ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions of Compressed Earth Blocks Stabilized with Recycled Cement.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Driven by the pursuit of more sustainable materials, earth construction has seen renewed interest in recent years. However, chemical stabilization is often required to ensure adequate water resistance. While recycled cement from concrete waste (RCC) has recently emerged as a more sustainable alternative to ordinary Portland cement (OPC) for soil stabilization, its environmental impact remains unassessed. A hybrid model, built on collected data and direct simulations, was implemented to estimate energy and carbon emissions of compressed earth blocks (CEBs) stabilized with RCC as a partial or total replacement of OPC. Four operational scenarios were assessed in a cradle-to-gate approach, evaluating the environmental impact per CEB unit, and normalizing it to the CEB compressive strength. OPC CEBs showed up to 9 times higher energy consumption (2.46 vs. 0.24 MJ/CEB) and about 35 times higher carbon emissions (0.438 vs. 0.012 kgCO
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.