Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8 (2016) 408 – 418

Florence “Sustainability of Well-Being International Forum”. 2015: Food for Sustainability and
not just food, FlorenceSWIF2015

Eco-sustainable Geopolymer concrete blocks production process

Antonella Petrilloa, Raffaele Cioffia, Claudio Feronea, Francesco Colangeloa, Claudia
Borrellia,*
a
Department of Engineering, University of Naples Parthenope, Isola C4 Centro Direzionale, Naples 80143, Italy

Abstract

Brick represents one of the most used materials for the construction of buildings, but the rising demand of building materials and
increased construction and demolition wastes have encouraged the development of new building materials. However, the
traditional brick production causes several environmental and human health impacts, so there is a clear need of searching and
replacing for more efficient and durable alternatives far beyond the limitations of the conventional brick production.
The production and use of alternative materials, such as geopolymers, represents a great opportunity to ensure greater
sustainability in the construction sector especially for the use of industrial wastes such as fly ash or blast furnace slag, as
precursors solid.
Study results have revealed that the Geopolymeric brick making process consumes less energy and involves low cost in terms of
raw materials. The production of the former is compared to conventional bricks and their development which is an important step
to reach better performance and environmental friendly materials.
The purpose of this article is to evaluate impacts during the life cycle and describes the basic operations of the geopolymeric
brick manufacturing. The analysis is performed using a life cycle approach to identify and quantify the environmental
performance of the process.

©
© 2016
2015 The
The Authors. Published by
Authors. Published by Elsevier
ElsevierB.V.
B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under the responsibility of the Simone Cesaretti Foundation.
Peer-review under responsibility of Fondazione Simone Cesaretti
Keywords: Sustainability, reuse, waste, territorial Imbalances, geopolymer, pollution

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: claudia.borrelli@uniparthenope.it

2210-7843 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Fondazione Simone Cesaretti
doi:10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.037
 Antonella Petrillo et al. / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8 (2016) 408 – 418 409

1. Introduction

Construction sector is responsible for relevant environmental impacts and one of its most crucial points is the use
of concrete. Concrete is the most widely used construction material in the world and its production causes high
levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.
Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) has traditionally been used as binder material in concrete and its production
involves approximately 7% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions (ATEPAC, Aitec 2011). Bricks and blocks are
important products for the construction of buildings as walls, paving, and flooring. However, the conventional
method of their production has caused indisputable shortcomings. The consumption of earth-based materials like
clay, shale and sand in brick production has resulted in resource depletion, environmental degradation, and energy
consumption. The brick was anciently produced by mixing the virgin resources, forming the bricks, drying them and
then firing them (Allen et al. 2011; Venta, 1998). Nowdays the current trend in brick manufacturing has major
emphasis on the possible use of post-consumer wastes and industrial by-products, because this option prevents an
increase of the area needed for waste disposal and avoids the utilisation of nonrenewable raw materials used in the
production of masonry units, thus reducing its environmental impact (Pacheco-Torgal et al., 2013).
For environmental protection and sustainable development, many researchers have studied the utilization of
waste materials to produce bricks (Lianyang Zhang, 2013; M.I. Chou et al. 2001; M.S. El-Mahllawy, 2008; M.A.
Rahman, 1987; I. Demir, 2007). Brooks R. M. (2009) studied also the production of construction materials using
food industry wastes. The study focused on Rice Husk Ash (RHA), obtained from the burning of rice husk. The
husk is a by-product of the rice milling industry. By weight, 10% of the rice grain is rice husk.
The research can be divided into three categories based on the methods for producing bricks from waste
materials: firing, cementing and geopolymerization. Geopolymerization is a technology that relies on the chemical
reaction of amorphous silica and alumina rich solids with alkaline solution to form amorphous to semi-crystalline
aluminosilicate inorganic polymer or geopolymers. Geopolymers are new materials which have been investigated,
studied, and utilized for some decades by several researchers throughout the world. In the construction sector,
geopolymers represent an eco-friendly, low cost and low power consumption alternative of traditional inorganic
matrices and composites due to the use of industrial by-products as solid precursors and low calcination
temperatures. Compared to Portland cement, they exhibit some superior engineering properties.
Studies by Phair et al. (2002), Swanepoe at al. (2002) and Ferone C. et al (2011) showed that some of the most
commonly used industrial by-products are fly ash and granulated blast furnace slag, which has shown excellent
properties and performances in geopolymers. Geopolymeric blocks are considered as a new family of eco-
sustainable masonry unit because they widen the possibilities to recycle waste to useful products, especially building
materials that can contribute to environmental and economical benefits.
This work is a preliminary investigation on the possibility of utilizing construction and demolition wastes as raw
materials in the industrial production of geopolymer paving blocks to reduce the demand for natural materials that
would need quarrying. As a second step, the following aim is the evaluation and comparison of comprehensive
carbon footprint estimates for both geopolymer and OPC concrete paving blocks production in plants located in the
South of Italy.

1. Materials and methods

1.1. Raw materials acquisition

The present study considers three different and close plants located in the Campania region for speeding up and
for simplifying the manufacturing phases and for diminishing the transport of raw materials.
The domestic locations for feedstock sources and OPC and geopolymer paving blocks production are shown in
Fig. 1 and in Table 1.
Three plants considered are:

x I.P.S. s.r.l company, located in the San Martino Valle Caudina municipality (Avellino’s district), which operates
in recycling of waste from the construction and demolition sector;
410 Antonella Petrillo et al. / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8 (2016) 408 – 418

x PROCHIN ITALIA company, located in the industrial area of the Marcianise municipality (Caserta’s
district),which manufactures chemical products;

x F.LLI ABAGNALE PREFABBRICATI CEMENTO company, located in the Castellammare di Stabia

municipality (Naples’ district), which produces OPC based concrete precast.
The aim of the present study is to evaluate the possible production of geopolymeric paving blocks in F.LLI
ABAGNALE company and to compare it with the traditional and present manufacturing.

Plant units of the system Distance [km]

F.LLI ABAGNALE - I.P.S s.r.l 71,7

I.P.S - PROCHIN 38,1

F.LLI ABAGNALE - PROCHIN 48,4

Fig. 1. Territorial framework of plant units of the manufacturing system

Table 1. Geopolymer feedstock and OPC sources

Material Classification Source company Life cycle step considered
CEM II/A-LL 42,5R Product F.LLI ABAGNALE PREFABBRICATI CEMENTO Acquisition
NATU-R Waste I.P.S. s.r.l Acquisition, crushing, preparation, transport
Coarse aggregates Waste I.P.S. s.r.l Acquisition, crushing, preparation, transport
Fine aggregates Waste I.P.S. s.r.l Acquisition, crushing, preparation, transport
Grit Product I.P.S. s.r.l Acquisition, crushing, preparation, transport
Rheofit 718
admixture Product F.LLI ABAGNALE PREFABBRICATI CEMENTO Acquisition
Sodium hydroxide Product PROCHIN ITALIA Acquisition
Sodium silicate Product PROCHIN ITALIA Acquisition

1.2 NATU-R

The environmental aspects of waste from the building sector have been of great interest in recent years. For the
building sector, this means increased recycling, as summarized in Table 2 (EPA, 1998; Cochran et al., 2011;
Schneider et al., 2011; Formoso CT et al., 2002).
Recycling of construction and demolition (C&D) wastes can reduce the need for energy and natural resources
and can also reduce both the need ofr land area for extracting resources and the need of land area for landfill. The
benefits of recycling depend on the materials and the form of recycling.
C&D wastes are generally composed of bricks and tiles, concrete rubble, sand and dust, timber, plastics,
cardboard and paper and metals. Concrete rubble usually constitutes the largest proportion of C&D wastes which
after separation, crushing and grading can be utilized as a substitute for natural coarse aggregate in concrete or as a
sub base layer in pavements.
NATU-R is recycled C&D waste prepared by aggregates production plant, named I.P.S, located in the Campania
region (Southern Italy). The process production of aggregates is summarized in Fig.2
 Antonella Petrillo et al. / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8 (2016) 408 – 418 411

Aggregates manufacturing starts with waste transport to the crushing hopper, then there is the weight phase by
feeder plates, whose second aim is the definition of particle size category. After that, the resulting material is
transferred by a main belt conveyor to a vibrating screen composed of three floors. Each floor has different hole
sizes that lead to define different particle size categories of recycled aggregates.
The prepared materials were then characterized by determining their chemical composition, using Atomic
emission spectroscopy (AES).

Fig. 2. Schematic production of NATU-R

Table 2. Production and reuse of some wastes in Europe (Titura-Barna et al. 2007)
Production Annual reuse
Type of wastes
(Mt/year) (%)

Incineration municipal solid waste 10.578 46

0-90 (depends on
Construction & Demolition waste 420
the country)

Mineal wastes 400 -

Table 3. Chemical composition of NATU-R (wt %).

Oxides SiO2 Al2O3 CaO Fe2O3 K2O MgO Na2O

NATU-R 45.10 18.13 10.44 4.56 4.06 3.72 1.68

1.3 Sodium silicate

The most common alkaline activator used in geopolymerisation is a combination of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or
potassium hydroxide (KOH) and sodium silicate or potassium silicate.
Palomo et al (1999) concluded that the type of activator plays an important role in the polymerization process.
Sodium silicate is one of the most important alkaline solutions used in geopolymers production. The solution is
obtained by the calcination and dissolution in water of carbonate salts and silica to defined ratios, which causes
energy consumptions and CO2 emissions. In the present study sodium silicate prepared by a chemical production
plant, named PROCHIN ITALIA, located in the Campania region (Southern Italy).
412 Antonella Petrillo et al. / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8 (2016) 408 – 418

The industrial production of sodium silicate, described in Fig 3, starts in plant with the introduction of waterglass
in crushing hopper. After the mixing phase, the resulting admixture and water vapor are put into the autoclave by a
piping system where the admixture pressure increases. Subsequently the admixture is stored in large depressurized
silos and, after a rest period, the material is subjected to a filter press. Then the sodium silicate solution is canalized
in horizontal tanks for the sedimentation during which precipitate silicate waste is collected and removed to landfill
for the final disposal.

Fig. 3. Manufacturing process of sodium silicate solution

1.4 Concrete admixtures

NaOH solution (5M) concentration and sodium silicate were used for the preparation of geopolymeric concrete
admixtures. Ordinary Portland cement was used for concrete admixture.
The samples were cured at 20 ± 2° C and relative humidity of 80%.
Table 4 summarizes the composition of OPC and geopolymer admixtures evaluated for the industrial production:

Table 4. Mix design of concrete admixtures for the production of 1200 SBE (SBE=1,814kg)
Materials Mix design [kg/m3]
Geopolymer
OPC based concrete
concrete
Admixture admixture
Fine aggregates 400
Coarse aggregates 1320
Grit 380
Water 120 93.61
CEM II/A-LL 42,5R 280
Rheofit 718 admixture 3
Geopolymer binder 1212

IPS aggregates 312.27

IPS sludge 312.27

2. Manufacturing process

The conventional process for producing OPC (Ordinary Portland Cement) bricks and blocks is energy intensive
and consumes natural materials, mainly clay.
In this study, the attention is focused on the manufacturing production of traditional paving blocks, produced by
the F.LLI ABAGNALE precast concrete plant and the possible implementation of the manufacturing process of
geopolymeric paving blocks.
 Antonella Petrillo et al. / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8 (2016) 408 – 418 413

The traditional manufacturing process consists of the certificated rax materials acquisition, transport in plant,
grinding, storage in silos, metering and dry mixing, mixing with water and pouring in mobile press machines.
This machine works by a combination action of pressure and vibration to reach a high performance precast.
The mobile press machine is provided with different iron interchangeable equipment measuring and variable size,
depending on the type of the desired final product. After the vibro-pressing phase, final products have to be cured
for 24 hours at environment temperature and then they are packed and stored in the plant.
The geopolymerization method for producing blocks from C&D waste includes fewer steps and consumes much
less energy than the conventional method.
The description and differences of the two different processes is given in figure 4.

Fig. 4. Schematic manufacturing process of bricks and blocks: (a) using conventional method and (b) using geopolymerization method

3. Environmental assessment of the manufacturing process

The reduction of CO2 emissions and energy consumption in the cement industry has recently become a crucial
issue. The use and production of alkali-activated (and consequently geopolymers) binders has gradually attracted
attention since the late 1990s as another relevant effort to reduce CO2 emissions in concrete production (Pacheco-
Torgal et al., Duxson et al., 2007; 2008; Shi et al., 2006). One of the methods available for assessing the
environmental impacts of materials and components within the building sector is the Life Cycle Approach.
LCA has been defined as a systematic tool to measure industrial processes and products by examining the flow of
energy and material consumption, waste released into the environment and evaluate alternatives for environmental
improvement (R. Fay et al., 2000; J.B. Guinée, 2002; J.-G. Wu et al., 2010) during their life cycle, from cradle to
grave. It is accepted internationally as a tool (based on international standards of series ISO 14040) to improve
processes and services environmentally and it can apply to a wider field, including in the building industry (O. Ortiz
et al., 2009; J. Fava et al., 2009).
A typical LCA study is given in figure 5. It always begins with the definition of the goal and scope of the study,
which establishes system boundaries, the functional unit (quantitative description of the service performance of the
investigated product system) and quality criteria for the inventory data and explains how the results are to be
communicated. Next step is the inventory phase based on the identification and the quantification of energy and
material consumption, as well as waste production and direct and indirect emissions. At the end, different impact
indicators are used to define the environmental impact of geopolymer concrete within each category.
414 Antonella Petrillo et al. / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8 (2016) 408 – 418

Fig. 5. Life cycle analysis framework

The innovation of this method is the evaluation of the cumulative environmental impacts, including impacts not
considered in more traditional analyses.
However, although geopolymers are presented by many authors as a solution for “green” concrete, there are
several studies which quantify the environmental impact of geopolymers (Davidovits, 1999; Duxson et al., 2007) but
nothing about a life cycle approach applied to bricks or blocks manufacturing.

4. Life cycle approach

The objective of this study is to perform a detailed life cycle analysis of manufacturing production of
geopolymeric concrete paving blocks and to compare it with the production of the OPC based concrete one. The
analysis of the studied system does not include every stage of the product’s life cycle (cradle to grave) but ends at an
intermediate stage (cradle to gate), so the entire system is characterised by treatment operations and the raw
materials transport in the plant, the production of mixtures and artifacts, and, finally, storage and transport of the
finished product, as summarized in Fig. 6. The approach taken in this work doesn’t consider the durability or service
life of geopolymeric and OPC blocks. This is omitted because the service life is still yet to be elucidated for
geopolymers as they are an emerging product. However, the testing of geopolymer concrete of several studies has
indicated that the durability and service life should be better than that of traditional concretes. Thus the assumption
of equal durability and service life is likely to underestimate the benefit of geopolymers over OPC-based concretes.
Recycling of end-of-life products is also omitted for this assessment.

Fig. 6. Description of the life cycle of production of (a) residential geopolymer concrete artifacts and (b) residential OPC based concrete ones
 Antonella Petrillo et al. / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8 (2016) 408 – 418 415

The Functional Unit of the present study is defined as CO2-e emitted due to the activities necessary to manufacture
10000 SBE, where SBE (Standard Brick Equivalent) is the unit constant that was used in this study to compare
residential concrete paving blocks made with OPC and geopolymer binders. Carbon dioxide equivalency is a
quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of greenhouse gas, the amount of CO 2. It is a standard unit
for measuring carbon footprints used to express the impact of each different greenhouse gas in terms of the amount
of CO2 that would create the same amount of warming, when measured over a specified timescale. That way, a
carbon footprint consisting of lots of different greenhouse gases can be expressed as a single number.
Carbon dioxide equivalency is defined by equation 1:

‫ܱܥ‬ଶି௘ ൌ  ൈ  ൈ
 (1)
Where

x Q is the quantity of fuel combusted to undertake a particular activity (kg);

x EC is the energy content of the specific fuel type (s) utilized to undertake the activity (J/kg);

x GWP is the total global warming potential of the specific fuel type, comprised of the sum of the emissions of
individual global warming gases (kg CO2-e/J).

The EC and GWP factors used in this study, summarized in Table 5 and 6, were based on several sources,
indicated below. Eq. (1) was implemented using the emission factors shown in Table 5 and 6. According to IPCC
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Guidelines (2006), the most common methodological approach for assessing
emission factors (EF) is to combine information on the extent to which a human activity takes place, called activity
data (AD), with coefficients which quantify the emissions or removals per unit activity.
Emissions are defined by Eq. (2):

‫ ݏ݊݋݅ݏݏ݅݉ܧ‬ൌ ‫ ܦܣ‬ൈ ‫ܨܧ‬ (2)

This basic equation can be modified in some circumstances to include other estimation parameters than emission
factors.
To estimate CO2-e arising from a particular activity, the quantity and type of fuel was identified by reference to
audited records obtained from the relevant manufacturers, suppliers, and contractors. A further important factor
regarding estimation of CO2-e is the consideration of energy expended during elevated temperature curing of
geopolymers, a necessary requirement for reasonable strength development that has not been considered in past
studies

Tab 5. Emissions factors for raw materials preparation

Energy source CO2-e = Emission factora,b x EC x GWP Unit Source

Coarse aggregates 0,048 kg CO2-e/kg product Collins, F. (2010)

Fine aggregates 0,0139 kg CO2-e/kg product Collins, F. (2010)

IPCC Good Practice Guidance, Chen, C.
Cement 0,904 kg CO2-e/kg product
(2009), Chen, C. et al (2009)
Silicates solution 1,222 kg CO2-e/kg product Turner L.K. (2013), Fawer, M. et al (1999)
Turner L.K. (2013), Althaus, H. J. Et al
Hydroxides solution 1,915 kg CO2-e/kg product
(2007)
416 Antonella Petrillo et al. / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8 (2016) 408 – 418

Tab 6. Emissions factors utilised to estimate CO2 liberated for different fuel types

Energy source CO2-e = Emission factora,b x EC x GWP Unit Source

IPCC Good Practice Guidance, Turner L.K.
Diesel 2,68 kg CO2-e/L
(2013), Federal Register (2009) EPA
c Turner L.K. (2013), Federal Register
Eletricity 1,35 kg CO2-e/kW h
(2009) EPA
Liquid petroleum gas
1,54 kg CO2-e/L Turner L.K. (2013)
(GPL)

5. Results

This study quantifies the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO 2-e) generated by all the activities necessary to
obtain raw materials, concrete manufacturing, and construction of 10000 SBE. The CO2-e footprint generated by
concretes comprising geopolymer binders and 100% OPC concrete are compared. The study doesn’t include
emissions due to sodium silicate solution manufacturing because manufacturers don’t disclose any specific technical
information about emissions from the processes and energy use. As a result, our estimates of energy use and
consumptions are based on the inventory of the energy consumed for the production of sodium silicate reported by
Fawer et al. Our results show that the production of geopolymer concrete paving blocks has a slightly lower CO2
footprint than standard Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) concrete ones, as summarized in fig. 8.

Fig. 7. CO2 footprint of production of (a) OPC based concrete paving blocks and (b) geopolymer concrete ones

However they also reveal that the production of geopolymer concrete cause a higher environmental impact
regarding heavy effects of the production of the sodium silicate solution. The CO2 footprint of geopolymer concrete
is approximately 16% less than comparable concrete containing 100% OPC binder.
Key factors that led to the higher than expected emissions for geopolymer concrete included the acquisition,
treatment and transport of raw materials for manufacture of alkali activators for geopolymers, expenditure of
significant energy during manufacture of alkali activators, and the need for elevated temperature curing of
geopolymers.

6. Future developments

The last methodology step should include the life-cycle cost analysis in order to make a choice that is
economically correct.
 Antonella Petrillo et al. / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8 (2016) 408 – 418 417

The life-cycle cost (LCC) is the total cost of owning, operating, maintaining and eventually disposing raw
materials and components of a product or service over a given study period.
In this study, it can be a useful tool to evaluate economic advantages and disadvantages over a specific period of
the life cycle of geopolymeric products to traditional ones. As a result, this methodology can identify the most
promising combinations for this specific application field and obtain information for the optimization process.
This research will provide scientific background for environmentally sustainable alternatives to conventional
concrete based paving blocks with much more attention to the reduction of CO 2 emissions and global warming
potential.

7. Conclusions

This study highlights that the use of C&D waste for making paving blocks will address sustainable issues such as
the resource conservation and conversion of by-products to useful and valuable products.
As a second point, it’s clear that the alkali activators cause high CO2 inventories because the production process
involves the calcinations of carbonates. Hence, the CO2 footprint of the geopolymer concrete paving blocks is
dependent on the type, concentration, and dosage of the alkali activators. As a result, it’s a clear need to focus on
further research using admixtures characterized by different solution and precursor ratio and consequently analyse
and comprare their environmental impacts.

References

Aitec, Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica Cemento, 2011.

Allen, E., Hallon, R. 2011. Fundamental of residential construction (3rd edition), 672 pages. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, USA.
Althaus, H. J., Chudacoff, M., Hishier, R., Jungbluth, N., Osses, M., Primas, A. 2007. “Life Cycle Inventories of chemicals”. Ecoinvent report
No. 8. EMPA Dübendorf, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories : pp. 957-977.
ATECAP: Italian Premixed Concrete Technological and Economical Association.
Chen, C. 2009. Study of building concrete by Life Cycle Assessment method. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Technologie de Troyes, Troyes, France.
Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., Jullien, A. 2009. “Environmental impact of cement production with CML01 method using French data”.
Concrete 21st Century super hero. Proceed. 11th Annual International Fib Symposium, London.
Chou, M.I., Patel, V., Laird, C.J., Ho, K.K. 2001. Chemical and engineering properties of fired bricks containing 50 weight per cent of class F fly
ash Energy Sources, 23 , pp. 665–673.
Cioffi, R., Maffucci, L., Santoro, L., 2003. Optimization of geopolymer synthesis by calcination and polycondensation of a kaolinitic residue.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 40 (1), 27–38.
Cochran, K., Villamizar, N. 2007. Recycling construction materials: An important part of the construction process. Construction Business Owner.
Collins, F. 2010. Inclusion of carbonation during the life cycle of built and recycled concrete: influence on their carbon footprint. Int J Life Cycle
Assess;15(6):549–56.
Davidovits, J. 1999. Geopolymeric Reactions in the Economic Future of Cements and Concretes, World-wide Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide
Emission. In: G’99. Geopolymer international conference, June 30theJuly 2nd, Saint Quentin, France, pp. 111e122.
Demir, I. 2006 An investigation on the production of construction brick with processed waste tea Build Environ, 41 , pp. 1274–1278.
Doka, G. and Hischier, R. 2005. “Waste treatment and assessment of long-term emissions”. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Vol.
10: pp. 77-84.
Dones, R., Bauer, C., Bolliger, R., Burger, B., Faist Emmenegger, M., Frschknecht, R., Heck, T., Jungbluth, N., Röder, A., Tuchschmid M., M.
2007. “Life cycle inventories of energy systems: results for current systems in Switzerland and other UCTE countries”. Ecoinvent report 5.
Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. Retrieved from: http:// www.ecoinvent.ch.
Accessed (2013).
Duxson, P., Fernández-Jiménez, A., Provis, J.L., Lukey, G.C., Palomo, A., van Deventer, J.S.J. 2007. Geopolymer technology: the current state of
the art. Journal of Material Science 42, 2917e2933.
El-Mahllawy, M.S., 2008. Characteristics of acid resisting bricks made from quarry residues and waste steel slag Constr Build Mater, 22, pp.
1887–1896.
Environmental Protection Agency: (1998), Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States.
Fava, J., Baer, S., Cooper, J. 2009. Increasing demands for life cycle assessments in North America, J. Ind. Ecol., 13 (4), pp. 491–494 Lianyang
Zhang.
Fawer, M., Concannon, M., Wolfram Rieber, W. 1999. “Life cycle inventories for the production of sodium silicates”. International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment. Vol. 4: pp. 207-212.
Fay, R., Treloar, G., Iyer-Raniga, U. 2000. Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings: a case study, Build. Res. Inf, 28 (1), pp. 31–41.
418 Antonella Petrillo et al. / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8 (2016) 408 – 418

Federal Register 2009. EPA; 40 CFR Parts 86, 87, 89 et al; Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Final Rule, 30Oct09, 261 pp. Tables C-1
and C-2. Table of Final 2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas LNG sourced from: EPA (2008) Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Protocol Core Module Guidance - Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources, Table B-5.
Ferone, C., Colangelo, F., Cioffi, R., Montagnaro, F., Santoro, L., 2011. Mechanical performances of weathered coal fly ash based geopolymer
bricks. Procedia Eng. 21, 745–752.
Ferone, C., Colangelo, F., Cioffi, R., Montagnaro, F., Santoro, L., 2013a. Use of reservoir clay sediments as raw materials for geopolymer
binders. Adv. Appl. Ceram. 112 (4), 184–189.
Ferone, C., Colangelo, F., Roviello, G., Asprone, D., Menna, C., Balsamo, A., Prota, A., Cioffi, R., Manfredi, G., 2013b. Application-oriented
chemical optimization of a metakaolin based geopolymer. Materials 6 (5), 1920–1939.
Formoso, CT., Soibelman, L., De Cesare, C., Isatto, EL. 2002. Material waste in building industry: main causes and prevention. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management ;128(4):316-25.
Guinée, J.B. 2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 692.
"Hardjito,D. 2005. Studies on fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, Department of civil engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Computing,
Curtin University of Technology.
IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Jeorge, J. Venta, P.Eng. 1998. “Life cycle analysis of brick and mortar products”, the ATHENATM Sustainable Material Institute, Canada,
Ottawa.
Ortiz, O., Castells, F. 2009. Sonnemann, G. Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA Constr.
Build. Mater., 23 (1) , pp. 28–39.
Pacheco-Torgal, F., Castro-Gomes, J., Jalali, S., 2008. Alkali-activated binders: a review. Construction and Building Materials 22 (7), 1305e1322.
Pacheco-Torgal,F., and Labrincha, J. 2013. The future of construction materials research and the seventh UN millennium development goal: a few
insights. Construction and Building Materials, 40, 729-737.
Palomo, A., Grutzeck, M. W. and Blanco M. T. 1999, Alkali-activated fly ashes: a cement for the future, Cement and concrete research., 29 ,
1323-1329.
Petrillo A. et al. Analisi ambientale ed economica del processo di produzione di miscele di calcestruzzo, 3° Congresso Nazionale del
Coordinamento della Meccanica Italiana, Napoli, 30 Giugno – 1 Luglio2014.
Phair, J.W., and Van Deventer, J.S.J. 2002, Effect of the silicate activator pH on the microstructural characteristics of wastebased geopolymers,
Int. J. Miner. Proc., 66, 121– 143.
Rahman, M.A. 1987. Properties of clay–sand–rice husk ash mixed bricks Int J Cem Compos Lightweight Concr, 9 (2), pp. 105–108
Schneider, M., Romer, M., Tschudin, M., Bolio, H. 2011. Sustainable cement production-present and future. Cement and Concrete Research ;
41:642-50.
Shi, C., Krivenko, P.V., Roy, D. 2006. Alkali-Activated Cements and Concretes. Taylor and Francis.
Swanepoel, J.C. and Strydom, C.A. 2002. Utilization of Fly Ash in a Geopolymeric Material, App. Geo., 17, 1143–1148.
Wu, J.-G., Meng, X.-Y., Liu,X.-M., Liu, X.-W., Zheng, Z.-X., Xu, D.-Q., Sheng, G.-P., Yu, H.-Q. 2010. Life cycle assessment of a wastewater
treatment plant focused on material and energy flows, Environ. Manage., 46 (4), pp. 610–617.