In this section, the environmental impacts and process contributions of four different concrete mixtures are analyzed and compared using a mid-point approach, called CML 2001. In the first section, the life cycle inventory results for the ingredients of concrete are reported. In the next section, the numbers of impact categories are analyzed for four types of mixes, i.e., concrete mix, RAC, GPC, and RAGC. At last, the contribution analyses of all four concrete mixtures are presented.
3.2. Environmental Impact Analysis of Four Mixes
In this study, the environmental impacts were analyzed for the comparison of normal concrete and GPC along with their RAC. From the Open LCA software, the impacts were analyzed that represented that the inclusion of an alternative binder or RA could help to reduce the certain environmental impacts were analyzed. The most concerning impact category in the construction industry is the GWP that results from CO
2 production and the emissions of GHGs [
14]. The GWP-100a (100-year global warming potential) of OPC concrete, RAC, GPC, and RAGC are compared and presented in
Figure 5. It is shown that OPC concrete has the highest GWP when compared to the other three mixes. The GWP follows a decreasing pattern from normal concrete, > RAC > GPC > RAGC, as shown in the respective figure. This pattern provides the idea that the mixes containing higher contents of cement have higher GWPs, when compared to the others. However, with the inclusion of RA in the mix, the net impact of global warming is reduced [
17,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26].
In addition, ADP follows the same pattern as GWP for the four types of concrete mixtures. The normal concrete has the highest impact on acidification due to high emissions of air pollutants, such as NOx, SO
2, NH
3, etc., during cement production. From
Figure 6, it is concluded that RAC and RAGC exhibit lower ADP when compared to normal concrete and GPC, respectively, due to the recycling of coarse aggregates. The recycling of coarse aggregates requires lower energy than the normal aggregate, due to the elimination of mining energy and the reduction in transportation energy. It is reported that the net environmental impacts of RAC are also influenced by the transportation distance [
20,
21,
27,
28]. The environmental impact of RAC has a lower influence if the transportation distance is less than 20 km for the considered natural aggregate when it is compared [
26,
27].
Additionally, the ozone depletion potential of the four types of mixes is presented in
Figure 7, which clearly shows that the production of concrete and RAC mixtures has no direct impact on ozone depletion for a specified functional unit of 1 m
3 of concrete samples. Conversely, both type of geopolymer mixes, i.e., GPC and RAGC, have a significant impact on ozone depletion. This impact is due to the presence of a sodium hydroxide activator in FA-based GPC mixtures. The production of sodium hydroxide through the process of chlor-alkali electrolysis, using a membrane cell, emits some amount of tetra-chloro methane in the atmosphere, which could impact the ozone layer.
The impact of different environmental pollutants on air pollution, specifically ozone depletion, is a very complex process. The characteristics of environmental pollutants depend on their nature—whether either is a primary or secondary pollutant. The direct emissions of gases, fumes, and smoke from the exhausts of vehicles and combustion factories, along with the burning of fossil fuels, are the causes of the primary pollutants. The primary pollutants, such as particulates, hydrocarbon, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide, etc., when coming in contact with other pollutants such as VOC or compounds of ammonia (coming from other developmental activities), form the secondary pollutants. Their chemical reactions in the atmosphere increase the impact on urban air quality by acid deposition and the formation of ground-level ozone (bad ozone or tropospheric ozone). However, the presence of chemicals, such as manufactured halocarbon refrigerants, propellants, solvents, and foam-blowing agents (CFCs, HCFCs, and halons), promotes the depletion of the ozone hole (beneficial ozone or stratospheric ozone). The emissions resulting from the production of concrete influence the presence of photochemical oxidants that affect the tropospheric ozone.
However, the photochemical oxidation of four concrete mixes is represented in
Figure 8, which shows that the concrete mixture has the highest ability to produce photochemical oxidants in the atmosphere. These oxidants are produced from the reaction of primary air pollutants such as NO
x, SO
x, and hydrocarbons under the action of sunlight [
29]. The decreasing pattern of this impact category starts from concrete to the RAGC mixture, i.e., normal concrete > GPC > RAGC > RAC. The production of elementary environmental pollutants during cement production and transportation is responsible for the highest photochemical oxidation when compared to the other mixtures. The production of photochemical oxidants adversely influences the atmosphere by the incorporation of unwanted ozone molecules in the troposphere and, thus, causes smog, along with other environmental effects.
The impact category, namely, the ETP of the four concrete mixtures, is shown in
Figure 9, which concludes that GPC has the highest ETP (0.1148 kg PO
4-Eq/m
3 of GPC) when compared to the other mixtures. This is due to the presence of hydroxide and silicate sources in GPC [
15]. On the other hand, the RAC and RAGC represent a slight decrease of impact categories, when compared to OPC concrete and GPC, respectively. The use of RA is responsible for less NO
x, SO
2, and ammonia emissions, when compared to normal aggregate production.
However, HTP describes the potential damage of the chemical unit that is released in the atmosphere. Its potentiality depends on both the inherent toxicity of the chemical and its potential dose. From
Figure 10, it is represented that GPC has a higher impact on human toxicity when compared to the other three mixes. The pattern of HTP for all four mixtures represents that the GPC binder with natural or RA shows a higher potency due to presence of alkaline activators, especially a sodium silicate source [
10,
12,
30]. Similarly, the impact category, called marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP), is shown in
Figure 11. The MAETP of OPC concrete, RAC, GPC, and RAGC are 4.57 × 10
−5, 4.47 × 10
−5, 136.45, and 136.45 kg of 1.4 DCB-Eq/m
3 of mixture, respectively. The values predict that the OPC and RAC concrete has minute impact on aquatic ecotoxicity due to the absence of an alkaline activator, as in the case of the geopolymer mixtures. The aquatic ecotoxicity can be hindered by using sustainable production sources of alkaline activators.
The last two impact categories considered in this research study are freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) and terrestrial aquatic ecotoxicity potential (TAETP), as shown in
Figure 12 and
Figure 13, respectively. From
Figure 12, it is clearly seen that the GPC mixture has a higher FAETP value when compared to the other mixtures. The decreasing pattern of both impact categories, i.e., GPC > RAGC > OPC concrete > RAC, depicts that the presence of a silicate and hydroxide source in GPC mixtures is responsible for a higher ecotoxicity impact [
10,
13,
30]. However, the terrestrial aquatic ecotoxicity of both GPC mixtures shows the same value of 0.0107 kg 1,4 DCB-Eq, as presented in
Figure 13. This depicts that the impact category is only affected by the presence of a sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide source in both mixtures.
In the present impact assessment analysis, it is concluded that the OPC concrete has potentially higher impacts than GPC and recycled mixtures in the impact categories GWP, ADP, ETP, and POF. The use of GPC can reduce GWP significantly—up to 57.34%—when compared to normal concrete. However, other impact categories, such as FAETP, MAETP, stratospheric ozone depletion, HTP, and TAETP, show a greater impact of GPC than normal concrete. This is due to the presence of alkaline activators, such as a silicate source, in the GPC [
10,
12,
30]. Moreover, the recycling of coarse aggregates in both concrete and GPC mixtures can reduce the overall environmental impacts. The values of the potential impact categories of the four mixtures by the CML baseline method are presented in
Table 4.
However, the nine considered environmental indicators in this research work were scaled while keeping the potential environmental damage to the surrounding atmosphere in view. The GWP is ranked highest, followed by ODP, POF, HTP, ADP, EP, FAETP, MAETP, and TAETP. From the weighted average of all the indicators from all the mixtures, it is concluded that the RAGC mixture is more sustainable for the environment, followed by GPC, RAC, and OPC concrete mixtures. The ranking of all the mixtures regarding their environmentally sustainable performance is given in
Table 5. This ranking will provide an idea to civil society about which concrete mixture efficiently provides for structural needs and offers sustainable solutions to the environment. Depending on the strength requirement, the audience can select the required aluminosilicate and activator source along with the choice of selection of recycled aggregate or natural aggregate. In the present research work, the RAGC is the best-optimized mixture for meeting the structural needs and for hastening sustainable developments.
3.3. Contribution Analysis
A contribution analysis for the four selected mixtures was performed to check the contribution of the selected processes to the chosen LCIA impact category. The contribution of coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, cement, and the mixing process was checked in the analysis of OPC concrete, while the contribution of RA, fine aggregate, cement, and the mixing process was checked in the RAC analysis.
Figure 14 and
Figure 15 show that the cement had the highest negative impacts on the chosen environmental categories [
10,
11,
31]. In the case of OPC concrete, cement had the highest impact, followed by coarse aggregate and fine aggregate. The categories GWP, ADP, HTP, and EP are mostly affected by cement because of higher CO
2, SO
x, and NO
x emissions created during its manufacturing and transportation. However, coarse aggregate and cement contribute 57.4% and 41.5% to the POF, respectively. This is due to the presence of both mining and crushing activities that lead to more emissions of particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds, SO
2, and NO
x [
10].
Moreover, it is clear from
Figure 15 that replacing the coarse aggregate with RA can reduce all environmental impacts. All the impact categories are mostly affected by the use of OPC cement. The lesser contribution of RA to LCIA categories is due to the elimination of mining activity and a lesser transportation distance [
21,
23,
32]. The fine aggregate has the lowest contribution due to its source from the riverbed. Its impact on the LCIA categories mostly depends on the transportation activity. Furthermore, the production of OPC concrete and the RAC mixture shows the lowest impact on the impact categories FAETP, MAETP, and TAETP. This is due to presence of less water emissions, due to its ingredients’ activities and production.
The contribution analysis for the GPC and RAGC mixtures is presented in
Figure 16 and
Figure 17, respectively. For the GPC, the contribution of coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, sodium hydroxide, sodium silicate, and mixing to all LCIA categories is checked. These contributions are checked to predict and verify which ingredient impacts and contributes to the four different concrete mixtures. It is noticed, from
Figure 16, that the presence of activators has a higher contribution than the aggregates. The contribution of silicate and hydroxide sources is because of the presence of separate manufacturing processes. Each activator requires considerable chemicals and products for their manufacturing, which leads to higher GHG emissions, along with emissions of certain elements and the addition of chemicals to water systems [
9,
33]. From
Figure 17, it is represented that sodium hydroxide had the highest contribution to all LCIA categories, followed by sodium silicate and coarse aggregate. This contribution depends on the inventory data of the hydroxide and silicate source. The inventory data for sodium hydroxide are based on the chlor-alkali electrolysis method through a membrane cell. In addition, the contribution of coarse aggregate to the impact category of POF—summer smog is higher in both the GPC and RAGC mixtures. This contribution is due to the production of oxides of nitrogen and NMVOC in coarse aggregate manufacturing.