Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40948561›Full record

ArticleiScience2025

How sustainable was ancient Roman concrete?

Daniela M Martinez, Sabbie A Miller, Paulo J M Monteiro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniela M MartinezDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla 081007, Colombia.
Sabbie A MillerDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Paulo J M MonteiroDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The remarkable longevity of Roman concrete has long fascinated researchers and hinted at its potential as a sustainable alternative to modern concrete formulations. However, rigorous assessment of its environmental impact-particularly in the context of modern production technologies-has been lacking. Here, we follow the life cycle assessment methodology to systematically quantify the impacts of various Roman concrete formulations relative to modern technologies. Our findings reveal nuanced insights into the sustainability prospects of Roman concrete, shedding light on its greenhouse gas emissions, energy demand, particulate matter emissions, and water utilization. Contrary to initial expectations, adopting Roman formulations with current technology may not yield substantial reductions in emissions or energy demand unless used in conjunction with other decarbonization advancements. Nonetheless, our findings underscore the importance of Roman practices, particularly the reliance on biomass as a fuel source, which presents opportunities for decarbonizing modern cement production.

Indexed as

EngineeringEnvironmental science

Identifiers

PMID40948561
PMCPMC12432445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.