Comparative Analysis of Cement Production Methods Using a Life Cycle Assessment and a Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript, and please allow me to make a few suggestions for the authors.
I suggest the authors to relate a little bit more the findings of the study to specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and offer a broader context for the implications of adopting different cement production methods on global sustainability targets.
Furthermore, I suggest the authors to offer more details on the rationale behind the selection of the criteria used in the MCDM approach, and their relevance to sustainability goals.
You mention in the manuscript the use of secondary data in the LCA methodology, potentially overlooking regional disparities. Do you believe that in order to surpass this limitation is possible to consider more localized data ? Or perhaps, to conduct sensitivity analyses based on different regions? (considering regional disparities in technology, energy sources, and transportation)
Based on the study's findings, I suggest the authors to offer perhaps some specific recommendations for industry practitioners and policymakers. How is it possible that the insights be practically applied to improve the sustainability of cement production on the ground?
If not in this manuscript, perhaps for authors future studies, it would be interesting to:
- discuss the involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making process. Is it possible that the industry experts, environmentalists, or community representatives be engaged in validating the findings or providing input?
-acknowledge / discuss potential trade-offs associated with adopting certain sustainable practices (e.g., while one method may be environmentally favorable, it might have economic or technical challenges that could need consideration),
- discuss potential technological innovations / emerging practices in cement manufacturing that could well address some of the identified environmental concerns,
-compare the results you obtained with existing industry benchmarks or standards (if available) etc.
Author Response
Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript, and please allow me to make a few suggestions for the authors.
Comment 1: I suggest the authors to relate a little bit more the findings of the study to specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and offer a broader context for the implications of adopting different cement production methods on global sustainability targets.
Response 1: A section has been created under the result section to discuss this.
Comments 2: Furthermore, I suggest the authors to offer more details on the rationale behind the selection of the criteria used in the MCDM approach, and their relevance to sustainability goals.
Response 2: The MCDM approach's criteria selection was an in-depth process aimed at capturing the various environmental and health implications connected with various cement production technologies. The criteria were chosen for their direct relation to sustainability goals as well as their capacity to capture the entire cement life cycle, from raw material extraction to manufacture and eventual usage.
Comment 3: You mention in the manuscript the use of secondary data in the LCA methodology, potentially overlooking regional disparities. Do you believe that in order to surpass this limitation is possible to consider more localized data ? Or perhaps, to conduct sensitivity analyses based on different regions? (considering regional disparities in technology, energy sources, and transportation)
Response 3: We agree. We have included a statement supporting this in the revised manuscript under the conclusion section.
Comment 4: Based on the study's findings, I suggest the authors to offer perhaps some specific recommendations for industry practitioners and policymakers. How is it possible that the insights be practically applied to improve the sustainability of cement production on the ground?
Response 4: We have included the statement below:
“Industry practitioners must consider the unique qualities and requirements of each project while deciding on the most suitable mix proportions of GGBFS in concrete. Policy makers should implement rigorous quality control mechanisms to assure the consistency and reliability of GGBFS, to retain the intended performance characteristics of the concrete.”
Comments 5: If not in this manuscript, perhaps for authors future studies, it would be interesting to:
- discuss the involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making process. Is it possible that the industry experts, environmentalists, or community representatives be engaged in validating the findings or providing input?
-acknowledge / discuss potential trade-offs associated with adopting certain sustainable practices (e.g., while one method may be environmentally favorable, it might have economic or technical challenges that could need consideration),
- discuss potential technological innovations / emerging practices in cement manufacturing that could well address some of the identified environmental concerns,
-compare the results you obtained with existing industry benchmarks or standards (if available) etc.
Response 5: We have included this as part of future studies in the conclusion section of the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present work is very important and comprehensive as it employs an integrated Life Cycle Assessment and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach to conduct an in-depth analysis of the sustainability aspects associated with various ways of cement manufacturing. The topic has dealt with all possible and probable aspects thoroughly. Present study encourages an exhaustive benchmarking handle, permitting for broad comparisons and appraisals. Life cycle analysis provides a comprehensive and rigorous quantitative assessment of considerably sufficient number of different alternatives. It includes methodological examination of their performance in eighteen distinct impact categories.
Most importantly, study is a rigorous and reproducible approach that aligns with ISO requirements for evaluating the sustainability of cement that can be practically adopted by cement manufacturing industry partners.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The present work is very important and comprehensive as it employs an integrated Life Cycle Assessment and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach to conduct an in-depth analysis of the sustainability aspects associated with various ways of cement manufacturing. The topic has dealt with all possible and probable aspects thoroughly. Present study encourages an exhaustive benchmarking handle, permitting for broad comparisons and appraisals. Life cycle analysis provides a comprehensive and rigorous quantitative assessment of considerably sufficient number of different alternatives. It includes methodological examination of their performance in eighteen distinct impact categories.
Comment 1: Most importantly, study is a rigorous and reproducible approach that aligns with ISO requirements for evaluating the sustainability of cement that can be practically adopted by cement manufacturing industry partners.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for their commendation.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe objective of this study is to determine the most environmentally beneficial way of cement manufacturing by employing an integrated Life Cycle Assessment-Multi-Criteria Decision-Making technique. The LCA results showed that CEM III/A slag cement had lower environmental impacts than Portland cement. The research is very meaningful and the writing is also relatively standardized. Before accepting it, it is recommended to make modifications to the following comments:
1. What is the purpose of the author setting up two chapters, Introduction and Literature Review, to introduce the background and research status? Because usually researcher describes it in one chapter.
2. Some abbreviations can only be explained how to abbreviate at the first mention, there is no need to appear several times。
3. If possible, could the author also change the font of the text in the figures to New Rome?
4. Why are some texts in the main text set with different font styles?
5. Can Table 1 be set wider so that there won't be a situation where one number occupies two rows.
6. There seem to be too many conclusion chapters, just focus on elaborating on the main innovative points of the article. It is recommended to simplify them.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageRead the entire text thoroughly to avoid grammar and expression errors.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The objective of this study is to determine the most environmentally beneficial way of cement manufacturing by employing an integrated Life Cycle Assessment-Multi-Criteria Decision-Making technique. The LCA results showed that CEM III/A slag cement had lower environmental impacts than Portland cement. The research is very meaningful and the writing is also relatively standardized. Before accepting it, it is recommended to make modifications to the following comments:
Comment 1. What is the purpose of the author setting up two chapters, Introduction and Literature Review, to introduce the background and research status? Because usually researcher describes it in one chapter.
Response: It was broken into 2 chapters to establish a distinct boundary between presenting the overall background or context (Introduction) and summarizing the existing scholarly knowledge (Literature Review). This structure serves to provide clearer guidance to the readers. The presence of two chapters enables the Introduction to exclusively concentrate on establishing the context and emphasizing the overarching goals for the research field. The Literature Review thoroughly examines the scholarly contributions without the requirement for additional background information. Although it is typical to have a merged background and literature chapter, having two separate chapters provides a more structured, focused, and comprehensive approach for readers on a lengthy or complex academic subject. The literature section of this present study has been reduced to contain only the relevant contents.
Comment 2. Some abbreviations can only be explained how to abbreviate at the first mention, there is no need to appear several times。
Response 2: We have attended to this. Thank you.
Comment 3. If possible, could the author also change the font of the text in the figures to New Rome?
Response: We appreciate the comment of the reviewers, however, we tried other fonts before we finally settled for this front. We are of the opinion that the present font is good and makes the figure.
Comment 4. Why are some texts in the main text set with different font styles?
Response 4: We have attended to this. Thank you.
Comment 5. Can Table 1 be set wider so that there won't be a situation where one number occupies two rows.
Response 5: We have attended to this comment.
Comment 6. There seem to be too many conclusion chapters, just focus on elaborating on the main innovative points of the article. It is recommended to simplify them.
Response 6: A further reduction in the conclusion would make the section lose its purpose of synthesizing and communicating the key aspects of the study. We presented the aim of the work, key points from our findings, major constraints, and practical implication for the work all in less than 450 words.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled " Comparative analysis of cement production methods Using a Life Cycle Assessment and a Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach” discussed the environmental impacts of manufacturing cement using SimaPro LCA software.
The methods selected were promising. A few comments shall be considered for improvement including:
- Keywords: Address the full terminologies and add “slag”
After these paragraphs in Page 2: Cement production uses a lot of energy, making up a sizable amount of all industrial energy used worldwide [19]. The calcination of raw materials and other high-temperature clinker production processes are the main source of energy requirement [25]. The industry uses a lot of energy for the transportation, blending, and grinding of both raw materials and completed cement [19]. The sector is embracing alternate fuels, renewable energy sources, and energy-efficient technologies to improve sustainability. These steps are intended to lessen the energy consumption of cement production's negative environmental effects while fostering a more efficient and sustainable sector of the economy.
The authors should address alternative types of cements such as calcium sulphoaluminate cement, magnesia-based cement, and calcium aluminate cement, and citations should be provided including these references:
- “Magnesia-Based Cements: A Journey of 150 Years, and Cements for the Future?”
- “Effects of Accelerating and Retarding Agents on Nucleation and Crystal Growth of Calcium Aluminate Cement”
- “A review on durability of foam concrete“
Literature review Section is too long. Considering removing some parts such as LCA concept
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language is fine
Author Response
Although they are less common in use, specialty cements provide an option to regular Portland cement (1). Although magnesium oxide cements can be used in specific applications, they are too expensive to replace steel-reinforced concrete on a broad scale (1). Although they offer a regulated setting, calcium aluminate cements require performance improvements (2). Sustainable foam concretes that use additional cements have different levels of durability (3). In general, specialty cements offer alternatives, although they are not suitable as Portland cement substitutes for conventional building. In light of growing infrastructure demands, research continues to concentrate on optimizing Portland cement sustainability through additional materials, substitute cements, and innovative technologies.
Reviewer 4
The manuscript entitled " Comparative analysis of cement production methods Using a Life Cycle Assessment and a Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach” discussed the environmental impacts of manufacturing cement using SimaPro LCA software.
The methods selected were promising. A few comments shall be considered for improvement including:
- Comment 1: Keywords: Address the full terminologies and add “slag”
Response: the comment has been addressed.
Comment 2: After these paragraphs in Page 2: Cement production uses a lot of energy, making up a sizable amount of all industrial energy used worldwide [19]. The calcination of raw materials and other high-temperature clinker production processes are the main source of energy requirement [25]. The industry uses a lot of energy for the transportation, blending, and grinding of both raw materials and completed cement [19]. The sector is embracing alternate fuels, renewable energy sources, and energy-efficient technologies to improve sustainability. These steps are intended to lessen the energy consumption of cement production's negative environmental effects while fostering a more efficient and sustainable sector of the economy.
The authors should address alternative types of cements such as calcium sulphoaluminate cement, magnesia-based cement, and calcium aluminate cement, and citations should be provided including these references:
- “Magnesia-Based Cements: A Journey of 150 Years, and Cements for the Future?”
- “Effects of Accelerating and Retarding Agents on Nucleation and Crystal Growth of Calcium Aluminate Cement”
- “A review on durability of foam concrete“
Response: We have consulted the literature in developing the revised manuscript (see paragraph 2 of the literature section).
Comment 3: Literature review Section is too long. Considering removing some parts such as LCA concept:
Response: The literature section has been reduced by more than 50% (from 2196 words to 1052 words). Only relevant literatures were included.
