Life-Cycle Based Evaluation of Organic Waste Valorization for Low-Carbon Construction Materials in the United States
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65150/EP-gjetr/V2E7/2026-02Keywords:
life-cycle assessment, embodied carbon, supplementary cementitious materials, geopolymer binders, organic waste valorizationAbstract
The construction industry is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, largely driven by the carbon-intensive production of Portland cement. At the same time, the United States generates substantial volumes of organic waste from agricultural, forestry, and municipal systems, much of which remains underutilized. Integrating life-cycle assessment (LCA) with organic waste valorization presents a promising pathway for reducing the embodied carbon of construction materials while advancing circular economy objectives.
This narrative review synthesizes recent literature on the use of organic waste-derived materials in construction, including agricultural residue-based supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), biochar-enhanced concrete, sewage sludge ash (SSA), and geopolymer or alkali-activated binders. Comparative analysis is conducted using a common reference system based on conventional Portland cement concrete representative of U.S. practice. Reported reductions in embodied carbon vary across pathways: agricultural ash SCMs achieve 15–35%, biochar concrete 10–30%, SSA 10–25%, and geopolymer systems range from –20% to +50%, depending on methodological assumptions. Results indicate that direct material substitution pathways generally provide greater carbon reduction benefits than waste-to-energy alternatives. However, significant methodological inconsistencies particularly in system boundaries, functional units, and allocation methods, limit cross-study comparability.
The study proposes a pathway suitability framework to guide context-specific material selection. Achieving large-scale implementation will require regulatory alignment, durability validation, and targeted infrastructure investment to fully realize the decarbonization potential of organic waste valorization in construction.
References
1) Andrew, R. M. (2018). Global CO₂ emissions from cement production. Earth System Science Data, 10, 195–217.
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-195-2018
2) Astrup, T., Tonini, D., Turconi, R., & Boldrin, A. (2015). Life cycle assessment of thermal waste-to-energy technologies: Review and recommendations. Waste Management, 37, 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.06.011
3) Barbhuiya, S., et al. (2024). Biochar-concrete: A comprehensive review of properties, production, and sustainability. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 20, e02859.
4) Brefo, J. A., & Yakin, Z. (2025). The role of fiber-reinforced and self-healing concrete in enhancing U.S. infrastructure durability. Journal of Engineering and Computer Sciences, 4(10), 198–205.
5) Gupta, S., Kua, H. W., & Pang, S. D. (2022). Biochar in cement-based materials: A review of mechanical, durability and environmental performance. Construction and Building Materials, 324, 126682.
6) Habert, G., Miller, S. A., John, V. M., Provis, J. L., Favier, A., Horvath, A., & Scrivener, K. L. (2020). Environmental impacts and decarbonization strategies in the cement and concrete industries. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment,1, 559–573.https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0093-3
7) Hauschild, M. Z., Rosenbaum, R. K., & Olsen, S. I. (2018). Life cycle assessment: Theory and practice. Springer.
8) Ighomuaye, E., Annankra, J. A., & Yakin, Z. (2025). A critical review of the regulatory and policy landscape governing carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies in the United States: Challenges, opportunities, and future directions.
9) Ighomuaye, E., Asimatey, P. D., & Annankra, J. A. (2025). Strategies for industrial integration of carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies: A critical review. Journal of Engineering and Computer Sciences, 4(9), 284–293.
10) Juenger, M. C. G., Snellings, R., & Bernal, S. A. (2019). Supplementary cementitious materials: New sources, characterization, and performance insights. Cement and Concrete Research, 122, 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.05.008
11) Kodua, A. M., Olurunfemi, O. E., & Cudjoe-Mensah, Y. M. (2025). Advancing circular economy strategies for municipal solid waste management in the U.S.: Challenges and opportunities. EPRA International Journal of Economic Growth and Environmental Issues, 13(6), 20.
12) Miller, S. A., Horvath, A., & Monteiro, P. J. M. (2021). Impacts of booming concrete production on global CO₂ emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 16, 034001.
13) Mosaberpanah, M. A., et al. (2024). Effect of biochar and sewage sludge ash as partial cement replacement in mortar. Sustainability, 16(4), 1522.
14) Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2016). Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment – What does the evidence say? Journal of Environmental Management, 181, 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.036
15) Provis, J. L. (2018). Alkali-activated materials. Cement and Concrete Research,114,40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.009
16) Rahman, M. H., et al. (2020). Environmental and durability assessment of sewage sludge ash concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 123294.
17) Scrivener, K. L., John, V. M., & Gartner, E. M. (2018). Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO₂ cement-based materials industry. Cement and Concrete Research, 114, 2–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.03.015
18) Setyono, P., et al. (2023). Waste-to-energy systems in circular economy frameworks: Environmental performance review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 174, 113121.
19) Tan, Z., Lin, C. S. K., Ji, X., & Rainey, T. J. (2017). Returning biochar to fields: A review. Applied Energy, 193, 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.02.013
20) U.S. Department of Energy. (2023). Industrial decarbonization roadmap. U.S. Department of Energy.
21) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2022). Advancing sustainable materials management: Facts and figures report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
22) Yator, K. Y., & Yakin, Z. (2025). Sustainable mine land rehabilitation using bio-cementation and geopolymers: A review of applications, challenges, and future perspectives. Journal of Engineering and Computer Sciences, 4(11), 213–220.
23) Zhang, J., Fernando, S., Law, D. W., Gunasekara, C., Setunge, S., & Zhang, G. (2023). Life cycle assessment for geopolymer concrete bricks using brown coal fly ash. Sustainability, 15(9), 7718.
24) Zhu, H., et al. (2019). Sewage sludge ash as a supplementary cementitious material: Mechanical and environmental performance. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 145, 277–287.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Casper Uyapo Gate , Wycliff Oduor , Mariam Dauda (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
