Journal of Cleaner Production 402 (2023) 136857

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Life cycle analysis of paver block production using waste plastics:

Comparative assessment with concrete paver blocks
Hemant Goyal , Rakshit Kumar , Prasenjit Mondal *
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttrakhand, 247667, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Jian Zuo Recycling of plastic waste to replace cementitious products to some extent can be a better way to get rid of plastic
waste and avoid the use of cement. But to make any innovation into a scale-up technology, a comparative study
Keywords: on environmental emissions is needed. The present study evaluates the environmental emissions from two plastic
Life cycle analysis recycling methods for manufacturing paver blocks (PB) and compares these with the emissions of conventional
Paver blocks
concrete paver blocks (CCPB). Life cycle analysis (LCA) has been performed on three PB manufacturing processes
Waste plastic
(CCPB, Plastic as filler paver blocks (PFPB) and Plastic as binder paver blocks (PBPB)) considering the impacts
Recycling
Environment-friendly from materials and energy interaction in each step and operation. The impacts obtained from the CML 2001 and
TRACI methods have shown that the emissions from PFPB (GWP 21.4 kg CO2 eq.) and CCPB (GWP 16 kg CO2 eq.)
are almost 2.2 and 1.6 times higher than PBPB (GWP 9.86 kg CO2 eq.). The LCA study shows that use of cement
has major contribution (for instance >80% in GWP category) to overall emissions for PFPB and CCPB. The
sensitivity analysis elucidates that transportation distance and truck payload for CCPB and PFPB processes and
electricity consumption for PBPB, shift the impacts in greater magnitude (±3–10%) by ±20% variation in input
parameter values. The LCA study concludes that the PB manufacturing by complete replacement of cement is
more environment-friendly process than PFPB and CCPB. The use of electricity from solid biomass and hydro­
power can reduce the GWP by 77% and 83% respectively.

1. Introduction
The management of solid waste continues to be a major challenge,
particularly in urban agglomeration in low and middle-income coun­
tries. One type of solid waste that is of national and global concern is
plastic waste. The problem of plastic waste has been growing since the
last four decades, and still only a small portion of it is being recycled. In
the UK, for instance, over 5 million tons of plastic is consuming each
year while only 1 quarter of it is recycled (Web-1). The ever-expanding
usage of plastic due to its versatility and extensive dependability has led
to heavy production of disposable plastic and subsequently generated
waste. Around 8 million tons of plastic ends up in the ocean, and this
trend could lead to more plastic in the ocean than fish (Gravis, 2017).
Small plastic particles have also been found in the samples of food and
drinking water(Nampower, 2021). According to an estimate by the
United Nations Organization, now the rate of plastic consumption has
reached 250 g of plastic per year per person (Web-2). A recent study
discovered that there are traces of PET microplastics in the human
bloodstream for the first time. Scientists now have apprehensions about
plastic entering into the organs of living entities (Leslie et al., 2022).
India has generated over 34 lakh tonnes of plastic waste in 2019–20. The
per capita plastic waste generation of metro cities in India is much
higher than in the rest of the country. Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, and
Chennai account for more than half of the plastic waste generated in the
country (Biswas et al., 2021). Although the per capita consumption of
plastic in India is lower than the world’s average, waste plastic is a huge
problem in the country due to its increasing usage and lack of awareness
and technology for disposing of the waste plastic (Web-3Web-3).
Plastic waste is a menace in India as it has various implications on
health, like lung and gut injury (Vethaak and Leslie, 2016). A large
portion of waste plastic ends up in landfills and leeches in the ground
and water table, leading to contamination of land and water in the
nearby areas. The littering of waste plastic leads to the clogging of
sewers and drains, leading to water and air pollution. Other conven­
tional methods for the management of waste plastic are incineration,
recycling, and pyrolysis. Incineration is the burning of plastic waste in
the presence of oxygen, this causes air pollution and can release harmful
chemicals such as dioxins, furans, hazardous halogens, polychlorinated
biphenyls, and mercury to the environment (Verma et al., 2016). In

* Corresponding author. Department of Chemical Enginee- ring, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttrakhand, 247667, India.
E-mail address: prasenjit.mondal@ch.iitr.ac.in (P. Mondal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136857
Received 4 January 2023; Received in revised form 8 March 2023; Accepted 17 March 2023
Available online 20 March 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Goyal et al.
Abbreviations
GWP : Global Warming Potential (100 years)
AP : Acidification Potential
EP : Eutrophication Potential
ODP : Ozone Depletion Potential
ADP (E) : Abiotic Depletion Potential (elements)
ADP (F) : Abiotic Depletion Potential (fossil)
FAETP : Fresh Water Aquatic Eco-Toxicity Potential
HTP : Human Toxicity Potential
MAETP : Marine Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential
TETP : Terrestric Eco Toxicity Potential
HHPA : Human Health Particulate matter
HT (C) : Human Toxicity Carcinogenic
HT (NC) : Human Toxicity Non carcinogenic
Res. (F.F) : Resources (Fossil fuels)
SA : Smog air
recycling, through high-temperature melting and compounding of
plastics, harmful chemicals get released into the environment, and they
affect flora and fauna (Evode et al., 2021). Pyrolysis is a process in which
thermoplastics are subjected to heat in the absence of oxygen to break
them down into their various low molecular weight components such as
oil, gas and char. The commercialization of pyrolysis has not been
feasible till now due to the highly diverse plastic waste mixture (Peng
et al., 2022).
Among the different methods of management of waste plastics,
converting it into a useful product is more promising because it not only
reduces the requirement of virgin plastic but also increases the economic
worth of trash. Further, it has also been reported that recycling of waste
plastic through stabilization in concrete or making useful products
through secondary recycling has lower environmental impacts than
pyrolysis and incineration (Javadabadi, 2019; Nkwachukwu et al.,
2013; Saberian et al., 2022; D’ambrières, 2019). Plastic waste has also
been utilized to manufacture paver blocks and bricks. The utilization of
earth-based clay and concrete material resulted in resource depletion
and environmental degradation. In paver blocks, plastic has been used
as filler materials by replacing fine and/or coarse aggregates and as
binder by complete or partial replacement of cement. However, the
process of making useful products from both conventional raw materials
and waste plastic may have environmental impacts.
The conventional paver blocks are used to be made of concrete
material which includes cement, fine aggregates, coarse aggregates and
sand. Cement is used as a binding agent, but the cement industry is one
of the most significant contributors to GHG emissions because in the
production of cement, large amount of materials and energy, especially
in the form of electricity, are involved for the operation of various ma­
chinery like calcines and kiln. The gross approximation of GHG emission
from the cement industry is about 0.6–0.9 ton CO2 equivalent per ton of
cement production (Web-6). The cement industry has 5–6% contribu­
tion to global GHG emission, and in India, its production is increasing at
the annual growth rate of 8% (Web-5; Web-6). The IPCC has recom­
mended to replace the use of cementitious materials with radical inno­
vative products (Suhara, 2019; Web-6). For perspective, the paver block
market in 2020 was just above $200 billion and is expected to grow to
$285.1 billion by 2025 at the combined annual growth rate (CAGR) of
6.5% (Web-4).
So production of paver blocks by utilizing waste plastic material may
replace the concrete material partially. The waste plastic used as filler
material replaces the aggregates of conventional concrete paver blocks,
which may reduce the emissions from mining and comminution of stone
rocks, while the waste plastic used as binder may reduce the emissions of
the cement industry.
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 402 (2023) 136857
Guo et al., (2018a) and Kurda et al. (2018) studied the LCA of con­
crete paver blocks with recycled concrete aggregates and found reduc­
tion in emissions for recycled concrete aggregate blocks than normal
concrete blocks. Evangelista et al. (2018) has reported 52% reduction in
environmental emissions by utilizing 50% electric arc furnace slag as
natural aggregate. The literature suggests the use of recycled material to
replace conventional material for reducing the environmental emis­
sions. But to the best of authors knowledge, there is not a single LCA
study available in the literature which compares the impacts from
manufacturing of conventional concrete paver blocks with paver blocks
manufactured with the use of waste plastic.
The present study evaluates and compares the environmental im­
pacts from the two approaches of waste plastic recycling for paver blocks
production with the conventional concrete paver block production
process. The life cycle assessment of three paver blocks, namely Type-1
Conventional concrete paver blocks (CCPB), Type-2 Paver blocks with
plastic as filler material (PFPB) and Type-3 Plastic used as binder for
paver blocks (PBPB), has been performed to identify the most
environmental-friendly approach for the production of paver blocks
manufacturing through waste plastic. This study also provides the
emissions from each operation of each process which will be helpful for
the decision-makers to identify the operation which has the highest
emissions. Scenario analysis has been performed to evaluate the possi­
bility of further reduction in emissions. Further, parameter sensitivity
analysis has been performed to evaluate the robustness of processes and
their sensitivity to uncertainty factors in LCA.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Goal and scope of the study
This LCA study aims to evaluate and compare the environmental
impacts from manufacturing three different types of paver blocks. The
impacts from various operations involved in manufacturing each type of
paver block were assessed and compared. Stages having the most sig­
nificant contribution to environmental impacts were identified, and the
factors affecting various indices were also studied. The functional unit
for the study is considered as manufacturing of paver blocks to cover 1
m2 land area. Since the density and dimensions of each type of paver
blocks are different, the number and weight of paver blocks required to
cover 1 m2 area are different in all three cases. The calculation of the
number and mass of paver blocks was performed based on the available
data in the literature. The total mass of CCPB, PFPB and PBPB paver
blocks required to cover 1 m2 land area are 108 kg, 143.1 kg and 90 kg,
respectively (Web-7: Tapkire et al., 2014; Kumi-Larbi et al., 2018).
The scope of the study included all the operations from cradle to
gate, involving the emissions from collection, transportation,
manufacturing and preprocessing of raw materials (waste plastic,
cement, sand, etc.) to the manufacturing of the finished product (paver
block) (Ali et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2018b; Zulcão et al., 2020).
The operations considered for the assessment were the preparation of
raw materials, mixing of raw materials, moulding, pressing, and curing
of the final product. The environmental impacts from the drying oper­
ation were not considered, as the paver blocks were assumed to be
sundried. The flow diagram for CCPB, PFPB and PBPB processes are
shown in Fig. 1 (a), (b) and (c), respectively. The system boundaries for
manufacturing of CCPB, PFPB and PBPB types of paver blocks are shown
in Fig. 2 (a), (b) and (c), respectively.
2.2. Life cycle inventory analysis
Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis provides quantitative information
on raw material and energy requirements, emission to the environment
and waste generations requirement in each step involved in the process
(system boundary). LCI has been prepared based on the life cycle dia­
gram and system boundaries proposed in section 2.1. The detailed
H. Goyal et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 402 (2023) 136857

Fig. 1. The flow diagrams for (a) CCPB, (b) PFPB and (c) PBPB processes.

3
H. Goyal et al.
Fig. 2. The system boundaries for (a) CCPB, (b) PFPB and (c) PBPB (Web-7;Tapkire et al., 2014; Kumi-Larbi et al., 2018).
processes of manufacturing each type of paver block are explained in
2.2.1–2.2.3. The processes were modelled in Gabi professional software
for their LCA study. The raw materials and energy involved in the LCA
model were directly taken from Gabi professional database. A life cycle
impact analysis of materials and energy interactions in both treatment
processes was obtained using two different methods, CML 2001 and
TRACI. Further, due to the lack of availability of data for Indian con­
ditions for some processes, all the data presented in the study are given
according to German context except for Portland cement which was
taken from European union datasets. The trucks involved in the trans­
portation of raw materials are taken of global standard.
2.2.1. Type 1: conventional concrete paver block (CCPB)
The process of manufacturing concrete paver blocks was taken from
a paver block manufacturing industry (Web-7). The material and energy
requirements for the CCPB are presented in Table 1. The Indian standard
(IS 2185 and IS 15658 (2006)) of solid concrete blocks was taken as the
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 402 (2023) 136857
reference for the size of the blocks.
Cement, sand and stone chips were used in a ratio of 1:2:4 to make
the concrete mixture. Water was in 0.62 ratio to the amount of cement
used. Portland cement was considered for the study, and grain of stone
was used as the stone chips. Lake water was taken for usage. The density
of the solid concrete blocks as per IS 2185 should be 1800 kg/m3, and
the amount of mixture required has been calculated using the given
density. Dimensions of the block were taken as 400×200×60 mm3.
Therefore, the number of blocks required to cover the area of 1 m2 was
12.5, and the approximate weight of 12.5 blocks is 108 kg.
The emission from the transportation of raw materials and the sub­
sequent consumption of diesel was also considered for their emissions.
The trucks used for conveyance were of global standard. Electricity from
the grid mix was used for the energy requirements of different
operations.
The raw materials were added to a concrete mixer, and the mixer was
rotated for 15 min. The prepared mix was taken out from the mixer and
H. Goyal et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 402 (2023) 136857

Fig. 2. (continued).

used in conventional paver blocks. Waste plastic is used here as filler

Table 1 material, and cement is still used as binding material.
The life cycle inventory for manufacturing the three types of paver blocks.
The process for making the PFPB was taken from Tapkire et al.
Inputs Quantity Unit (2014). M40 mixture is taken as the standard mixture for these paver
Type 1: Conventional concrete Paver Block (CCPB) blocks. The sheets of LDPE were directly shredded to 10 mm aggregates
Materials
and used in the process for partial replacement of stone. The stone was
Cement 15.42 kg 30% replaced by shredded plastic. Cement, coarse aggregate, sand and
Sand 30.78 kg water were fed into a mixer in the mix ratio of 1:3.25:2.56:0.5. The
Stone Chip 61.8 kg obtained slurry from the mixer was moulded in the shapes of paver
Water 45.6 kg
blocks and settled in a vibrating table. The prepared paver blocks were
Electricity
Mixer 0.63 MJ sent to the curing tank, which consumed 40 kg of water. The process of
Vibrator 0.135 MJ curing was similar as used in Type-1 paver blocks. The final PFPB were
Curing Tank 0.003 MJ dried in the sun and sent for their field use. Transportation for all the raw
Type 2: Plastic as filler material (PFPB) materials was considered in the assessment, except waste plastic. The
Materials
Cement 21 kg
energy requirements of the shredder were evaluated from the equipment
Sand 53.76 kg available in the market. Electricity for the curing tank was not taken into
Stone Chip 47.88 kg account due to its insignificant contribution. The size of the paver block
Water 10.5 kg was 100×100×60 mm3, and 100 such paver blocks are required to cover
Waste Plastic 20.52 kg
1 m2, and the approximate weight of 100 blocks will be 143.16 kg.
Electricity
Mixer 0.83 MJ
Vibrator 1.08 MJ 2.2.3. Type 3: plastic as binder paver block (PBPB)
Shredder 1.32 MJ The process of preparing paver blocks using plastic as the binder for
Type 3: Plastic as Binder Paver Block (PBPB) the partial or complete replacement of cement is reported by Alexander
Materials
Sand 67.5 kg
Kumi-Larbi Jnr et al. (2018). In the present case, cement was replaced
Water 20 kg entirely by the waste plastic binder, which may make the process more
Waste Plastic 22.5 kg environment-friendly than other cases.
Electricity The main raw materials used in the PBPB approach are sand and
Mixer 30 MJ
waste plastic only. The paver block has dimensions of 50×50×50 mm3,
Press 25 MJ
Shredder 2.6 MJ and 400 such blocks are required to cover 1 m2 of land area, which has a
total weight of 90 kg. Therefore, 22.5 kg of plastic and 67.5 kg of sand
are used to make these blocks. Water for curing, and curing time are
sent to a vibrating table to compact the mould’s concrete mix. After significantly less than the CCPB and PFPB approaches, as cement has
compacting, the blocks were demolded and kept for 24 h in a shelter been completely (100%) replaced by waste plastic. The transportation of
away from direct sun and winds. The hardened blocks were cured with sand has been considered for its environmental impacts.
water for 28 days at ambient temperature with water changing cycle of 3 The LDPE packets were shredded (10–30 mm) and melted in a pan
days in the curing tank. The cured product was sundried and sent for placed over a hot plate at around 110–150 ◦ C. The sand was gradually
their end use. added and mixed in melted plastic, forming a thick slurry. The energy
consumption in mixing sand and melted plastic has been taken from the
2.2.2. Type 2: plastic as filler paver block (PFPB) electricity consumed by the hot plate magnetic stirrer. This slurry was
In this approach of waste plastic recycling, the waste plastic first gets moulded into paver blocks using a steel mould pre-heated to 100 ◦ C. The
converted to fine aggregates and used as a partial replacement of stone significant environmental impacts were due to the energy consumption

5
H. Goyal et al.
Fig. 3. Relative distribution of environmental impacts from different inputs/outputs for (a)CCPB using CML 2001, (b)PFPB using CML 2001, (c)PBPB using CML
2001, (d)CCPB using TRACI, (e)PFPB using TRACI and (f)PBPB using TRACI methods.
in the heating/melting of the LDPE, and reheating of the mould to
100 ◦ C for every batch in the hydraulic press. These were significantly
higher than the CCPB and PFPB approaches due to the heating process
involved in the operations.
2.3. Impact assessment
Life cycle assessment is a multifarious analysis. Every LCA study will
bring something different due to the application of various methods. In
this paper, we have used Centrum Voor Milieukunde, Leiden 2001(CML
2001) and Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and other
Environmental Impacts (TRACI) methods for the environmental impact
assessment. The CML 2001 method was developed by the Institute of
Environmental Sciences at Leiden University, the Netherlands, while the
TRACI method was developed by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA). The indicators used in CML 2001 methods
potential for global warming (GWP 100 years), acidification(AP),
eutrophication (EP), ozone layer depletion (ODP), abiotic depletion of
elements and fossil fuels (ADP elements and ADP fossil), human toxicity
potential (HTP), freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP), ma­
rine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP) and terrestrial ecotoxicity
potential (TETP). TRACI methods include five similar impact categories
but with different indicators. For example, the CML 2001 method rep­
resents human health as human toxicity potential. In contrast, the TRACI
method divided it into three indicators human toxicity carcinogenic (H.
T C), human toxicity non-carcinogenic (H.T NC) and human health
particulate air (HHPA) (Goyal and Mondal, 2022, Gupta et al., 2022). It
is clear from the study that cement is the main constituent for the
environmental impact of the first two cases and electricity consumption
for the third case.
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 402 (2023) 136857
2.4. Assumptions
The following assumptions were made for the present LCA study.
1. The paver blocks manufactured from the three processes are for light
traffic applications.
2. The environmental impacts associated with fabrication, installation,
maintenance and operations of machinery involved in the processes
are omitted from the present study, since due to their long working
life they insert minor impacts than the material and energy involved
in the process (Ahangarnokolaei et al., 2021).
3. The emissions from the steps where impacts are significantly less
(<0.1%) are omitted from the calculation to identify and discuss the
major contributors to environmental emissions. It would be more
helpful to decision-makers to reduce the emissions of the process.
4. The environmental impacts from the production of cement and
crushed stone have been directly taken from the Gabi professional
database, including the impacts from mining, preprocessing and
transportation of raw materials.
5. The mixing of concrete material for CCPB and PFPB processes was
carried out in a concrete mixing machine of capacity 500 L. The
impacts were evaluated accordingly.
6. The waste plastic has been considered to be collected and utilized
locally, so transportation of 20 km for waste plastic collection has
been considered (Hou et al., 2018).
7. The use phase of waste plastic does not have any environmental
emissions (Allawood et al., 2010) and the span of waste period i.e.
period between collection and utilization is negligible.
2.5. Scenario description
Scenario analysis has been performed to evaluate the potential ways
by which the environmental impacts can further be decreased. The type
H. Goyal et al.
of paver block, which has the lowest impact among the above three
types, was taken for scenario analysis. Since the composition of raw
materials cannot be altered as it directly affects the compressive strength
of the products. However, the energy consumption in any paver block
manufacturing process is the major input that can be obtained from
different sources. In the present study, four different scenarios for
electricity sources have been evaluated, which are as follows:
Sc 1: Electricity from grid mix.
Sc 2: Electricity from natural gas.
Sc 3: Electricity from solid biomass.
Sc 4: Electricity from hydropower.
2.6. Parameter sensitivity analysis
Evaluating uncertainty at the parameter level is very important to
check the robustness of LCA results. The single parameter sensitivity
analysis has been performed by considering the electricity utilization in
different operations, transportation distance and payload of trans­
portation trucks as sensitive parameters that can vary. The sensitivity
was assessed by inserting ±20% variation in the above-stated parame­
ters, and the results on the environmental impacts were determined.
2.7. Uncertainty analysis
Uncertainty analysis was carried out using Monte Carlo simulation to
analyse the effects of simultaneous variation of above considered pa­
rameters. The input parameters were assumed to follow normal distri­
bution with standard deviation of ±20%. One thousand iterations were
performed to evaluate the effect of variation on the environmental
impacts.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Impacts from CCPB
The CCPB uses Portland cement as the binder, along with aggregate
and sand. Fig. 3 (a) and (d) shows that the use of Portland cement has the
highest environmental impact in all the categories. The Portland cement
has contribution of 98.5% in ADP(E), 48% in ADP(F), 55% in AP, 45% in
EP, 49% in FAETP, 80.7% in GWP, 94% in HTP, 67% in ODP and 82% in
TETP categories. The high contribution in ADP(E) is attributed to the
utilization of large quantities of inorganic raw materials, mainly lime­
stone and clay, for manufacturing Portland cement. Emission from
Portland cement includes the emission involved in mining, excavation,
processing and transportation of raw materials, i.e. limestone, chalk and
clay (or their naturally occurring mixture: limestone marl) (Web-8). The
ADP (F) is due to the involvement of fossil-based energy utilization in
different operations of the cement production process, which has almost
50% contribution in the ADP(F) category. Further, the diesel con­
sumption in the transportation of major raw materials (sand, cement and
stone) through truck trailers has 41% contribution to ADP(F). The
clinker production in the cement industry emits large amounts of CO2 in
two ways, one by thermo-chemical conversion (calcination) of limestone
to lime and the other is due to utilization of large amounts of fuel in the
kiln, which ultimately increases the GWP and ODP of the process (Chen
et al., 2010). The high percentage of toxicities potential is due to the
consumption of large amounts of energy in the cement industry.
The crushed stone used in the process has 9%, 5.4%, 3.7%, 4%, 9.8%
and 11% contributions in ADP(F), AP, EP, GWP, MAETP and ODP cat­
egories. The impacts from crushed stone are mainly from materials and
energy involved in the mining, crushing and transportation operations.
The electricity consumption has less environmental emissions than other
inputs due to lower electricity consumption in different operations
involved in the process of paver block manufacturing from raw mate­
rials; instead, enormous energy(electricity) consumptions are involved
in preprocessing and manufacturing of raw materials. The emissions
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 402 (2023) 136857
from total electricity consumption in the manufacturing of paver blocks
are less than 2% in all the impact categories except OFP. The electricity
consumption in the mixer (Elec_mixer) and vibrator (Elec_vibrator) has
shown 13% and 3% impacts, respectively, in the ODP category. The
relative ODP is due to the consumption of fossil-based electricity.
The significant impacts associated with the transportation of stone,
sand and cement through trucks are in AP, EP and GWP. The diesel fuel
used in the truck has shown significant relative contribution in ADP(F)
and FAETP categories due to the depletion of fossil fuel and emissions to
fresh water during extraction and refining operations, respectively.
Overall, the higher emissions from CCPB are due to the utilization of
large amounts of cement.
3.2. Impacts from PFPB
The relative impacts associated with the manufacture of PFPB are
shown in Fig. 3 (b) and (e) using CML 2001 and TRACI methods,
respectively. The PFPB process also has the highest environmental
emissions from the utilization of cement as binder. The use of cement
binder has more than 50% environmental emission in all the impact
categories, even it has more than 80% contribution to ADP(E), GWP,
HTP, MAETP and TETP categories. Next to the cement, the trans­
portation of raw materials (stone, sand, cement and waste plastic)
through truck trailers has 32%, 45% and 11.6% impacts in AP, EP and
GWP categories. The large emissions from the truck in AP and EP cat­
egories are majorly from the vehicle production step, with some
contribution from vehicle maintenance and operation(Rial and Pérez,
2021). The diesel fuel consumption in transportation has shown 37.39%
and 39.45% percent impacts in ADP(F) and FAETP indicators. The high
FAETP due to diesel utilization are mainly from the fossil fuel produc­
tion, especially the crude oil extraction process (Hosseini et al., 2022).
Since in PFPB, the plastic has been used as filler material in the form
of aggregates, the plastic used here was shredded and mixed with the
concrete mixture with 30% replacement of aggregates. The environ­
mental emissions from the energy consumption in shredding operation
(Elec_shredder) are relatively lower than other operations in all the
impact categories except in ODP. It is due to the consumption of elec­
tricity in shredding operation.
3.3. Impacts from PBPB
Fig. 3 (c) and (f) show the environmental impacts from the
manufacturing process of PBPB using CML 2001 and TRACI methods.
The electricity consumption in shredding, mixing and moulding is
responsible for the more than 80% impacts in ADP(E), ADP(F), GWP,
HTP, MAETP and ODP categories. The high electricity consumption is
mainly due to the heating operation involved in the melting and mixing
operation. The moulding of slurry in a hydraulic press is the most
energy-intensive process, which maintains high pressure, and has major
contribution in almost all categories. The total electricity consumption
attributes to 95.4% impacts in ADP(E), 78.3% in ADP(F), 54.3% in AP,
48% in EP, 59% in FAETP, 83% in GWP, 85% in HTP, 96% in MAETP,
99% in ODP and 66% in TETP categories. The diesel consumption in the
transportation of sand attributed to 19%, 36.3% and 20.35% impacts in
ADP(F), FAETP and TETP indicators. The high AP (37%) and EP (45%)
from the transportation of sand through truck trailers are from the life
cycle of materials utilized in the manufacturing and operation of trucks
(Rial and Pérez, 2021). The impacts from the collection of waste plastic
is <1% in major impact categories except AP, EP and FAETP where it has
2–3% contribution to total environmental impacts. Since, in this type of
paver blocks, plastic is used as a binder instead of cement, it avoids the
impacts associated with cement production. The sand utilized as filler
material here does not have significant impact in any category. The
transportation of raw materials has impacts in AP, EP and FAETP cate­
gories. Since these kinds of paver blocks do not have cement as binder,
curing is not required.
H. Goyal et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 402 (2023) 136857

Table 2
Total impact caused by each operation and process by the CML 2001 method.
Impact category Unit CCPB PFPB PBPB

ADP(E) Kg Sb-Eq. 2.12E-05 2.89E-05 4.25E-06

ADP(F) MJ 77.00 99 103
AP Kg SO2 Eq. 3.26E-02 4.17E-02 1.90E-02
EP Kg Phosphate Eq. 6.21E-03 7.83E-03 4.17E-03
FAETP Kg DCB-Eq. 2.90E-02 3.7E-02 2.14E-02
GWP Kg CO2 Eq. 16.00 21.4 9.86
HTP Kg DCB-Eq. 1.95 2.63 0.33
MAETP Kg DCB-Eq. 498 682 988
ODP Kg R11- Eq. 1.82E-11 3.31E-11 2.13E-10
TETP Kg DCB-Eq. 3.58E-02 4.78E-02 1.42E-02

Table 3
Total impacts caused by each operation and process by the TRACI method.
Impact category Unit CCPB PFPB PBPB

GWP Kg CO2 -Eq. 16 21.4 9.84

AP Kg SO2 –Eq. 0.0404 0.0514 0.0239
EP Kg N Eq. 2.36E-03 3.02E-03 2.86E-03
ODP Kg R11- Eq. 3.15E-13 5.70E-13 3.65E-12
Ecotoxicity CTUe 0.521 0.669 0.383
HHPA Kg PM2.5 Eq. 3.1E-03 4.06E-03 1.93E-03
HT (C) CTUh 9.39E-09 1.25E-08 4.85E-09
HT (NC) CTUh 1.21E-06 1.61E-06 5.27E-07
Res.(F.F.) MJ surplus energy 8.82 11.2 6.56
Smog air Kg O3-Eq. 0.925 1.18 0.48

consumption, while in CCPB and PFPB, the consumption of large

Fig. 4. Normalized environmental impacts from three processes by (a) CML
2001 and (b) TRACI methods.
3.4. Normalization of impacts
The comparative environmental emissions from the three types of
paver blocks using CML 2001, August 2016 and TRACI methods are
shown in Fig. 4 (a) and (b), respectively. The figure clearly shows that
plastic used as the binder material has significantly lower impacts than
the paver blocks where cement has been used as the primary binder. The
exclusion of cement itself decreases the emission by several times. The
PFPB has the highest impacts in most of the categories except MAETP
and ODP. The higher impacts of PFPB are attributed to electricity con­
sumption in additional operations of shredding and extruder. Further,
more cement and other raw materials were required to meet the func­
tional unit with the paver block of similar strength. The PBPB (GWP
9.86 kg CO2 Eq.) has 54% and 38.5% lower emissions GWP category
than PFPB (21.4 kg CO2 Eq.) and CCPB (16 kg CO2 Eq.), respectively.
The acidification and eutrophication potentials of PBPB (AP 0.0193 kg
SO2 Eq. and EP 0.0042 kg Phosphate Eq.) are respectively 54% and 46%
lower than PFPB (AP 0.042 kg SO2 Eq. and EP 0.0078 kg Phosphate Eq.).
The high ODP of PBPB (2.13E-10 kg R11 Eq.) than PFPB (3.31E-13 kg
R11 Eq.) and CCPB (1.82E-11 kg R11 Eq.) is due to the relatively high
amount of energy consumption in separate melting of plastic and mixing
with sand. The major emissions from PBPB are attributed to electricity
amounts of cementitious raw materials has maximum impacts. The high
ODP and ADP(F) in the PBPB process is due to the utilization of higher
amount of electricity in the manufacturing process than the PFPB and
CCPB processes. During the addition of sand, continuous stirring and
heating were provided, which ultimately resulted in the high amount of
energy consumption. In PFPB and CCPB, the major environmental
emissions are from the utilization of cement and the transport of stone,
sand and cement. The HTP of PFPB is almost 8 times higher than PBPB
and 1.35 times higher than CCPB. The impacts from the three types of
paver blocks using CML 2001 and TRACI methods are presented in
Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.
The normalized impacts from TRACI methods are shown in Fig. 4 (b).
The impact assessment through the TRACI method also shows the higher
emissions of PFPB than CCPB and PBPB in major impact categories. The
PBPB has the lowest impacts in all categories except ODP and EP cate­
gories which can be reduced by further increasing the efficiency of the
process and by the utilization of an electricity source which has low
environmental emissions. The results from the CML 2001 and TRACI
methods shows consistency in emissions.
3.5. Scenario analysis
The scenario analysis of an environment-friendly process has been
performed to assess the possibility of further reduction in emissions.
Fig. 5 shows the impacts in different categories from different electricity
sources. Different sources of electricity have large variations in different
emissions to the environment, which mainly depends on the source of
energy and the process of converting it into electrical energy. For
instance, electricity from grid mix, which has a major portion from fossil
fuel (hard coal), has shown major emissions from mining, transport and
the process of converting chemical energy to electrical energy. Out of
the four different electric energy source scenarios, utilization of hy­
dropower can reduce emissions in almost all categories. Hydropower has
the potential to reduce impacts in GWP (83%), AP (54%), EP (47%),
ODP (99.4%), ADP (E) (85%), ADP (F) (78%), HTP (47%), MAETP
(96%), FAETP (58%) and TETP (65%) categories. The ODP from Grid
mix electricity (2.13E-10 kg R11 eq.) is 159 times higher than that from

8
H. Goyal et al.
Fig. 5. Environmental impacts from different energy scenarios in (a) GWP, (b) TETP, (c) ADP elements, (d) FAETP, (e) AP, (f) ADP fossil, (g) EP, (h) ODP, (i) MAETP
and (j) HTP indicators.
hydropower (1.37E-12 kg R11 eq.). It is due to the fact that hydropower
does not have emissions due to the burning of any fuel since this process
has lower conversion efficiencies. Hydropower reservoirs have emis­
sions due to the anaerobic decomposition of organic materials present in
the reservoirs. However, these emissions are much less than those
caused by fossil fuel utilization as energy sources. The electricity from
solid biomass has lower impacts in GWP (2.34 kg CO2 eq.), ODP (1.32E-
12 kg R11 eq.), ADP(E) (1.27E-06 kg Sb eq.) and ADP(F) (29.2 MJ)
categories since it avoids the overall addition of carbon to the atmo­
sphere which in turn is added by fossil fuel. But it has shown maximum
impacts in TETP (0.0426 kg DCB eq.), FAETP (0.04 kg DCB eq.), AP
(0.038 kg SO2 eq.), EP (0.0077 kg Phosphate eq.), MAETP (15200 kg
DCB eq.) and HTP (1.24 kg DCB eq.) categories. The high AP and EP are
because of the high use of fertilizers in the cultivation of biomass which
releases a high amount of nitrates and phosphate-containing compounds
to surface water bodies (Tonini and Astrup, 2012). The high MAETP
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 402 (2023) 136857
from solid biomass electricity is attributed to the leaching of manganese
from ash to water bodies. Further, high TETP is due to the presence of
trace metals like nickel, copper and barium in ash, which are generally
disposed of in soil(Aberilla et al., 2020).
The electricity from natural gas reduces the emissions in ADP(E), AP,
MAETP, FAETP, EP, HTP and ODP categories, while it has maximum
impacts in only ADP(F) categories since natural gas is also one of the
fossil fuel which adds carbon to the atmosphere. From the scenario
analysis, it has been concluded that using renewable sources of elec­
tricity, such as hydropower, greatly reduces the environmental impacts.
Electricity from solid biomass can also be utilized in the region where
abundant agricultural waste biomass is available. The change in elec­
tricity sources can reduce the impacts from 60 to 80% in significant
impact categories and make the process more environment-friendly.
H. Goyal et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 402 (2023) 136857

Fig. 6. Shift in environmental emissions from parameter sensitivity analysis (a) GWP, (b) AP, (c) ODP, (d) MAETP and (e) FAETP.

10
H. Goyal et al.
3.6. Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis has been performed by varying the electricity
requirements, transportation distance and transportation truck payload.
The variation of impacts in different categories for all three processes is
shown in Fig. 6 and S1. The variation in parameters by ±20% have
shown different impact variation in different processes. The variation in
transportation distance and truck payload have introduced major im­
pacts variation in CCPB and PFPB processes because large amount of
cement, stone and sand has been utilized in these two processes. The
PBPB process has major impact variation due to variations in the amount
of electricity since it has relatively higher consumption of electricity
than the rest two processes. The distance and payload variation doesn’t
shift impacts for the PBPB process. Since the major emissions in CCPB
and PFPB processes are mainly attributed to the utilization of materials,
the variation in electricity consumption in the mixer, shredder and
vibrator doesn’t significantly shift the impacts in any categories except
ODP. ±20% variation Elec_mixer has shifted the ODP by ±2.74% for
CCPB process and ±2% for PFPB process. The GWP variation due to
±20% transportation distance in CCPB and PFPB processes are
±3.125% and ±2.34%, respectively. The truck payload has reversely
shifted the impacts as an increase in the payload decreases the impacts
and vice-versa. The distance and payload have similar variations in
FAETP, AP, TETP, EP and ADP(F) categories for both CCPB and PFPB
processes. Further, ±20% shift in Elec_mixer and Elec_press of the PBPB
process has the potential of GWP variation by ±8.7% and ±7.5%,
respectively. Thus, sensitivity analysis suggests that the variation of
transportation distance and truck payload are very crucial parameters of
CCPB and PFPB processes, while the electricity consumption has high
impacts shifts for the PBPB process. The high payload truck and efficient
electricity sources should be used to have minimum environmental
emissions.
3.7. Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis
Single parameter sensitivity analysis shows the variation of impacts
by varying an individual parameter keeping other parameter as con­
stant, while in Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis elucidates the variation
in impacts by simultaneously varying all the parameters. Table S3 shows
the results obtained from Monte Carlo analysis in the form of means,
medians, standards deviations and estimates at 10th, 25th, 75th and
90th percentiles of the distribution. The obtained values of mean and
median are identical with the values of basic scenario. The low standard
deviation (<10%) in all the impact matrices shows the acceptability of
results obtained from simultaneous variation of parameters for each of
three processes i.e. CCPB, PFPB and PBPB. Further, the impact values at
10th, 25th, 75th and 90th percentiles of the distribution nearly approach
to the impact value of basic scenario, shows the robustness and reli­
ability of the evaluated environmental impacts.
4. Conclusion
The life cycle analysis of three paver block manufacturing processes
has been performed. The major environmental impacts such as GWP
from PFPB (GWP 21.4 kg CO2 eq.) and CCPB (GWP 16 kg CO2 eq.)
processes are almost 2.2 and 1.6 times higher than PBPB (GWP 9.86 kg
CO2 eq.). The PFPB and CCPB processes have higher emission due to use
of cement while the major emissions from PBPB process is from utili­
zation of energy in manufacturing. The scenario analysis has shown that
the use of renewable energy i.e. electricity from solid biomass and hy­
dropower, has the potential to reduce GWP by 77% and 83%, respec­
tively. Further, the sensitivity analysis has shown that variation in
transportation distance and truck payload for CCPB and PFPB processes,
while variation in electricity consumptions for PBPB process, shifts the
impacts matrix to ±3–10% by ±20% variation in input parameter
values. The considerably low standard deviations (<10%) from Monte
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 402 (2023) 136857
Carlo uncertainty analysis elucidate the robustness and acceptability of
results. Thus, LCA study suggests that, the utilization of waste plastic as
binder for making paver block can be better option to avoid two major
environmental issues i.e. littering of waste plastic and GHG emissions
from cement industry. Furthermore, the present study has limitation of
lab scale processes and, the LCA of large-scale commercial production
processes is recommended for future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hemant Goyal: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology,
Validation, Visualization, Roles, Writing – original draft. Rakshit
Kumar: Data curation, Formal analysis, Software, Writing. Prasenjit
Mondal: Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing –
review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
(India) for providing facilities and resources for carrying out this study.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136857.
References
Aberilla, J.M., Gallego-Schmid, A., Stamford, L., Azapagic, A., 2020. Environmental
sustainability of cooking fuels in remote communities: life cycle and local impacts.
Sci. Total Environ. 713, 136445 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136445.
Ahangarnokolaei, M.A., Attarian, P., Ayati, B., Ganjidoust, H., Rizzo, L., 2021. Life cycle
assessment of sequential and simultaneous combination of electrocoagulation and
ozonation for textile wastewater treatment. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9, 106251
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.106251.
Ali, B., El Ouni, M.H., Kurda, R., 2022. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of precast concrete
blocks utilizing ground granulated blast furnace slag. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29,
83580–83595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21570-7.
Allawood, J.M., Cullen, J.M., Milford, R.L., 2010. Options for achieving a 50% cut in
industrial carbon emissions by 2050. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (6), 1888–1894.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es902909k.
Biswas, A., Chaudhary, K., Singh, R., Tewari, S., Singh, S., Parida, S., 2021. Waste-Wise
Cities: best practices in municipal solid waste management. Cent. Sci. Environ. NITI
Aayog.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2009.12.014.
D’ambrières, Woldemar, 2019. Field Actions Science Reports Plastics recycling
worldwide: current overview and desirable changes. J. F. actions Special Is.
Evangelista, B.L., Rosado, L.P., Penteado, C.S.G., 2018. Life cycle assessment of concrete
paving blocks using electric arc furnace slag as natural coarse aggregate substitute.
J. Clean. Prod. 178, 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.007.
Evode, N., Qamar, S.A., Bilal, M., Barceló, D., Iqbal, H.M.N., 2021. Plastic waste and its
management strategies for environmental sustainability. Case Stud. Chem. Environ.
Eng. 4, 100142 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CSCEE.2021.100142.
Goyal, H., Mondal, P., 2022. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of the arsenic and fluoride
removal from groundwater through adsorption and electrocoagulation: a
comparative study. Chemosphere 304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2022.135243.
Gravis, L., 2017. The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics &
Catalysing Action, vol. 68. Ellen MacArthur Found.
Guo, Z., Tu, A., Chen, C., Lehman, D.E., 2018a. Mechanical properties, durability, and
life-cycle assessment of concrete building blocks incorporating recycled concrete
H. Goyal et al.
aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 199, 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2018.07.069.
Guo, Z., Tu, A., Chen, C., Lehman, D.E., 2018b. Mechanical properties, durability, and
life-cycle assessment of concrete building blocks incorporating recycled concrete
aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 199, 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.07.069.
Gupta, S., Patel, P., Mondal, P., 2022. Life cycle analysis (LCA) and economic evaluation
of catalytic fast pyrolysis: implication of co-product’s end-usage, catalyst type, and
process parameters. Sustain. Energy Fuels 6, 2970–2988. https://doi.org/10.1039/
d2se00079b.
Hosseini, S.M., Aslani, A., Kasaeian, A., 2022. Energy, water, and environmental impacts
assessment of electricity generation in Iran. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments
52, 102193. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SETA.2022.102193.
Hou, P., Xu, Y., Taiebat, M., Lastoskie, C., Miller, S.A., Xu, M., 2018. Life cycle
assessment of end-of-life treatments for plastic film waste. J. Clean. Prod. 201,
1052–1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.278.
Javadabadi, M.T., 2019. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Incorporating Recycled
PET Aggregates into Concrete, pp. 1–75.
Kumi-Larbi, A., Yunana, D., Kamsouloum, P., Webster, M., Wilson, D.C., Cheeseman, C.,
2018. Recycling waste plastics in developing countries: use of low-density
polyethylene water sachets to form plastic bonded sand blocks. Waste Manag. 80,
112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.09.003.
Kurda, R., Silvestre, J.D., de Brito, J., 2018. Life cycle assessment of concrete made with
high volume of recycled concrete aggregates and fly ash. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
139, 407–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2018.07.004.
Leslie, H.A., van Velzen, M.J.M., Brandsma, S.H., Vethaak, A.D., Garcia-Vallejo, J.J.,
Lamoree, M.H., 2022. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in
human blood. Environ. Int. 163, 107199 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENVINT.2022.107199.
Nampower, 2021. Annual Report 20-21.
Nkwachukwu, O., Chima, C., Ikenna, A., Albert, L., 2013. Focus on potential
environmental issues on plastic world towards a sustainable plastic recycling in
developing countries. Int. J. Ind. Chem. 4, 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/2228-5547-
4-34.
Peng, Y., Wang, Y., Ke, L., Dai, L., Wu, Q., Cobb, K., Zeng, Y., Zou, R., Liu, Y., Ruan, R.,
2022. A review on catalytic pyrolysis of plastic wastes to high-value products.
Energy Convers. Manag. 254, 115243 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2022.115243.
Rial, M., Pérez, J., 2021. Environmental performance of four different heavy-duty
propulsion technologies using Life Cycle Assessment. Transp. Res. Interdiscip.
Perspect. 11, 100428 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRIP.2021.100428.
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 402 (2023) 136857
Saberian, M., Zhang, J., Gajanayake, A., Li, J., Zhang, G., Boroujeni, M., 2022. Life cycle
assessment (LCA) of concrete containing waste materials: comparative studies.
Handb. Sustain. Concr. Ind. Waste Manag. Recycl. Artif. Aggregate, Innov. Eco-
friendly Bind. Life Cycle Assess. 637–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
821730-6.00007-3.
Suhara, M., 2019. Industry. Russ. Econ. Dev. Over Three Centuries New Data Inferences,
pp. 183–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8429-5_6.
Tapkire, G., Parihar, S., Patil, P., Kumavat, H.R., 2014. Recycled plastic used in concrete
paver block. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 33–35. https://doi.org/10.15623/
ijret.2014.0321009, 03.
Tonini, D., Astrup, T., 2012. LCA of biomass-based energy systems: a case study for
Denmark. Appl. Energy 99, 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2012.03.006.
Verma, R., Vinoda, K.S., Papireddy, M., Gowda, A.N.S., 2016. Toxic pollutants from
plastic waste- A review. Procedia Environ. Sci. 35, 701–708. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.PROENV.2016.07.069.
Vethaak, A.D., Leslie, H.A., 2016. Plastic debris is a human health issue. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 50, 6825–6826. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02569.
Web-1. https://cleanstreets.westminster.gov.uk/plastic-waste-complete-guide/#1.
(Accessed 2 March 2023).
Web-2, Palanisami, T., 2019. https://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured/pla
stic-ingestion-by-people-could-be-equating-to-a-credit-card-a-week. (Accessed 2
March 2023).
Web-3, Venkatesh, S., Kukreti, I., 2018. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/waste
/an-indian-consumes-11-kg-plastic-every-year-and-an-average-american-109-kg-
60745. (Accessed 2 March 2023).
Web-4. https://www.entrepreneurindia.co/blog-description/12445/profitable+paving+
tiles+and+blocks+business. (Accessed 2 March 2023).
Web-5 UNCC, 2017. https://unfccc.int/news/bigger-climate-action-emerging-in-cement
-industry. (Accessed 2 March 2023).
Web-6. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02612-5. (Accessed 2 March
2023).
Web-7. https://www.advancingnortheast.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Concrete-Til
es-and-Paving-Blocks.pdf. (Accessed 2 March 2023).
Web-8. In: http://gabi-documentation-2022.gabi-software.com/xml-data/processes/1f
021fd1-26ff-44e3-ba71-f691d1661c83.xml. (Accessed 2 March 2023).
Zulcão, R., Calmon, J.L., Rebello, T.A., Vieira, D.R., 2020. Life cycle assessment of the
ornamental stone processing waste use in cement-based building materials.
Construct. Build. Mater. 257 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119523.