Artificial reefs (ARs) have been widely employed around the world as a strategy for marine conservation, biodiversity enhancement, and climate change mitigation. However, the selection and evaluation of materials used in their construction still lack standardization. This study presents a systematic and bibliometric review of the scientific literature on materials used in AR construction, focusing on sustainable, bioreceptive, and technologically innovative solutions. A total of 309 articles published from 2004 to 2024 were analyzed, retrieved from the Scopus and Web of Science databases using the Biblioshiny platform. The research included analyses of annual scientific production, keyword co-occurrence, thematic trends, and identification of the most relevant authors and institutions. As a novel contribution, a taxonomy of used materials was proposed, developed by a pattern-matching methodology based on Nickerson et al. (2013), and organized into five categories: natural, recycled, polymeric, cementitious, and innovative composites. The qualitative analysis highlighted the importance of concrete, which remains widely used but increasingly combined with industrial wastes and techniques such as 3D printing, self-healing concretes, and carbonation curing. Despite technical advances, only one study applied Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), revealing a significant gap in measuring the environmental impacts of these solutions. The originality of this review lies in its integration of bibliometric analysis, technical evaluation, and conceptual systematization of materials, providing a structured foundation for future research and practical applications. The development of more effective and sustainable artificial reefs depends on the adoption of integrated ecological and constructive criteria, as well as the broader application of robust environmental metrics.

This study investigated the use of shell sand, a residue derived from Anomalocardia flexuosa, as a partial substitute for natural sand in mortar mixtures. Three formulations were evaluated: a reference mix (REF), F25 (25% replacement), and F50 (50% replacement). The shell sand underwent washing with detergent and bleach, followed by air drying and crushing. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), conducted in accordance with ISO 14040 and 14044 standards and modeled using SimaPro software, was employed to quantify the environmental impacts of each formulation. The results indicated that, although Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) remained stable, there were increases in acidification, eutrophication, and fossil resource consumption—mainly attributed to the use of detergent during shell sand processing. The environmental performance index (NDA), calculated using the MARS-SC methodology, revealed superior performance for REF (0.62), followed by F25 (0.50) and F50 (0.38). It is concluded that shell sand presents potential as an alternative aggregate; however, improvements in its processing are required to minimize associated environmental impacts.

The growing use of 3D concrete printing has increased the need for cementitious mixtures that combine adequate mechanical performance with lower environmental impacts and production costs. However, these requirements may conflict, making mixture selection a multi-criteria problem. This study assessed nine cementitious mixtures for 3D concrete printing by integrating Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with the MARS-SC multi-criteria decision-making method. We adopted a cradle-to-gate system boundary and conducted the environmental assessment according to ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 using SimaPro and the Ecoinvent database. We integrated environmental, functional, and economic indicators using the Methodology for the Relative Sustainability Assessment of Building Technologies (MARS-SC) to obtain an overall sustainability score. The mixture containing 40% limestone filler and 10% metakaolin showed the best environmental performance, with a global warming potential of 358 kg CO₂ eq/m³. The mixture reduced the GWP by 45.01% and 54.28% compared with two mixtures with higher cement contents and without partial cement replacement. However, this environmental advantage did not result in the highest overall sustainability score because of lower functional and economic performance. When the three dimensions were considered together, Blf30 and Blf40 achieved the highest sustainability scores (NS = 0.66). Although both mixtures had lower mechanical performance than the cement-rich mixtures, their environmental and economic results led to a more favorable overall assessment. The integrated analysis therefore shows that reducing environmental impacts does not, by itself, necessarily produce the most sustainable mix.