Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Research shows the viability of waste materials as cement replacements in concrete, indicating lower carbon impact.
The construction industry’s dependence on Portland cement greatly contributes to global CO₂ emissions, highlighting the need for low-carbon alternatives. This research partially replaces cement with materials such as recycled concrete fines (WC), ground glass (GG), sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA), and coffee husk biochar (CHB) produced via microwave-assisted pyrolysis (MAP). Comprehensive physicochemical, mechanical, microstructural, and thermal analyses and life cycle and techno-economic assessments were carried out in this research. SCBA and GG increased compressive strength by up to 64% and 46%, respectively, compared with the control specimen at 7 days, while CHB enhanced internal curing due to its high porosity. Life-cycle analysis revealed CHB concretes emitted as little as 0.005–59 kg CO₂/m³, significantly lower than conventional mixes. Techno-economic analysis highlighted GG as the most cost-effective alternative, while MAP-enabled CHB demonstrated commercial viability. The results substantiate a circular economy model by integrating waste feedstocks in concrete production and a scalable pathway to decarbonise concrete through sustainable waste utilisation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Allende et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: