The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Concrete for construction has traditionally been based on an Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) binder. Geopolymers, an alternative binder based on fly ash (a fine waste collected from the emissions liberated by coal burning power stations) that is activated by an alkaline activator, have potential to lower the significant carbon footprint of OPC concrete. This paper presents the results of comprehensive carbon footprint estimates for both geopolymer and OPC concrete, including energy expending activities associated with mining and transport of raw materials, manufacturing and concrete construction. Previous studies have shown a wide variation of reported emission estimates: the results of this study are benchmarked with data from those studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement
McLellan, B. C., Williams, R. P., Lay, J., van Riessen, A., & Corder, G. D. (2011) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.02.010 · Cited by 1,949
Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture
Flower, D. J. M., & Sanjayan, J. G. (2007) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1065/lca2007.05.327 · Cited by 912
Cited by
Provis, J. L. (2018) · Cement and Concrete Research · doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.009 · Cited by 2,272
One-part alkali-activated materials: A review
Luukkonen, T., Abdollahnejad, Z., Yliniemi, J., Kinnunen, P., & Illikainen, M. (2018) · Cement and Concrete Research · doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.10.001 · Cited by 1,456
Very early-age reaction kinetics and microstructural development in alkali-activated slag
Gebregziabiher, B. S., Thomas, R., & Peethamparan, S. (2015) · Cement and Concrete Composites · doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.09.001 · Cited by 393
Phetchuay, C., Horpibulsuk, S., Arulrajah, A., Suksiripattanapong, C., & Udomchai, A. (2016) · Applied Clay Science · doi:10.1016/j.clay.2016.04.005 · Cited by 374
Phummiphan, I., Horpibulsuk, S., Rachan, R., Arulrajah, A., Shen, S.-L., & Chindaprasirt, P. (2018) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.07.067 · Cited by 332
Metadata
- Authors
- Turner, L. K., & Collins, F. G.
- Venue
- Construction and Building Materials
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 43
- Pages
- 125-130
- ISSN
- 0950-0618 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2095259135
- Cited by
- 2,411
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 78.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023
- The paper
- Turner, L. K., & Collins, F. G. (2013). Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Construction and Building Materials. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
