Next Article in Journal
Characteristics of Bubble Behavior and Inclusion Removal in Liquid Steel Based on Industrial Trials of Argon Injection into Ladle Shroud
Next Article in Special Issue
Some Considerations on the Behaviour of Bolted Stainless-Steel Beam-to-Column Connections: A Simplified Analytical Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Isothermal Aging on Mechanical Properties of 92.8%Sn-3%Ag-0.5%Cu-3.3%Bi (Cyclomax) Solder Joints
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effectiveness of Design Procedures in Counteracting Second Order Effects in Steel Moment Resisting Frames
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Metals
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/met13030592
metals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Relevance of Environmental Factors in the Steel Life Cycle for a Transition toward Circular Sustainable Production and Consumption Systems: A Joint Bibliometric and Bibliographic Analysis

by
Marco Casazza
* and
Fabrizio Barone
Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry “Scuola Medica Salernitana”, Università degli Studi di Salerno, 84081 Baronissi, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Metals 2023, 13(3), 592; https://doi.org/10.3390/met13030592
Submission received: 10 February 2023 / Revised: 10 March 2023 / Accepted: 13 March 2023 / Published: 14 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Steel and Aluminium Structures: New Advances in Structural Design and Retrofitting Strategies)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The design of steel structures has evolved thanks to the increased ability to model the behavior of more complex structures. However, further constraints arise from the need for a transition toward more sustainable production and consumption systems. In particular, the assessment of the economic benefits and efficiency of existing production systems should be integrated with assessment of environmental, economic and social sustainability. In the case of steel, and limited to the environmental dimension, the literature covers various study areas, ranging from the analysis of resource flows to the assessment of steel’s environmental impacts. However, an integrated view of existing peer-reviewed studies is currently missing. The purpose of this work is to overcome this shortcoming with a review that considers and integrates research on the steel life cycle from various perspectives: analysis of material flows; quantification of emissions; environmental monitoring and indicators; and circular economy aspects, including reuse and recycling. This study is based on a deep bibliometric and bibliographical analysis of the above-cited aspects, including the key topics, authors and journals, to single out some potential research directions that have previously been neglected. The results of the analyses indicate that, even though discussed in the literature, the redesign of products is still lacking adequate consideration. The same gap was also evidenced when it came to studies on the management of waste materials and recommissioning. There is also still a lack of knowledge on the possible meaningful indicators of environmental sustainability in the case of steel. Moreover, while digital technologies that enable sustainability are being intensely developed and widely implemented, the design, testing and application of sensors for the environmental monitoring of steel production is under-studied and the interaction of environmental factors with steel structures is poorly addressed. Finally, this work evidenced poor attention with respect to water and soil pollution generated in different phases of the steel life cycle. All these aspects should be considered in future research, which would also have a beneficial effect in the implementation of informed policies for a transition toward a circular and sustainable steel life cycle.

1. Introduction

The design of steel structures has evolved, thanks to the increased ability to model the behavior of more complex structures [1]. The growing number of design specifications based on the desired structure’s performance has made material-oriented integrated design and construction of structures (MIDCS) more popular and relevant [2]. MIDCS combines the definition of materials’ characteristics with the structural requirements, starting from the design stage. The implementation of this design paradigm in civil engineering needs to be supported by results from multiple research areas, including those of high-performance materials, smart materials and structures, as well as sustainable materials and structures [3].
On the other side, not only the design but also the construction must include the environmental dimension as part of the whole construction life cycle, supporting the transition toward more sustainable production and consumption systems [4,5,6]. However, as remarked in a recent study, designers and constructors have different visions when it comes to the definition and quantification of steel structures’ greenness and socio-technical factors [7]. The same work revealed also that the number of possible environmental sustainability indicators is high and that their use is often not sufficiently harmonized (e.g., the materials flows are separate from waste and emissions). Finally, this study evidenced a discrepancy between constructors’ and designers’ opinions on various indicators’ relevance. For example, constructors considered the “utilization ratio of underground space”, “construction land area” and “construction electricity consumption” to be critical indicators that were neglected by designers.
The existence of the above contradictions, along with the lack of an integrative perspective on the topic of environmental sustainability in steel design and construction—and, more generally, in the steel life cycle—underpins the need for a review on this topic. The review is also motivated by the growing penetration and impact of the concepts of circular economy and sustainable transition into national and international regulations, which should transform existing practices on the basis of assessed scientific and technological knowledge [8,9]. This work aims to answer to the following questions: What are the key journals, authors and topics discussing the key environmental dimensions of steel production and consumption? What are the topics that can be derived from a more in-depth analysis of the contents of selected works?
After a section introducing the data on which the analysis is based and the tools used to derive the basic bibliometric results, the key findings are detailed. In particular, a set of bibliometric indicators is defined to answer to the first question. Then, an in-depth analysis of literature contents is presented, preceded by a ranking of keywords derived from the selected journal articles. Finally, the discussion draws on the results to focus on gaps in the research and future perspectives.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bibliographic Research Base

A literature review was conducted via the Scopus (SCO) and Web of Science (WOS) databases. The purpose of a first search round was to identify the main journals, authors and topics associated with some of the most important environmental aspects of steel production and consumption. The search identified literature published from 2019 onwards and focused on a set of eight-word groups: “steel” AND “circular economy”; “steel” AND “emission”; “steel” AND “indicator”; “steel” AND “LCA”; “steel” AND “material flow”; “steel” AND “monitoring”; “steel” AND “recycling”; “steel” AND “reuse”. The search results were then limited to research and review articles. The number of published works, grouped according to the keywords and database in which the work was reported, is synthesized in Table 1. After removing duplicate works, the total number of remaining articles was 3361. The full list of considered works is given in the Supplementary Materials.
A second round of literature search was conducted, aimed at identifying some key papers that, when integrated with the previous research, could constitute the basis for an in-depth literature content analysis. The search was performed via the SCO and WOS databases. Selected results were then limited to research and review papers published from year 2019. The performed search was based on the following keywords: “steel” AND “sustainability” AND “emission” (174 items, after duplicate removal); “steel” AND “sustainability” AND “circular economy” (22 items, after duplicate removal); “steel” AND “sustainability” AND “environmental indicator” (7 items, after duplicate removal); “steel” AND “sustainability” AND “environmental monitoring” (5 items, after duplicate removal); “steel” AND “sustainability” AND “material flow” (19 items, after duplicate removal). After removing the duplicates, the total number of selected works was 237, subdivided according to Table 2.
As remarked before, these works, coupling the topic of sustainability with different environmental aspects of the steel life cycle, were used, together with a sub-selection of works derived from the prior bibliographic research, for a deeper analysis of the contents. The selection criteria were the highest number of citations and the higher relevance of used keywords, as found from the bibliometric analysis performed during this research.

2.2. Bibliometric Analysis Software

The citations were exported from the SCO and WOS databases as complete files using a “*.ris” file extension, including all the available fields derived from the databases. Exported files for each study were first imported into Zotero [10], citation freeware that can identify duplicates in the literature, merge different files, and export the citations as a list in a text file or in a bibliographic file format extension such as “*.ris”, which was used for this work.
The merged files were then exported into SciMAT (Science Mapping Analysis Tool) software, which is downloadable for free online [11]. Among other functions, this software enables the user to map the works, authors, recurrence of keywords and time periods for an imported set of publications. In particular, the above-mentioned functions were used to analyze the basic properties of the found literature dataset.

3. Results

3.1. Bibliometric Analysis

Table 3 reports the top 10 ranking of journals, which published indexed papers on the environmental sustainability, environmental impacts and environmental aspects related to circular economy in the case of the steel life cycle.
Table 4 indicates the top 10 authors who published indexed papers on environmental sustainability, environmental impacts and environmental aspects related to circular economy in the steel life cycle. It is worth noting that the most important authors working on the searched topics are, with no exceptions, Chinese authors. This result might depend on the relevance of ecological civilization, cleaner production methods and other environmental topics of concern within Chinese policies and long-term policy plans.
Table 5 reports the number of indexed articles per year, starting from year 2019, considered for this review. Excluding the current year of submission of this work (2023), the number of papers published on the topics of interest for this review increased year-on-year, indicating a growing interest in this topic among the scientific community.

3.2. Keywords Analysis

Table 6 indicates the ranking of keywords according to the number of documents (i.e., papers) in which each keyword is cited.

3.3. Literature Content Analysis

The performed bibliographic research confirmed that there is still great uncertainty around what ‘greening’ means for steel and its market [12]. The quantification of emissions, and especially carbon emissions, is considered crucial, as evidenced by the ranking in Table 6. Conversely, one study proved that in the analysis of environmental parameters, a comprehensive view is infrequent when characterizing the impacts generated by the transformation, consumption, recycling, reuse and recommissioning of steel structures and end-of-life of steel [13]. This fact is confirmed by the absence of a set of environmental indicators, parameters and reference values to qualify and quantify the potential characteristics of ‘green’ steel.
With respect to the flow of resources, the knowledge and control of material and energy flows in iron and steel production processes is crucial. In fact, the intensity of materials’ use (amount of materials per unit of time) influences the intensity of energy use. This is the reason behind a substantial technological effort to improve the quality of management of material flows. This effort is especially relevant for reducing extraction and limiting the amount wasted of critical metals, such as nickel or indium, that are used in steel production [14]. In parallel, the knowledge of energy flows is crucial, given that the steel industry is still energy intensive, despite the fact that current improvements have reduced its impact to 5% of global annual energy consumption [15]. This is why energy efficiency and the optimization of the energy network throughout the steel production process has proven to be an effective way to increase the greenness of steel production. However, the design of production processes and the adjustment of product structures can be still improved. For example, excess heat could be recovered and converted into steam or electricity to save energy [16]. In parallel, the refinement or redesign of production processes should include reduction in waste materials.
As shown in Table 6, waste, as keyword, does not occupy a top position in association with steel. Considering that current research on the circular economy of production and consumption systems focuses on avoiding waste materials, this result might suggest that research and technical discussions have already moved toward this direction. In the case of steelmaking, slag is the main byproduct. One study considered the possible reasons for the low reuse rate of steel slag and, in the case of China, the research identified some causes: outdated treatment methods; the limited use of these byproducts, especially in the case of road construction works; and legal restrictions [17]. Moreover, economic costs further limit the viability of available technical solutions [18]. Another review analyzed the current methods that can be applied to modify hot slags and convert them into value-added materials [19]. These approaches include the crude modification of hot slags to modify their properties; fine modification, used to prepare products such as glass-ceramics and fertilizers; and methods to recovery valuable metals. In parallel, waste gas recycling is also possible as a way to reduce the emission of air pollution [20]. A potential method for reducing CO2 emissions in an oxygen blast furnace and an oxygen blast furnace under hydrogen-enriched conditions was assessed [21]. From an integrated steelmaking perspective, off-gases generated during the various steel production steps can be valorized as feedstock for the synthesis of methane and methanol, based on various technologies that now can be integrated with the production and addition of hydrogen [22]. The option of top-gas recycling in blast furnaces is currently able to produce a 65% reduction in CO2 intensity compared to the traditional blast furnace process [23]. Within steelmaking process, it was observed that the recirculation of blast furnace gas back into to the blast furnace itself could achieve an energy saving of 4.9 MJ/kg CO2 [24].
In the case of scrap, current production, limited to the EU-28 steel industry, is about 15.5 Mt per year [25]. Fabrication scrap in 2017 was 26.5 Mt, dominated by the production of flat products (77%), an area characterized by lower efficiency in materials’ use. In the case of scraps derived from end-use production sectors, car production still dominates, with 30% of overall scrap production in the EU 28. In the same geographical area, looking to the amount of scrap steel from the consumer’s perspective, the end-of-life (EoL) scrap derived from statistical data was approximately 68 Mt/year in 2017. With regard to the quality of scrap in Europe, the majority was of a high quality, characterized by a low content of tramp elements (in particular, Cu, Sn, Cr, Ni and Mo). Another study forecasted that post-consumer scrap (previously identified as EoL scrap) would grow to 100 Mt/year by 2050 [26]. Within this framework, the same study found that low-purity scrap would increase from the current level of 20 Mt/year to 43 Mt/year by 2050.
To increase the circularity of materials, the first step is to improve the management of waste materials. In this regard, one work proposed the implementation of a waste management system in the steel industry in South Africa. In particular, it proposed integrating into a management tool data on the assessment of generated waste, including the amount and characteristics of waste, as well as defining various risk profiles based on the type of collected waste. According to the study’s authors, such a tool would be able to provide a comprehensive set of statistical indicators for the collected data [27]. The reliability of the proposed tool would depend on the ability to define the characteristics of waste streams with regard to their potential reworking. This is why knowledge of resources stocks and flows constitutes a premise for this tool and other systems for improving the environmental management of steel production and steel products. In fact, accounting procedures are based on the knowledge of material amounts and intensities (i.e., rate of use) [28]. This knowledge is also relevant in the case of redesign and recommissioning. A correct assessment of material flows and their dynamics, which should include the assessment of alloying elements used in steel [29], facilitates knowledge of how to manage resources from a circular perspective, starting from raw materials, as discussed in the case of the steel life cycle, and including the EoL of products [30,31]. For example, there is an increased awareness of the amount of steel potentially derivable from buildings and construction EoL, as an alternative to demolition and downcycling [32].
Supply-chain integration strategies are relevant in reaching the target of greater circularity in industrial productions, as shown in a case study on the European steel industry [33]. Such strategies include vertically integrating and hedging slag recycling into steelmaking process, which would reduce the consumption of iron ore; horizontally hedging EoL steel as an alternative to new steel production; EoL steel maintenance and repair, either via planned obsolescence or by control of warranty coverage; and convergence of third-party repair and recycling and landfill. Another effective strategy contributing to the implementation of circular economy solution is residual processing; in the case of the European steel industry, this currently allows 95% of existing steel byproducts to be recycled [34]. A further strategy relevant to steel scrap is to increase the amount of information being collected and shared, in order to support the growth of scrap’s marketability. This strategy should take into account that different actors have different needs with respect to the chemical nature and physical parameters of various types of scrap.
Recycling is not the only circular solution for the steel industry. Reuse could be especially relevant in the case of slag [35]. Due to its physical and chemical characteristics, slag can be reused in land-based applications, such as for aggregate in cement; as an agent to raise soil pH or enhance the physical properties of soft soils; in marine-based applications such as coral reef repair and replacement, or seaweed and phytoplankton growth promotion; or for triggering the absorption of metalloids and H2S.
Another relevant aspect for the environmental dimension of the circular economy is the design, or redesign, of products. In fact, design defines the need for resources as inputs, as well as the desired structural and functional characteristics of the output. One study defined some key design parameters: the mass of the various materials used in the product; the lifetime of the product; losses during the manufacturing process; the content of the primary material; recyclability; and cascadability (materials that can be recovered to produce a lower-quality product) [36]. The definition of parameters for upcycling or disassembly (i.e., design for disassembly) are key elements in the definition of circular design strategies [37].
The efficiency of materials is a key parameter from a circular (closed-loop) perspective. Life cycle assessment (LCA), as a standardized procedure to quantify the flow of resources and the potential impacts generated by the transformation of resources into products through their life cycle, can be used to account for the recovery and reuse of materials from the production phase to end-of-life [38]. For example, in the case of steel structures, LCA can be integrated with a Building Information Mode (BIM) framework, supporting the assessment of deconstructability [39]. On the other side, LCA can be used to assess the potential environmental impacts of the steel life cycle. Within the LCA procedure, key steps include accurate data collection and the construction of an inventory, which is used as an input in the subsequent impact analysis phase (LCIA). Details on constraints, methodological suggestions and data uncertainties associated with the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) phase are given in the literature [40,41].
The potential risk for steel industries of emitting a large amount of air pollutants including both greenhouse gases (GHG) and toxic compounds, is well known. In respect to this, one study detailed resources flows and their relation to produced emissions in the Chinese steel industry [42]. Another study identified the presence within various atmospheric aerosols emitted from a steel plant of irregular Ca-, Fe-, Mg- and Si-rich particles; carbonaceous particles; spherical Al-, Fe- and Si-rich particles; and agglomerate particles derived from gas-particle conversion processes, later polymerized with volatile minerals [43]. With respect to GHG emissions, it has been assessed that steel production consumes a global average of 5.17 MWh of energy per ton produced and emits 1.9 tons of CO2 per ton produced [44].
While a great deal of attention is paid to digitization and machine learning as key technologies for reducing the environmental footprint of steel production processes [45], the number of recent studies on the environmental monitoring of steel production is disappointingly low. This fact is not directly reflected in our analysis of the occurrence of keywords, where “environmental monitoring” occupies the sixth position (see Table 6). Nonetheless, the SCO database identified only 343 documents combining “steel production”, “environment” and “monitoring”, of which only 42 were research or review articles published in indexed journals from 2019 onwards. In particular, only three works focused on sensors, measurement methods or field measures for the environmental monitoring of steel production [46,47,48,49]. Updated environmental field data are necessary to assess the environmental impacts embedded in steel products as generated by various production processes, especially in the case of life cycle impact analysis (a phase of LCA) the reliability of which depends on the quality of the input data and impact databases. Conversely, considering that the current volume of peer-reviewed studies on environmental field analyses of steel production is low, the reliability of LCA analyses might be much poorer than thought.
The available field studies published from 2019 onwards prevalently concentrated on the monitoring of environmental parameters in the production of steel products. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term transformation of steel in different environmental conditions, with particular regard to steel corrosion processes [50,51,52]. The steel-environment interaction affects the durability of steel-derived products such as structures. Durability, in turn, is a key parameter for managing material flows from a circular perspective. If we exclude the topic of corrosion processes, published literature on the environmental monitoring of steel structures is limited. In fact, the SCO database turned up 174 works (35 journal articles published from 2019 onwards), while WOS surfaced 23 works (6 journal articles published from 2019 onwards). Among the applied monitoring techniques, instruments and platforms, the studies found reported on the use of LiDAR and UAV [53,54]; wind and temperature in integration with acceleration and stress sensors [55,56]; and vibration sensors [57,58,59].
Alongside the impact indicators used in LCA, the key environmental indicators for the steel life cycle are mainly related to the assessment of resource (i.e., material and energy) flows [60]. Several works concentrated on energy-related indicators and, in particular, on energy efficiency [61,62]. While the concept of quantity and its derived indicators has been widely used to assess the amounts of resources used and their flows, the concept of quality has been less thoroughly considered [63]. Nevertheless, the quality of resources is crucial. For example, when it comes to materials, the quality (in terms of purity) of molten steel influences the amount of energy consumed during the steel production process (i.e., a higher number of inclusions leads to higher energy consumption) [63]. In the case of energy, quality indicators such as emergy [64] and exergy [65] are also applied in the assessment of material flows and environmental sustainability of the steel life cycle.
Among the environmental factors challenging the iron and steel industry, the literature reports on the impact of energy demand and emissions, and also explores the evolution and impact of regulatory frameworks for production and consumption systems [66]. The current uncertainties—at least those in Europe—are further triggered by the existence of barriers to commercialization, starting from the unclear status of demand for greener steel [67]. However, some researchers expect that artificial intelligence (AI), as key enabling technology, will play a beneficial role in the transition toward more sustainable steel production and consumption processes. In particular, experts have indicated that AI could be used for predicting process parameters, managing the flow of resources, predictive applications in the context of contaminant emissions, and pollution forecasting around production sites [68]. Moreover, AI could be integrated within cyber–physical systems based on the Internet of Things (IoT), becoming a core tool in smart steel manufacturing under an “Industry 4.0” paradigm [69]. In this regard, there are already several tools that support a more sustainable use and management of resources such as energy [70]. As well as AI and IoT, researchers mention several enabling digital technologies to support sustainability in the built environment, including Big Data analytics, blockchain technologies, digital platforms/marketplaces, digital twins, geographical information systems, and material passports/databanks [71].

4. Discussion

Based on the research question defined in the introduction, this section will discuss some aspects derived from the bibliometric and bibliographical review, the results of which were given in the previous section.
In terms of the bibliometric analysis of authors and their countries, strong geographic disparities were found, with articles from China dominating the literature, as is clearly evident from Table 4. As mentioned in the results section, this geographic unbalance might at least partially be due to China’s policy focus on ecological civilization, cleaner production and the circular economy, as well as its support for research projects on these topics. Consequently, there is a clear need to widen the knowledge base with regard to the environmental sustainability and circularity aspects of the steel industry. In fact, the current lack of widespread expertise could hinder the process of decarbonization of steel production and consumption systems.
As reported in Table 6, steel recycling and the assessment and management of emissions were the most popular topics discussed in the literature over the study period. The combination of the results from the bibliometric analysis and an in-depth literature review supported the identification of some research gaps that need to be addressed.
With respect to the transition to ‘closed loop’ systems typical of circular economy, reuse is underdiscussed. The redesign of products, especially taking into account their decomposability, also requires more discussion. However, closing loops—that is, operating material flows in a circular way—is not enough to guarantee the sustainability of steel production and consumption. In fact, together with materials, energy and emissions also need to be managed.
While energy flows and energy efficiency are often discussed, there is an imbalance with respect to the characterization of pollution and the impact of pollutants on various environmental matrices. In fact, as can be seen from Table 6, the greatest attention goes to atmospheric emissions, while water and soil pollution are widely neglected. In parallel, while solid waste is considered within the analysis of the steel life cycle, wastewater and other byproducts, such as sludge, are often disregarded.
Digital tools and technologies are considered key enablers for the transition toward “green steel”. Researchers, designers, constructors and production managers already rely on such instruments. However, there are too few recent peer-reviewed articles presenting the results of environmental campaigns in the field. This poses a serious question as to the reliability of impact assessment procedures based on the use of impact factor databases which might be outdated, as is the case with LCA. On the other side, the same problem exists when it comes to the complete monitoring of environmental parameters in relation to ageing of steel structures. Experimental studies are necessary not only to assess structural health but also to understand the durability of products, a relevant parameter circular planning of the steel life cycle.
As a consequence, the field in which knowledge appears to be most lacking is environmental monitoring. Only strong growth in this direction, and its eventual integration with supporting digital technologies, will improve the reliability of results from impact, life cycle and material flow analyses, as well as the development and implementation of digital twins. In fact, an increase in the number of validated experimental field studies would ensure a continuous dataflow is generated, supporting the development of training and validation datasets for various digital tools. Finally, only the implementation of environmental monitoring integrated with digital technologies can guarantee the reliable adaptive management of environmental issues connected to steel production and consumption.

5. Conclusions

This work presented an integrated bibliometric and bibliographical analysis dealing with environmental factors considered relevant in the published literature for the steel life cycle, from production to end-of-life.
Key journals, authors and topics of papers published in journals, indexed either in Web of Science or Scopus databases between 2019 and 2023, were identified. The results indicated that there is a wide discussion about the management of resource (i.e., materials and energy) flows and their efficiency during production phase of steel. Moreover, from a circular economy perspective, the reuse, recycling and recovery of materials is also considered by the literature. However, the redesign of products still lacks adequate consideration. This study revealed a similar deficit in research on the management of wasted materials and recommissioning.
The results revealed that there are various opinions on the meaning of ‘greening’ in the case of steel and its life cycle. This lack of a comprehensive view on the environmental sustainability, consumption and end-of-life processes of steel production was also shown by the lack of assessed definitions and agreed environmental indicators that could support the identification and quantification of what ‘greening’ means in practice. In parallel, while relying on the implementation of enabling digital technologies, the role of environmental monitoring is poorly addressed in the literature. Conversely, environmental monitoring is needed to assess both the environmental impacts of the different phases of steelmaking process and the role played by environmental factors in the degradation and durability of steel products. Moreover, in the case of steel infrastructures, environmental monitoring is needed to assess their structural health.
Finally, while the climate impacts of the steel life cycle and atmospheric emissions of steelmaking are adequately addressed, studies on water and soil pollution generated in the various phases of the steel life cycle are less common, albeit not excluded from the literature. This lack of attention limits the possibilities for implementing adequate solutions to reduce future impacts, and hampers the search for the most effective remediation solutions in the case of already-polluted areas. All these aspects should be considered in future research, which also would have beneficial effects on the implementation of informed policies for a transition toward a circular and sustainable steel life cycle.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/met13030592/s1, File S1: Reference bibliographical list.

Author Contributions

All the authors equally contributed to the present work. Conceptualization, M.C.; methodology, M.C.; validation, F.B.; formal analysis, M.C. and F.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C.; writing—review and editing, M.C. and F.B.; supervision, F.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The bibliographical database derived Scopus and Web of Science databases is publicly available in the Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

Marco Casazza acknowledges the financial support of his working position through the Italian Ministry of University PON fund, Azione IV.4 Asse IV “Istruzione e ricerca per il recupero–REACT-EU”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hajdo, E.; Ibrahimbegovic, A.; Dolarevic, S. Buckling analysis of complex structures with refined model built of frame and shell finite elements. Coupled Syst. Mech. 2020, 9, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, K.; Chen, K.; Xu, Z. Real Time Scanning-Modeling System for Architecture Design and Construction. Adv. Technol. Innov. 2020, 5, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ming, X.; Huang, J.C.; Li, Z. Materials-oriented integrated design and construction of structures in civil engineering—A review. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2022, 16, 24–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hauke, B.; Kuhnhenne, M.; Lawson, R.M.; Veljkovic, M. (Eds.) Sustainable Steel Buildings: A Practical Guide for Structures and Envelopes; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK; Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-118-74079-8. [Google Scholar]
  5. Yang, F. (Ed.) Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment: Reference Building Structure and Strategies; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2018; ISBN 978-0-7844-1505-4. [Google Scholar]
  6. Wilkinson, P. Steel Ceiling. Navigating the Invisible Barrier to Sustainable Growth in Engineering and Construction; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022; ISBN 978-1-119-91045-9. [Google Scholar]
  7. Liu, R.; Hu, X.; Ye, K.; Cao, K.; Zhu, W.; Zuo, J. Perspective Discrepancy between Designers and Constructors on the Sustainability of Steel Structures: Are They Synthesizable? Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shang, Y.; Song, M.; Zhao, X. The development of China’s Circular Economy: From the perspective of environmental regulation. Waste Manag. 2022, 149, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Talens Peiró, L.; Polverini, D.; Ardente, F.; Mathieux, F. Advances towards circular economy policies in the EU: The new Ecodesign regulation of enterprise servers. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 154, 104426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mueen Ahmed, K.K.; Bandar, E. Al Dhubaib Zotero: A bibliographic assistant to researcher. J. Pharmacol. Pharmacother. 2011, 2, 304–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2012, 63, 1609–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mallett, A.; Pal, P. Green transformation in the iron and steel industry in India: Rethinking patterns of innovation. Energy Strategy Rev. 2022, 44, 100968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Muslemani, H.; Liang, X.; Kaesehage, K.; Ascui, F.; Wilson, J. Opportunities and challenges for decarbonizing steel production by creating markets for ‘green steel’ products. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 315, 128127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Watari, T.; Nansai, K.; Nakajima, K. Review of critical metal dynamics to 2050 for 48 elements. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhao, J.; Zuo, H.; Wang, Y.; Wang, J.; Xue, Q. Review of green and low-carbon ironmaking technology. Ironmak. Steelmak. 2020, 47, 296–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Xu, C.; Liu, Z.; Wang, S.; Liu, W. Numerical Simulation and Optimization of Waste Heat Recovery in a Sinter Vertical Tank. Energies 2019, 12, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Guo, J.; Bao, Y.; Wang, M. Steel slag in China: Treatment, recycling, and management. Waste Manag. 2018, 78, 318–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sun, Y.; Tian, S.; Ciais, P.; Zeng, Z.; Meng, J.; Zhang, Z. Decarbonising the iron and steel sector for a 2 °C target using inherent waste streams. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, Y.; Dai, W. Modifying hot slag and converting it into value-added materials: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 176–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhu, S.; Gao, C.; Gao, C.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, X.; Li, X. Exploration of a new path to reduce air pollutant emissions in the sinter plant of steelworks. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 373, 133831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xia, Z.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Li, Z.; Lu, Y.; He, Y.; Chen, J. The CO2 reduction potential for the oxygen blast furnace with CO2 capture and storage under hydrogen-enriched conditions. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2022, 121, 103793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zaccara, A.; Petrucciani, A.; Matino, I.; Branca, T.A.; Dettori, S.; Iannino, V.; Colla, V.; Bampaou, M.; Panopoulos, K. Renewable Hydrogen Production Processes for the Off-Gas Valorization in Integrated Steelworks through Hydrogen Intensified Methane and Methanol Syntheses. Metals 2020, 10, 1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tian, W.; An, H.; Li, X.; Li, H.; Quan, K.; Lu, X.; Bai, H. CO2 accounting model and carbon reduction analysis of iron and steel plants based on intra- and inter-process carbon metabolism. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 360, 132190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Perpiñán, J.; Bailera, M.; Romeo, L.; Peña, B.; Eveloy, V. CO2 Recycling in the Iron and Steel Industry via Power-to-Gas and Oxy-Fuel Combustion. Energies 2021, 14, 7090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dworak, S.; Fellner, J. Steel scrap generation in the EU-28 since 1946—Sources and composition. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 173, 105692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dworak, S.; Rechberger, H.; Fellner, J. How will tramp elements affect future steel recycling in Europe?—A dynamic material flow model for steel in the EU-28 for the period 1910 to 2050. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 179, 106072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schoeman, Y.; Oberholster, P.; Somerset, V. A decision-support framework for industrial waste management in the iron and steel industry: A case study in Southern Africa. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2021, 3, 100097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ajayebi, A.; Hopkinson, P.; Zhou, K.; Lam, D.; Chen, H.-M.; Wang, Y. Estimation of structural steel and concrete stocks and flows at urban scale–towards a prospective circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 174, 105821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tan, J.; Wehde, M.V.; Brønd, F.; Kalvig, P. Traded metal scrap, traded alloying elements: A case study of Denmark and implications for circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Velenturf, A.P.M.; Archer, S.A.; Gomes, H.I.; Christgen, B.; Lag-Brotons, A.J.; Purnell, P. Circular economy and the matter of integrated resources. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 689, 963–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tazi, N.; Kim, J.; Bouzidi, Y.; Chatelet, E.; Liu, G. Waste and material flow analysis in the end-of-life wind energy system. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 145, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hopkinson, P.; Chen, H.-M.; Zhou, K.; Wang, Y.; Lam, D. Recovery and reuse of structural products from end-of-life buildings. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Eng. Sustain. 2019, 172, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Pinto, J.T.M.; Diemer, A. Supply chain integration strategies and circularity in the European steel industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rieger, J.; Schenk, J. Residual Processing in the European Steel Industry: A Technological Overview. J. Sustain. Metall. 2019, 5, 295–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fisher, L.V.; Barron, A.R. The recycling and reuse of steelmaking slags—A review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 244–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Desing, H.; Braun, G.; Hischier, R. Resource pressure—A circular design method. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rasmussen, F.; Birkved, M.; Birgisdóttir, H. Upcycling and Design for Disassembly—LCA of Buildings Employing Circular Design Strategies. In Proceedings of the BAMB-CIRCPATH “Buildings as Material Banks—A Pathway for A Circular Future”, Brussels, Belgium, 5–7 February 2019; Volume 225, p. 012040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Walker, S.; Coleman, N.; Hodgson, P.; Collins, N.; Brimacombe, L. Evaluating the Environmental Dimension of Material Efficiency Strategies Relating to the Circular Economy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Basta, A.; Serror, M.H.; Marzouk, M. A BIM-based framework for quantitative assessment of steel structure deconstructability. Autom. Constr. 2020, 111, 103064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bieda, B. Application of stochastic approach based on Monte Carlo (MC) simulation for life cycle inventory (LCI) to the steel process chain: Case study. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 481, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Bawden, K.R.; Williams, E.D.; Babbitt, C.W. Mapping product knowledge to life cycle inventory bounds: A case study of steel manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Sun, J.; Na, H.; Yan, T.; Qiu, Z.; Yuan, Y.; He, J.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Du, T. A comprehensive assessment on material, exergy and emission networks for the integrated iron and steel industry. Energy 2021, 235, 121429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, H.; Sun, W.; Li, W.; Wang, Y. Physical and chemical characterization of fugitive particulate matter emissions of the iron and steel industry. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2022, 13, 101272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lopez, G.; Farfan, J.; Breyer, C. Trends in the global steel industry: Evolutionary projections and defossilisation pathways through power-to-steel. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 375, 134182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Colla, V.; Pietrosanti, C.; Malfa, E.; Peters, K. Environment 4.0: How digitalization and machine learning can improve the environmental footprint of the steel production processes. Matériaux Tech. 2020, 108, 507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ramalho, A.; Santos, T.G.; Bevans, B.; Smoqi, Z.; Rao, P.; Oliveira, J.P. Effect of contaminations on the acoustic emissions during wire and arc additive manufacturing of 316L stainless steel. Addit. Manuf. 2022, 51, 102585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jozi, S.A.; Majd, N.M. Health, safety, and environmental risk assessment of steel production complex in central Iran using TOPSIS. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014, 186, 6969–6983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, F.; Liu, M.; Zhou, Z.; Shen, W. An IoT-Based Online Monitoring System for Continuous Steel Casting. IEEE Internet Things J. 2016, 3, 1355–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Girón, D.; Delgado, T.; Ruiz, J.; Cabalín, L.M.; Laserna, J.J. In-situ monitoring and characterization of airborne solid particles in the hostile environment of a steel industry using stand-off LIBS. Measurement 2018, 115, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hren, M.; Kosec, T.; Lindgren, M.; Huttunen-Saarivirta, E.; Legat, A. Sensor Development for Corrosion Monitoring of Stainless Steels in H2SO4 Solutions. Sensors 2021, 21, 1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xing, Z.; He, D.; Wang, H.; Ye, Z.; Yang, S. Electrochemical Corrosion Behaviour of Carbon Steel in Concrete with Metakaolin Admixture Exposed to Soil with High Concentration of Chloride Ions. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2021, 16, 210310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shen, W.; Pang, Q.; Fan, L.; Li, P.; Zhao, X. Monitoring and quantification of non-uniform corrosion induced mass loss of steel piles with distributed optical fiber sensors. Autom. Constr. 2023, 148, 104769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chen, Q.; Wen, X.; Wu, F.; Yang, Y. Defect Detection and Health Monitoring of Steel Structure based on UAV Integrated with Image Processing System. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1176, 052074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Guo, M.; Sun, M.; Pan, D.; Huang, M.; Yan, B.; Zhou, Y.; Nie, P.; Zhou, T.; Zhao, Y. High-precision detection method for large and complex steel structures based on global registration algorithm and automatic point cloud generation. Measurement 2021, 172, 108765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Xia, Y.; Chen, B.; Weng, S.; Ni, Y.-Q.; Xu, Y.-L. Temperature effect on vibration properties of civil structures: A literature review and case studies. J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 2012, 2, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Shen, Y.; Fu, W.; Luo, Y.; Yun, C.-B.; Liu, D.; Yang, P.; Yang, G.; Zhou, G. Implementation of SHM system for Hangzhou East Railway Station using a wireless sensor network. Smart Struct. Syst. 2021, 27, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Khan, M.A.; Akhtar, K.; Ahmad, N.; Shah, F.; Khattak, N. Vibration analysis of damaged and undamaged steel structure systems: Cantilever column and frame. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2020, 19, 725–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, L.; Ohkubo, T.; Matsumoto, S. Vibration measurement of a steel building with viscoelastic dampers using acceleration sensors. Measurement 2021, 171, 108807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Szabó, G.; Völgyi, I.; Kenéz, Á. Vibration Assessment of a New Danube Bridge at Komárom. Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng. 2022, 66, 1014–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kermeli, K.; Edelenbosch, O.Y.; Crijns-Graus, W.; van Ruijven, B.J.; van Vuuren, D.P.; Worrell, E. Improving material projections in Integrated Assessment Models: The use of a stock-based versus a flow-based approach for the iron and steel industry. Energy 2022, 239, 122434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Na, H.; Du, T.; Sun, W.; He, J.; Sun, J.; Yuan, Y.; Qiu, Z. Review of evaluation methodologies and influencing factors for energy efficiency of the iron and steel industry. Int. J. Energy Res. 2019, 43, 5659–5677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Abraham, V.A.A.; Causil, E.D.A.; Santos, V.S.; Angarita, E.N.; Sarduy, J.R.G. Identification of savings opportunities in a steel manufacturing industry. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2021, 11, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sun, W.; Wang, Q.; Zhou, Y.; Wu, J. Material and energy flows of the iron and steel industry: Status quo, challenges and perspectives. Appl. Energy 2020, 268, 114946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Liu, Y.; Li, H.; An, H.; Santagata, R.; Liu, X.; Ulgiati, S. Environmental and economic sustainability of key sectors in China’s steel industry chain: An application of the Emergy Accounting approach. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 129, 108011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Feng, H.; Chen, L.; Liu, X.; Xie, Z.; Sun, F. Constructal optimization of a sinter cooling process based on exergy output maximization. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 96, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Vögele, S.; Grajewski, M.; Govorukha, K.; Rübbelke, D. Challenges for the European steel industry: Analysis, possible consequences and impacts on sustainable development. Appl. Energy 2020, 264, 114633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Vogl, V.; Åhman, M.; Nilsson, L.J. The making of green steel in the EU: A policy evaluation for the early commercialization phase. Clim. Policy 2021, 21, 78–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. John, N.; Wesseling, J.H.; Worrell, E.; Hekkert, M. How key-enabling technologies’ regimes influence sociotechnical transitions: The impact of artificial intelligence on decarbonization in the steel industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 370, 133624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cicconi, P.; Russo, A.C.; Germani, M.; Prist, M.; Pallotta, E.; Monteriu, A. Cyber-Physical System Integration for Industry 4.0: Modelling and Simulation of an Induction Heating Process for Aluminium-Steel Molds in Footwear Soles Manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 3rd International Forum on Research and Technologies for Society and Industry (RTSI), Modena, Italy, 11–13 September 2017; IEEE: Modena, Italy, 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  70. Marchiori, F.; Belloni, A.; Benini, M.; Cateni, S.; Colla, V.; Ebel, A.; Lupinelli, M.; Nastasi, G.; Neuer, M.; Pietrosanti, C.; et al. Integrated Dynamic Energy Management for Steel Production. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 2772–2777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Çetin, S.; De Wolf, C.; Bocken, N. Circular Digital Built Environment: An Emerging Framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Preliminary number of indexed journal articles (research and review articles) published in the years 2019–2023, as found in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. The first column indicates the last and variable research keyword that was combined with “steel” through the logical connector “AND”. This list refers to the first round of bibliographic research. The last column on the right reports the sum of found articles before removing duplicates that existed between the two databases. The bottom row reports the total number of articles found on Scopus, Web of Science and the total of the two.
Table 1. Preliminary number of indexed journal articles (research and review articles) published in the years 2019–2023, as found in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. The first column indicates the last and variable research keyword that was combined with “steel” through the logical connector “AND”. This list refers to the first round of bibliographic research. The last column on the right reports the sum of found articles before removing duplicates that existed between the two databases. The bottom row reports the total number of articles found on Scopus, Web of Science and the total of the two.
Variable KeywordPapers on ScopusPapers on Web of ScienceTotal Number of Papers
Circular economy155197352
Emission15085922000
Indicator29870368
LCA258269527
Material flow96130226
Monitoring7922621054
Recycling7375711308
Reuse287215502
Total413124066437
Table
Table 2. Total number of indexed journal articles (research and review articles) published in the years 2019–2023, as found in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. The first column indicates the last and variable research keyword that was combined with “steel” AND “sustainability” through “AND” logical connector. This list refers to the second round of bibliographic research. Numbers refer to the total number of articles, obtained by merging the works found on both databases after removing duplicates. The bottom row reports the total number of found articles.
Table 2. Total number of indexed journal articles (research and review articles) published in the years 2019–2023, as found in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. The first column indicates the last and variable research keyword that was combined with “steel” AND “sustainability” through “AND” logical connector. This list refers to the second round of bibliographic research. Numbers refer to the total number of articles, obtained by merging the works found on both databases after removing duplicates. The bottom row reports the total number of found articles.
Variable KeywordTotal Number of Papers
Emission174
Circular economy22
Environmental indicator7
Environmental monitoring5
Material flow29
Total237
Table
Table 3. Ranking of the top 10 journals, as identified through Scopus and Web of Science databases, which published indexed papers on environmental sustainability, environmental impacts and environmental aspects related to circular economy in the steel life cycle. The results derived from the analysis of articles identified during the first round of bibliographical research and refer to works published between 2019 and 2023.
Table 3. Ranking of the top 10 journals, as identified through Scopus and Web of Science databases, which published indexed papers on environmental sustainability, environmental impacts and environmental aspects related to circular economy in the steel life cycle. The results derived from the analysis of articles identified during the first round of bibliographical research and refer to works published between 2019 and 2023.
JournalNumber of Papers
Journal of Cleaner Production371
Sustainability (Switzerland)182
Science of the Total Environment119
Resources, Conservation and Recycling108
Energies86
Environmental Science and Pollution Research82
Journal of Hazardous Materials62
Journal of Environmental Management54
Chemosphere53
Journal of Industrial Ecology43
Table
Table 4. Top 10 authors who published indexed papers on environmental sustainability, environmental impacts and environmental aspects related to circular economy in the steel life cycle. The results derived from the analysis of articles identified during the first round of bibliographical research and refer to works published between 2019 and 2023.
Table 4. Top 10 authors who published indexed papers on environmental sustainability, environmental impacts and environmental aspects related to circular economy in the steel life cycle. The results derived from the analysis of articles identified during the first round of bibliographical research and refer to works published between 2019 and 2023.
AuthorNumber of Papers
Wang, Y.68
Li, Y.56
Zhang, Y.49
Wang, J.47
Zhang, X.47
Li, H.44
Zhang, J.40
Liu, X.35
Zhang, H.35
Li, J.34
Table
Table 5. Number of indexed articles per year, over the 2019–2023 period, considered for this review. Reported results derived from the analysis of articles identified during the first round of bibliographical research.
Table 5. Number of indexed articles per year, over the 2019–2023 period, considered for this review. Reported results derived from the analysis of articles identified during the first round of bibliographical research.
YearNumber of Papers
2019726
2020821
2021889
2022911
202314
Table
Table 6. Ranking of keywords used in the analyzed articles. Reported results derived from the analysis of articles identified during the first round of bibliographical research. The results refer to selected works published between 2019 and 2023.
Table 6. Ranking of keywords used in the analyzed articles. Reported results derived from the analysis of articles identified during the first round of bibliographical research. The results refer to selected works published between 2019 and 2023.
KeywordsNumber of Papers
Recycling410
Carbon dioxide407
Life cycle assessment338
Environmental impact277
Emission control260
Environmental monitoring213
Greenhouse gases213
Sustainable development209
Performance179
Energy175
Air pollution162
Particulate matter162
Climate change151
Circular economy149
Risk assessment132
Energy efficiency128
Air pollutant126
Global warming124
Waste management123
Efficiency121
Carbon footprint118
Chemical composition105
Pollution100
Air quality98
Wastewater treatment98
Industrial emissions93
Source apportionment93
Atmospheric pollution92
Energy consumption92
Environmental management89
Material flow analysis89
Water pollutants86
Soil pollution60
Toxicity60
Carbon sequestration59
Pollutant removal58
Detection method56
Fossil fuels55
Contamination53
Monitoring53
Health risks52
Quantitative analysis52
Environmental policy51
Industrial ecology49
Water pollution48
Environmental protection46
Economic and social effect45
Mitigation45
Sewage44
Pollution control43
Environmental performance38
Low-carbon steel38
Decarbonization37
Landfill36
Effluents36
Sediments36
Sludge36
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Casazza, M.; Barone, F. Relevance of Environmental Factors in the Steel Life Cycle for a Transition toward Circular Sustainable Production and Consumption Systems: A Joint Bibliometric and Bibliographic Analysis. Metals 2023, 13, 592. https://doi.org/10.3390/met13030592

AMA Style

Casazza M, Barone F. Relevance of Environmental Factors in the Steel Life Cycle for a Transition toward Circular Sustainable Production and Consumption Systems: A Joint Bibliometric and Bibliographic Analysis. Metals. 2023; 13(3):592. https://doi.org/10.3390/met13030592

Chicago/Turabian Style

Casazza, Marco, and Fabrizio Barone. 2023. "Relevance of Environmental Factors in the Steel Life Cycle for a Transition toward Circular Sustainable Production and Consumption Systems: A Joint Bibliometric and Bibliographic Analysis" Metals 13, no. 3: 592. https://doi.org/10.3390/met13030592

APA Style

Casazza, M., & Barone, F. (2023). Relevance of Environmental Factors in the Steel Life Cycle for a Transition toward Circular Sustainable Production and Consumption Systems: A Joint Bibliometric and Bibliographic Analysis. Metals, 13(3), 592. https://doi.org/10.3390/met13030592

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop