The cement industry accounts for approximately 8% of global anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, primarily due to limestone calcination (50%–60% of emissions), fossil fuel combustion for high-temperature processing (30%–40% of emissions), and electricity consumption (≈20% of emissions). Meeting carbon-neutrality targets by 2050, in accordance with international climate commitments, requires emission reductions throughout the cement production chain from raw material extraction to the end-of-life of cement-based structures. In response, the cement industry has adopted multiple decarbonization strategies, including the partial substitution of clinker with alternative materials such as Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs) [1,2], development of alternative binders such as Limestone Calcined Clay Cement (LC³) [3,4], and alkali-activated binders [5], and recycled cement [6]. Additional measures include the use of alternative fuels, the electrification of production processes [7,8], and the implementation of Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU) technologies [9]. Still, the urgent need highlights the demand for effective CO₂ sinks to mitigate carbon emissions from the cement industry. It is known that cementitious materials naturally absorb atmospheric CO₂ through slow carbonation reactions with hydrated cement phases [10]. The natural carbonation process starts at the exposed surface and gradually moves inward in a slow, diffusion-controlled manner [11]. Since the carbonated layer reduces CO₂ diffusion and limits the inherent carbonation potential of cement-based materials, the carbonation is initially restricted to a relatively thin layer near the exposed surface [12]. Therefore, the carbonation rate is insufficient to deliver a substantial reduction in emissions within the immediate timelines for achieving carbon neutrality [13]. Accelerated carbonation, by contrast, intentionally intensifies this reaction under controlled conditions, enabling rapid and considerable CO₂ uptake and positioning this approach as a practical short-term decarbonization pathway for the cement industry [14,15].

In this context, the present review aims to identify the most effective methods for CO₂ uptake using construction material, addressing the urgent need to reduce the cement industry’s carbon footprint. CO₂ uptake using concrete with a specific focus on (i) CO₂ injection into fresh concrete and (ii) CO₂ curing of concrete will be evaluated. Additionally, the potential of ceramic waste materials as a considerable fraction of construction and demolition waste (CDW) in CO₂ sequestration will be assessed. Moreover, this review assesses the industrial adaptations required for each CO₂ capture technology, focusing on the process modifications needed for large-scale implementation while accounting for both technical and economic factors. The final goal and key innovation of this work is to identify sustainable, actionable strategies that can significantly reduce the environmental impact of cement production by integrating CO₂ absorption into the cementitious product throughout the value chain. It is worth noting that, among the three techniques evaluated in this review, the use of concrete for CO₂ capture is the most extensively investigated, whereas the other approaches are more recent and remain less explored.

As mentioned previously, this work aims to identify the most effective methods for CO₂ uptake using construction materials, with a specific focus on CO₂ injection into fresh concrete, CO₂ curing of concrete, and CO₂ absorption by ceramic waste materials.

Therefore, first, the literature searches focused on the mechanism of CO₂ capture by cementitious materials. Then, advances in CO₂ capture using cementitious materials were explored to cover all innovative solutions in the field. Lastly, the industrial implementation of the three techniques was covered. The literature exploration was conducted using the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases, focusing on original research published between 2000 and 2025 that reported quantitative or qualitative data on CO₂ sequestration in cementitious materials, concrete, or ceramics. Search keywords included combinations of CO₂ capture, CO₂ curing, CO₂ uptake, CO₂ sequestration, CO₂ absorption mechanism, chemical absorption, CO₂ capture efficiency, cement industry, concrete industry, fresh mix, fresh concrete, concrete curing, and ceramic waste. As a result, a wide spectrum of references using CO₂ mineralisation methods has been retrieved for cementitious materials, including accelerated carbonation of aggregates, direct aqueous carbonation of industrial byproducts and waste, bio-mineralisation via microorganisms, end-of-life concrete carbonation, CO₂ capture and mineralisation by ceramics, especially via incorporating ceramic demolition waste into cementitious systems, and enforced carbonation during mixing. To follow the objective of this review, the inclusion criteria were studies that directly investigated cementitious or ceramic-based materials for CO₂ capture, sequestration, or curing. Exclusion criteria comprised works unrelated to concrete/ceramics, unrelated to CO₂ capture, or lacking outcomes relevant to sequestration performance. After removing duplications, the initial search yielded a set of 350 documents linking to the subject. A two-step screening process was applied. First, titles, abstracts, and conclusions were screened for relevance. Second, an accurate classification process began, in which whole-text articles were assessed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A literature search using more specific keywords was repeated during the writing and revision processes whenever contradictory or unclear statements were encountered. This careful evaluation yielded a refined set of 129 research studies related to the topic; all published between 2000 and 2025. Of these, 62.5% were published between 2020 and 2025, 23% between 2015 and 2019, and only 7.5% between 2000 and 2014.

As mentioned previously, cement and concrete can naturally absorb atmospheric CO₂ through slow carbonation reactions. CO₂ uptake by concrete over its service life contributes directly to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and, in theory, enhances material strength by decreasing porosity [10]. Nevertheless, according to research carried out in Nordic countries, it would take 100 years to store 33%–57% of the CO₂ emissions from cement production in the year 2003, by natural carbonation [16]. Therefore, forced carbonation technologies in which cementitious materials are exposed to elevated concentrations of CO₂ are considered a more viable approach to contribute to short-term climate change mitigation than natural carbonation and have a positive impact on reducing CO₂ emissions [17,18].

Two established pathways for utilising CO₂ as a feedstock in concrete are: (i) injection of CO₂ into fresh concrete during the mixing stage, and (ii) curing of precast concrete in a CO₂-rich atmosphere. In both processes, the gaseous CO₂ is diffused and dissolved into the alkaline pore solution. The dissolved CO₂ further hydrolyses to bicarbonate (HCO₃⁻) and carbonate (CO₃²⁻) ions, which then react with calcium ions (Ca²⁺) released from hydrates into the pore solution and predominantly convert into solid calcium carbonate (CaCO₃). The carbonation of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)₂), which is generated during the hydration of tricalcium silicate (C₃S) and dicalcium silicate (C₂S) phases in Portland cement shown in Eq. (1) [10]. (1)CO2+Ca(OH)2→CaCO3+H2O

CO₂ can also react with calcium silicate hydrates (C–S–H), a primary product of cement hydration responsible for the strength and durability of concrete, forming silica gel according to Eq. (2) [16]. (2)CO2+C−S−H→CaCO3+SiO2+nH2O

Likewise, CO₂ react with unhydrated C₃S and C₂S, resulting at formation of CaCO₃ and silica gel according to the Eqs. (3) and (4) [10]. (3)3CaO⋅SiO2+H2O+3CO2→3CaCO3+SiO2+H2O (4)2CaO⋅SiO2+H2O+2CO2→3CaCO3+SiO2+H2O

It is worth mentioning that the reactions described by Eqs. (2)–(4) may adversely affect the mechanical properties of concrete, as the excessive precipitation of CaCO₃ within the pore structure may increase porosity or provoke the formation of microcracks. Moreover, early-age exposure to CO₂, when hydration is still in progress, can disrupt matrix development, restrict the formation of essential hydration products such as C–S–H, and lead to incomplete microstructural development [19,20]. Thus, precise control of parameters such as CO₂ partial pressure, temperature, relative humidity, exposure duration, and timing relative to hydration is crucial to balance CO₂ uptake with material quality. The influence of these parameters will be addressed in detail in the following chapters, providing a framework for optimising CO₂ curing to maximise both environmental and mechanical benefits. Fig. 1 shows the schematic representation of the carbonation reaction in cementitious materials.

In recent years, ceramic materials have been investigated as potential CO₂ uptake materials due to their favourable chemical composition and structural characteristics. As discussed previously, CO₂, when dissolved in water, forms an acidic solution that can react with basic alkali and alkaline-earth ceramics to form stable carbonates [91].

Therefore, researchers hypothesise that the alkali and alkaline-earth ceramics could be a potential material for CO₂ uptake [92,93]. The most studied ceramics include calcium and magnesium oxides (CaO and MgO, respectively), lithium orthosilicate (Li₄SiO₄), lithium metazirconate (Li₂ZrO₃), and sodium metazirconate (Na₂ZrO₃), which have demonstrated a capacity to capture CO₂ through adsorption or chemisorption mechanisms [91]. In the chemisorption mechanism, materials tend to be densified due to the formation of carbonation product layers (e.g., Na₂CO₃, Li₂CO₃) at the surface or interface, which can affect further CO₂ diffusion and uptake kinetics [94]. Sodium zirconosilicate (Na₂ZrSiO₅) [95], lithium silicates (e.g., Li₄SiO₄), and Na₂ZrO₃ are some examples of ceramics with the capacity of CO₂ sequestration by chemisorption [96].

Eqs. (5)–(7) demonstrate the reactions of CO₂ uptake through chemisorption with Na₂ZrO₃, Na₂ZrSiO₅, and Li₄SiO₄, respectively. In these reactions, the acid properties of CO₂ enable the extraction of an oxygen anion (O²⁻) from the ceramic, forming the CO₃²⁻ anion, which further reacts with the alkali or alkaline-earth cation (Na and Li) to form the corresponding carbonate salt. It is worth noting that the temperature ranges for the CO₂ uptake of Na₂ZrO₃, Na₂ZrSiO₅, and Li₄SiO₄ are reported to be 400°C–800°C, 1000°C–1100°C, and 500°C–600°C, respectively [97,98]. (5)Na2ZrO3+CO2→Na2CO3+ZrO2 (6)Na2ZrSiO5+CO2→Na2CO3+ZrSiO4 (7)Li4SiO4+CO2→Li2SiO3+Li2CO3

The process of CO₂ uptake begins at the ceramic material’s surface, where CO₂ molecules chemically react with the surface, forming strong chemical bonds (surface chemisorption).

Ida et al. [99] and Venegas et al. [100] explained the process of CO₂ chemisorption in ceramics using a dual-shell model, which accounts for the biphasic kinetic behaviour observed in ceramic CO₂ uptake. This model describes two sequential stages: (i) a rapid, chemically controlled surface chemisorption phase, and (ii) a slower, diffusion-controlled uptake phase. Based on this model, CO₂ absorption begins at the ceramic surface, where CO₂ molecules react chemically to form a layer of carbonate species (e.g., Li₂CO₃, Na₂CO₃) through direct surface chemisorption. This initial stage is characterised by fast reaction kinetics, driven by the strong chemical affinity between CO₂ and surface oxygen anions. Activation energies for this phase are typically in the range of 50–100 kJ/mol, depending on the cation type and particle size. In the second phase, as the carbonate product layer thickens, the rate-limiting step shifts from surface reaction to solid-state diffusion of CO₂ through the increasingly dense product shell. During this diffusion-controlled stage, lithium ions (Li⁺) and carbonate ions must migrate through the Li₂CO₃ product layer and any remaining intermediate silicate phases (e.g., Li₂SiO₃), which are generally less permeable than the original oxide precursor. Experimental and theoretical studies using TGA, XRD, and in situ FTIR confirm the formation of two distinct carbonate regions: an outer layer consisting primarily of surface carbonates (often mixed Li₂CO₃/Na₂CO₃) and an inner layer composed of residual unreacted oxide or mixed oxide–carbonate material. This structural evolution directly influences CO₂ diffusivity by creating pathways that facilitate or, in some cases, hinder ion transport.

It is worth noting that several factors, including the active surface area, particle size, composition, pressure, humidity, and gas mixture composition, affect the CO₂ uptake of ceramic materials. Calcium oxide (CaO) is considered to have a high potential due to its balance between its reactivity and industrial scalability. Additionally, other lithium- and sodium-based ceramic materials also demonstrate potential for CO₂ uptake [101].

While chemisorption through ceramic materials has potential for CO₂ uptake, it is important to consider whether regeneration of the ceramic material is intended, as it requires significant energy due to the strength of the chemical bonds formed [91,102]. If regeneration is not intended, carbonated ceramics can be directly repurposed as functional additives, SCM, or aggregates in construction materials (Fig. 4). This valorisation pathway offers a practical and circular solution for carbon management in the construction sector [103,104].

Ceramic materials can also capture CO₂ via adsorption. In this process, CO₂ molecules adhere to the surface of the ceramic material, forming weaker bonds such as Van der Waals or hydrogen bonds, making the process typically reversible. An example of this mechanism is represented in Eq. (8) [101]. (8)Mg−O(s)+CO2(g)→Mg−O…CO2(ads)

Ramírez-Moreno et al. [101] reported that the adsorption temperature of CO₂ on ceramic materials is typically below 400°C for porous materials with a large surface area (e.g., Layered Double Hydroxides). In such a condition, a significant anion-exchange capacity of 2–3 milliequivalents per gram (meq/g) and optimal thermal stability can be achieved.

Recently, studies have focused on the potential of ceramic waste materials for CO₂ uptake. These ceramics contain a high concentration of calcium- and magnesium-silicates, which react with CO₂. The silicate framework facilitates ion exchange and carbonate formation. The ion exchange mechanism during carbonation of silicate frameworks relies on the ability of the silicate mineral structure to release and replace cations. As mentioned previously, when CO₂ dissolves in water, it generates CO₃²⁻ and hydrogen ions (H⁺). These ions can be replaced by divalent cations such as Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺ within the silicate lattice. These released cations then react with CO₃²⁻ ions in solution to form stable mineral carbonates, such as CaCO₃ and MgCO₃ [105,106] (Eqs. (9)–(11)). (9)(Ca,Mg)–silicate(s)+2H+(aq)→(Ca,Mg)2+(aq)+SiO2(s)+H2O (10)(Ca,Mg)2+(aq)+HCO3−(aq)→(Ca,Mg)CO3(s)+H+(aq) (11)(Ca,Mg)2+(aq)+CO32−(aq)→(Ca,Mg)CO3(s)

Martín et al. [107] investigated the carbonation of ceramic bricks surrounded by common clay (marl) in a hermetically sealed reactor. The experimental procedure involved maintaining a CO₂ pressure of 0.5 bar, a temperature of 23°C, and a solid-to-liquid ratio of 4:1 (wet carbonation) for 5 months. The results showed the formation of calcite as the main carbonated phase, with wollastonite and anhydrite as the principal phases transformed during the reaction. A maximum CO₂ sequestration of 10 wt.% was obtained under these conditions.

Afterwards, Martín et al. [108] conducted a similar study in a pilot-scale system to simulate the carbonation of ceramic waste bricks in a reclaimed quarry environment. The system was evaluated at 5, 7, 9, and 12 months, and the results showed a progressive increase in CO₂ uptake. After CO₂ exposure, CO₂ uptakes of 17 and 23 wt.% were reported at 5 and 12 months, respectively. Mineralogical analyses confirmed the transformation of wollastonite and the formation of calcite during the carbonation process. Microstructural characterisation indicated that macroporosity increased due to mineral dissolution by carbonic acid, while microporosity decreased due to the precipitation of carbonate phases. These findings demonstrate that ceramic brick waste is suitable for CO₂ uptake under the conditions examined [108]. No studies have been identified on the reuse of carbonated ceramic waste in cementitious materials. However, two notable projects in Italy have explored the material’s potential for CCU within the ceramic industry.

The LIFE12 ENV/IT/000424 project, supported by the European Union and conducted in partnership with Ceramica Alta and the Department of Industrial Engineering at the University of Padova, aimed to mitigate CO₂ emissions from the ceramic firing process by implementing oxy-fuel combustion technology in place of traditional air combustion [109]. This modification altered the composition of exhaust gases, producing a stream of carbon dioxide and water vapour that facilitated the recovery and separation of CO₂. The recovered CO₂ was subsequently evaluated for reuse, including applications in greenhouse cultivation and the mineralisation of ceramic waste for recycling. The adoption of oxy-fuel combustion technology yielded notable benefits, including reductions in CO₂ and NOx emissions and lower energy consumption at the pilot scale. Additionally, tiles produced from recycled carbonated materials exhibited properties comparable to those of tiles produced by the conventional process [109]. A more recent project, Carbon Capture Storage and CO₂ Mineralisation for the Ceramic Industry (CCS4CER), launched in February 2024 and is coordinated by the Ceramic Centre of Italy [104]. The project objectives include developing approaches to separate CO₂ emissions and convert hazardous ceramic process wastes, such as spent lime, into carbonate-based products via mineralisation. The project also aims to optimise gas-liquid operating conditions to enhance the production of materials such as CaCO₃, CaF₂, and CaSO₄. CCS4CER further intends to validate the use of these synthesised materials in carbon-negative mortars and eco-cements, thereby supporting circular economy practices, while ensuring that all solutions are both energy- and cost-efficient to facilitate the transition of the ceramic tile industry toward climate neutrality. The CCS4CER project is investigating three primary approaches for CO₂ uptake in ceramic manufacturing: oxy-fuel combustion, which generates a concentrated CO₂ and water vapor stream to facilitate separation; post-combustion chemical absorption, such as amine scrubbing, for removal of CO₂ from exhaust gases; and direct process integration, where captured CO₂ is utilized for mineralizing ceramic wastes through reactions that produce valuable carbonates and other compounds. To date, no specific outcomes have been reported from the project [104]. It is worth noting that, in addition to ceramic waste as an alkaline residue, other alkaline industrial by-products, such as air-pollution control residues, cement kiln dust, and municipal solid-waste incineration ashes, have also been utilised in CO₂ mineralisation processes, with some pathways already reaching commercial deployment. Among these, the most advanced is the accelerated carbonation technology developed by Carbon8 Systems (UK), which has achieved a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 8–9, signifying full commercial operation. In September 2020, Vicat implemented the first European cement-industry CO₂ntainer system at its Montalieu-Vercieu plant in France, where CO₂ from kiln exhaust gases is captured and reacted with bypass dust to produce a lightweight aggregate with thermal-insulating properties. This process permanently sequesters approximately 10–15 wt.% CO₂ as stable carbonates while simultaneously converting hazardous industrial residues into marketable construction materials. The technology is undergoing global scale-up following a 2021 partnership between Carbon8 Systems and FLSmidth, a major provider of cement-processing technologies. Notably, this pathway eliminates the energy penalty typically associated with sorbent regeneration, as the carbonated product serves as the final commercial material rather than an intermediate requiring thermal cycling [110]. This example illustrates that ceramic-based materials’ carbonation technologies can successfully transition from laboratory research to commercial deployment through two principal innovations: (i) valorisation of carbonated products as SCMs or aggregates instead of regenerating sorbents, and (ii) seamless integration with existing kiln operations without the need for dedicated CO₂ capture infrastructure.

The costs associated with CO₂ injection in concrete production are highly variable and depend on several factors, including the scale of implementation, the origin and purity of CO₂, and the specific technology employed. A key cost component is CO₂ capture from industrial sources, which can be substantial and varies with the method used (e.g., amine scrubbing, membrane separation). Nevertheless, in line with legislative initiatives, near-term access to large volumes of captured CO₂ at reduced costs is expected to enhance the competitiveness of carbonation curing processes, thereby strengthening the competitive advantage of implementing them. Associated costs include capital investments for CO₂ injection equipment and retrofitting existing installations, as well as operational expenses related to CO₂ injection and system maintenance [16].

Additional expenses arise from CO₂ purification, compression, transportation, and storage [111]. Typically, pure CO₂ gas is used to accelerate diffusion. However, some studies aim to capture CO₂ directly from flue gas. The maximum CO₂ uptake will be strongly influenced by the CO₂ concentration (typically 20%–25% in cement plants) [112]. He et al. [113] investigated the carbonation of cementitious materials using flue gas. The lower reaction efficiency was observed due to reduced CO₂ concentration in flue gas. Nevertheless, the necessary strength was achieved in 5 h (using seven injection cycles), enabling CO₂ uptake of 5%–6%, with strength gains comparable to those achieved with pure CO₂ carbonation. Therefore, the study demonstrates the feasibility of connecting cement plants and concrete plants for effective CO₂ emission reduction through direct flue gas utilisation. It was not possible to obtain the specific investment and operating costs for CO₂ injection into fresh concrete. However, Monkman et al. [114] explored the use of CO₂ as an accelerating additive in the concrete mixing process, with CarbonCure, comparing it to samples utilising a conventional accelerator (non-chloride accelerator). CO₂ injection expedites concrete setting without compromising durability, offering a cost-effective alternative to chemical accelerators. In 2025, the escalated price of industrial CO₂ is approximately €508 per tonne, with per-truckload (8 m³) expenses ranging from €0.64 to €3.76. By contrast, calcium nitrate costs €188 per tonne, and conventional non-chloride admixtures total €16.28-€32.56 per truckload. These findings confirm the economic advantage of CO₂-based acceleration under current market conditions.

Regarding CO₂ curing of precast products, operational costs are primarily related to controlling curing conditions, particularly during the pre-curing phase, when energy is required to maintain the desired humidity for optimal carbonation efficiency. Compared with conventional steam curing, CO₂ curing typically requires only about one-fifth of the energy demand [48].

Fortunato et al. [40] conducted a feasibility study on the implementation of CO₂ curing in the Brazilian concrete block industry. The proposed curing chamber had internal dimensions of 4.0 m × 4.0 m × 4.0 m, corresponding to a total volume of 64.0 m³. To achieve chamber saturation, 52.94 m³ of CO₂ were injected per cycle, equivalent to approximately 109 kg. Based on a daily production rate of 5760 blocks, corresponding to 126,720 blocks per month, distributed across six curing chambers, the total CO₂ demand was estimated at 654 kg per day. Under these conditions, the cumulative CO₂ consumption amounted to approximately 14,388 tonnes per month, assuming three curing cycles per chamber operating over an 8-h daily schedule.

Fortunato et al. [40] reported that a 2 h CO₂ curing cycle enables the sequestration of approximately 6827 kg of CO₂ per month. Accounting for Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) escalation to 2025, the capital investment for a new curing chamber is estimated at €9383 and retrofitting an existing unit costs €10,342. The higher retrofit cost primarily results from increased labour, additional insulation, and technical upgrades required for airtight CO₂ curing, often making retrofits less cost-efficient than new installations. Monthly CO₂ supply expenses, dependent on supplier distance, range from €2537 to €8458, contributing to a 4%–14% increase in the unit price of blocks. Direct utilisation of flue gas from cement plants may present a more economical alternative for CO₂ supply.

At a commercial scale, Wang et al. [115] implemented a retrofitted CO₂ mineralisation curing system in China, achieving an annual CO₂ sequestration capacity of 11 kton. After over 72 h of continuous curing, the concrete specimens reached a CO₂ uptake of 5.3 wt.% and a conversion efficiency of 98.97%. The process yielded an adjusted economic benefit of €31.65 per tonne of CO₂ and reduced the product’s carbon footprint by 178 kg CO₂-eq/m³, with approximately 65% attributable to direct CO₂ sequestration.

Commercialisation costs and production economics for novel CO₂ mineralisation concrete technologies exhibit significant variability. Solidia reports production costs comparable to or lower than those of conventional Portland cement, owing to process efficiencies such as rapid curing, lower energy requirements, and the elimination of steam autoclaving. After adjustment for CEPCI escalation and currency conversion, capital investment for initial pilot and demonstration facilities is estimated at €1.13 million and €0.44 million, respectively [116].

Carbstone®, utilising stainless steel slag in a high-CO₂ environment, requires an initial investment of approximately €540,000 (accounting for CEPCI escalation from 2004 to 2025) for curing chamber retrofits. However, it subsequently achieves product costs comparable to those of standard blocks, with further savings realised through full recyclability and avoided landfill charges [56,117]. VITO and Orbix have built Carbstone® pilot plants and commercial demonstration lines in Flanders and Wallonia, Belgium. These sources discuss operational success and market penetration but do not provide installation costs. Industrial articles note that residual materials, CO₂, and labour are the main cost factors, and emphasise lower raw material and energy costs (compared to conventional cement blocks), but capital investment is not disclosed [118].

CO₂-SUICOM has reached industrial scale in Japan by employing waste-derived binders and carbon credit incentives, resulting in competitive cost parity for precast applications; however, the main operational expenses remain in carbonation equipment and CO₂ procurement. Although specific capital expenditure figures for CO₂-SUICOM carbonation equipment remain proprietary and undisclosed, the technology has demonstrated competitive cost parity for precast applications through carbon credit mechanisms and substantial cement replacement (>50%) with waste-derived binders, thereby reducing operational expenses and enhancing economic viability [68,119].

Carbicrete has secured investments exceeding €19.2 million for commercial-scale-up, with production costs reported to match those of conventional concrete blocks following precast chamber retrofits and savings from eliminating cement [58].

Carboclave retrofits pressure vessels for CO₂ curing and claims lower costs than autoclave-cured blocks, primarily driven by energy savings, while the final retail price is generally at or slightly below the standard block price [120]. Neustark’s process, implemented in Europe, involves sizable infrastructure investment (secured approximately €61.4 million for expansion), yet its cost per ton of CO₂ removed remains favourable in carbon markets, with the process typically incurring only a slight premium over recycled aggregate but benefiting from carbon removal revenues and project-scale investment. In summary, all technologies can achieve cost parity or an advantage where supportive carbon markets or material incentives exist, and major costs are concentrated in the initial process adaptation, curing equipment, or CO₂ supply [121].

Recent techno-economic analyses of CO₂ mineralisation using ceramic wastes have clarified several critical factors that determine feasibility and scalability. The concentration of CO₂ in ceramic kiln exhausts is lower than that in traditional power plants, resulting in higher capture costs and lower process efficiencies. However, integrating waste heat recovery and energy management, such as utilising low-temperature heat from kiln operations, can partially offset these challenges, improving the energy profile of CO₂ capture systems installed in ceramics manufacturing. Indirect carbonation methods, especially those employing pH-swing mineralisation, have been found to offer carbon efficiencies approaching 95% when acid and base recycling are optimised, with reported process costs ranging from €445 to €712 per tonne CO₂ under the best scenarios. In less favourable setups that lack integrated recycling or employ more energy-intensive process steps, the cost can rise as high as €1602 per tonne CO₂; the carbonate precipitation stage consistently represents the largest expense in these workflows [122,123].

The proximity and availability of suitable ceramic wastes for mineralisation are essential to minimise transportation and handling costs and support viable circular economy models. Techno-economic models consistently emphasise the importance of valorising products generated, such as precipitated CaCO₃ and MgCO₃, which can be utilised in carbon-negative mortars or incorporated into eco-cement formulations, thereby generating economic returns and offsetting process expenses. Nevertheless, upfront capital costs for large-scale deployment of CO₂ mineralisation plants in ceramics remain substantial, and technical obstacles, including slow leaching kinetics, efficient process integration, and reliable supply of reactive alkalinity, must still be adequately addressed. Overall, while the utilisation of ceramic wastes for CO₂ mineralisation is increasingly supported by life cycle and cost-benefit assessments, widespread implementation will depend on continued advances in process optimisation, product market integration, and policy incentives to overcome both technical and economic barriers [123,124]. It is worth noting that the reported value in this chapter was updated to 2025 using the CEPCI using Eq. (12): (12)UpdatedCAPEX=HistoricalCAPEX×(2025CEPCIHistoricalCEPCI)

In this work, potential approaches for CO₂ uptake using construction materials were reviewed. The specific attention was paid to those technologies that directly inject flue gas or CO₂ captured and stored for further re-use from the cement and concrete industry. Based on the literature, CarbonCure and C4C are the most advanced commercialised technologies for purifying CO₂, either directly or indirectly (via CO₂ carriers), in fresh mix concrete. As shown in Table 3, the CO₂ uptake is permanent but of low quantitative significance. In turn, the novel technologies that inject CO₂ into precast products reported higher CO₂ uptake in their products. It is crucial to note that the CO₂ uptake or CO₂ avoided in most of these technologies was reported as the sum of CO₂ uptake and CO₂ emission avoided through the substitution of some part of cement or natural aggregates with industry by-products, wastes, or recycled aggregates. CO₂ curing in precast concrete achieves substantially higher CO₂ uptake compared to CO₂ injection into fresh concrete mixtures. This increase results from the optimised reaction conditions and extended exposure during precast curing, which enhance the mineralisation efficiency and lead to greater permanent sequestration of CO₂ within the concrete matrix.

Recent research on ceramics as promising materials for CO₂ uptake in construction applications was also assessed. According to the literature, alkali and alkaline-earth ceramics, particularly those containing calcium, magnesium, or lithium, exhibit favourable chemical reactivity, enabling them to form stable carbonates by chemisorption at elevated temperatures. Both laboratory and pilot-scale studies demonstrate the capacity of ceramic waste to capture significant amounts of CO₂ via mineral carbonation, with capture efficiencies reaching up to 23 wt.% under optimised conditions. It is worth mentioning that the CO₂ uptake values reported in this review use multiple units (kg/m³, wt.%, and % of theoretical maximum) to accurately reflect the diversity of measurement conventions established in the source literature. This variation reflects differences in material form, experimental methods, and the distinct reporting practices of the chemical engineering and civil engineering communities.

Table 4 presents the commercialisation status and estimated implementation costs of the technologies reported in Table 3. Implementation costs for carbon utilisation technologies are drawn from recent industry reports and published literature, with values reflecting direct investments, operating expenses, and funding sources. CarbonCure operates under a licensing model that entails no upfront capital expenditure (CAPEX), as the equipment is provided through retrofit installations with no purchase costs for the client. All recurring expenses, including the annual supply of CO₂ and related operational activities, are classified as operating expenditure (OPEX). Based on updated industry data and the CEPCI for 2025, typical CO₂ supply costs now range from approximately €4700 to €18,800 per year. The market rate for delivered CO₂ is currently between €470 and €560 per tonne, reflecting recent pricing trends and escalation factors from the current CEPCI, which has increased slightly over the past year.

C4C secured approximately €2.8 million in seed funding in January 2024, bringing the total investment to €5.1 million, including €1.7 million in UK government grants. The seed round, led by Zacua Ventures and Counteract with strategic investment from Siam Cement Group and Goldbeck, positions C4C for pilot-to-commercial scale-up and a planned Series A round of €5.67–11.34 million 2025–2026.

Solidia secured €1.97 million from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) in May 2022.

CarbiCrete’s commercial plant retrofit was funded at €5.89 million through a partnership between NGen (€2.5 million) and industry partners Patio Drummond and Innovobot Labs (€3.39 million).

Neustark’s expansion to a projected one million tonne annual CO₂ removal capacity by 2030 is supported by €64.75 million raised in June 2024 from Decarbonization Partners (BlackRock-Temasek), Blume Equity, and strategic partners. Carbstone, CO2-SUICOM, Carboclave, and Blue Planet have reported large-scale installations or partnerships; however, exact per-plant costs remain unpublished. Available figures and budgets are consistent with sector norms for industrial retrofit and project-scale deployment.

It is worth mentioning that despite the recent advances in CO₂ capture technologies in construction materials, the deployment of such a technology faces critical barriers that must be overcome to transition from laboratory demonstrations to widespread industrial implementation, particularly for CO₂ injection in fresh concrete mixes, CO₂ uptake by precast elements, and CO₂ utilization in ceramic waste systems.

CO₂ injection in fresh concrete faces fundamental challenges related to reaction kinetics and durability trade-offs. Insufficient CO₂ volumes result in unstable carbonate polymorphs, vaterite and aragonite, which transform to calcite. This conversion causes volume changes and cracking, weakening the concrete’s long-term compressive strength. Maintaining mechanical performance while integrating CO₂ injection into high-volume industrial mixing requires precise control of injection parameters (flow rate, pressure, duration), which adds energy and capital costs and complicates economic feasibility. Furthermore, CO₂-induced carbonation interacts unpredictably with SCMs such as slag or fly ash; while these materials can enhance CO₂ uptake and refine pore structures at later ages, they may also coarsen early-age porosity, reduce early strength development, and complicate quality control [23,127].

Precast concrete carbonation benefits from controlled factory environments that enable higher CO₂ uptake through optimized curing protocols, yet scalability challenges persist. Achieving uniform carbonation depth across larger or thicker precast elements remains difficult, as CO₂ penetration is limited by the interplay between moisture content, relative humidity, and pore connectivity. Additionally, extending CO₂ curing to structural elements demands rigorous validation of durability performance, including resistance to chloride ingress, sulfate attack, and alkali-silica reaction (ASR), under service conditions [36,47].

Ceramic waste as a CO₂-binding material presents opportunities for dual circularity but faces reactivity and standardization gaps. Variability in ceramic waste chemistry (calcium oxide and reactive silica content), particle size distributions, and pozzolanic activity directly influences both the rate and extent of CO₂ uptake, with optimal performance typically requiring milling to reduce the particle sizes [128].

Three key barriers limit the deployment of all three technologies. First, standardized protocols for measuring CO₂ uptake are missing, making it harder to compare results and gain regulatory approval. Second, LCA and TEA often reveal that the energy needed to capture, transport, compress, and heat CO₂, especially from distant sources or requiring cryogenic cooling, can cancel out the gains from carbon sequestration [34,129].

This review critically examines recent advancements in carbon dioxide uptake technologies for construction materials, with a particular emphasis on methods offering feasible implementation and scalability to substantially mitigate CO₂ emissions from the cement industry. Innovation in this field has accelerated to address the pressing need to reduce the carbon footprint associated with cement and concrete production. Special attention is given to technologies targeting CO₂ uptake in fresh concrete mixtures and precast concrete elements, as these approaches offer the greatest practical potential for industry-wide adoption and impact. Recent innovations are summarised in comparative tables, highlighting critical metrics such as country of origin, CO₂ uptake per cubic meter, uptake mechanism, commercialisation status, and detailed implementation costs for each technology. The CO₂ uptake values for each technology presented in this review are as follows: CarbonCure achieves 1.0–1.5 kg CO₂ per cubic meter of concrete, C4C up to 3.0 kg/m³, Solidia approximately 30–50 kg/m³, Carbstone 350 kg/m³, CO₂-SUICOM 324 kg/m³, Carbicrete between 80–150 kg/m³, Carboclave 100–180 kg/m³, Neustark 20–100 kg/m³, and Blue Planet up to 440 kg/m³. These data reflect permanent mineralisation capacities reported under optimised operational conditions. In ceramics, the formation of stable carbonates through mineral carbonation can reach up to 23 wt.% in optimised laboratory and pilot studies. Cost data and deployment scales are provided where available, illustrating investment requirements and the current commercial reach of leading technologies. Despite significant progress, notable gaps remain, particularly in standardised life cycle assessments, long-term durability studies, transparent cost benchmarks at industrial scale, and protocols for quantifying permanent CO₂ sequestration. Future research and innovation must prioritize the synergistic integration of CO₂ uptake through advanced SCM blends and tailored mix designs that maximize CO₂ uptake without compromising mechanical or durability performance. Developing robust, industry-ready carbonation protocols with harmonized measurement standards is essential to enable regulatory acceptance and cross-comparison of technologies. Scale-up efforts should focus on pilot-to-industrial transitions, including optimized supply chains, process automation, and cost-reduction strategies that leverage co-location of CO₂ sources with production facilities. For ceramic and other solid waste materials, advancing mechanistic understanding of activation pathways and particle engineering will be critical to achieving higher reactivity and consistent performance. Additionally, comprehensive durability testing under realistic service conditions, spanning chloride and sulfate exposure, freeze-thaw cycling, and ASR susceptibility is imperative to ensure that CO₂-enhanced materials meet or exceed conventional concrete benchmarks over decades-long service lives. By addressing these challenges through interdisciplinary collaboration, standardization, and rigorous benchmarking of LCA and techno-economic metrics, the construction sector can translate the substantial theoretical potential of CO₂ capture technologies into reliable, scalable, and economically viable pathways for decarbonization.