MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159342670 · doi:10.3390/su13094856

Examining Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions of Microbial Induced Carbonate Precipitation Using the Life Cycle Assessment Method

2021· article· en· W3159342670 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Applications in Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentEnvironmental scienceLimeWaste managementGreenhouse gasEnvironmental engineeringEnergy consumptionCoalGlobal warmingRenewable energyClimate changeEngineeringProduction (economics)Materials scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microbial induced carbonate precipitation (MICP) is a new geotechnical engineering technology used to strengthen soils and other materials. Although it is considered to be environmentally friendly, there is a lack of quantitative data and objective evaluation to support conclusions about its environmental impact. In this paper, the energy consumption and carbon emissions of MICP technology are quantitatively analyzed by using the life cycle assessment (LCA) method. The environmental effects of MICP technology are evaluated from the perspectives of resource consumption and environmental impact. The results show that for each tonne of calcium carbonate produced by MICP technology, 1.8 t standard coal is consumed and 3.4 t CO2 is produced, among which 80.4% of the carbon emissions and 96% of the energy consumption come from raw materials. Comparing using MICP with cement, lime, and sintered brick, the current MICP application process consumes less non-renewable resources but has a greater environmental impact. The major environmental impact that MICP has is the production of smoke and ash, with secondary impacts being global warming, photochemical ozone creation, acidification, and eutrophication. In five potential application scenarios of MICP, including concrete, sintered brick, lime mortar, mine cemented backfill, and foundation reinforcement, the carbon emissions of MICP are 3 to 7 times greater than the emissions of traditional technologies. The energy consumption is 15 to 23 times. Based on the energy consumption and carbon emissions characteristics of MICP technology at the current condition, suggestions are given for the future research of MICP.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it