Geography discussion 2

Discussion 2

700 words

Referencing to the course materials and required sources is necessary

read geography chapter content

watch chapter 3 lecture

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

Read the external link and attached dococument

complete the discussion below

As you learn about attributive factors to climate change, you will discover that cement factories are one of the major greenhouse gas emitters in our world. While cement factories contribute to job creation and stimulate local economies (and without say have contributed significantly to the creation of modern society), it is crutial that we understand the environmental impact that these factories have. After watching the video clip posted here and reading the article, please post your opinion about what you think is the strongest argument to support/not support the need for cement factories, and idea(s) for possible mitigation. Respond to at least two peer postings.
Resources: – 1)

In Northeast India, Cement Plants Disrupt Forest and a Way of Life

(external link)

https://e360.yale.edu/features/in-northeast-india-cement-plants-disrupt-forest-and-a-way-of-life

– 2)

Health Risk and Environmental Assessment of Cement Production in Nigeria

(attached pdf)

atmosphere

Review

Health Risk and Environmental Assessment of Cement
Production in

Nigeria

Mmemek-Abasi Etim 1,* , Kunle Babaremu 2, Justin Lazarus 1 and David Omole 1

��
��

Citation: Etim, M.-A.; Babaremu, K.;

Lazarus, J.; Omole, D. Health Risk

and Environmental Assessment of

Cement Production in Nigeria.

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111.

https://doi.org/10.3390/

atmos12091111

Academic Editor: Deborah Traversi

Received: 19 July 2021

Accepted: 11 August 2021

Published: 30 August 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in

published maps and institutional affil-

iations.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article

distributed under the terms and

conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution (CC BY) license (https://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/

4.0/).

1 Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Covenant University, Ota 112233, Nigeria;
lazarus.justin@covenantuniversity.edu.ng (J.L.); david.omole@covenantuniversity.edu.ng (D.O.)

2 Directorate of Pan African University for Life and Earth Science Institute, University of Ibadan,
Ibadan 200284, Nigeria; kunle.babaremu@paulesi.org.ng

* Correspondence: mmemek-abasi.etim@stu.cu.edu.ng

Abstract: The cement manufacturing industry has played a fundamental role in global economic
development, but its production is a major facilitator to anthropogenic CO2 release and solid waste
generation. Nigeria has the largest cement industry in West Africa, with an aggregate capacity
of 58.9 million metric tonnes (MMT) per year. The Ministry for Mines and Steel Development
asserts that the nation possesses total limestone deposits of around 2.3 trillion MT with 568 MMT
standing as established reserves and 11 MMT used. Cement industries are largely responsible for
releasing air pollutants and effluents into water bodies with apparent water quality deterioration
over the years. Air pollution from lime and cement-producing plants is seen as a severe instigator of
occupational health hazards and work-related life threats, negatively affecting crop yields, buildings,
and persons residing in the vicinity of these industries. World Bank observed in 2015 that 94%
of the Nigerian populace is susceptible to air pollutants that surpass WHO guidelines. In 2017,
World Bank further reported that 49,100 premature deaths emanated from atmospheric PM2.5, with
children beneath age 5 having the greatest vulnerability owing to lower respiratory infections, thereby
representing approximately 60% of overall PM2.5-induced deaths. Cement manufacturing involves
the significant production of SO2, NOx, and CO connected to adverse health effects on humans.
Sensitive populations such as infants, the aged, and persons having underlying respiratory ailments
like asthmatics, emphysema, or bronchitis are seen to be most affected. Consequently, in addressing
this challenge, growing interests in enacting carbon capture, usage, and storage in the cement industry
is expected to alleviate the negative environmental impact of cement production. Still, no carbon
capture technology is yet to achieve commercialization in the cement industry. Nonetheless, huge
advancement has been made in recent years with the advent of vital research in sorption-enhanced
water gas shift, underground gasification combined cycle, ammonium hydroxide solution, and the
microbial-induced synthesis of calcite for CO2 capture and storage, all considered sustainable and
feasible in cement production.

Keywords: cement production; particulate matter (PM2.5 & PM10); carbon capture; public health;
air pollution; water pollution

1. Introduction

Cement is the most common and extensively used adhesive in the construction in-
dustry. It is employed on highways, houses, embankments, bridges, commercial estab-
lishments, and flyovers. Hence, the cement manufacturing industry has played a funda-
mental role in global economic development, with construction, steel, crude oil, iron, and
telecommunications, constituting major infrastructural aspects worldwide. Swift commer-
cialization, urban civilization, and the necessity to boost domestic goods production have
been the lead cause for the surge in cement production [1]. In Nigeria, the availability of
raw materials has encouraged numerous local productions. As of 2013, annual cement

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12091111 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/atmosphere

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/atmosphere

https://www.mdpi.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5491-4017

https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12091111

Homepage

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12091111

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/atmosphere

https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/atmos12091111?type=check_update&version=1

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 2 of 16

production increased significantly above 1300%, from below 2 million tonnes in 1990 to
above 28 million tonnes in 2013 [2]. Cement is a powder-like material comprising lime and
mud-clay as fundamental elements, utilized in all kinds of building and civil constructions.
The used clay provides silica, iron oxide, and alumina, while the calcined lime principally
gives calcium-oxide. As highlighted in Table 1, raw materials used for cement produc-
tion are obtained by blasting rock quarries with explosives [3,4]. The blasted rocks are
transported to the plants, where they are crushed into chunks of 12 inch-sized particles.
Through the process of prehomogenization, cement is produced depending on the needed
proportion of ground clay and limestones. For a pressurized rotatory furnace of around
1400 ◦C, these unprocessed resources (Table 1) are calcined to become a clinker [3,5]. The
clinker is then pulverized with some minerals to a powder to produce Portland cement [4].

Table 1. Raw materials used for clinker production.

Calcium, Ca
Limestone involving quick-lime from treating
wastewater, caustic-lime

Silicon, Si
Sand such as harnessed mould (silica
sand-clay-liquid mixture)

Silicon–Aluminium, Si–Al
Kaolinite, bentonite, and similar forms of
terra-cotta clay

Iron, Fe
Iron-based metals, including heated pyrite and
adulterated metallic minerals

Silicon–Aluminium–Calcium, Si–Al–Ca
Powdered blast furnace slag such as ashes
from fuel combustion ashes, oil-soluble

Aluminium, Al
Raw metallic apparatus constituting recycling
salt slag, aluminium hydroxide

Sulphur, S
Non-artificial gypsum such as Natural
anhydrite Gypsum from flue gas
desulfurization

Global cement generation was 4.1Bnt in 2020 with a growth rate of 24% from its
highest in 2010 [6], with China clearly leading as the world’s largest cement producer,
representing 59.31% of overall manufactured cement globally. Table 2 shows the global
cement production, with China producing more than 12 of the world’s cement combined.
These recent expansions have been driven by developing countries such as India and
China, with a substantial increase in cement manufacturing around Asia, Africa, and
South America. As the earth’s population and industrialization boom, universal cement
production is bound to surge by at least 12–23% by 2050 [7]. Nigeria possesses the largest
cement industry within West Africa, with at least 12 registered companies amounting to a
merged cement capacity of 58.9 Mt/yr. Dangote Cement is the largest cement producer
in Nigeria and West Africa, manufacturing a combined share of more than 28.5 Mt/yr
of cement capacity. Also, LafargeHolcim (through its subsidiary AshakaCem & Lafarge
WAPCO) and BUA Group boost 18.9 Mt/yr and 11.5 Mt/yr of integrated cement capacity,
respectively [8]. With the increasing presence of cement manufacturing, the industry poses
as one of the most significant CO2 emitters. Evaluating the risk factors of its spillover
impact on public health is inevitable.

In Nigeria, limestone and marble are the main minerals of cement production. The
conversion of this limestone into cement by heat releases carbon dioxide as a waste product.
Ndefo [9] highlighted the deposits of these minerals and their carbon contents in various
percentages, as shown in Figure 1. They are mainly composed of the carbonates of calcium
and magnesium. Large deposits of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) are observed in Calabar,
Yandev, and Ukpilla, with Ewekoro having the largest deposit of Magnesium carbonate
MgCO. The Nigerian Ministry of Mines and Steel Development reports a total limestone
collection of approximately 2.3 TMT, of which 568 MMT stands as proven reserve and

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 3 of 16

11 MMT is used. Such deposits are endowed unadulterated, mainly across Ebonyi, Cross-
River, and Benue cities with large industrial volumes among Gombe, Edo, Sokoto, and
Ogun. Nonetheless, the largest enriched West African nation is Nigeria.

Table 2. Global cement production in selected countries (in metric tonnes) [6].

Countries 2018 2019

United States 87,000 89,000
Brazil 53,000 55,000
China 2,200,000 2,200,000
Egypt 81,200 76,000
India 300,000 320,000
Indonesia 75,200 74,000
Iran 58,000 60,000
Japan 55,300 54,000
Korea, Republic of 57,500 55,000
Russia 53,700 57,000
Turkey 72,500 51,000
Vietnam 90,200 95,000
Other Countries 870,000 900,000

Atmosphere 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

serve and 11 MMT is used. Such deposits are endowed unadulterated, mainly across Eb-
onyi, Cross-River, and Benue cities with large industrial volumes among Gombe, Edo,
Sokoto, and Ogun. Nonetheless, the largest enriched West African nation is Nigeria.

Figure 1. Percentage quantity of calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate in Nigerian Lime-
stone Deposit [9,10].

In 2018, data from World Health Organization (WHO) indicated that 9 in 10 persons
breathe air containing excessive concentrations of toxins beyond the approved threshold
stated by WHO. Africa and Asia amass the worst hit with 90% deaths from environmental
air contaminants [11]. During cement production, soot molecules and dusty residues
emerge extensively, thereby triggering respiratory ailments across humans. Diverse pul-
monic-connected diseases are prevalent mostly to indigenous persons living around ce-
ment industries. One cement factory releases massive atmospheric pollution. Given the
voluminous process of producing cement, any certain potential environmental impact
would be significant. As such, key players must prioritize atmospheric safety and decon-
tamination since this undeniably plays an important role in achieving sustainable devel-
opment (SDGs) goals 3, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13.

Higher cement production and usage, switching fuel types, and dirt restriction mech-
anization influence the quantity and cluster of environmental impurities. Numerous in-
vestigations admit that manufacturing cement constitutes the broadest source for PM
emission, accounting for 20–30%, which is 40% of the gross industrial emission [12]. Fur-
thermore, making cement represents 5–6% of total artificial CO2 discharge, which accord-
ing to the European Cement Association (ECA), yields at least half a ton of CO2 for a ton
of cement produced. The most common pollutants responsible for air pollution are vola-
tile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and hydrocarbons [13]. Decarbonation propels off
about 50% of the emission, while fuel for kiln firing induces approximately 40% of pollu-
tants. With projected manufacturing spike, cement makers are under pressure to lower or
sustain CO2 outflows. Carbon-neutral biomass amidst other substitute fuels is seeing
heightened usage in reducing certain cement-based CO2 discharge. Cement manufactur-
ing entails severe health constraints; nearly every production phase adversely affects man
and its environment. When dismantling rocks, particulate matter is dispersed into the at-
mosphere, making it harmful to man. Moreover, this disintegration process causes noise
pollution. The urban geography might likewise impact the gadgets adopted during this
procedure [12,13]. Diverse equipment is recently employed to mitigate these adverse
shortcomings. The equipment helps to limit dusty release, particularly across cement in-
dustries. Gas trappers similarly capture extreme toxins, including sulphur, nitrogen ox-
ide, and carbon dioxide, among others [11,13]. An essential constituent of gas for cement

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Calabar

Kwara

Yandev

Nkalagu

Sokoto

Igumale

Makurdi

Ewekoro

Total Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) (%) Total Magnesium Carbonate (MgCO) (%)

Figure 1. Percentage quantity of calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate in Nigerian Limestone
Deposit [9,10].

In 2018, data from World Health Organization (WHO) indicated that 9 in 10 persons
breathe air containing excessive concentrations of toxins beyond the approved thresh-
old stated by WHO. Africa and Asia amass the worst hit with 90% deaths from envi-
ronmental air contaminants [11]. During cement production, soot molecules and dusty
residues emerge extensively, thereby triggering respiratory ailments across humans. Di-
verse pulmonic-connected diseases are prevalent mostly to indigenous persons living
around cement industries. One cement factory releases massive atmospheric pollution.
Given the voluminous process of producing cement, any certain potential environmental
impact would be significant. As such, key players must prioritize atmospheric safety and
decontamination since this undeniably plays an important role in achieving sustainable
development (SDGs) goals 3, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13.

Higher cement production and usage, switching fuel types, and dirt restriction mech-
anization influence the quantity and cluster of environmental impurities. Numerous
investigations admit that manufacturing cement constitutes the broadest source for PM
emission, accounting for 20–30%, which is 40% of the gross industrial emission [12]. Fur-
thermore, making cement represents 5–6% of total artificial CO2 discharge, which according

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 4 of 16

to the European Cement Association (ECA), yields at least half a ton of CO2 for a ton of
cement produced. The most common pollutants responsible for air pollution are volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), sulfur diox-
ide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and hydrocarbons [13]. Decarbonation propels off about
50% of the emission, while fuel for kiln firing induces approximately 40% of pollutants.
With projected manufacturing spike, cement makers are under pressure to lower or sustain
CO2 outflows. Carbon-neutral biomass amidst other substitute fuels is seeing heightened
usage in reducing certain cement-based CO2 discharge. Cement manufacturing entails
severe health constraints; nearly every production phase adversely affects man and its
environment. When dismantling rocks, particulate matter is dispersed into the atmosphere,
making it harmful to man. Moreover, this disintegration process causes noise pollution. The
urban geography might likewise impact the gadgets adopted during this procedure [12,13].
Diverse equipment is recently employed to mitigate these adverse shortcomings. The
equipment helps to limit dusty release, particularly across cement industries. Gas trappers
similarly capture extreme toxins, including sulphur, nitrogen oxide, and carbon dioxide,
among others [11,13]. An essential constituent of gas for cement production is carbon
dioxide (CO2). Heating calcium carbonate as the main ingredient produces lime, whereas
carbon dioxide is given off as a chemical procedure. Cement production contributes 40%
of global CO2 discharge; 60% of this CO2 volume comes from Portland cement [14,15],
transforming limestone to lime. Sometimes, weighty metallic minerals spanning across
mercury, chromium, thallium, and zinc have proximity to cement factories.

2. The Growing Nigerian Cement Industry

In recent years, the Nigerian cement industry has grown from import-dependency
to an export-thriving epicentre within Africa. Cement is still a critical part of developing
infrastructures globally as Nigerian cement producers continuously ramp up activities
and expand into futuristic times. Given growing demands on infrastructural development,
the National Integrated Infrastructure Master Plan (NIIMP) has projected a cumulative
investment of approximately $3 trillion for a duration of 3 decades to construct and sustain
infrastructures. The Ministry for Mines and Steel Development [16] estimates Nigeria’s
highway system to be at 193,200 km, whereby 28,980 km is paved and about 85% is un-
paved. This fact highlights the tremendous pressure on cement manufacturers in meeting
the country’s demand for infrastructural development. Environmental health risks are of
significant concern with the absence of a greener and more sustainable cement production
in Nigeria. Juxtaposing the high degree of deficiency across the residential and structural
facilities, particularly regarding the dire need for building properties and roadways, the
capacity for expansion in this sector is evidently captivating. Additionally, the currently
established amplitude has broadened to exceed projected demand as governmental strate-
gies, including tax-relief schemes, banning imported cement, and similar enacted plans,
have facilitated the rapid enlargement of capabilities for proprietary stakeholders [17].
In the medium term, Nigeria’s concrete industry indicates a likelihood for considerably
sustained growth into the next generation, supported by unimpaired cement demand
essentials as revealed by multiple measurable benchmarks. Projections place Nigerian
cement consumption per capita at about 150 kg falling behind the worldwide average of 561
kg. Over the long term, several factors encompassing enhanced accessibility to construc-
tion funds, increased civilization, larger populace, heightened infrastructural and housing
investment, political consistency, and economic affluence determine the possibilities for
boosting cement demand in Africa’s biggest country.

Besides other trivial functions of concrete for building, fascinations exist of using
cement in constructing roads due to its resilience and easy preservation. More so, with the
current population surge within Nigeria, it is believed that the government and increasing
private sector will invest more in furnishing houses for bustling youths and working-class
people, particularly inside and at the borders of urban cities. Consequently, to foster this
movement, the federal government recently founded the Presidential Infrastructure De-

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 5 of 16

velopment Fund (PFID) in 2018, overseen by the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority
(NSIA), whose goal is to narrow down the investment to electricity and road schemes
nationwide. Hence, cement demand growth in Nigeria is expected to increase local ce-
ment production over the following years. Nigeria’s cement sector exhibits oligopolistic
tendencies with three major competitors as presented in Figure 2. Dangote Cement Plc,
the indisputable biggest producer in Sub-Sahara and Nigeria with an installed capacity of
48.6 Mta and 32.3 Mta respectively, just recently added 3 million tonnes to its capacity in
2020 in the Obajana Cement Plant. Lafarge Africa Plc has a capacity of 10.5 million metric
tonnes, accounting for a market share of 21.8%. BUA Group (recently sealed a merger of
CCNN and Obu) has an 8.0 million metric tonnes capacity, accounting for a market share
of 17.6%. Regardless of the current capabilities, the key manufacturing industrial giants are
relentless in diversification strategies. According to their media sources, Dangote Cement
has hinted at developing two extra 6MTPA factories in Edo city’s Okpella and Ogun state’s
Itori. Additionally, BUA Group (CCNN) intends to extend its Sokoto’s Kalambaina Plant
by supplementary 3MMTA. These plants are generally sited close to the raw material to
cut the cost of transporting them. With limestone in its abundance, cement production in
Nigeria is at its infant stage. Dangote cement further observes that Obajana’s accumulated
limestone of 647 MT should stretch for approximately 45 years, Ibese’s 1150 MT should
cover 78 years, and Gboko’s 133 MT should surpass three decades.

Atmosphere 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16

private sector will invest more in furnishing houses for bustling youths and working-class
people, particularly inside and at the borders of urban cities. Consequently, to foster this
movement, the federal government recently founded the Presidential Infrastructure De-
velopment Fund (PFID) in 2018, overseen by the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority
(NSIA), whose goal is to narrow down the investment to electricity and road schemes
nationwide. Hence, cement demand growth in Nigeria is expected to increase local ce-
ment production over the following years. Nigeria’s cement sector exhibits oligopolistic
tendencies with three major competitors as presented in Figure 2. Dangote Cement Plc,
the indisputable biggest producer in Sub-Sahara and Nigeria with an installed capacity of
48.6 Mta and 32.3 Mta respectively, just recently added 3 million tonnes to its capacity in
2020 in the Obajana Cement Plant. Lafarge Africa Plc has a capacity of 10.5 million metric
tonnes, accounting for a market share of 21.8%. BUA Group (recently sealed a merger of
CCNN and Obu) has an 8.0 million metric tonnes capacity, accounting for a market share
of 17.6%. Regardless of the current capabilities, the key manufacturing industrial giants
are relentless in diversification strategies. According to their media sources, Dangote Ce-
ment has hinted at developing two extra 6MTPA factories in Edo city’s Okpella and Ogun
state’s Itori. Additionally, BUA Group (CCNN) intends to extend its Sokoto’s Kalambaina
Plant by supplementary 3MMTA. These plants are generally sited close to the raw mate-
rial to cut the cost of transporting them. With limestone in its abundance, cement produc-
tion in Nigeria is at its infant stage. Dangote cement further observes that Obajana’s accu-
mulated limestone of 647 MT should stretch for approximately 45 years, Ibese’s 1150 MT
should cover 78 years, and Gboko’s 133 MT should surpass three decades.

Figure 2. Major Cement Plants in Nigeria.

Over time, Nigerian cement manufacturers have used domestic cinder and proxy
combustibles such as LPFO (Low Pour Fuel Oil—a byproduct of petroleum oil) as an al-
ternative to gas in powering their plants. Dangote Cement, for instance, has tactically re-
inforced its limekilns to function better with coals. This encompasses Ibese and Obajana
industries, which were formerly structured to operate on gas, whereas Benue’s factory
previously used LPFO. Dangote group also indicated tendencies to utilize its numerous

Figure 2. Major Cement Plants in Nigeria.

Over time, Nigerian cement manufacturers have used domestic cinder and proxy
combustibles such as LPFO (Low Pour Fuel Oil—a byproduct of petroleum oil) as an
alternative to gas in powering their plants. Dangote Cement, for instance, has tactically
reinforced its limekilns to function better with coals. This encompasses Ibese and Obajana
industries, which were formerly structured to operate on gas, whereas Benue’s factory
previously used LPFO. Dangote group also indicated tendencies to utilize its numerous
damaged tyres as energy sources. Similarly, Lafarge Africa Plc has heightened its usage of
substitute power, including coal and industrial waste.

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 6 of 16

3. Cement Production on Climate Change and Global Warming

As highlighted by USGS, global warming is one of many characteristics of climate
change. Global warming is the rise in global temperatures largely due to escalating
concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Similarly, climate change involves the
gradual alteration of climatic actions for an extended period [18]. Increased urbanization
and industrialization have led to higher cement production in Nigeria as cement plants
have substantially ramped up their output, triggering greater CO2 emissions into the
air. Ndefo [9] highlighted that using the ratio of one cement to carbon dioxide tonne,
Nigeria would manufacture beyond 25 MMT of cement, thereby inducing 25 MMT of
CO2 yearly. This has eventually drawn the country into global warming and weather
crisis. Developing nations like Nigeria lack sufficient preparation for global warming
consequences, which is already evident and glaring for its citizens. Notwithstanding that
Africa’s largest country has fortunately not encountered severe atmospheric-spurred dis-
aster, occurrences are constantly seen in tremendous heat waves around major industrial
cities; increased greenhouse gases and particulate matter; PMs from cement dust pollution;
and high precipitations leading to flooding and gully erosion [14] in Lagos, Jigawa, Edo,
and Anambra States. The atmospheric CO2 before industrialization was about 200 ppm,
but it is presently estimated to surpass 800 ppm as the 21st century reaches its end, causing
great concerns. The cement sector is a principal contributor to weather disruptions be-
cause its manufacturing operations emit enormous CO2, which is primarily unrecoverable
and reusable [19,20]. Wilson & Law (2007) [21] further describe cement production as a
greenhouse double whammy, by which the conversion of limestone to cement produces
carbon dioxide; the fossil fuel used in heating it also produces carbon dioxide. In 2019,
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency reported the increase in earthly CO2
discharge by a projected 350 MtCO2 or 0.9% to reach 38 GtCO2, such that China incurs
the highest contribution with an increased 3.4% (or 380 MtCO2) and Nigeria’s emission at
approximately 100 MtCO2 [22]. Table 3 highlights the atmospheric emissions from 1970
to 2019 in Nigeria. Cement manufacturing is estimated to supply 5–10% of worldwide
anthropogenic CO2 outflow [23]. However, about 40% of CO2 emissions from dry cement
manufacturing come from the combustion of fossil fuels [24] in the kiln process, while 50%
comes from the roasting of limestone. The roasting (calcination) process liberates CO2 from
limestone to give quick-lime: an essential resource in making cement clinkers. The process
is energy-intensive and with extreme temperatures of about 1450 ◦C [25].

Table 3. Atmospheric emissions from 1970 to 2019 in Nigeria.

Years
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Emission
Methane (CH4)

Emission
Nitrous Oxide, (N2O)

Emission
Greenhouse Gases (F-Gases):

(HFCs, PFCs and SF6) Emission

1970 0.03 130 12 –

1971 0.04 190 12 –

1972 0.06 230 12 –

1973 0.07 280 13 –

1974 0.08 350 14 –

1975 0.06 260 14 –

1976 0.08 290 14 –

1977 0.07 250 15 –

1978 0.07 240 15 –

1979 0.10 370 16 –

1980 0.09 310 16 –

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 7 of 16

Table 3. Cont.

Years
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Emission
Methane (CH4)
Emission
Nitrous Oxide, (N2O)
Emission
Greenhouse Gases (F-Gases):
(HFCs, PFCs and SF6) Emission

1981 0.07 230 16 0.1

1982 0.07 200 17 0.1

1983 0.07 200 17 0.1

1984 0.07 210 17 0.1

1985 0.07 220 18 0.1

1986 0.07 220 18 0.1

1987 0.07 200 18 0.1

1988 0.08 230 19 0.2

1989 0.08 240 19 0.2

1990 0.07 240 19 0.2

1991 0.08 250 20 0.2

1992 0.09 250 20 0.1

1993 0.09 260 21 0.1

1994 0.08 250 21 0.1

1995 0.09 260 22 –

1996 0.10 280 22 0.1

1997 0.10 250 23 0.1

1998 0.09 210 24 0.2

1999 0.09 190 24 0.2

2000 0.10 190 25 0.3

2001 0.11 200 25 0.3

2002 0.10 170 26 0.4

2003 0.11 190 26 0.5

2004 0.10 190 26 0.6

2005 0.10 190 29 0.7

2006 0.09 180 28 0.8

2007 0.08 180 28 0.8

2008 0.09 170 29 0.9

2009 0.08 170 29 1.0

2010 0.09 180 30 1.1

2011 0.10 180 32 1.2

2012 0.09 190 32 1.3

2013 0.09 180 32 1.3

2014 0.09 180 32 1.4

2015 0.09 180 34 1.5

2016 0.09 180 35 1.6

2017 0.09 180 36 1.7

2018 0.10 180 37 1.7

2019 0.10 180 38 1.8

Unit = 109 kg CO2 eq (1 million metric tonnes). CO2 equivalent is calculated with Global Warming Potentials (GWP-100) of the Fourth
IPCC Assessment report (2017). Graphical illustration in Supplementary Data.

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 8 of 16

Globally, increasing industrialization has led to a rise in carbon dioxide levels in the
atmosphere to about 0.03% (570 ppm) [26]. To maintain the CO2 concentration below
550 ppm by 2050, Cement Technology Roadmap has recommended cutting CO2 emissions
to 30–60%, thereby mitigating global warming [27]. Cement plants are a major source of
CO2 emissions due to the high CO2 concentration in cement kiln flue gas [26]. However,
with the advent of carbon capture and storage (CCS), cement manufacturers have discov-
ered a system of reducing the role of fossil fuel emissions in global warming by capturing
and storing CO2 directly from the atmosphere [28]. Together with the underground gasifi-
cation combined cycle (UGCC), CCS is a viable method for exploiting clean limestone and
coal [29]. Techniques of pre-combustion capture, post-combustion capture, and oxy-fuel
combustion are widely used for carbon dioxide capturing in the cement industry [30].

The manufacturing sector and agricultural sector have contributed significantly to
the Nigerian Gross National Product. The active role of these sectors makes it evident
that even a minor climate deterioration can cause harmful socioeconomic consequences.
In the cement industry, policies to reduce the combustion of fossil fuels like carbon and
to adopt renewable energy sources have only been successful at the paper stage as there
is poor or no acceptance of these methods. Nigeria is the biggest cement manufacturer
across West Africa, with increasing production demands. Its cement production utilizes a
large volume of unprocessed input and combustibles (biodiesel, crude oil, gasoline, coal,
among other factory wastage) and thermal and electrical power for its production [31–33],
playing a major role in environmental variations and global warming as a result of its raw
material use and processing [34]. Although cement production causes noise pollution,
which is detrimental to man’s health, the main environmental issue associated with its
production is the formation of heavy metals as seen in wastewater and solid waste such as
carbon-dioxide (CO2) emission, VOCs, fly ash, dust, and particulate matters (PMs) [31].
Sadly, solutions for the climate change and global warming challenges do not yield intense
renowned impact since they are far too complex for political discussions. The looming
effects of climate variabilities now threaten stable food supply in some regions of the
country. In the arid zones of northern Nigeria, droughts are getting worse, and the
southern part is getting wetter with growing climate uncertainty. A major influence of
weather changes and global warming is weather unpredictability. This is so conspicuous
as some areas in Lagos and Ogun State were said to have experienced an uncommon
rainfall with thunderstorms in the early days of 2021, drawing attention to the fact that
these regions record the highest number of industries in Nigeria. The challenge of climate
unpredictability makes subsistence farming difficult [14]. Research has shown that the
leading cause of environmental disruptions is the continuously rising CO2 levels from
emitting biomass, concrete production, and desertification, which are the major causes of
CO2. As of 2020, the current trend of CO2 emission in Nigeria from cement production
is still on the rise. As presented in Figure 3, carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in Nigeria
have been growing steadily from 1970 to date. The earth’s CO2 level will keep escalating
owing to high demand for concrete (cement production), incessantly combusting fossil
fuels, land-use adaptations, and particularly deforestation.

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 9 of 16Atmosphere 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

Figure 3. Carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions from 1970 to 2019 in Nigeria and other countries.

Impacts of Water Pollution from Cement Production on Public Health

Anthropogenic activities have depleted the quality of human’s most abundant re-

sources. Water contamination through industrialization and urbanization in Nigeria is
leading the cause of water-related conundrums [35,36]. Globally, uncontaminated drink-
able water is inaccessible to billion(s) of persons [37], leading to 2.2 million deaths yearly
in developing nations [38]. Nigeria is naturally endowed in abundance with diverse cate-
gories of drinking water such as groundwater, rainwater, and surface water, but it has a
longstanding challenge in water quality problems [39]. Approximately 66.3 million Nige-
rians lack access to clean drinking water, which is largely attributed to the pollution from
cement production [40], oil exploration [41], agricultural activities [42], and industrial or
mining activities [43], etc. Water contamination through cement production in Nigeria has
facilitated toxins accumulation in aquatic lives, causing a health risk to human consumers.
In past years, the constant epidemic of water-borne diseases such as diarrhoea, dysentery,
cholera, and gastroenteritis in Nigeria has been linked to polluted water [36]. Cement in-
dustries are largely responsible for releasing effluents into water bodies [24,44,45]. In a
study by [46], clear water quality deterioration was discovered in Oinyi river, Kogi State,
owing to cement factories’ unhygienic water effects. Collected analyzed samples along the

-00.0

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

19
70

19
72

19
74

19
76

19
78

19
80

19
82

19
84

19
86

19
88

19
90

19
92

19
94

19
96

19
98

20
00

20
02

20
04

20
06

20
08

20
10

20
12

20
14

20
16

20
18

China United States European Union

France Germany Italy

Netherlands Poland United Kingdom

India Russia Japan

Nigeria

Figure 3. Carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions from 1970 to 2019 in Nigeria and other countries.

4. Impacts of Water Pollution from Cement Production on Public Health

Anthropogenic activities have depleted the quality of human’s most abundant re-
sources. Water contamination through industrialization and urbanization in Nigeria is
leading the cause of water-related conundrums [35,36]. Globally, uncontaminated drink-
able water is inaccessible to billion(s) of persons [37], leading to 2.2 million deaths yearly
in developing nations [38]. Nigeria is naturally endowed in abundance with diverse cate-
gories of drinking water such as groundwater, rainwater, and surface water, but it has a
longstanding challenge in water quality problems [39]. Approximately 66.3 million Nigeri-
ans lack access to clean drinking water, which is largely attributed to the pollution from
cement production [40], oil exploration [41], agricultural activities [42], and industrial or
mining activities [43], etc. Water contamination through cement production in Nigeria has
facilitated toxins accumulation in aquatic lives, causing a health risk to human consumers.
In past years, the constant epidemic of water-borne diseases such as diarrhoea, dysentery,
cholera, and gastroenteritis in Nigeria has been linked to polluted water [36]. Cement
industries are largely responsible for releasing effluents into water bodies [24,44,45]. In a
study by [46], clear water quality deterioration was discovered in Oinyi river, Kogi State,
owing to cement factories’ unhygienic water effects. Collected analyzed samples along
the watercourse highlighted the following results: turbidity, temperature, biochemical and

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 10 of 16

chemical oxygen demand, colour, pH, depth, conductivity, and total suspended solids as
14–22.7 NTU, 24 ◦C to 27 ◦C, 2.05–2.89 mg/L, 17.19 ± 0.15 mg/L, 3.87 ± 0.159 Pt.Co, 6.8 to
7.26, 0.23 to 0.35 m, 106.0 to 211.7 µS/cm, 45–54 mg/L, respectively, but at the exit point of
the industrial effluents; turbidity, nitrite, nitrate, maximum conductivity, total dissolved
solids, and total suspended solids are 22.7 NTU, 0.09 mg/L, 0.006 mg/L, 211.7 µS/cm,
108.8 mg/L, and 54 mg/L respectively [46].

5. Impacts of Air Pollution from Cement Production on Public Health

Cement factories and limestone-induced atmospheric pollution are seen to evoke
severe occupational health hazards and adverse effects on crops, buildings, and persons
residing in the vicinity of these industries [47]. Producing concrete consumes enormous
power, often through coal, which consequently emits carbon dioxide in alarming amounts
depending on the manufacturing procedure and fuel employed as well as its associated
effectiveness. The highly critical aftermath of producing cement is the dirt emitted during
mining, processing, packaging, storing, and transporting. Egbe et al. (2019); Ibanga et al.
(2008); and Maina et al. (2013) [48–50] highlighted that products and raw materials from
cement production plants are significant sources of particulate matter such as (PM), NOx,
CO2, SO2, VOCs, Ozone (O3), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDDs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and
highly radioactive elements like Radon. Carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons ob-
tained from incomplete conflagration [1] in the kiln cause perilous healthy impacts by
lessening oxygen transmission to bodily parts and ligaments, in addition to negatively
impacting brainwaves and cardiorespiratory conditions. Furthermore, CO aids fume gen-
eration (bottom-ground ozone), which triggers breathing difficulties [13,51]. Nitrogen
oxide (NOx) released during fuel combustion causes multiple health-related challenges. It
adversely affects the atmosphere through global warming, visual impairment, acid rain,
lung disease such as asthma, and lung tissue damage [13,52]. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) from
fuel sources and the type of raw materials used in cement production could complicate
respiration and exacerbate prevailing lung and health-associated ailments. Moreover,
the kiln type used in concrete production influences the volume of SO2 that enters the
air [53]. Emitted SO2 is oxidised into SO3 in the atmosphere, forming sulfate aerosols or
acid deposition on surface soil and water [54]. Radon (Rn), a radioactive gas derived from
geologic materials, has been linked to an increased risk of developing lung cancer when
inhaled in large quantities from concrete or cement [55]. Cement production at various
stages is accompanied by the release of dust [56]. Particulate matter (PM) discharged from
concrete industries lie between 0.025 to 5 µm in radius [48,57]. Particle sizes of particulate
matter play a role in its effects [58]. PM2.5 is responsible for several people’s wellness
shortcomings relative to other PM dimensions [59]. Sizes within 10 to 2.5 µm enter the
higher region of respiratory organs, whereas lower PM sinks into the blood and lungs.
World Bank noted in 2015 that 94% of Nigeria’s populace is vulnerable to environmental
contamination levels that outpace the WHO threshold [60]. It was further reported in 2017
that the volume of immature deaths owing to Nigerian atmospheric PM2.5 stood at 49,100,
and children below 5 have the greatest susceptibility, mainly because of lesser respiratory
contagion, representing approximately 60% of overall PM2.5-induced deaths [61]. Globally,
subjection to environmental dust PM2.5 has caused around 2.9 million premature deaths, 9%
of aggregate deaths worldwide and 80,000 premature deaths in West Africa for 2017 [61].
This issue is worse within Nigeria, with the largest regional mass of PM2.5-associated
deaths, especially in Lagos, the nation’s industrial hub. From Figure 4, the assessment of
PM2.5 in Lagos at 68 µg/m3 exceeds the World Health Organization’s benchmark for the
concentration of 10 µg/m3, placing Nigeria’s industrial capital closely among the most
polluted cities. Figure 5 illustrates the state of cement production in Nigeria.

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 11 of 16

Atmosphere 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

Figure 4. Annual mean concentration of PM2.5 (µg/m3) in various cities [61].

Figure 5. Pollution from cement production in Nigeria. Source: [62].

Abimbola et al. (2007) [63] evaluated past hospital documentations and the present
well-being of locals and revealed the increasing contagion of sickness connected to huge
alloy fatality, generated by cement dust from factories, posing a threat to future habita-
tion. The research considered the quantities of selected heavy metals in Figure 6 as: soils
[Ni (13.0–17 ppm), Cd (0.5–1.1 ppm), Zn (43–69 ppm), Cu (22–35 ppm), Pb (28–49 ppm)],
shale [Cu (2.0–11 ppm), Pb (17–22 ppm), Cd (0.3–1.1 ppm), Ni (3.0–18 ppm), dusts [Cd
(0.5–0.7 ppm), Zn (17–147 ppm)], Cu (2–16 ppm), Pb (32–52 ppm), Ni (2–17 ppm)], Zn (5–
152 ppm), limestone [Cu (3.0–11 ppm), Ni (3.0–8.0 ppm), Cd (n.d.-1.7 ppm), Zn (7.0–53
ppm), and Pb (42–48 ppm)].

7
12

15
17

26
28

45
57
57

64
68

73
76

143

New York, USA

Los Angeles, USA

Istanbul, Turkey

Tokyo, Japan

Seoul, South Koera

Bangkok, Thailand

Shanghai, China

Wuhan, China

Dhaka, Bangladesh

Mumbai, India

Lagos, Nigeria

Beijing, China

Cairo, Egypt

Delhi, India

Figure 4. Annual mean concentration of PM2.5 (µg/m
3) in various cities [61].

Atmosphere 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

Figure 4. Annual mean concentration of PM2.5 (µg/m3) in various cities [61].

Figure 5. Pollution from cement production in Nigeria. Source: [62].
Abimbola et al. (2007) [63] evaluated past hospital documentations and the present
well-being of locals and revealed the increasing contagion of sickness connected to huge
alloy fatality, generated by cement dust from factories, posing a threat to future habita-
tion. The research considered the quantities of selected heavy metals in Figure 6 as: soils
[Ni (13.0–17 ppm), Cd (0.5–1.1 ppm), Zn (43–69 ppm), Cu (22–35 ppm), Pb (28–49 ppm)],
shale [Cu (2.0–11 ppm), Pb (17–22 ppm), Cd (0.3–1.1 ppm), Ni (3.0–18 ppm), dusts [Cd
(0.5–0.7 ppm), Zn (17–147 ppm)], Cu (2–16 ppm), Pb (32–52 ppm), Ni (2–17 ppm)], Zn (5–
152 ppm), limestone [Cu (3.0–11 ppm), Ni (3.0–8.0 ppm), Cd (n.d.-1.7 ppm), Zn (7.0–53
ppm), and Pb (42–48 ppm)].
7
12
15
17
26
28
45
57
57
64
68
73
76
143
New York, USA
Los Angeles, USA
Istanbul, Turkey
Tokyo, Japan
Seoul, South Koera
Bangkok, Thailand
Shanghai, China
Wuhan, China
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Mumbai, India
Lagos, Nigeria
Beijing, China
Cairo, Egypt
Delhi, India

Figure 5. Pollution from cement production in Nigeria. Source: [62].

Abimbola et al. (2007) [63] evaluated past hospital documentations and the present
well-being of locals and revealed the increasing contagion of sickness connected to huge
alloy fatality, generated by cement dust from factories, posing a threat to future habita-
tion. The research considered the quantities of selected heavy metals in Figure 6 as: soils
[Ni (13.0–17 ppm), Cd (0.5–1.1 ppm), Zn (43–69 ppm), Cu (22–35 ppm), Pb (28–49 ppm)],
shale [Cu (2.0–11 ppm), Pb (17–22 ppm), Cd (0.3–1.1 ppm), Ni (3.0–18 ppm), dusts
[Cd (0.5–0.7 ppm), Zn (17–147 ppm)], Cu (2–16 ppm), Pb (32–52 ppm), Ni (2–17 ppm)],
Zn (5–152 ppm), limestone [Cu (3.0–11 ppm), Ni (3.0–8.0 ppm), Cd (n.d.-1.7 ppm),
Zn (7.0–53 ppm), and Pb (42–48 ppm)].

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 12 of 16Atmosphere 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

Figure 6. Average levels of heavy metals around Sagamu cement area (in ppm).

The study further proposed that the voluminous metallic concentration in the soil
and soot emanated from unprocessed inputs adopted by cement makers and resultant
factory emissions. A study performed by A. N. (2012) [64] revealed that 30,435 disease
cases were linked to air pollution in Rivers State, and 61 of its patients were reported dead.
Prevalent diseases associated with the cases include: cerebrospinal meningitis (CSM), pul-
monary tuberculosis, upper respiratory tract infection (URT), pneumonia, measles, per-
tussis, and chronic bronchitis. The environmental air quality was also reported to be far
worse than the WHO’s standard, and unsafe, posing health threats to residents (particu-
lates = 10 ppm/year, SO2 = 1 ppm/year, Pb = 0.1115 ppm/year, NOx = 2.55 ppm/year, VOCx
= 82.78 ppm/year). This study implied that air pollution largely from industrial emission
has negatively forthrightly impacted public welfare. The aftermath of Ewekoro’s kiln im-
purities was closely observed by Olaleye & Oluyemi (2010) [65] at some aquatic receptor
places, and a considerable concentration of atmospheric deposition rates (ADRs) and total
suspended particulates (TSPs) was observed in the cement plant. The TSP and ADR con-
centrations were significantly more (p < 0.05) amidst dryer weather compared to humid periods. Furthermore, in the study, airborne particulates contain substantially greater con- centration (p < 0.05) of trace elements such as lead (Pb+), zinc (Zn2+), and manganese (Mn2+). Similarly, Ugwuanyi & Obi (2002) [66] examined the adverse health consequences of en- vironmental contaminants from cement industries on small-scale peasants in Nigeria’s Benue State. The research observed data from hospitals and correlated them with emis- sions from the vicinity of the plant. Diseases predominant amongst the community in- clude allergic asthma allergies, impaired eyesight, chronic bronchitis, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), lung inflammation, and pulmonic tuberculosis. He concluded that the measurable atmospheric effects of hospitalized persons relative to sicknesses suggest that pollutants have begun dampening living quality and people’s productivities.

A.J. (2013) [67] observed that the particulate matter concentrations from Obajana ce-
ment plant measured by its Health and Safety Department using the SKC portable partic-
ulate sampler at several industry sites for years 2010 and 2011 were 260 µg/Nm3 and 500
µg/Nm3, respectively. Furthermore, Ugwuanyi & Obi (2002) [66] observed that suspended
particulate matter at Benue Cement Company, Gboko was at 905 µg/Nm3, far exceeding
both national and international standards. A study by Temitope & Ogochukwu Elizabeth
(2014) [68] discovered the contamination of hawked food around a cement factory with
pathogenic bacteria. The study further revealed the presence of a high microbial load of

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Avg. Cd

Avg. Pb

Avg. Zn

Avg. Cu

Avg. Ni

Soil Dust Shale Limestone

Figure 6. Average levels of heavy metals around Sagamu cement area (in ppm).

The study further proposed that the voluminous metallic concentration in the soil
and soot emanated from unprocessed inputs adopted by cement makers and resultant
factory emissions. A study performed by A. N. (2012) [64] revealed that 30,435 disease
cases were linked to air pollution in Rivers State, and 61 of its patients were reported
dead. Prevalent diseases associated with the cases include: cerebrospinal meningitis (CSM),
pulmonary tuberculosis, upper respiratory tract infection (URT), pneumonia, measles,
pertussis, and chronic bronchitis. The environmental air quality was also reported to be
far worse than the WHO’s standard, and unsafe, posing health threats to residents (partic-
ulates = 10 ppm/year, SO2 = 1 ppm/year, Pb = 0.1115 ppm/year, NOx = 2.55 ppm/year,
VOCx = 82.78 ppm/year). This study implied that air pollution largely from industrial
emission has negatively forthrightly impacted public welfare. The aftermath of Ewekoro’s
kiln impurities was closely observed by Olaleye & Oluyemi (2010) [65] at some aquatic re-
ceptor places, and a considerable concentration of atmospheric deposition rates (ADRs) and
total suspended particulates (TSPs) was observed in the cement plant. The TSP and ADR
concentrations were significantly more (p < 0.05) amidst dryer weather compared to humid periods. Furthermore, in the study, airborne particulates contain substantially greater concentration (p < 0.05) of trace elements such as lead (Pb+), zinc (Zn2+), and manganese (Mn2+). Similarly, Ugwuanyi & Obi (2002) [66] examined the adverse health consequences of environmental contaminants from cement industries on small-scale peasants in Nigeria’s Benue State. The research observed data from hospitals and correlated them with emissions from the vicinity of the plant. Diseases predominant amongst the community include allergic asthma allergies, impaired eyesight, chronic bronchitis, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), lung inflammation, and pulmonic tuberculosis. He concluded that the measurable atmospheric effects of hospitalized persons relative to sicknesses suggest that pollutants have begun dampening living quality and people’s productivities.

A.J. (2013) [67] observed that the particulate matter concentrations from Obajana
cement plant measured by its Health and Safety Department using the SKC portable partic-
ulate sampler at several industry sites for years 2010 and 2011 were 260 µg/Nm3 and 500
µg/Nm3, respectively. Furthermore, Ugwuanyi & Obi (2002) [66] observed that suspended
particulate matter at Benue Cement Company, Gboko was at 905 µg/Nm3, far exceeding
both national and international standards. A study by Temitope & Ogochukwu Elizabeth
(2014) [68] discovered the contamination of hawked food around a cement factory with
pathogenic bacteria. The study further revealed the presence of a high microbial load of bac-
terial pathogens, namely Salmonella sp., Shigella sp., Bacillus sp., Klebsiella sp., Escherichia
coli, Pseudomonas sp., Proteus sp., Micrococcus sp., Staphylococcus sp., Streptococcus sp.,

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 13 of 16

Streptococcus pyogenes, etc. in hawked food sold around a cement factory in Lokoja. The
high microbial load in the food ranges from 6.2–3.3 × 105 cfu/g, showing the likelihood of
incidence of these organisms dispersed by dust from the cement plant onto the hawked
food. Other research has indicated the clustering of suspended PMs and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) exceeding guidelines in stations around Cement depots in Port Harcourt. Using
a collection of impingers possessing bubbler tools and automated gas monitors, the out-
come of concentrated SPM for Atlas cement fluctuated within 678.9–996.2 µg/m3 and
between 7.8–20.0 µg/m3 for NO2. For Eagle cement, SPM concentrations were extremely
varied between 607.7–23,198.5 µg/m3 and 27.45–140.7 µg/m3 for NO2. This gives rise
to damaging environmental and serious public unhealthiness distress as concrete SPM
toxins emanate from cement unpacking, transportation, storing, and stacking onto carriage
vans [69]. Otaru et al. (2013) [70] indicated that the simulated safety distance for human
settlement is 7 km from a cement production plant, having utilized the Gaussian predictive
model to measure the levels of particulate dissemination. This has negatively affected the
populace around a cement plant as they are forced into settlement migration for greener
pasture. The simulated outcomes agreed with experimental results at an average value of
92% within a Gaussian distance of 200–2000 m. These simulated findings reveal that the
atmospheric cluster covering around 1.5–4.5 km from the heap exceeds the WHO yearly
average yardstick of 260 µg/m3, and 2–4 km from the stockpile likewise surpassed the
Nigerian Federal Ministry of Environmental criterion annual average of 500 µg/m3.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, this work reviews the effect of air and water pollutants from cement
production on humans, plants, and its environment. There is satisfactory evidence to link
the negative health impact of cement production on public health. Cement manufacturing
involves the significant production of SO2, NOx, and CO, which are connected to adverse
health effects on humans. Sensitive populations such as infants, the aged, and persons
having lung ailments including asthmatics, emphysema, or bronchitis, are seen to be most
affected. Consequently, in addressing this challenge, growing interests in enacting carbon
capture, usage, and storage in the cement industry are expected to alleviate the negative
environmental impact of cement production. Still, no carbon capture technology is yet to
achieve commercialization in the cement industry. Nonetheless, huge advancement has
been made in recent years with the advent of vital research in sorption-enhanced water
gas shift, underground gasification combined cycle, ammonium hydroxide solution, and
the microbial-induced synthesis of calcite for CO2 capture and storage, all considered
sustainable and feasible in cement production.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10
.3390/atmos12091111/s1, Figure S1: Carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions from 1970 to 2019 in Nigeria
and other countries, Figure S2: Carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions from 1970 to 2019 in Nigeria [22],
Figure S3: Methane (CH4) emissions from 1970 to 2019 in Nigeria [22], Figure S4: Nitrous Oxide
Emissions (N2O) from 1970 to 2019 in Nigeria [22], Figure S5: Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (F-gases):
HFCs, PFCs and SF6 Emission in Nigeria [22].

Author Contributions: The authors declare no conflict of interest Conceptualization: D.O., K.B.;
Methodology, software, and validation: M.-A.E.; Writing—Original draft: M.-A.E., J.L.; Writing—
review and editing: M.-A.E. and K.B.; Supervision: D.O. The authors disclose that no conflicting
personal or financial interests exist which could interfere with this research’s findings in any way. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.

https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/atmos12091111/s1

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 14 of 16

Acknowledgments: The authors wholeheartedly appreciate the Chancellor and Managerial team of
Covenant University for making this medium accessible for research publications.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Adeniran, J.A.; Yusuf, R.O.; Fakinle, B.S.; Sonibare, J.A. Air quality assessment and modelling of pollutants emission from a major

cement plant complex in Nigeria. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2019, 10, 257–266. [CrossRef]
2. Oni, A.; Fadare, D.; Adeboye, L. Thermoeconomic and environmental analyses of a dry process cement manufacturing in Nigeria.

Energy 2017, 135, 128–137. [CrossRef]
3. Dunuweera, S.P.; Rajapakse, R.M.G. Cement Types, Composition, Uses and Advantages of Nanocement, Environmental Impact

on Cement Production, and Possible Solutions. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 2018, 1–11. [CrossRef]
4. Arachchige, U.S.; Amakm, A.; Balasuriya, B.M.C.M.; Chathumini, K.K.G.L.; Dassanayake, N.P.; Devasurendra, J.W. Environmental

Pollution by Cement Industry. Int. J. Res. 2019, 6, 631–635.
5. Schneider, M.; Romer, M.; Tschudin, M.; Bolio, H. Sustainable cement production—present and future. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41,

642–650. [CrossRef]
6. U. National Minerals Information Center, “CEMENT”. 2020. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/

mcs2020-cement (accessed on 6 January 2021).
7. International Energy Agency (IEA). Cement Technology Roadmap Plots Path to Cutting CO2 Emissions 24% by 2050. 2018.

Available online: https://www.iea.org/news/cement-technology-roadmap-plots-path-to-cutting-co2-emissions-24-by-2050
(accessed on 6 January 2021).

8. Global Cement. CEMENT 101—An

Introduction

to the World’s Most Important Building Material. 2011. Available on-
line: https://www.globalcement.com/magazine/articles/490-cement-101-an-introduction-to-the-worlds-most-important-
building-material (accessed on 6 January 2021).

9. Ndefo, O. The contribution of the nigerian cement industry to global warming. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2012, 4, 4691–4694.
10. Raw Material Research and Development Council. Chemical Analysis of Major Limestone and Marble in Nigeria.
11. WHO. 9 Out of 10 People Worldwide Breathe Polluted Air, but More Countries Are Taking Action. 2018. Available on-

line: https://www.who.int/news/item/02-05-2018-9-out-of-10-people-worldwide-breathe-polluted-air-but-more-countries-
are-taking-action (accessed on 6 January 2021).

12. Sánchez-Soberón, F.; Rovira, J.; Mari, M.; Sierra, J.; Nadal, M.; Domingo, J.L.; Schuhmacher, M. Main components and human
health risks assessment of PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 in two areas influenced by cement plants. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 120, 109–116.
[CrossRef]

13. Adeyanju, E.; Okeke, C.A.U. Exposure effect to cement dust pollution: A mini review. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 1572. [CrossRef]
14. Olaniyi, O.A.; Olutimehin, I.O.; Funmilayo, O.A. Review of climate change and its effect on Nigeria ecosystem. Int. J. Rural Dev.

Environ. Health Res. 2019, 3. [CrossRef]
15. Salas, D.A.; Ramirez, A.D.; Rodriguez, C.; Petroche, D.M.; Boero, A.; Duque-Rivera, J. Environmental impacts, life cycle

assessment and potential improvement measures for cement production: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 114–122.
[CrossRef]

16. Ministry of Mines and Steel Development. Nigeria’s Mining and Metal Sector—Investment Promotion Brochure. 2017. Available
online: https://www.minesandsteel.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Nigeria-Ministry-of-Solid-Minerals-Investment-
BrochureV14 (accessed on 11 January 2021).

17. Shakirat, A.; Oluwashina, A. Nigeria Cement Sector Update—Increasing Competition amid Long-term Opportunities. 2019.
Available online: https://www.unitedcapitalplcgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Nigeria-Cement-Sector-Update-3.
pdf (accessed on 10 January 2021).

18. USGS. What is the Difference between Global Warming and Climate Change? 2021. Available online: https://www.usgs.
gov/faqs/what-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change-1?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_
products (accessed on 8 January 2021).

19. Raajasubramanian, D.; Sundaramoorthy, P.; Baskaran, L.; Ganesh, K.S.; Chidambaram, A.A.; Jeganathan, M. Cement dust
pollution on growth and yield attributes of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Int. Multidiscip. Res. J. 2011, 1, 31–36.

20. Garg, A.; Shukla, P.; Bhattacharya, S.; Dadhwal, V. Sub-region (district) and sector level SO2 and NOx emissions for India:
Assessment of inventories and mitigation flexibility. Atmos. Environ. 2001, 35, 703–713. [CrossRef]

21. Wilson, J.; Law, S. Global Warming; Magpie Books: London, UK, 2007.
22. Olivier, J.G.J.; Peters, J.A.H.W. Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2020. Report. Available online:

www.pbl.nl/en (accessed on 7 January 2021).
23. Hossain, U.; Poon, C.S.; Lo, I.M.C.; Cheng, J.C. Comparative LCA on using waste materials in the cement industry: A Hong Kong

case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120, 199–208. [CrossRef]
24. Ighalo, J.O.; Adeniyi, A.G. A perspective on environmental sustainability in the cement industry. Waste Dispos. Sustain. Energy

2020, 2, 1–4. [CrossRef]

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2018.07.010

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.06.114

http://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4158682

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.019

https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020-cement

https://www.iea.org/news/cement-technology-roadmap-plots-path-to-cutting-co2-emissions-24-by-2050

https://www.globalcement.com/magazine/articles/490-cement-101-an-introduction-to-the-worlds-most-important-building-material

https://www.who.int/news/item/02-05-2018-9-out-of-10-people-worldwide-breathe-polluted-air-but-more-countries-are-taking-action

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.08.020

http://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1583-0

http://doi.org/10.22161/ijreh.3.3.3

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.078

https://www.minesandsteel.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Nigeria-Ministry-of-Solid-Minerals-Investment-BrochureV14

https://www.unitedcapitalplcgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Nigeria-Cement-Sector-Update-3

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change-1?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

http://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00316-2

www.pbl.nl/en

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.12.012

http://doi.org/10.1007/s42768-020-00043-y

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 15 of 16

25. Feiz, R.; Ammenberg, J.; Baas, L.; Eklund, M.; Helgstrand, A.; Marshall, R. Improving the CO2 performance of cement, part I:
Utilizing life-cycle assessment and key performance indicators to assess development within the cement industry. J. Clean. Prod.
2015, 98, 272–281. [CrossRef]

26. Hamouda, A.S.; Eldien, M.; Abadir, M. Carbon dioxide capture by ammonium hydroxide solution and its possible application in
cement industry. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2020, 11, 1061–1067. [CrossRef]

27. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Cement Technology Roadmap, Paris. 2009. Available online:
https://cement.mineralproducts.org/documents/wbcsd-iea%20cement%20roadmap%202009 (accessed on 3 August 2021).

28. Wang, T.; Hovland, J.; Jens, K.J. Amine reclaiming technologies in post-combustion carbon dioxide capture. J. Environ. Sci. 2015,
27, 276–289. [CrossRef]

29. Feng, Y.; Yang, B.; Hou, Y.; Duan, T.-H.; Yang, L.; Wang, Y. Comparative environmental benefits of power generation from
underground and surface coal gasification with carbon capture and storage. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 310, 127383. [CrossRef]

30. Shen, L.; Gao, T.; Zhao, J.; Wang, L.; Wang, L.; Liu, L.; Chen, F.; Xue, J. Factory-level measurements on CO2 emission factors of
cement production in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 34, 337–349. [CrossRef]

31. Çankaya, S.; Pekey, B. A comparative life cycle assessment for sustainable cement production in Turkey. J. Environ. Manag. 2019,
249, 109362. [CrossRef]

32. Valderrama, C.; Granados, R.; Cortina, J.L.; Gasol, C.M.; Guillem, M.; Josa, A. Implementation of best available techniques in
cement manufacturing: A life-cycle assessment study. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 25, 60–67. [CrossRef]

33. Galvez-Martos, J.-L.; Schoenberger, H. An analysis of the use of life cycle assessment for waste co-incineration in cement kilns.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 86, 118–131. [CrossRef]

34. Georgiopoulou, M.; Lyberatos, G. Life cycle assessment of the use of alternative fuels in cement kilns: A case study. J. Environ.
Manag. 2018, 216, 224–234. [CrossRef]

35. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment in a Developing Country. 2012, pp. 481–494. Available online:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=z-uZDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA481&ots=pbRxU74Q8E&sig=HwLEw5
llFFLospqJUdnL3tYs7VQ (accessed on 16 March 2021).

36. Ighalo, J.O.; Adeniyi, A.G. A comprehensive review of water quality monitoring and assessment in Nigeria. Chemosphere 2020,
260, 127569. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

37. Ekere, N.R.; Agbazue, V.E.; Ngang, B.U.; Ihedioha, J.N. Hydrochemistry and Water Quality Index of groundwater resources in
Enugu north district, Enugu, Nigeria. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

38. Olukanni, D.O.; Ebuetse, M.A.; Anake, W.U. Drinking Water Quality and Sanitation Issues: A Survey of a Semi-Urban Setting in
Nigeria. 2014. Available online: http://covenantuniversity.edu.ng/Profiles/OLUKANNI-David-O (accessed on 16 March 2021).

39. Omole, D.O.; Isiorho, S.A. Waste Management and Water Quality Issues in Coastal States of Nigeria. The Ogun State Experience.
J. Sustain. Dev. Afr. 2011, 13, 1–11.

40. Inegbenebor, A.I.; Mordi, R.C.; Idowu, A.O.; Siyanbola, T.O.; Akanle, B.; Evbuoma, I.K.; Inegbenebor, A.O. Consequences of the
activities of a Nigerian cement industry on the environment. Int. J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2018, 7, 67–74.

41. Seiyaboh, E.I. A Review of Impacts of Gas Flaring on Vegetation and Water Resources in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. Int. J.
Econ. Energy Environ. 2017, 2, 48. [CrossRef]

42. Galadima, A.; Garba, Z.N.; Leke, L.; Almustapha, M.N. Domestic Water Pollution among Local Communities in Nigeria-Causes
and Consequences. 2011. Available online: http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm (accessed on 16 March 2021).

43. Izah, S.C.; Srivastav, A.L. Level of arsenic in potable water sources in Nigeria and their potential health impacts: A review
Scientifc research production of India and China in environmental chemistry: A bibliometric assessment View project Level of
arsenic in potable water sources in Nigeria and their potential health impacts: A review. J. Environ. Treat. Tech. 2015, 3, 15–24.

44. Umoh, J.; Ikwa, L.; Uchendu, U. Effects of effluent discharge on man and soil ecosystem in Calabar, south southern Nigeria. J.
Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2019, 23, 1061. [CrossRef]

45. Sesugh, A.; Idowu, O.E.; Titus, A.; Zack, A.; Mavis, O.; Joseph, T. Physicochemical and Heavy Metal Analysis of Well Water
obtained from Selected Settlements around Dangote Cement Factory in Gboko, Nigeria. ChemSearch J. 2019, 10, 94–99.

46. Meme, F.K.; Arimoro, F.O.; Nwadukwe, F.O. Analyses of Physical and Chemical Parameters in Surface Waters nearby a Cement
Factory in North Central, Nigeria. J. Environ. Prot. 2014, 5, 826–834. [CrossRef]

47. Parithielamvazhuthi, R. Analysis of Air Pollutant Emission and Control System in Cement Industries around Ariyalur District.
2013. Available online: www.ijsr.net (accessed on 13 January 2021).

48. Ibanga, I.J.; Umoh, N.B.; Iren, O.B. Effects of Cement Dust on Soil Chemical Properties in the Calabar Environment, Southeastern
Nigeria. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2008, 39, 551–558. [CrossRef]

49. Maina, H.M.; Egila, J.N.; Nkafamiya, I.I.; Shagal, M.H. Impact of cement dust deposition on the elemental composition of soils in
the vicinity of Ashaka cement factory, Nigeria. Int. Res. J. Agric. Sci. Soil Sci. 2013, 3, 66–74.

50. Egbe, E.R.; Nsonwu-Anyanwu, A.C.; Offor, S.J.; Opara Usoro, C.A.; Etukudo, M.H. Heavy metal content of the soil in the vicinity
of the united cement factory in Southern Nigeria. J. Adv. Environ. Health Res. 2019, 7, 122–130. [CrossRef]

51. Asubiojo, O.I.; Aina, P.O.; Oluwole, A.F.; Arshed, W.; Akanle, O.A.; Spyrou, N.M. Effects of cement production on the elemental
composition of soils in the neighborhood of two cement factories. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1991, 57, 819–828. [CrossRef]

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.083

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.01.001

https://cement.mineralproducts.org/documents/wbcsd-iea%20cement%20roadmap%202009

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2014.06.037

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127383

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.03.025

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109362

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.055

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.02.009

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.017

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=z-uZDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA481&ots=pbRxU74Q8E&sig=HwLEw5llFFLospqJUdnL3tYs7VQ

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127569

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32688315

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7271-0

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30739211

http://covenantuniversity.edu.ng/Profiles/OLUKANNI-David-O

http://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20170204.11

http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm

http://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v23i6.10

http://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2014.510085

www.ijsr.net

http://doi.org/10.1080/00103620701826829

http://doi.org/10.22102/JAEHR.2019.142404.1096

http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00282945

Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1111 16 of 16

52. Wufem, M.B.; Ibrahim, A.Q.; Maina, H.M.; Nangbes, J.G.; Nvau, J.B. Speciation of Some Heavy Metals in Soils Around a Cement
Factory in Gombe State, Nigeria. Available online: http://repository.plasu.ngren.edu.ng:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/346
(accessed on 12 January 2021).

53. Hua, S.; Tian, H.; Wang, K.; Zhu, C.; Gao, J.; Ma, Y.; Xue, Y.; Wang, Y.; Duan, S.; Zhou, J. Atmospheric emission inventory of
hazardous air pollutants from China’s cement plants: Temporal trends, spatial variation characteristics and scenario projections.
Atmos. Environ. 2016, 128, 1–9. [CrossRef]

54. Zhang, T.; Wu, C.; Li, B.; Wang, J.; Ravat, R.; Chen, X.; Wei, J.; Yu, Q. Linking the SO2 emission of cement plants to the sulfur
characteristics of their limestones: A study of 80 NSP cement lines in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 200–211. [CrossRef]

55. Amin, R.M. A study of radon emitted from building materials using solid state nuclear track detectors. J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci.
2015, 8, 516–522. [CrossRef]

56. Abdul-Wahab, S.A. Impact of fugitive dust emissions from cement plants on nearby communities. Ecol. Model. 2006, 195, 338–348.
[CrossRef]

57. Gbadebo, A.; Amos, A. Assessment of Radionuclide Pollutants in Bedrocks and Soils from Ewekoro Cement Factory, Southwest
Nigeria. Asian J. Appl. Sci. 2010, 3, 135–144. [CrossRef]

58. Cassee, F.R.; Héroux, M.-E.; Gerlofs-Nijland, M.E.; Kelly, F.J. Particulate matter beyond mass: Recent health evidence on the role
of fractions, chemical constituents and sources of emission. Inhal. Toxicol. 2013, 25, 802–812. [CrossRef]

59. Schlesinger, R.B. The Health Impact of Common Inorganic Components of Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) in Ambient Air: A
Critical Review. Inhal. Toxicol. 2007, 19, 811–832. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

60. World Bank. A Plea for Action against Pollution in Nigeria. 2015. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/
feature/2015/06/16/in-lagos-nigeria-a-plea-for-action-against-pollution (accessed on 13 January 2021).

61. Croitoru, L.; Chang, J.C.; Kelly, A. The Cost of Air Pollution in Lagos. 2020. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.
org/handle/10986/33038 (accessed on 12 January 2021).

62. Emetere, M.; Dania, E. Short review on air pollution from cement factories. J. Physics Conf. Ser. 2019, 1299, 012033. [CrossRef]
63. Abimbola, A.F.; Kehinde-Phillips, O.O.; Olatunji, A. The Sagamu cement factory, SW Nigeria: Is the dust generated a potential

health hazard? Environ. Geochem. Health 2007, 29, 163–167. [CrossRef]
64. Nwachukwu, A.N.; Chukwuocha, E.O.; Igbudu, O. A survey on the effects of air pollution on diseases of the people of Rivers

State, Nigeria. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 6, 371–379. [CrossRef]
65. Olaleye, V.F.; Oluyemi, E.A. Effects of cement flue dusts from a Nigerian cement plant on air, water and planktonic quality.

Environ. Monit. Assess. 2009, 162, 153–162. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Ugwuanyi, J.U.; Obi, F.C. A Survey of Health Effects Of Air Pollution On Peasant Farmers In Benue State, Nigeria. Int. J. Environ.

Stud. 2002, 59, 665–677. [CrossRef]
67. Otaru, A.J.; Odigure, J.O.; Okafor, J.O.; Abdulkareem, A.S. Investigation into Particulate Pollutant Concentration From A Cement

Plant: A Case Study Of Obajana Cement Plc, Lokoja, Nigeria. IOSR J. Environ. Sci. Toxicol. Food Technol. 2013, 3, 56–62. [CrossRef]
68. Temitope, P.; Ogochukwu, E.I. Impact of Air Pollution on the Microbiological Quality of Ready to Eat Hawked Foods Sold around

a Cement Factory in Lokoja, Nigeria. 2014. Available online: www.usa-journals.com (accessed on 12 January 2021).
69. Ideriah, T.; O Stanley, H. Air quality around some cement industries in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Sci. Afr. 2009, 7, 27–34. [CrossRef]
70. Otaru, O.; Okafor, J.O.; Abdulkareem, A.S. Model Prediction of Particulate Dispersion from a Cement Mill Stack: Case Study of a

Cement Plant in Nigeria. 2013. Available online: www.Iosrjournals.Org (accessed on 12 January 2021).

http://repository.plasu.ngren.edu.ng:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/346

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.12.056

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.133

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras.2015.06.001

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.11.044

http://doi.org/10.3923/ajaps.2010.135.144

http://doi.org/10.3109/08958378.2013.850127

http://doi.org/10.1080/08958370701402382

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17687714

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/06/16/in-lagos-nigeria-a-plea-for-action-against-pollution

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33038

http://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1299/1/012033

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-006-9068-7

http://doi.org/10.5897/ajest12.024

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-0783-2

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19247792

http://doi.org/10.1080/00207230214400

http://doi.org/10.9790/2402-0325662

www.usa-journals.com

http://doi.org/10.4314/sa.v7i2.46013

www.Iosrjournals.Org

The Growing Nigerian Cement Industry
Cement Production on Climate Change and Global Warming

Impacts of Water Pollution from Cement Production on Public Health

Impacts of Air Pollution from Cement Production on Public Health
Conclusions

References

Climate change

The knobs that control earth’s climate:
• Atmospheric composition (greenhouse effect)
• Amount of solar radiation (luminosity)
• What parts of Earth get radiation (orbit)
• Atmospheric and ocean circulation
• Earth’s albedo (fraction of solar energy reflected off earth’s

surface)
• Volcanoes
• Plate tectonics

Let’s learn about the fourth and very important climate knob:
Atmospheric and Ocean circulation.

Modern Insolation

As we learned in week 3, the amount of energy received from the sun per unit
area varies with la:tude because of the curvature of the Earth’s surface.
Modern insola:on is also affected by the shape of the Earth. This figure shows
varia:on of incoming solar energy with la:tude. The energy from the Sun
radiates outward in all direc:ons; however, by the :me the Sun’s rays reach
Earth, they are essen:ally parallel to each other. This means that the flux of
solar energy passing perpendicularly through the plane A-B on the right hand
side of the figure will be the same at any point. For example, the three “beams”
in the diagram are equal in solar flux when they pass through the plane A-B.
Because of the curvature of Earth, however, when these beams reach the top
of Earth’s atmosphere, the same amount of light is spread over a much larger
area at the poles than the equator. Consequently, each unit area of surface
receives propor:onately less energy at the higher la:tudes, and the incoming
solar flux thus decreases from the equator toward the poles.

Zonal Radiation Balance

The solar radiation absorbed at the surface of the Earth follows the same general pattern
as described in the previous slide, although the actual amount absorbed varies with
cloud cover and atmospheric absorption. This equator-to-pole gradient in the energy
absorbed at the surface exerts a primary control on Earth’s climate. The energy moves
from a higher to lower (warm to cold) energy status. So the basic energy on Earth’s
surface is shown in the left figure. The right figure shows this incoming energy gradient
(orange solid curve) as a function of latitude (i.e. the amount averaged around each
latitude band). As you might expect, the maximum absorbed solar energy is found in the
tropics, and the available solar energy decreases rapidly as we move toward the poles.
This gradient in absorbed solar energy is the single most important control on
temperature! More energy is generally available at the equator than at the poles, so we
can assume that temperatures should be highest in the tropics and lowest at high
latitudes. The same figure also shows the latitudinal distribution of infrared radiation
emitted from Earth to space (gray solid curve). The higher emissions in the tropics are a
result of the high surface temperatures there. Please note that in the tropics, there is
more incoming radiation than actual emission (blackbody radiation). In higher latitudes,
there is more back radiation (gray solid curve) than incoming radiation.

The difference between the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing terrestrial
radiation is referred to as net radiation. In the right figure, note that the energy
absorbed exceeds the energy emitted in the tropics (net radiation is positive); near the
poles, the reverse is true (net radiation is negative). This distribution of available energy
is a permanent feature of Earth’s climate system. The excess amount of energy is
effectively transferred through air (wind) and water (ocean current).

(continue)

(continued)

So, here is a fact: the energy is transferred from high (warm) to low (cool). Think of
this as your cup of hot coffee becoming as cold as room temperature. The pole-to-
equator gradient shown in both right and left figures seem to imply that the tropics
should get cooler while the poles get progressively warmer. But clearly, this does
not happen. Other processes must be operating to ensure an energy balance at
each latitude!

Further reading:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7j.html

Convergence, divergence, and the

adley circulation in the tropics

So, what is really happening in the atmosphere? The figure shows what is
called “Hadley circulation” – vertical and horizontal air circulation within the
troposphere.

Let’s begin with the heating in the tropics. The large solar input to the tropics
heats the surface, which in turn heats the overlying air. When heated from
below, air will rise by convection. The tropical air near the surface rises,
creating a low-pressure region there. But we know from our everyday weather
forecasts that air tends to move horizontally from an area of higher pressure to
an area of lower pressure (this is known as pressure gradient force: PGF).
Thus, the rising air is replaced by surface air moving equatorward into the
region of low pressure from regions of higher pressure. The merging of air
masses that are moving inward toward a low-pressure region is called
convergence. The converging air masses that meet at the tropics and rise make
up the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ). The surface heating produces
evaporation in addition to convection. As the convection air rises, it cools, and
the evaporated water (water vapor) in the convecting column condenses to
form clouds. As a consequence, the ITCZ is characterized by extensive areas of
cloud cover and heavy precipitation.

(continue)

We can see the ITCZ from space – thick cloud coverage near the equator exists
due to the convergence of warm moist air and the formation of cloud!

Convergence, divergence, and the
Hadley circula4on in the tropics

(continued)

The top of the troposphere, located at about 12-15 km in the tropics, forms a barrier
to further uplift (because, unlike within the troposphere, temperatures generally
increase with height in the stratosphere, which prevents convection of air from
below). The air that rises in the ITCZ, upon reaching this barrier, is forced to diverge
poleward. Divergence, in this case, refers to the movement of air outward from a
region in the atmosphere.

This poleward-moving air cools and subsides at about 30N and 30S latitude, creating a
high-pressure region and replacing the air that is moving equator-ward at the surface.
The air warms as it sinks, which prevents condensation from occurring and clouds
from forming. As a result, these regions (of divergence) are characterized by clear
skies and low rainfall amounts.

This pattern of air movement, with convergence occurring in the tropics and
divergence and subsidence occurring some 30 degrees away in one large convection
cell, is called Hadley circulation. This circulation pattern was named for George
Hadley, the British meteorologist who first explained this phenomenon. The
convection cells on either side of the equator, referred to as Hadley cells, represent
the dominant north-south mode of circulation between 30N and 30S latitude.

Convergence, divergence, and the
Hadley circulation in the tropics

Please note that the Hadley cells – and the ITCZ – are not continuous around the
globe. The circulation takes place in individual cells of rising and subsiding air, and
the pattern is further broken up by land-ocean contrasts. The ITCZ is most obvious
in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and is readily observed in satellite images. The
large-scale circulation, on the other hand, in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean
is dominated by the monsoon, and will be described later this semester.

If you check an atlas, you will find that the areas of divergence coincide with some
of the world’s largest deserts (e.g., the Sahara and Arabian deserts and the Great
Australian Desert). A line of convective clouds marks the ITCZ just north of the
equator. The clear areas to the north and south of the ITCZ mark the descending
arms of the Hadley cells!

This is a 2-D view of the wind pattern shown in previous slides. There are broken
up pieces of cells approximately at equator, 30N and 30S, and 60N and 60S,
where surface winds move in opposite directions (due to Hadley circulation).
Here is a possible model of the surface wind patterns on a globe. Surface winds
blow out of the high-pressure zones at the poles and at 30N and 30S and blow
toward the low-pressure zones at the equator and in the mid-latitudes.

But as we all know, this is not a representative pattern of the predominant wind
(called prevailing wind). The actual pattern is more complicated as you see in the
following slide…

Global Winds

Westerlies

90°N
(North Pole)

90°S
(South Pole)

60°N

30°N

0° (Equator)

30°S

60°S

Polar Easterlies

Polar Front

Trade Winds
NE Trade Winds

Trade Winds
SE Trade Winds

subtropical high
“horse latitudes”

rising
air masses

rising
air masses
L

sinking
air masses

sinking
air masses
H
H
H

In reality, surface winds tend to blow in east-west directions as well. Indeed, the
east-west motions are considerably greater than the north-south motions.

Why?

These strong east-west movements are caused by….

(continue)

Global Wind

• There must be a another force acting on the
atmosphere.

It�s called the Coriolis Effect

• The Pressure Gradient Force (PGF) and the Coriolis
Effect work together to make the winds blow

(continued)

… Coriolis Effect (Force)!
So, the importance for global wind is to understand;
1) the pressure gradient force, which initiates the wind blowing, and
2) the Coriolis Effect, which impacts the direction of the wind.

merry-go-round

The person on the
outside (#1) travels

faster than the person
on the inside (#2)

How does Earth�s
rotation cause the

Coriolis Effect?

East-west movements of surface winds are the result of the Coriolis effect. The
Coriolis effect – named for Gaspard Gustav de Coriolis, the French
mathematician who in 1835 proposed that the concept applies to surface winds
– is the apparent tendency for a fluid (air or water) moving across Earth’s
surface to be deflected from its straight-line path.

Coriolis Force, in relation to its effect, is only an apparent force due to the
observer’s frame of reference, not a real force due to an identifiable source,
such as the gravitational pull of a planet.

Viewed from the space, a north-south moving object appears to be deflected to

the east or west, because, just like riding on a marry-go-round, an object in the

equator travels the fastest (approximately 464 m/sec) and it slows down as we

move to the North (or South) Pole. Viewed from space, the same object is in

fact seen move in a straight line. The apparent curve that we see is the result of

our frame of reference – we normally view the object’s movement from within

the system.

The Coriolis effect applies to any object moving on a rotating body!

Order a unique copy of this paper

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

600 words

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM

Total price:

$26

Our Services

Geography discussion 2

Order a unique copy of this paper