessed only in terms of environmental aspects. The effect
of AFR usage on product quality and economic aspect was outside the
scope of this study. Therefore, it is important to performing the studies
that concurrently investigate the effects of AFR usage in terms of en-
vironmental, economic, and product quality. Additionally, investiga-
tion of the use of different types and substitution rates of waste mate-
rials (alternative fuels or raw materials) and implementation of
different alternative technologies (such as carbon mitigation and cap-
ture technologies) in cement production would be significant for re-
ducing climate change and other impacts derived from cement pro-
duction facilities.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Kocaeli University Scientific Research
Projects Coordination Unit. Project Number: 2014/030. We would like
to thank Yasin Yiğit and Ümit Emre Ün for their guidance and discus-
sions concerning the production process and data provision generously.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109362.
References
Abuşoğlu, A., Özahi, E., Kutlar, A.İ., Al-Jaaf, H., 2017. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
digested sewage sludge incineration for heat and power production. J. Clean. Prod.
142, 1684–1692.
Ali, A.A.M., Negm, A.M., Bady, M.F., İbrahim, M.G.H., 12-15 June 2014. Effect of fuel
type on the life cycle of Egyptian cement industry: environmental impact assessment
approach. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Asian Conference on Sustainability, Energy
and the Environment, Osaka, Japan.
Aranda-Usón, A., Ferreira, G., López-Sabirón, A.M., Sastresa, E.L., de Guinoa, A.S., 2012.
Characterisation and environmental analysis of sewage sludge as secondary fuel for
cement manufacturing. Chem. Eng. Trans. 29, 457–462.
Ariyaratne, W.K.H., 2009. Alternative Fuels in Cement Kilns – Characterization and
11
Journal of Environmental Management 249 (2019) 109362
Experiments. Master Thesis. Telemark University College, Porsgrunn.
Benhelal, E., Zahedi, G., Shamsaei, E., Bahadori, A., 2013. Global strategies and potentials
to curb CO2 emissions in cement industry. J. Clean. Prod. 51, 142–161.
Boesch, M.E., Hellweg, S., 2010. Identifying improvement potentials in cement produc-
tion with life cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (23), 9143–9149.
Boesch, M.E., Koehler, A., Hellweg, S., 2009. Model for cradle-to-gate life cycle assess-
ment of clinker production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 7578–7583.
Çankaya, S., Pekey, B., 2018. Comparative life cycle assessment of clinker production
with conventional and alternative fuels usage in Turkey. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev.
9, 213–217.
Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., Jullien, A., 2010. Environmental impact of cement
production: detail of the different processes and cement plant variability evaluation.
J. Clean. Prod. 18, 478–485.
Chen, W., Hong, J., Xu, C., 2015. Pollutants generated by cement production in China,
their impacts, and the potential for environmental improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 103,
61–69.
EEA, 2016. E. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2016, Technical
Guidance to Prepare National Emission İnventories. European Environment Agency,
EEA Report No 21/2016, Lüksemburg, Belgium, 978-92-9213-806-6pp. 1–18.
El Atasi, L., 2013. Environmental Impact Assessment for Sustainable Cement Production.
Ph.D. Thesis, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
EMRA (Energy Market Regulatory Authorities), 2018. Turkey's energy profile and
strategy. Available online: http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkeys-energy-strategy.en.mfa,
Accessed date: 28 March 2019.
Feiz, R., Ammenberg, J., Baas, L., Eklund, M., Helgstrand, A., Marshall, R., 2015.
Improving the CO2 performance of cement, Part I: utilizing life-cycle assessment and
key performance indicators to assess development within the cement industry. J.
Clean. Prod. 98, 272–281.
Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H.-J., Bauer, C., Doka, G., Dones, R., Hischier,
R., Hellweg, S., Humbert, S., Köllner, T., Loerincik, Y., Margni, M., Nemecek, T.,
2007. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. Ecoinvent Report
No. 3, v2.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf.
Galvez-Martos, J.L., Schoenberger, H., 2014. An analysis of the use of life cycle assess-
ment for waste co-incineration in cement kilns. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 86,
118–131.
García-Gusano, D., Herrera, I., Garraín, D., Lechón, Y., Cabal, H., 2015a. Life cycle as-
sessment of the Spanish cement industry: implementation of environmental-friendly
solutions. Clean Technol. Environ. 17, 59–73.
García-Gusano, D., Garraín, D., Herrera, I., Cabal, H., Lechón, Y., 2015b. Life cycle as-
sessment of applying CO2 post-combustion capture to the Spanish cement produc-
tion. J. Clean. Prod. 104, 328–338.
Genon, G., Brizio, E., 2008. Perspectives and limits for cement kilns as a destination for
RDF. Waste Manag. 28, 2375–2385.
Georgiopoulou, M., Lyberatos, G., 2018. Life cycle assessment of the use of alternative
fuels in cement kilns: a case study. J. Environ. Manag. 216, 224–234.
Grzesik, K., Malinowski, M., 2016. Life cycle assessment of refuse-derived fuel production
from mixed municipal waste. Energy Sources Part A 38 (21), 3150–3157.
Güereca, L.P., Torres, N., Juarez-Lopez, C.R., 2015. The Co-processing of municipal waste
in a cement kiln in Mexico. A life-cycle assessment approach. J. Clean. Prod. 107,
741–748.
Guo, M., Murphy, R.J., 2012. LCA data quality: sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Sci.
Total Environ. 435–436, 230–243.
Gürsel, A.P., 2014. Life-Cycle Assessment of Concrete: Decision-Support Tool and Case
Study Application. Ph.D. Thesis. University of California, Berkeley.
Hacıyusufoğlu, B., Başar, H.M., Cılız, N., 2017. Farklı çimento ve betonlarin
karşilaştirmali yaşam döngüsü analizi ve LEED sertifikali binalarda etkilerinin
değerlendirilmesi. Kalkınmada Anahtar Verimlilik 29, 27–35.
Haque, N., Jangam, S.V., Mujumdar, A.S., 2015. Life cycle assessment of drying systems.
In: Mujumdar, A.S. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial Drying, fourth ed. CRC Press, New
York, USA, 978-1-4665-9666-5, pp. 1229–1238.
Hasanbeigi, A., Lu, H., Williams, C., Price, L., 2012. International Best Practices for Pre-
Processing and Co-processing Municipal Solid Waste and Sewage Sludge in the
Cement Industry. Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-5581E, pp. 1–115.
Hong, J., Li, X., 2011. Environmental assessment of sewage sludge as secondary raw
material in cement production – a case study in China. Waste Manag. 31, 1364–1371.
Huijbregts, M.A.J., 1998. Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Int. J. LCA 3,
273–280.
Humbert, S., Schryver, A.D., Bengoa, X., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., 2014. IMPACT 2002+:
User Guide Draft for Version Q2. 21. Quantis, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Huntzinger, D.N., Eatmon, T.D., 2009. A life-cycle assessment of portland cement man-
ufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. J. Clean.
Prod. 17, 668–675.
ISO 14040, 2006. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and
Framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements
and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jungbluth, N., Chudacoff, M., Dauriat, A., Dinkel, F., Doka, G., Faist Emmenegger, M., ...
Stettler, C., 2007. Life cycle inventories of bioenergy. pp. 17 Final report ecoinvent
data v2.0.
Kara, M., Günay, E., Tabak, Y., Yıldız, Ş., 2009. Perspectives for pilot scale study of RDF in
Istanbul, Turkey. Waste Manag. 29, 2976–2982.
Lamas, W.Q., Palau, J.C.F., Camargo, J.R., 2013. Waste materials Co-processing in cement
industry: ecological efficiency of waste reuse. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19,
200–207.
Li, C., Cui, S., Nie, Z., Gong, X., Wang, Z., Itsub, N., 2015. The LCA of Portland cement
production in China. Int. J. LCA 20, 117–127.
S. Çankaya and B. Pekey
Moretti, L., Caro, S., 2017. Critical analysis of the life cycle assessment of the Italian
cement industry. J. Clean. Prod. 152, 198–210.
Morsali, S., 2016. Emissions from portland cement production using life cycle assessment
inventory and method. Environ. Energy Econ. 1, 1–8.
Panahandeh, A., Asadollahfardi, G., Mirmohammadi, M., 2017. Life cycle assessment of
clinker production using refuse-derived fuel: a case study using refuse-derived fuel
from tehran municipal solid waste. Environ. Qual. Manag. 27, 57–66.
Rahman, A., Rasul, M.G., Khan, M.M.K., Sharma, S., 2015. Recent development on the
uses of alternative fuels in cement manufacturing process. Fuel 145, 84–99.
Ruan, S., Unluer, C., 2016. Comparative life cycle assessment of reactive MgO and
portland cement production. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 258–273.
Saade, M.R.M., da Silva, M.G., Gomesa, V., 2015. Appropriateness of environmental
impact distribution methods to model blast furnace slag recycling in cement making.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 99, 40–47.
Schorcht, F., Kourti, I., Scalet, B.M., Roudier, S., Sancho, L.D., 2013. Best Available
Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Production of Cement, Lime and
Magnesium Oxide. European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for
Prospective Technological Studies (Report EUR 26129 EN), Luxembourg,
Belgium978-92-79-32944-9.
Song, D., Yang, J., Chen, B., Hayat, T., Alsaedi, A., 2016. Life-cycle environmental impact
analysis of a typical cement production chain. Appl. Energy 164, 916–923.
Stafford, F.N., Dias, A.C., Arroja, L., Labrincha, J.A., Hotza, D., 2016a. Life cycle
12
Journal of Environmental Management 249 (2019) 109362
assessment of the production of Portland cement: a Southern Europe case study. J.
Clean. Prod. 126, 159–165.
Stafford, F.N., Raupp-Pereira, F., Labrincha, J.A., Hotza, D., 2016b. Life cycle assessment
of the production of cement: a Brazilian case study. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1293–1299.
Strazza, C., Del Borghi, A., Gallo, M., Del Borghi, M., 2011. Resource productivity en-
hancement as means for promoting cleaner production: analysis of Co-incineration in
cement plants through a life cycle approach. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1615–1621.
TCMA (Turkish Cement Manufacturers’ Association), 2018. Home page. Available
Online: http://www.tcma.org.tr/ENG/index.php, Accessed date: 23 November 2018.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) Mineral commodity summaries, 2017. U.S. Geological
survey. Available online: https://doi.org/10.3133/70180197, Accessed date: 28
November 2018 202.
Valderrama, C., Granados, R., Cortina, J.L., Gasol, C.M., Guillem, M., Josa, A., 2012.
Implementation of best available techniques in cement manufacturing: a life-cycle
assessment study. J. Clean. Prod. 25, 60–67.
Valderrama, C., Granados, R., Cortina, J.L., Gasol, C.M., Guillem, M., Josa, A., 2013.
Comparative LCA of sewage sludge valorisation as both fuel and raw material sub-
stitute in clinker production. J. Clean. Prod. 51, 205–213.
Yang, D., Fan, L., Shi, F., Liu, Q., Wang, J., 2017. Comparative study of cement manu-
facturing with different strength grades using the coupled LCA and partial LCC
methods—a case study in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 119, 60–68.