Assessing the long term effects on climate change of metallurgical slags valorization as construction material: a comparison between static and dynamic global warming impacts

Andrea Di Maria; Annie Levasseur; Karel Van Acker; Andrea Di Maria; Annie Levasseur; Karel Van Acker

doi:10.3934/ctr.2021005

Clean Technologies and Recycling

2021, Volume 1, Issue 1: 88-111. doi: 10.3934/ctr.2021005

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Assessing the long term effects on climate change of metallurgical slags valorization as construction material: a comparison between static and dynamic global warming impacts

1.
Department of Materials Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KU Leuven), Kasteelpark Arenberg 44 box 2450, BE-3001 Leuven, Belgium
2.
Department of Construction Engineering, École de technologie supérieure, 1100, Rue Notre-Dame Ouest, Montréal (Québec), H3C 1K3, Canada
3.
Center for Economics and Corporate Sustainability (CEDON), KU Leuven, Warmoesberg 26, BE-1000 Brussels, Belgium

Received: 30 June 2021 Accepted: 30 August 2021 Published: 29 September 2021

The interest in circular economy for the construction sector is constantly increasing, and Global Warming Potential (GWP) is often used to assess the carbon footprint of buildings and building materials. However, GWP presents some methodological challenges when assessing the environmental impacts of construction materials. Due to the long life of construction materials, GWP calculation should take into consideration also time-related aspects. However, in the current GWP, any temporal information is lost, making traditional static GWP better suited for retrospective assessment rather than forecasting purposes. Building on this need, this study uses a time-dependent GWP to assess the carbon footprint of two newly developed construction materials, produced through the recycling of industrial residues (stainless steel slag and industrial goethite). The results for both materials are further compared with the results of traditional ordinary Portland cement (OPC) based concrete, presenting similar characteristics. The results of the dynamic GWP (D_GWP) are also compared to the results of traditional static GWP (S_GWP), to see how the methodological development of D_GWP may influence the final environmental evaluation for construction materials. The results show the criticality of the recycling processes, especially in the case of goethite valorization. The analysis shows also that, although the D_GWP did not result in a shift in the ranking between the three materials compared with S_GWP, it provides a clearer picture of emission flows and their effect on climate change over time.
- dynamic global warming potential,
- metallurgical slags valorization
Citation: Andrea Di Maria, Annie Levasseur, Karel Van Acker. Assessing the long term effects on climate change of metallurgical slags valorization as construction material: a comparison between static and dynamic global warming impacts[J]. Clean Technologies and Recycling, 2021, 1(1): 88-111. doi: 10.3934/ctr.2021005

Related Papers:

Abstract

The interest in circular economy for the construction sector is constantly increasing, and Global Warming Potential (GWP) is often used to assess the carbon footprint of buildings and building materials. However, GWP presents some methodological challenges when assessing the environmental impacts of construction materials. Due to the long life of construction materials, GWP calculation should take into consideration also time-related aspects. However, in the current GWP, any temporal information is lost, making traditional static GWP better suited for retrospective assessment rather than forecasting purposes. Building on this need, this study uses a time-dependent GWP to assess the carbon footprint of two newly developed construction materials, produced through the recycling of industrial residues (stainless steel slag and industrial goethite). The results for both materials are further compared with the results of traditional ordinary Portland cement (OPC) based concrete, presenting similar characteristics. The results of the dynamic GWP (D_GWP) are also compared to the results of traditional static GWP (S_GWP), to see how the methodological development of D_GWP may influence the final environmental evaluation for construction materials. The results show the criticality of the recycling processes, especially in the case of goethite valorization. The analysis shows also that, although the D_GWP did not result in a shift in the ranking between the three materials compared with S_GWP, it provides a clearer picture of emission flows and their effect on climate change over time.

References

[1]	Kylili A, Fokaides PA (2017) Policy trends for the sustainability assessment of construction materials: A review. Sustain Cities Soc 35: 280–288. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2017.08.013
[2]	Häfliger IF, John V, Passer A, et al. (2017) Buildings environmental impacts' sensitivity related to LCA modelling choices of construction materials. J Clean Prod 156: 805–816. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.052
[3]	Pontikes Y, Snellings R (2014) Chapter 16 - Cementitious Binders Incorporating Residues, Boston, Elsevier, 219–229.
[4]	Panesar DK (2019) Supplementary cementing materials, Developments in the Formulation and Reinforcement of Concrete, Elsevier, 55–85.
[5]	Di Filippo J, Karpman J, DeShazo JR (2019) The impacts of policies to reduce CO₂ emissions within the concrete supply chain. Cem Concr Compos 101: 67–82. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.08.003
[6]	Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon FM, et al. (2013) Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 659–740.
[7]	Allen MR, Shine KP, Fuglestvedt JS, et al. (2018) A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. Npj Clim Atmos Sci 1: 16. doi: 10.1038/s41612-018-0026-8
[8]	Dyckhoff H, Kasah T (2014) Time Horizon and Dominance in Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment. J Ind Ecol 18: 799–808. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12131
[9]	Pigné Y, Navarrete Gutiérrez T, Gibon T, et al. (2020) LCI METHODOLOGY AND DATABASES A tool to operationalize dynamic LCA, including time differentiation on the complete background database. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25: 267–279. doi: 10.1007/s11367-019-01696-6
[10]	Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, et al. (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13: 374. doi: 10.1007/s11367-008-0009-9
[11]	Shimako AH, Tiruta-Barna L, Bisinella de Faria AB, et al. (2018) Sensitivity analysis of temporal parameters in a dynamic LCA framework. Sci Total Environ 624: 1250–1262. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.220
[12]	Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, et al. (2010) Considering Time in LCA: Dynamic LCA and Its Application to Global Warming Impact Assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44: 3169–3174. doi: 10.1021/es9030003
[13]	Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, et al. (2013) Biogenic Carbon and Temporary Storage Addressed with Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment. J Ind Ecol 17: 117–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00503.x
[14]	Pasupathy K, Berndt M, Castel A, et al. (2016) Carbonation of a blended slag-fly ash geopolymer concrete in field conditions after 8 years. Constr Build Mater 125: 661–669. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.078
[15]	Collinge WO, Landis AE, Jones AK, et al. (2013) Dynamic life cycle assessment: framework and application to an institutional building. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18: 538–552. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0528-2
[16]	Su S, Li X, Zhu Y, et al. (2017) Dynamic LCA Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment of Buildings. Energy Build 149: 310–320. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.05.042
[17]	Hu M (2018) Dynamic life cycle assessment integrating value choice and temporal factors—A case study of an elementary school. Energy Build 158: 1087–1096. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.043
[18]	Negishi K, Lebert A, Almeida D, et al. (2019) Evaluating climate change pathways through a building's lifecycle based on Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment. Build Environ 164: 106377. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106377
[19]	Resch E, Andresen I, Cherubini F, et al. (2021) Estimating dynamic climate change effects of material use in buildings—Timing, uncertainty, and emission sources. Build Environ 187: 107399. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107399
[20]	Mastrucci A, Marvuglia A, Benetto E, et al. (2020) A spatio-temporal life cycle assessment framework for building renovation scenarios at the urban scale. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 126: 109834. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.109834
[21]	Fouquet M, Levasseur A, Margni M, et al. (2015) Methodological challenges and developments in LCA of low energy buildings: Application to biogenic carbon and global warming assessment. Build Environ 90: 51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.03.022
[22]	Tiruta-Barna L, Pigné Y, Navarrete Gutiérrez T, et al. (2016) Framework and computational tool for the consideration of time dependency in Life Cycle Inventory: proof of concept. J Clean Prod 116: 198–206. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.049
[23]	Fouquet M, Levasseur A, Margni M, et al. (2015) Methodological challenges and developments in LCA of low energy buildings: Application to biogenic carbon and global warming assessment. Build Environ 90: 51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.03.022
[24]	Su S, Zhang H, Zuo J, et al. (2021) Assessment models and dynamic variables for dynamic life cycle assessment of buildings: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28: 26199–26214. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-13614-1
[25]	Beloin-Saint-Pierre D, Albers A, Hélias A, et al. (2020) Addressing temporal considerations in life cycle assessment. Sci Total Environ 743: 140700. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140700
[26]	IPCC (2014) AR5 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC, 2014. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/.
[27]	Shine KP (2009) The global warming potential—the need for an interdisciplinary retrial. Clim Change 96: 467–472. doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9647-6
[28]	IPCC (2013) Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis Working Group I Contribution To The Fifth Assessment Report of The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change Wg I In T Ergov Ernmenta L Pa Nel On climate change, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
[29]	Ismael MR, Carvalho JM (2003) Iron recovery from sulphate leach liquors in zinc hydrometallurgy. Miner Eng 16: 31–39. doi: 10.1016/S0892-6875(02)00310-2
[30]	Yue T, Xu Z, Hu Y, et al. (2018) Magnetic Separation and Recycling of Goethite and Calcium Sulfate in Zinc Hydrometallurgy in the Presence of Maghemite Fine Particles. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 6: 1532–1538. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b03856
[31]	Di Maria A, Van Acker K (2018) Turning Industrial Residues into Resources: An Environmental Impact Assessment of Goethite Valorization. Engineering 4: 421–429. doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2018.05.008
[32]	Yue T, Niu Z, Tao H, et al. (2019) Green Recycling of Goethite and Gypsum Residues in Hydrometallurgy with α-Fe 3 O 4 and γ-Fe 2 O 3 Nanoparticles: Application, Characterization, and DFT Calculation. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 7: 6821–6829. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b06142
[33]	Van Roosendael S, Roosen J, Banerjee D, et al. (2019) Selective recovery of germanium from iron-rich solutions using a supported ionic liquid phase (SILP). Sep Purif Technol 221: 83–92. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2019.03.068
[34]	Szewczuk-Karpisz K, Krasucka P, Boguta P, et al. (2019) Anionic polyacrylamide efficiency in goethite removal from aqueous solutions: goethite suspension destabilization by PAM. Int J Environ Sci Technol 16: 3145–3154. doi: 10.1007/s13762-018-2064-5
[35]	Van Roosendael S, Regadío M, Roosen J, et al. (2019) Selective recovery of indium from iron-rich solutions using an Aliquat 336 iodide supported ionic liquid phase (SILP). Sep Purif Technol 212: 843–853. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2018.11.092
[36]	Rodriguez Rodriguez N, Onghena B, Binnemans K (2019) Recovery of Lead and Silver from Zinc Leaching Residue Using Methanesulfonic Acid. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 7: 19807–19815. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b05116
[37]	Rodriguez Rodriguez N, Machiels L, Onghena B, et al. (2020) Selective recovery of zinc from goethite residue in the zinc industry using deep-eutectic solvents. RSC Adv 10: 7328–7335. doi: 10.1039/D0RA00277A
[38]	Abo Atia T, Spooren J (2020) Microwave assisted alkaline roasting-water leaching for the valorisation of goethite sludge from zinc refining process. Hydrometallurgy 191: 105235. doi: 10.1016/j.hydromet.2019.105235
[39]	Wang Z, Liu Y, Qu Z, et al. (2021) In situ conversion of goethite to erdite nanorods to improve the performance of doxycycline hydrochloride adsorption. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem Eng Asp 614: 126132. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2021.126132
[40]	Huda N, Naser J, Brooks G, et al. (2012) Computational Fluid Dynamic Modeling of Zinc Slag Fuming Process in Top-Submerged Lance Smelting Furnace. Metall Mater Trans B 43: 39–55. doi: 10.1007/s11663-011-9558-6
[41]	Nagraj S, Chintinne M, Guo M, et al. (2020) A Dynamic Model of a Submerged Plasma Slag Fuming Process, In: Minerals, Metals and Materials Series, Springer, 237–245.
[42]	Verscheure K, Van Camp M, Blanpain B, et al. (2007) Continuous Fuming of Zinc-Bearing Residues: Part I. Model Development. Metall Mater Trans B 38: 13–20.
[43]	Verscheure K, Camp M Van, Blanpain B, et al. (2007) Continuous Fuming of Zinc-Bearing Residues: Part II. The Submerged-Plasma Zinc-Fuming Process. Metall Mater Trans B 38: 21–33.
[44]	Alemán JV, Chadwick AV, He J, et al. (2009) Definitions of terms relating to the structure and processing of sols, gels, networks, and inorganic-organic hybrid materials (IUPAC Recommendations 2007). Pure Appl Chem 79: 1801. doi: 10.1351/pac200779101801
[45]	van Deventer JSJ, Provis JL, Duxson P, et al. (2010) Chemical Research and Climate Change as Drivers in the Commercial Adoption of Alkali Activated Materials. Waste Biomass Valorization 1: 145–155. doi: 10.1007/s12649-010-9015-9
[46]	Sofilić T, Rastovčan-Mioč A, Cerjan-Stefanović Š, et al. (2004) Characterization of steel mill electric-arc furnace dust. J Hazard Mater 109: 59–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.02.032
[47]	Rosales J, Agrela F, Entrenas JA, et al. (2020) Potential of stainless steel slag waste in manufacturing self-compacting concrete. Materials (Basel) 13.
[48]	Wang X, Geysen D, Van Gerven T, et al. (2017) Characterization of landfilled stainless steel slags in view of metal recovery. Front Chem Sci Eng 11: 353–362. doi: 10.1007/s11705-017-1656-9
[49]	Adamczyk B, Brenneis R, Adam C, et al. (2010) Recovery of Chromium from AOD-Converter Slags. Steel Res Int 81: 1078–1083. doi: 10.1002/srin.201000193
[50]	Durinck D, Engström F, Arnout S, et al. (2008) Hot stage processing of metallurgical slags. Resour Conserv Recycl 52: 1121–1131. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.07.001
[51]	Durinck D, Arnout S, Mertens G, et al. (2008) Borate Distribution in Stabilized Stainless-Steel Slag. J Am Ceram Soc 91: 548–554. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2007.02147.x
[52]	Salman M, Cizer Ö, Pontikes Y, et al. (2014) Effect of accelerated carbonation on AOD stainless steel slag for its valorisation as a CO2-sequestering construction material. Chem Eng J 246: 39–52. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2014.02.051
[53]	Salman M, Dubois M, Di Maria A, et al. (2016) Construction Materials from Stainless Steel Slags: Technical Aspects, Environmental Benefits, and Economic Opportunities. J Ind Ecol 20: 854–866. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12314
[54]	Di Maria A, Salman M, Dubois M, et al. (2018) Life cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental performance of new construction material from stainless steel slag. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1–19.
[55]	Iacobescu RI, Angelopoulos GN, Jones PT, et al. (2016) Ladle metallurgy stainless steel slag as a raw material in Ordinary Portland Cement production: a possibility for industrial symbiosis. J Clean Prod 112: 872–881. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.006
[56]	Provis J, van Deventer J (2014) Alkali Activated Materials - State-of-the-Art Report, RILEM TC, John Provis, Springer.
[57]	Pommer K, Pade C (2006) Guidelines-uptake of carbon dioxide in the life cycle inventory of concrete, Oslo, Norway, Dansk Teknologisk Institut, Nordic Innovation Centre.
[58]	European Commision (2015) Screening template for Construction and Demolition Waste management in Belgium.
[59]	Di Maria A, Eyckmans J, Van Acker K (2018) Downcycling versus recycling of construction and demolition waste: Combining LCA and LCC to support sustainable policy making. Waste Manag 75: 3–21. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.028
[60]	Martaud T (2008) Evaluation environnementale de la production de granulats en exploitation de carrières. Indicateurs, Modèles et Outils, Géologie appliquée, Université d'Orléans.
[61]	Mroueh U-M, Eskola P, Laine-Ylijoki J, et al. (2000) Life cycle assessment of road construction, Helsinki, Finland.
[62]	Dewar J (2003) Concrete mix design, In: Newman JB, Choo BS (Eds.), Advanced concrete technology, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 3–40.
[63]	Kjellsen KO, Guimaraes M, Nilsson A (2005) The CO2 Balance of Concrete in a Life Cycle Perspective, Oslo, Norway.
[64]	Lagerblad B (2006) CO2 uptake during concrete life cycle- state of the art, Oslo, Norway.
[65]	Pommer K, Pade C (2006) Guidelines-uptake of carbon dioxide in the life cycle inventory of concrete, Oslo, Norway.
[66]	Kellemberg D, Althaus HJ, Kunninger T, et al. (2007) Life Cycle Inventories of Building Products. Ecoinvent report No. 7, Dübendorf.
[67]	Castellote M, Fernandez L, Andrade C, et al. (2009) Chemical changes and phase analysis of OPC pastes carbonated at different CO2 concentrations. Mater Struct 42: 515–525. doi: 10.1617/s11527-008-9399-1
[68]	Van Deventer JSJ, Provis JL, Duxson P (2012) Technical and commercial progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement. Miner Eng 29: 89–104. doi: 10.1016/j.mineng.2011.09.009
[69]	Bernal SA, Provis JL, Brice DG, et al. (2012) Accelerated carbonation testing of alkali-activated binders significantly underestimates service life: The role of pore solution chemistry.Cem Concr Res 42: 1317–1326. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.07.002
[70]	Gruskovnjak A, Lothenbach B, Holzer L, et al. (2006) Hydration of alkali-activated slag: comparison with ordinary Portland cement. Adv Cem Res 18: 119–128. doi: 10.1680/adcr.2006.18.3.119
[71]	Adam A (2009) Strength and durability properties of alkali activated slag and fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, Australia, RMIT University Melbourne.
[72]	Bakharev T, Sanjayan JG, Cheng YB (2001) Resistance of alkali-activated slag concrete to carbonation. Cem Concr Res 31: 1277–1283. doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00574-9
[73]	Ul Haq E, Padmanabhan SK, Licciulli A (2014) In-situ carbonation of alkali activated fly ash geopolymer. Constr Build Mater 66: 781–786. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.06.012

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)