## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Drying Options for GP  
Environmental impact due to the natural drying process was almost imperceptible (Figure 13). Additionally, in the GWP category, the rotary dryer had environmental impact equivalent to the limestone filler alternative (Figure 13A). In the other impact categories, embodied energy and total impact, the limestone filler and the gravel had worse performances when were compared to the rotary dryer (Figure 13B,C).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Material** & **Material** & **Origin** & **Destination** & **Distance** **(km)** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Clinker} & \multirow{2}{*}{Cement} & Cachoeiro do & \multirow{2}{*}{Greater Vitória, ES} & \multirow{2}{*}{160} \\  & & Itapemirim, ES & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Limestone filler} & \multirow{2}{*}{Cement} & Cachoeiro do & \multirow{2}{*}{Greater Vitória, ES} & \multirow{2}{*}{170} \\  & & Itapemirim, ES & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Gypsum} & \multirow{2}{*}{Cement} & Aarripe, CE & Greater Vitória, ES & \multirow{2}{*}{1700} \\ Sand & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Limestone raw material} & \multirow{2}{*}{Clinker limestone} & Cachoeiro do & \multirow{2}{*}{Cachoeiro do & \multirow{2}{*}{5} \\  & & Itapemirim, ES & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Limestone raw material} & \multirow{2}{*}{Crushed limestone} & Cachoeiro do & \multirow{2}{*}{Cachoeiro do & \multirow{2}{*}{5} \\  & & Itapemirim, ES & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Clay} & \multirow{2}{*}{Clinker} & Cachoeiro do & \multirow{2}{*}{Cachoeiro do & \multirow{2}{*}{5} \\  & & Itapemirim, ES & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Iron ore Cement} & \multirow{2}{*}{Clinker Concrete slab} & Greater Vitória, ES & \multirow{2}{*}{Cachoeiro do & \multirow{2}{*}{160} \\  & & Greater Vitória, ES & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{GP} & \multirow{2}{*}{Concrete slab} & Greater Vitória, ES & Greater Vitória, ES & \multirow{2}{*}{5} \\ \hline Sand and gravel & \multirow{2}{*}{Concrete slab} & Greater Vitória—ES & \multirow{2}{*}{Greater Vitória—ES} & \multirow{2}{*}{20} \\ \hline Steel & \multirow{2}{*}{Concrete slab} & Greater Vitória—ES & \multirow{2}{*}{Greater Vitória—ES} & \multirow{2}{*}{21.5} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Concrete slab} & \multirow{2}{*}{Bridge} & Greater Vitória—ES & \multirow{2}{*}{Greater Vitória—ES} & \multirow{2}{*}{21.5} \\  & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Transportation distances of the materials.  
The spray dryer presented the highest impact among the drying proposals, up to four times the impact of the rotary dryer and 73% of the environmental impact related to the milling for GWP (Figure 13A). Additionally, the spray dryer impacted 4.33 (Figure 13B) and 4.32 times (Figure 13C) more than the rotary dryer option, considering embodied energy and the total impact assessed with IMPACT 2002+, respectively.  
In this context, the spray drying option was discarded for further analysis. Although the rotary dryer presented a similar environmental burden as other materials (such as gravel and limestone filler), based on a margin of \(\pm\)25%, the option was rejected due to the already significant environmental impact from the additional processing of milling needed to produce the GP2. Hence, only the natural drying option (GP1) and natural drying and milling (GP2) were adopted in the comparison among concretes.