https://doi.org/10.14311/APP.2022.33.0027
Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 33:27–31, 2022 © 2022 The Author(s). Licensed under a CC-BY 4.0 licence

Published by the Czech Technical University in Prague

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF USING DESALINATED WATER
IN CONCRETE PRODUCTION IN AREAS AFFECTED BY

FRESHWATER SCARCITY

Alessandro Arrigonia, ∗, Tamar Ophera, Sabrina Spatarib,
Valeria Arosioc, Heather L. MacLeana, Daman K. Panesara,

Giovanni Dotellic

a The University of Toronto, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering, 35 St.
George Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A4, Canada

b Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Faculty of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Department of
Structural Engineering and Construction Management, Haifa, 32000, Israel

c Politecnico di Milano, School of Industrial and Information Engineering, Department of Chemistry, Materials
and Chemical Engineering "G.Natta", piazza L. da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy

∗ corresponding author: a.arrigonim@gmail.com

Abstract.
Up to 500 litres of water may be consumed at the batching plant per cubic meter of ready mix

concrete, if water for washing mixing trucks and equipment is included. Demand for concrete is
growing almost everywhere, regardless of local availability of freshwater. The use of freshwater for
concrete production exacerbates stress on natural water resources. In water-stressed coastal countries
such as Israel, desalinated seawater (DSW) is often used in the production of concrete. However, the
environmental impacts of this practice have not yet been assessed. In this study the effect of using
DSW on the water and carbon footprints of concrete was investigated using life cycle assessment.
Water footprint results highlight the benefits of using DSW rather than freshwater to produce concrete
in Israel. In contrast, because desalination is an energy intensive process, using DSW increases the
greenhouse gas intensity of concrete. Nevertheless, this increase (0.27 kg CO2e/m3 concrete) is small, if
compared to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of concrete. Our results show that using untreated
seawater in the mix (transported by truck from the coast) in place of DSW, would be beneficial
in terms of water and carbon footprints if the batching plant were located less than 13 km from the
withdrawal point. However, use of untreated seawater increases steel reinforcement corrosion, resulting
in loss of structural integrity of the reinforced concrete composite. Sustainability of replacing steel
with non-corrosive materials should be explored as a way to reduce both water and carbon footprints
of concrete.

Keywords: Carbon footprint, desalinated water, seawater, water footprint.

1. Introduction
Water scarcity affects two-thirds of the global popu-
lation [1] and climate change, economic development
and population growth might worsen this issue in the
near future [2]. Industrial development plays an im-
portant role in the growing demand for water [2], with
concrete being a significant contributor. The life cy-
cle of concrete requires large amounts of water, from
the production of the raw materials (i.e., cement and
aggregates), through mixing, curing, and hydration,
to equipment cleaning processes [3]. In 2012, the es-
timated global water consumption for concrete pro-
duction was 16.6 km3 and it is expected to grow with
the increase in production, by more than 40% by 2050
if no action is taken [4]. Aggregate production is the
main water-consuming activity in the life cycle of con-
crete [5], but water consumption at the batching plant
is very significant. Considering ready-mix concrete,
up to 500 litres of water per cubic meter of concrete

may be consumed, including water for washing the
mixing trucks, on-site equipment and floor [6]. Water
used at the batching plant is typically sourced from
a potable supply network, on-site wells, or harvested
stormwater [6]. Potable water is used to avoid any ad-
verse effects on the properties of the concrete, such as
hydration, strength development and durability per-
formance [7]. However, using available freshwater for
concrete production will exacerbate the stress on nat-
ural water resources. In water-stressed coastal coun-
tries, such as Israel, desalinated seawater (DSW) is
increasingly used to meet the potable water demand
[8].

Although reducing the stress on freshwater re-
sources, desalination comes with an environmental
cost. In Qatar, for instance, 4.66 million tons of
CO2 were estimated to be emitted by desalination
plants in 2014 [9]. One appealing option to reduce
the stress on available freshwater resources, and at

https://doi.org/10.14311/APP.2022.33.0027
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://www.cvut.cz/en

A. Arrigoni, T. Opher, S. Spatari et al. Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings

Figure 1. Flow chart for the product system analyzed. The different paths for the two scenarios are highlighted:
Desalinated and seawater. The unit processes valid for both processes (e.g., seawater withdrawal, concrete mixing,
etc.) are considered unaffected by the type of water used in the mix and therefore excluded from the comparative
LCA.

the same time avoid the impacts associated with de-
salination, is to replace potable water with untreated
seawater in the manufacture of concrete [10]. How-
ever, the use of seawater is currently forbidden in
reinforced concrete standards because it contributes
to the early corrosion of carbon steel reinforcement,
which is the present common practice in construction
[11]. Nevertheless, in recent studies, the use of sea-
water combined with non-corrosive reinforcing ma-
terials, such as glass fibre reinforced polymers, has
shown promising results in terms of mechanical prop-
erties and durability [12].

The focus of this study is to estimate the con-
sequences of using seawater for concrete production
in Israel, using a consequential life cycle assessment
(LCA) methodology. The results are intended to pave
the way for further investigation of the feasibility and
sustainability of using seawater and marine aggre-
gates for concrete production.

2. Goal
The objective of this analysis is to assess the poten-
tial water and carbon footprint savings for Israel if
seawater was used in place of municipal grid water in
concrete production. The study is aimed to set the
stage for further analyses of the feasibility and sus-
tainability of using alternative concrete designs with
the ultimate goal of reducing the environmental im-
pacts of the most prevalent construction material in
the Israeli construction sector.

3. Scope and methods
The functional unit of the study is the production of
1 m3 of generic non-reinforced concrete (100% ordi-
nary Portland cement, 0.85 water-to-cement ratio) in
Israel. Two alternatives differing in the type of water
used in the mix are compared in the analysis: munic-
ipal grid water (current practice) and untreated sea-
water. The market demand for concrete is assumed
to be constant (18 Mm3 per year [13]) and its mix
design (i.e., the amounts and types of binders, ag-
gregates and admixtures) and mechanical properties
are assumed to be identical in both cases. The pro-
duction process at the batching plant in this study
is the only life cycle phase that differs between the
compared scenarios.

We use a consequential approach in this LCA. Un-
like attributional LCA, which aims to capture all en-
vironmental flows associated with the life cycle of the
activity, a consequential assessment accounts only for
the flows affected by a certain change in the sys-
tem [14]. According to the principles of consequential
LCA, we consider the marginal water supply, which
is the one that is most likely to react to a change in
market demand. In the case of the Israeli water mar-
ket this is the supply of DSW, coming from five major
desalination plants along the Mediterranean coast. In
the case of electricity, the marginal supplier in Israel
is under most circumstances one of several natural gas
power plants [15]. We consider only the variations
in impacts resulting from avoiding the desalination

vol. 33/2022 Concrete Made of Desalinated Water

Scenario Unit process Water footprint(L-eq./m3 concrete)
Carbon footprint

(kg CO2-eq./m3 concrete)

Desalinated

Desalination 18 0.27
Distribution 4.8 0.071

Mixinga 0.0 Excluded
Total 23 0.34

Seawater
Transportation 1.8 · x 0.016 · x

Mixinga 0.0 Excluded
Total 1.8 · x 0.016 · x

a The energy intensity of the mixing process, and therefore the greenhouse gas emissions
and water footprint associated with the process, is assumed to be independent from
the water used (DSW or SW) and therefore excluded from the analysis. Since the water
used for mixing was originally seawater in both scenarios, its water footprint is zero.

Table 1. Water and carbon footprint results for the activities considered in the two scenarios (i.e., activities affected
by the change in the system). Variable x represents the distance (km) travelled by the truck from the desalination
plant to the batching plant.

process by replacing DSW with untreated seawater
throughout the life cycle of concrete. The ecoinvent
consequential database was used for modelling back-
ground processes in the system. The LCA is lim-
ited to two environmental impact categories: climate
change and water consumption. Inputs and outputs
to the system are considered from cradle to grave.

4. Product system
Two scenarios of concrete production in batching
plants in Israel are modelled. In the base case sce-
nario, representing current practice, water for mixing
concrete is sourced from the Israeli water grid. DSW
is the marginal source of water in Israel [16], mean-
ing that a change in potable water demand will affect
the extent of its production [17]. Therefore, in the
base case scenario (named desalinated scenario from
now on) seawater is drawn from the sea, desalinated
and distributed to the concrete batching plants via
the national supply grid. In the alternative (seawa-
ter) scenario, once drawn, seawater is transported via
trucks to the batching plants. If using untreated sea-
water proves to be a viable and sustainable solution,
pipelines could be installed to deliver seawater to the
batching plants. Existing desalination plants inlets
are assumed to be used as a means for pumping wa-
ter from the sea into the trucks.

The product system analysed is illustrated in Fig-
ure 1. The mixing process, the delivery of concrete to
the construction site, and the properties of the con-
crete are assumed to be unaffected by the type of
water used. In future work the effects on concrete
properties and on the service life of the mixing trucks
(which might be reduced due to potential corrosivity
of the seawater mix) will be included.

5. Life cycle inventory
Both primary and secondary data are used for the
analysis: primary data for the inputs and outputs
of the Israeli desalination plants and the distribution
process [18]; secondary data from the ecoinvent 3.6
database [19] for the average amount of water used in
the concrete mix (i.e., 170 L/m3), and for the emis-
sions and indirect water consumption of electricity
production and road transportation (e.g., water con-
sumed in fuel production).

Water for washing the trucks is assumed to be
reused in the concrete mix itself, as is the current
common practice [13]; therefore, no additional bene-
fits are considered for substituting municipal grid wa-
ter with seawater for this purpose. Moreover, addi-
tional water required at the batching plant for wash-
ing the site and for personnel needs is assumed to be
municipal grid water, in both scenarios, and is there-
fore excluded. A threshold is calculated for the max-
imum distance from the seawater extraction site for
which using seawater shipped by truck to the batch-
ing plant would still be beneficial in terms of carbon
and water footprint. Energy consumed by the desali-
nation plants is supplied through the electricity grid,
which uses natural gas combined cycle power plants
(60% efficiency) [15].

6. Results and discussion
Table 1 presents the water and carbon footprints of
the activities affected by the change in the system.
Results are expressed per cubic meter of fresh con-
crete produced at the batching plant. In the seawa-
ter scenario, impacts depend on the distance travelled
by the trucks (represented by x in Table 1) to trans-
port seawater to the batching plant. For instance,
the transport of 170 L of seawater by truck for the
production of 1 m3 of concrete is responsible for the
consumption of 1.8 L-eq. of water per km.

A. Arrigoni, T. Opher, S. Spatari et al. Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings

The key observations from the results are:

• From a consequential perspective, the water foot-
print of concrete mixing in Israel, taking into ac-
count direct water use at the batching plant only,
is considerably lower than those reported for other
regions (e.g., up to 16,000 L-eq./m3 concrete in
Sicily, Italy [6], or 185 L-eq./m3 concrete in Swe-
den [20]). The reason is that the marginal water
supply in Israel is DSW, which has a water foot-
print characterization factor of zero since it does
not negatively affect the availability of freshwater
in the watersheds [21]. Therefore, the only fresh-
water consumed in the process is the water con-
sumed indirectly for electricity generation and fuel
production. This applies to both scenarios.

• The carbon footprint of desalinating seawater and
distributing it to the batching plant is trivial com-
pared with the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
of concrete production. A global average cubic me-
ter of non-reinforced concrete is responsible for ap-
proximately 200 kg of CO2-eq. [19]. This may be
over 400 kg of CO2-eq. for high-performance con-
crete (e.g., 50 MPa [19]). Either way, the impact
of desalination and water distribution for the con-
crete mix would be far less than 1% of the total
impact.

• Greenhouse gas emissions for desalination are 1.5
kg CO2-eq/m3 desalinated water. This is lower
than the values reported for other geographical
contexts. In Qatar, for instance, 9.5 kg of CO2-eq
is estimated to be emitted per m3 of desalinated
water [9]. There are two potential reasons: (i)
only impacts associated with the electricity con-
sumption of the desalination plant (3.5 kWh/m3
DSW) are considered in this study and, (ii) the
lower greenhouse gas intensity of electricity used
in Israeli desalination plants.

• The thresholds for reducing water and carbon foot-
prints by using untreated seawater in the mix in
place of municipal grid water are 13 and 22 km, re-
spectively. If a batching plant is located less than
13 km away from the desalination plant (x < 13),
transporting seawater by truck instead of desalinat-
ing it and pumping it through the national pipeline
network would reduce both the water and carbon
footprints of concrete. If the distance is between
13 and 22 km, desalinating and distributing water
would have a lower water footprint but would gen-
erate higher greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, if
the batching plant is located more than 22 km away
from the desalination plant, transporting seawater
by truck would lead to higher impacts for both wa-
ter and carbon.

7. Conclusions
The water and carbon footprint consequences of using
seawater instead of municipal grid water for concrete

mixing in Israeli batching plants are estimated. A
net benefit for both impacts would emerge only if the
batching plant is located less than 13 km from a de-
salination plant. However, even in this case, the ben-
efits appear to be negligible compared with the aver-
age life cycle impacts of concrete. Negligible savings
are observed since the marginal water supply in Israel
is desalinated seawater, which has a water footprint
of zero and a low carbon footprint compared to other
constituents of concrete, such as cement. Neverthe-
less, if batching plants are located near the coast,
given the large amount of concrete produced in Israel
each year, significant greenhouse gas savings could
still be achieved: for every km less than the 22-km
threshold, 20 g of CO2-eq. could be spared for every
m3 of concrete produced. If, theoretically, all Israeli
concrete was produced in plants that are less than 10
km away from desalination plants, over 3,000 tons of
CO2-eq. could be saved every year. Moreover, by us-
ing untreated seawater in the mix, other environmen-
tal impacts (e.g., marine ecotoxicity, biodiversity) as-
sociated with the desalination process, which are not
included in the present assessment, could be avoided.
Approximately 1.5 m3 of brine are produced for ev-
ery m3 of desalinated water and concerns are growing
over the rising toxic levels from its discharge back into
the sea [8].

To confirm the results, a sensitivity analysis on the
assumptions and data should be performed. For in-
stance, results might differ if pipes were used instead
of trucks to deliver the seawater or if seawater was to
replace potable water used for washing the quarried
aggregates as well. Moreover, even though negligible
savings (or larger impacts, when distances from the
coast are above the threshold) are observed in Israel,
contrary conclusions may result in countries where
the marginal supply of municipal grid water comes
from natural freshwater resources.

The impact of seawater on the service life of the
machinery used for concrete production and of the
concrete structure itself should be further investi-
gated to avoid burden shifting. Finally, a compari-
son of the life cycle costs of the two scenarios would
provide valuable information to the concrete indus-
try and the government to evaluate the practicality
and economic viability of shifting the concrete indus-
try towards the use of seawater. In a future analysis
the challenges of a design practice not yet widespread
and the market cost of GFRP should be included.

References
[1] M. M. Mekonnen, A. Y. Hoekstra. Four billion people

facing severe water scarcity. Science Advances 2(2),
2016. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500323.

[2] Y. Satoh, T. Kahil, E. Byers, et al. Multi-model and
multi-scenario assessments of Asian water futures: The
Water Futures and Solutions (WFaS) initiative.
Earth’s Future 5(7):823-52, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ef000503.

https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500323
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ef000503

vol. 33/2022 Concrete Made of Desalinated Water

[3] D. Rodríguez-Robles, P. Van den Heede, N. De Belie.
Life cycle assessment applied to recycled aggregate
concrete. New Trends in Eco-efficient and Recycled
Concrete, p. 207-56. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-102480-5.00009-9.

[4] S. A. Miller, A. Horvath, P. J. M. Monteiro. Impacts
of booming concrete production on water resources
worldwide. Nature Sustainability 1(1):69-76, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0009-5.

[5] K. R. O’Brien, J. Ménaché, L. M. O’Moore. Impact
of fly ash content and fly ash transportation distance
on embodied greenhouse gas emissions and water
consumption in concrete. The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment 14(7):621-9, 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0105-5 .

[6] V. Arosio, A. Arrigoni, G. Dotelli. Reducing water
footprint of building sector: concrete with seawater
and marine aggregates. IOP Conference Series: Earth
and Environmental Science 323(1), 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012127 .

[7] A. M. Neville. Properties of concrete Fourth ed.
(Harlow, UK: Longman Group Limited), 1995.

[8] E. Jones E, M. Qadir, M. T. H. van Vliet, et al. The
state of desalination and brine production: A global
outlook Science of The Total Environment,
657:1343-56, 2019.

[9] E. Jones, M. Qadir, M. T. H. van Vliet, et al. The
state of desalination and brine production: A global
outlook. Science of The Total Environment
657:1343-56, 2019. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.076.

[10] M. Mannan, M. Alhaj, A. N. Mabrouk, et al.
Examining the life-cycle environmental impacts of
desalination: A case study in the State of Qatar.
Desalination 452:238-46, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.11.017.

[11] E. Redaelli, A. Arrigoni, M. Carsana, et al. Culvert
Prototype Made with Seawater Concrete: Materials
Characterization, Monitoring, and Environmental
Impact. Advances in Civil Engineering Materials 8(2),
2019. https://doi.org/10.1520/acem20180114.

[12] F. Lollini, M. Carsana, M. Gastaldi, et al. Seawater
and stainless steel bars for sustainable reinforced
concrete structures. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science 296(1), 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/296/1/012017.

[13] A. Katz. Personal communication, 2019.
[14] T. Ekvall, B. P. Weidema. System boundaries and

input data in consequential life cycle inventory
analysis. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 9(3):161-71, 2004.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02994190.

[15] Y. Parag. Personal communication, 2019.
[16] T. Opher, E. Friedler. Comparative LCA of

decentralized wastewater treatment alternatives for
non-potable urban reuse. Journal of Environmental
Management 182:464-76, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.080.

[17] B. P. Weidema, N. Frees, A.-M. Nielsen. Marginal
production technologies for life cycle inventories. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 4(1):48-
56, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02979395.

[18] T. Opher. A multi-objective lca-based model for
sustainability assessment of urban water reuse
alternatives at various centralization scales,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Technion - Israel Institute of Technology), 2016.

[19] G. Wernet, C. Bauer, B. Steubing, et al. The
ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and
methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 21(9):1218-30, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8.

[20] J. Netz, J. Sudin. Water footprint of concrete,
Department of Sustainable development,
environmental science and engineering, KTH Royal
Institute of Technology), 2015.

[21] A.-M. Boulay, J. Bare, L. Benini, et al. The
WULCA consensus characterization model for water
scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water
consumption based on available water remaining
(AWARE). The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 23(2):368-78, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1333-8.

https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-102480-5.00009-9
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0009-5
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0105-5
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012127
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.076
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.11.017
https://doi.org/10.1520/acem20180114
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/296/1/012017
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02994190
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.080
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02979395
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1333-8