This review evaluates pollution controls in the cement industry, suggesting effective mitigation strategies and risks.
This study reviewed 187 articles based on systematic review guidelines to evaluate pollution controls through a novel analytical multimedia framework that bridges air, water, soil, and acoustic compartments, alongside emerging digital and circular economy paradigms. With 5–7% of worldwide CO2 emissions originating in the cement industry, fugitive particulate matter constitutes more than 90% of a plant’s emissions. The results show that the cement sector has considerable potential for decarbonization, though highly context-dependent. Under optimal conditions, clinker substitution coupled with alternative fuels could reduce direct emissions by up to 50% and total energy usage by 44%, constrained by regional material availability. Fully integrated carbon capture systems (TRL 7–9) could reduce exhaust emissions by up to 90%, contingent upon overcoming significant energy penalties. Engineering controls in dry-process mills reduced daily occupational noise exposure from 102.9 to 88.3 dB(A). Regarding soil pollution, cement kiln dust increased the unconfined compressive strength of native soils up to 9.9 times for geotechnical stabilization. In water management, hybrid biological systems removed 94.5% of particulate matter and reduced oxygen demand by over 87%, while advanced biomonitoring decreased effluent toxicity by over 90%. The significance of this study lies in overcoming traditional siloed assessments by introducing a holistic multimedia framework that maps biogeochemical interconnectivity alongside Industry 4.0 paradigms. Ultimately, this review provides a vital sociotechnical road map for stakeholders to align localized ecological risk mitigation with stringent 2026 global market mechanisms, such as the carbon border adjustment mechanism and mandatory environmental, social and governance disclosures, ensuring both industrial competitiveness and environmental stewardship.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Georgin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: