Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beneficiation of concrete wash water with carbon dioxide

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Materials and Structures Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Wash water is generated as a by-product of ready mixed concrete production. Reuse of the water as mixture water is limited, in practice, by the negative material performance impacts associated with the water chemistry and suspended solids (i.e. hydrating binder phases and very fine aggregate); the effects are intensified with increasing content of suspended solids and water age. A novel carbon dioxide treatment to allow the use of high solids wash water as mixture water was examined through mortar and concrete testing. An industrially sourced wash water with a specific gravity of over 1.20 was treated with CO2. Seven batches of concrete were produced and compared: a reference mixture at three different w/b, and four batches with a 6% reduction in cement where wash water was used as mixture water (diluted to a specific gravity of 1.08, comparing untreated versus CO2 treated conditions, aged either 1 day or 5 days). The treatment mineralized CO2 at 27% by weight of the cement in the solids and reduced or eliminated negative aspects associated with the untreated water (set acceleration, workability loss, strength reduction with water age). The CO2-treated solids displayed latent hydraulicity. The approach allows three waste streams (CO2, wash water and wash water solids) to be reused to produce more sustainable concrete.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Raw data for figures available in supplemental information.

References

  1. CEMBUREAU (2019) Activity Report 2018. European Cement Association, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  2. Scrivener K (2014) Options for the future of cement. Indian Concr J 88:11–21

    Google Scholar 

  3. Andrew RM (2019) Global CO2 emissions from cement production, 1928–2018. Earth Syst Sci Data 11:1675–1710. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1675-2019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2019) NRMCA member national and regional life cycle assessment benchmark (Industry Average) Report-Version 3.0. https://www.nrmca.org/sustainability/EPDProgram/Downloads/NRMCA_REGIONAL_BENCHMARK_Nov2019.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2020

  5. Parker CL, Slimak MW (1977) Waste treatment and disposal costs for the ready-mixed concrete industry. ACI J Proc 74:281–287. https://doi.org/10.14359/11012

  6. Lobo C, Mullings G (2003) Recycled water in ready mixed concrete operations. Concr Focus 2:17–26

    Google Scholar 

  7. ASTM C1602M–18 (2018) Standard specification for mixing water used in the production of hydraulic cement concrete

  8. Meininger R (1973) Recycling mixer wash water—its effect on ready mixed concrete. National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sandrolini F, Franzoni E (2001) Waste wash water recycling in ready-mixed concrete plants. Cem Concr Res 31:485–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00468-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chini AR, Muszynski LC, Bergin M, Ellis BS (2001) Reuse of wastewater generated at concrete plants in Florida in the production of fresh concrete. Mag Concr Res 53:311–319. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.2001.53.5.311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Su N, Miao B, Liu F-S (2002) Effect of wash water and underground water on properties of concrete. Cem Concr Res 32:777–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00762-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tran K (2007) The durability of concrete using concrete plant wash water. Master’s Thesis, University of Waterloo

  13. Low GL, Ng KY, Ng WL, Heng RBW (2007) Use of recycled cement-based slurry water for making concrete. J Inst Eng Malays 68:47–55

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ekolu SO, Dawneerangen A (2010) Evaluation of recycled water recovered from a ready-mix concrete plant for reuse in concrete. J S Afr Inst Civ Eng 52:77–82

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tsimas S, Zervaki M (2011) Reuse of waste water from ready-mixed concrete plants. Manag Environ Qual Int J 22:7–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777831111098444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wasserman B (2012) Wash water in the mix: effects on the compressive strength of concrete. Int J Constr Educ Res 8:301–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2011.633974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Asadollahfardi G, Asadi M, Jafari H et al (2015) Experimental and statistical studies of using wash water from ready-mix concrete trucks and a batching plant in the production of fresh concrete. Constr Build Mater 98:305–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chatveera B, Lertwattanaruk P, Makul N (2006) Effect of sludge water from ready-mixed concrete plant on properties and durability of concrete. Cem Concr Compos 28:441–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. de Vieira L, BP, Figueiredo AD de, (2016) Evaluation of concrete recycling system efficiency for ready-mix concrete plants. Waste Manag 56:337–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.07.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Audo M, Mahieux P-Y, Turcry P (2016) Utilization of sludge from ready-mixed concrete plants as a substitute for limestone fillers. Constr Build Mater 112:790–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Xuan D, Zhan B, Poon CS, Zheng W (2016) Carbon dioxide sequestration of concrete slurry waste and its valorisation in construction products. Constr Build Mater 113:664–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Xuan D, Zhan B, Poon CS, Zheng W (2016) Innovative reuse of concrete slurry waste from ready-mixed concrete plants in construction products. J Hazard Mater 312:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.03.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lobo C (2005) New standards for mixing water. Concr Focus 3:27–28

    Google Scholar 

  24. Borger J, Carrasquillo RL, Fowler DW (1994) Use of recycled wash water and returned plastic concrete in the production of fresh concrete. Adv Cem Based Mater 1:267–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/1065-7355(94)90035-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2016) NRMCA member national and regional life cycle assessment benchmark (industry average) report-version 2.0. https://www.nrmca.org/sustainability/epdprogram/Downloads/NRMCA_BenchmarkReportV2_20161006.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2017

  26. Berger RL, Young JF, Leung K (1972) Acceleration of hydration of calcium silicates by carbon-dioxide treatment. Nat Phys Sci 240:16–18. https://doi.org/10.1038/physci240016a0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Goodbrake CJ, Young JF, Berger RL (1979) Reaction of beta-dicalcium silicate and tricalcium silicate with carbon dioxide and water vapor. J Am Ceram Soc 62:168–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1979.tb19046.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Moorehead DR (1986) Cementation by the carbonation of hydrated lime. Cem Concr Res 16:700–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(86)90044-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Morandeau A, Thiéry M, Dangla P (2014) Investigation of the carbonation mechanism of CH and C–S–H in terms of kinetics, microstructure changes and moisture properties. Cem Concr Res 56:153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2013.11.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhou Q, Glasser FP (2000) Kinetics and mechanism of the carbonation of ettringite. Adv Cem Res 12:131–136. https://doi.org/10.1680/adcr.2000.12.3.131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. ASTM C403, C4030M−16 (2016) Test method for time of setting of concrete mixtures by penetration resistance. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  32. ASTM C1810, C1810M−19 (2019) Standard guide for comparing performance of concrete-making materials using mortar mixtures. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  33. ASTM C109/C109M-16a (2016) Test method for compressive strength of hydraulic cement mortars (using 2-in. or [50-mm] cube specimens). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

  34. Winslow DN, Bukowski JM, Francis Young J (1994) The early evolution of the surface of hydrating cement. Cem Concr Res 24:1025–1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(94)90025-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kolias S, Georgiou C (2005) The effect of paste volume and of water content on the strength and water absorption of concrete. Cem Concr Compos 27:211–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2004.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hermida G, Moranville M, Flatt R (2009) The role of paste volume on performance of concrete. Spec Publ 261:201–214

    Google Scholar 

  37. Chu SH (2019) Effect of paste volume on fresh and hardened properties of concrete. Constr Build Mater 218:284–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Damineli BL, Kemeid FM, Aguiar PS, John VM (2010) Measuring the eco-efficiency of cement use. Cem Concr Compos 32:555–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2010.07.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Miller SA, John VM, Pacca SA, Horvath A (2018) Carbon dioxide reduction potential in the global cement industry by 2050. Cem Concr Res 114:115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.08.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Marceau ML, Nisbet MA, VanGeem MG (2007) Life cycle inventory of Portland cement concrete. Portland Cement Association Skokie, PCA, Skokie

    Google Scholar 

  41. Glasser FP, Matschei T (2007) Interactions between Portland cement and carbon dioxide. In: Proceedings of the 12th ICCC, Montreal

  42. Berger RL, Klemm WA (1972) Accelerated curing of cementitious systems by carbon dioxide, part II: hydraulic calcium silicates and aluminates. Cem Concr Res 2:647–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(72)90002-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Matsuyama H, Young JF (2000) Effects of pH on precipitation of quasi-crystalline calcium silicate hydrate in aqueous solution. Adv Cem Res 12:29–33. https://doi.org/10.1680/adcr.2000.12.1.29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Chen JJ, Thomas JJ, Taylor HFW, Jennings HM (2004) Solubility and structure of calcium silicate hydrate. Cem Concr Res 34:1499–1519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.04.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Fricker KJ, Park A-HA (2014) Investigation of the different carbonate phases and their formation kinetics during Mg(OH) 2 slurry carbonation. Ind Eng Chem Res 53:18170–18179. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie503131s

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gabrisová A, Havlica J, Sahu S (1991) Stability of calcium sulphoaluminate hydrates in water solutions with various pH values. Cem Concr Res 21:1023–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(91)90062-M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Shtepenko O, Hills C, Brough A, Thomas M (2006) The effect of carbon dioxide on β-dicalcium silicate and Portland cement. Chem Eng J 118:107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2006.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Young JF (1988) Investigations of calcium silicate hydrate structure using silicon-29 nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Am Ceram Soc 71:C118–C120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1988.tb05028.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Grutzeck M, Benesi A, Fanning B (1989) Silicon-29 Magic angle spinning nuclear magnetic resonance study of calcium silicate hydrates. J Am Ceram Soc 72:665–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1989.tb06192.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Thomas S, Meise-Gresch K, Muller-Warmuth W, Odler I (1993) MAS NMR studies of partially carbonated Portland cement and tricalcium silicate pastes. J Am Ceram Soc 76:1998–2004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1993.tb08323.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Skibsted J, Jakobsen HJ, Hall C (1994) Direct observation of aluminium guest ions in the silicate phases of cement minerals by 27 Al MAS NMR spectroscopy. J Chem Soc Faraday Trans 90:2095. https://doi.org/10.1039/ft9949002095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Skibsted J, Jakobsen HJ (1998) Characterization of the calcium silicate and aluminate phases in anhydrous and hydrated Portland cements by 27Al and 29Si MAS NMR spectroscopy. In: Colombet P, Zanni H, Grimmer A-R, Sozzani P (eds) Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of cement-based materials. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Andersen MD, Jakobsen HJ, Skibsted J (2003) Incorporation of aluminum in the calcium silicate hydrate (C−S−H) of hydrated Portland cements: a high-field 27Al and 29Si MAS NMR investigation. Inorg Chem 42:2280–2287. https://doi.org/10.1021/ic020607b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sevelsted TF, Skibsted J (2015) Carbonation of C–S–H and C–A–S–H samples studied by 13C, 27Al and 29Si MAS NMR spectroscopy. Cem Concr Res 71:56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.01.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zajac M, Lechevallier A, Durdzinski P et al (2020) CO2 mineralisation of Portland cement: towards understanding the mechanisms of enforced carbonation. J CO2 Util 38, 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2020.02.015

  56. L’Hôpital E, Lothenbach B, Le Saout G et al (2015) Incorporation of aluminium in calcium-silicate-hydrates. Cem Concr Res 75:91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Bonavetti VL, Rahhal VF, Irassar EF (2001) Studies on the carboaluminate formation in limestone filler-blended cements. Cem Concr Res 31:853–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00491-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Barcelo L, Thomas MD, Cail K et al (2013) Portland limestone cement equivalent strength explained. Concr Int 35:41–47

    Google Scholar 

  59. Zhang YM, Napier-Munn TJ (1995) Effects of particle size distribution, surface area and chemical composition on Portland cement strength. Powder Technol 83:245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-5910(94)02964-P

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Bentz DP, Garboczi EJ, Haecker CJ, Jensen OM (1999) Effects of cement particle size distribution on performance properties of Portland cement-based materials. Cem Concr Res 29:1663–1671. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00163-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Matschei T, Lothenbach B, Glasser FP (2007) The role of calcium carbonate in cement hydration. Cem Concr Res 37:551–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2006.10.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Zajac M, Skibsted J, Skocek J et al (2020) Phase assemblage and microstructure of cement paste subjected to enforced, wet carbonation. Cem Concr Res 130:105990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.105990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kunther W, Ferreiro S, Skibsted J (2017) Influence of the Ca/Si ratio on the compressive strength of cementitious calcium–silicate–hydrate binders. J Mater Chem A 5:17401–17412. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7TA06104H

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr. Ulrike Werner-Zwanziger, Department of Chemistry, Dalhousie University, completed the NMR testing. Andrew George, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, completed the XRD analysis. Thanks are extended to Paul Sandberg (Calmetrix) and Thomas Matschei (RWTH Aachen University) for helpful insights and to Alex Hanmore (CarbonCure) for refining the quantitative XRD analysis. The time, constructive comments and critical suggestions of the anonymous journal reviewers are recognized for their contribution towards strengthening the manuscript.

Funding

The authors wish to recognize the funding support from the National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC-IRAP Project 872578).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CarbonCure Technologies, 42 Payzant Ave, Dartmouth, NS, B3B 1Z6, Canada

    Sean Monkman & Mark MacDonald

  2. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 512 M&M Building, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI, 49931, USA

    Larry Sutter

Authors
  1. Sean Monkman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark MacDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Larry Sutter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SM—conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, funding acquisition, visualization. MM—conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing—original draft. LS—formal analysis, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean Monkman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 3818 KB)

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 8 and Figs. 12 and 13.

Table 8 QXRD data of scans from Fig. 9 of wash water solids samples: untreated aged 1 day (UT1), untreated aged 7 days (UT7), CO2 treated aged 1 day (CT1), CO2 treated aged 7 days (CT7)
Full size table
Fig. 12
figure 12

Strength versus w/p for concrete produced with wash water subjected to various treatments. Three point curves for reference mixes at 7 and 28 days (blue lines). Untreated aged 1 day (UTW1), untreated aged 5 days (UTW5), CO2 treated aged 1 day (CTW1), CO2 treated aged 5 days (CTW5). (Color figure online)

Full size image
Fig. 13
figure 13

Compressive strength at 28 days vs paste volume for the control (CONM) and batches produced with wash water. Untreated aged 1 day (UTW1), untreated aged 5 days (UTW5), CO2 treated aged 1 day (CTW1), CO2 treated aged 5 days (CTW5).

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Monkman, S., MacDonald, M. & Sutter, L. Beneficiation of concrete wash water with carbon dioxide. Mater Struct 54, 64 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-021-01642-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-021-01642-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation