選定されたセメント系およびアルカリ活性化複合材料の比較カドル・トゥ・ゲート炭素フットプリント評価
Comparative Cradle-to-Gate Carbon Footprint Assessment of Selected Cementitious and Alkali-Activated Composites (原題)
Beata Łaźniewska-Piekarczyk, Patrycja Miera, Mateusz Moskal, Robert Domin
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
ポルトランドセメント系とアルカリ活性化系のコンクリート6種・モルタル4種を、openLCAとCML-IA手法でカドル・トゥ・ゲート評価した研究。CEM III/BコンクリートはCEM I比でGWPを54.8%削減、スラグ・フライアッシュ系アルカリ活性化コンクリートは71.9%削減、CEM III/Cモルタルは76.6%削減を達成した。一方、一部のアルカリ活性化系は毒性・生態毒性・資源関連の影響が大きいことを示し、炭素のみでなく複数影響カテゴリでの評価を求める。
English
A cradle-to-gate LCA of six concretes and four mortars comparing Portland-cement and alkali-activated binders using openLCA and CML-IA. CEM III/B concrete cut GWP by 54.8% versus CEM I, slag–fly-ash alkali-activated concrete by 71.9%, and CEM III/C mortar by 76.6%. However, some alkali-activated systems showed higher toxicity, ecotoxicity and resource burdens, so binder choice should be judged across multiple impact categories, not carbon alone.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
建設業はScope 3排出の大宗を占め、SSBJのScope 3開示や施工段階の炭素削減目標を検討する日本企業にとって、バインダー選択の定量的根拠を提供する。炭素削減と毒性・資源影響のトレードオフは、統合報告書での誠実な開示設計に直結する。
In the global GX context
Construction materials dominate Scope 3 category 1 emissions, and this recipe-level comparison gives disclosure teams a defensible basis for embodied-carbon claims under ISSB/CSRD. Its explicit warning that GWP gains can shift burdens to toxicity and resource categories is a useful counter to single-metric decarbonization narratives.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a consistent CML-IA cradle-to-gate dataset for comparing GWP ordering against ten other midpoint categories across ten concrete and mortar recipes.
🏢実務担当者:Useful for construction and materials teams weighing low-clinker or alkali-activated binders, with a reminder to check toxicity and resource trade-offs before claiming net environmental benefit.
🏛政策担当者:Suggests embodied-carbon rules and green procurement criteria should require multi-category LCA rather than GWP-only thresholds.
📄 Abstract(原文)
The construction sector contributes substantially to greenhouse gas emissions, largely because of Portland cement clinker production in cementitious composites. This study presents a cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessment of selected cementitious and alkali-activated concretes and mortars, with particular focus on global warming potential and potential environmental trade-offs. The assessment was performed using openLCA 2.6.2 and Microsoft Excel, with inventory data from BAFU-2025 Version 2 and impact categories calculated using the CML-IA baseline method. Two material groups were evaluated per 1 m3: six concretes based on CEM I, CEM II/B-V, CEM III/B, ground granulated blast-furnace slag, fly ash, or a slag–fly-ash combination, and four mortars based on CEM I, CEM III/C, CEM VI (S-LL), or alkali-activated slag. CEM III/B concrete reduced global warming potential by 54.8% relative to CEM I, while the slag–fly-ash alkali-activated concrete achieved a 71.9% reduction. CEM III/C mortar achieved the lowest mortar value, 76.6% below CEM I. Selected alkali-activated systems, nevertheless, showed higher toxicity-, ecotoxicity-, and resource-related results. Within the adopted cradle-to-gate boundary and volumetric functional unit, the findings show that binder selection should be evaluated across several impact categories, rather than by carbon footprint alone. The specific contribution is a recipe-level comparison of six concretes and four mortars under one consistent cradle-to-gate CML-IA framework, testing whether the GWP ordering of the ten selected recipes is reflected in ten other midpoint categories. These percentages describe production-stage burdens per unit volume; they do not demonstrate equivalent strength, durability or service life.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16214218first seen 2026-10-28 05:00:44 · last seen 2026-11-06 04:59:41
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録(無料・3キーワードまで)。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。