Depolymerized Waste Plastic Aggregates for Sustainable and Eco-friendly Bricks

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3246531/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Depolymerized Waste Plastic Aggregates for Sustainable and Eco-friendly Bricks

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3246531/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The novelty of embodied energy, life-cycle costs, and reusability was utilized to construct an “Environmental Suitability Index” to recycle plastic garbage bottles. Bitumen was mixed with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or depolymerized polyethylene terephthalate to make modified bitumen. The modified bitumen was combined with 10–20% sand, 30% gravel, and 50–60% modified bitumen. According to the previous determination for hardness, the best result for modified bitumen is 40% plastic and 60% bitumen. Different test types were applied for the sample, such as compression characteristics and sound insulation. Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) was used to study the morphological structure and elemental composition of the raw PET and DPET.

The most prominent results are that the highest percentage for compression was 20% for the modified bitumen with PET, which was 7 MPa. In contrast, the compression of the modified bitumen with DPET was 6.9 MPa. The awareness is relatively lower than that of PET because the DPET contains impurities that appeared during the FESEM test, which caused an increase in porosity and reduced the compressibility. As for sound insulation, it is inversely proportional to the density of the material. Since plastic is a low-density material, the higher the percentage of plastic, the greater the sound insulation.

Bitumen

Sustainable building Materials

plastic recycling

eco-friendly

waste materials

Recycling is currently playing a crucial role in the world’s gradual shift to an era of conservation. Recycling as a concept predates the Industrial Revolution itself [1]. Plastics have advanced and are now used widely. Plastic is now used in countless products, including cars, food packaging, medical equipment, mobile phones, and construction [2] [3][4]. Plastics are typically relatively lightweight. Although many other resins can be used to create plastic, HDPE, PP, PET, PVC, LDPE, and PS are the most widely utilized [5]. Plastic garbage is increasingly being added to the waste stream. Inflationary pressures are anticipated to rise by 4% yearly[6][7]. Legislative requirements (landfill trash) must be decreased by 35% between 1995 and 2020. Landfill garbage is losing appeal due to rising costs and the poor biodegradability of commonly used polymers[8].

One of the most active segments of the plastics industry today is recycling, one of the crucial actions that can be taken to lessen these effects. This effort aims to decrease the damaging environmental impacts of waste management within the current economic, technical, and societal constraints [9][10]. In addition, recycling has positive social consequences since it transforms garbage into valuable items, generating local employment (direct and indirect). To prosper, emerging economies must generate new employment opportunities [11].

There are two distinct approaches to recycling. Secondary or advanced mechanical recycling is a type that physically reprocesses waste plastic to produce new, typically lower-quality plastic products[12]. In tertiary recycling, also known asorcycling, plastics are broken down into component monomers, chemical feedstock, and fuel oil. Over the past few years, the significance of tertiary recycling has increased [13][14]. By computerizing the sorting procedure, efforts have been made to improve the recycling industry’s economic impact. However, lawmakers trying to increase recycling rates have gotten in the way and suggested adding more products with questionable value. The more recyclables there are, the more labor-intensive it is tolabour-intensivehe waste and find the recyclables [15]. Recycling reduces carbon dioxide emissions significantly compared to cremation and the production of virgin polymers.

Furthermore, nearly 90% of plastic is produced using petroleum. Pyrolysis of plastic waste is a feasible technology for recovering chemical building blocks as an alternative to traditional disposal methods like landfills [16][17]. As a result, the “dual advantages” of recycling are the same, and the environmental benefit of material recycling is found in its ability to replace primary production [18] [19][20][21].In response to these worries, numerous studies have demonstrated that PET waste may be successfully recycled into alternative building materials, especially when significant deposits and structural loads are not required [22][23].

This study aims to conduct bibliographical research on recycling plastic waste into structural components, specifically polyethylene terephthalate. The search phrases sustainable development, circular economy, life-cycle assessment, plastic waste, environmental effect, building materials, PET waste, and civil engineering were used to narrow the results in Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science. The primary contribution of this work is the inventive use of plastic waste in buildings. However, other analyses of the potential applications of plastic waste can be found. The ability to conduct studies on the long-term effects of using these wastes rather than just on immediate results could assist in showing the total value of reusing plastic in construction materials, especially in light of its rising use. This paper describes an experiment using recycled waste PET plastic bottles as lightweight and reinforced bricks. These novel bricks must meet the conventional brick standard.

2.1 Materials

The mixture consists of several materials to produce sustainable and eco-friendly bricks. The steps of the recycling process are illustrated in Fig. 1.

i. Polyethylene terephthalates (PET)
All bottles were taken from the waste collections in Iraq; PET bottles were cleaned of dust, cut to the desired size, and the plasticwass washed before being ground into powder. The 0.5mm sieve was used to filter the chopped waste particles.

ii. Depolymerized polyethylene terephthalates preparation (DPET)

PET powder is produced through chemical recycling, depolymerization, or by treating polyester terephthalate (PET) waste with a chemical reaction. Ethylene glycol was used as the solvent, and nano-MgO as the catalyst. A mixture of 100 mL of ethylene glycol, 100 grams of PET, and approximately 0.01 grams of MgO per 100 grams of ethylene glycol was used [22]. To create chemical precursors, use moderate heat to raise the temperature to 179°C (ethylene glycol’s boiling point) for 40 to 50 minutes (monomers). DPET After that, it is powdered [24]. For Figure (2) shows the DPET powder’s manufacturing flow chart:

Figure (2)

Flow Chart of DPET Manufacturing.

iii. Silica Sand

Sand was employed as fine aggregate obtained from the Ministry of Industry and Mining, and its main source was from Fallujah sand. This silica used during the work has specifications white color .It was tested for determining the grading, along with the other physical characteristics. The grading of sand is done in accordance with Iraqi Specification of No.45/1984.that can be seen in Table 1:

Table (1)

The Sand Grading

Size of Sieve (mm)	9.50	2.36	0.60	0.15
% passing by weight	100	87.6	74.41	6.69

The preparation of silica sand for manufacturing silica bricks requires two processes, crushing and grinding in order to attain finer sizes. sieving and grinding processes have been carried out. Sieving sand and barring the passing through sieve size1.18 mm and impurities were retained on the sieve.

iv. Bitumen

Bitumen was obtained from the Ministry of Industry and Mining with specific properties according ASTM D-947 as shown in Table (2) :

Table (2)

Specific properties of bitumen

No. of experiment	Properties	Rang according ASTM
1	Density (g/cm³ at 15^o C)	1.04
2	Flash point (C.O.C) ^o C min	240
3	Penetration at 25^o C (100 g.5 sec) (0.1mm)	40–50
4	Softening Point (R&B) C°	49–58
5	Ductility (5cm/min) (min)	100
6	Solubility in Trichloro ethylene %wt(min)	99.0
7	Loss on heating %wt max (5hr/163)	0.5
8	Penetration of residue after loss on Heating: %of the original value (min)	75

2.2 Mixing Process:

Modified bitumen (MB) was produced in two types. Modified bitumen with polyethylene terephthalates (MB-PET) was prepared by combining bitumen and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Modified bitumen with depolymerized polyethylene terephthalates (MB-DPET) was prepared by mixing bitumen with depolymerized polyethylene terephthalates (DPET). The ratio of mixing was 10 to 50%. The hardness test is generally applied to modified bitumen. The Shore hardness device measured it. Five points were tested for the hardness of the sample’s surface and considering the average for the total point. The best result appeared with an additional 40% percentage of PET or DPET and 60% of bitumen.

To create a brick, modified bitumen was combined with sand and gravel (particle size: 0.5 cm). The specifics of the mixture are indicated in Table 3. The same percentage is applied to DPET as well.

Table 3

Mixing design for MB-PET and MB-DPET mixes.
Experiment No.	Gravel%	Sand %	Bitumen%	PET%
1	30	60	6	4
2	30	59	6.6	4.4
3	30	58	7.2	4.8
4	30	57	7.8	5.2
5	30	56	8.4	5.6
6	30	55	9	6
7	30	54	9.6	6.4
8	30	53	10.2	6.8
9	30	52	10.8	7.2
10	30	51	11.4	7.6
11	30	50	12	8

2.3 Sample preparation

The sample production process was carried out in three steps, as shown in Fig. 3. The first step was mixing all materials in a closed system that kept dangerous materials from getting out. It is made up of three parts:

A heater for heating the mixture.
A mechanical mixer for high-viscosity materials is used to mix bitumen with PET or DPET and metal oxides.
A cooling system utilizes tap water to chill, consolidate volatile materials, and avoid evaporation.

The mixing process consists of several rules, which are explained as: The samples were produced as a result of heating that lasted for two hours continuously and then mixing for a (1 hour ) while the heat was still present. Therefore, the sample for testing will be prepared according to ASTM C67-05. After mixing, the pieces are placed in the mold for 15 minutes to cool. Then, the samples are taken out in the shape (Step 2) shown in Fig. 3(B).

The sample is heated to a temperature of 100ºC then a compressive load of about 2000 kN is applied to obtain homogeneous samples and reduce the number of gaps within the samples. For example, in the compact process in the device shown (Step 3) in Fig. 3 (C), the mold size was 2.5 cm in width and 10 cm in depth, while the sample size was taken according to C67 ASTM.

2.4 The Characterizations :

The total tests consists of three different tests, which are Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM), Compact test and sound insolation :

2.4.1 Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM):

SEM can be defined as an effective method used to analyze the morphology of DPET and PET powder and the prepared specimens of the brick modified with DPET or with PET. This test was performed by using (MIRA3/TESCAN) SEM device at tahran university.

2.4.2 Compressive Strength Test :

Compressive strength testing involves loading the sample to see how it holds up. Then, it starts buckling until it reaches to failed, and data will appear in the computer. The measuring device is generally shown in Fig. 4 below :

2.4.3 Sound insolation:

The level of the acoustic insulation was evaluated using a locally made measurement device of the acoustic insulation based on the ASTM E336 [25] (Univ. of Technology/ Dept. of Materials Engineering); the sample size was utilized in this testing (5 × 5 × 5) cm dimension. It includes 4 parts: wave amplification (TNG, type: AV298), the UNIT 092812 wave generator device, wave receiving device (30dB − 130dB) and loudspeaker as shown in Fig. 5. This test began when wave was produced by UNIT 092812 and amplified after that. Then, this wave was transferred to the loudspeaker that was attached to the wooden box. The sample was placed in the middle of that box, then the box was closed, and the wave at different frequencies (about 15 Hz) was applied. For each one of the frequencies, the lock was obtained from the wave-receiving device. This testing has to be carried out in a highly static medium and with no movements in the entire place because it could result in an imbalance of results.

Twenty-two specimens were prepared for computing the permeability. The permeability test results were for all mixtures (once PET and others with DPET).

3.1 Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM)

Raw PET’s FESEM analysis, which reveals its internal morphological structure and elemental composition, is depicted in Fig. 6a-b. It appeared as sheets with a rough surface. Rough surfaces exhibited the same tendency as was seen. by Akinfalabi et al. [26]

Due to the fracture surface corresponding to impact-fractured, notched samples that broke with relatively moderate energy absorption, no substantial evidence of plastic deformation was seen [27]. The dark area represents oxygen, while the other represents carbon.

When PET is depolymerised and subjected to a higher temperature, as seen in Fig. 6c-d, its surface changes and develops additional pores [22]. Simple percentages of Magnesium impurities that remained after depolymerization are also present. Magnesium has appeared as bubbles, as shown in Fig. 6d.

Two reasons account for the increase in pores in depolymerized PET: first, the high temperature, which causes an increase in oxygen percentage, and second, mixing PET with MgO.

The mixture of modified bitumen (40% PET and 60% bitumen) developed a homogenous product on a fissured or cracked surface. This product’s surface has a small crack that has diffused on the surface with shallow depth, making it hard enough with a homogeneous bulk structure. This phenomenon is displayed in Fig. 6a.

The mixing temperature reaches 180ºC, which is not sufficient for plastic melting. Cracks on the surface can explain this low temperature because the material did not completely melt since PET melts at 260 ºC [28].

As shown in Fig. 7b, modified bitumen with DPET has a homogeneous bulk structure due to the formation of functional groups with bitumen. Its melting point may be less than 180ºC [29]. But some pores are present due to a reaction with MgO during the depolymerization process that leaves some oxygen particles.

The temperature difference between PET and bitumen helps the final product compared to other products.

3.2 Compact characteristic:

The compressibility of the bitumen-modified samples was examined, as Fig. 8 showed the gradual increase of the compressive strength. It starts from the addition rate of 10% for plastic-modified bitumen (PET), and the compressive strength was low, amounting to approximately 4.2 MPa. The increase continues and is slight for about four additions. We notice that the resistance increases when the percentage of plastic is increased exponentially. When adding 14%, the resistance rate reaches 5.5 Mpa compared to the percentage of an addition 10%, so the difference is significant. The increase does not stop at this point but increases with the increase in plastic, and our resistance reaches a limit of 7Mpa at 20% of modified bitumen with PET; the increase in compressive strength is due to the formation of functional groups between bitumen and PET. During the work, the samples show that, the plastic percentage cannot be increased by more than 20% because the samples lose their cohesion property (the cohesion of the materials among themselves), i.e. the homogeneity between the mixture is lost. Therefore, the experiments were limited to only 20% percentage of modified bitumen.

While Fig. 8 shows the gradual increase of the compressibility by adding bitumen plastic (modified bitumen with DPET), where when adding 10% of the plastic, the compressibility was equivalent to 4.3 Mpa, and also the increase was slight for the percentages 11%, 12% and 13%, to reach 5Mpa at the rate of 14%. The compressive strength continues to increase and is also directly proportional to the addition of DPET to get 5.9, it jumps to reach the highest value when adding 18%. The direct increase, as previously mentioned, is attributed to the formation of effective interlocking aggregates interconnected with the plastic. This was proven by examining the FESEM, where The image shows the homogeneity of the mixture.

In contrast, the maximum compressive strength with the addition of DPET reached 6.9 MPa at 18% and decreased at 19% and 20%. As shown in Figure (9), the increase in compressive strength is due to the formation of functional groups between bitumen and DPET or PET. Therefore, the compressive strength is high compared to traditional plastic clay [30].

We must discuss the reason for the decrease in Fig. 8 at the rate of 19% and also when the speed is increased to 20%. Despite the increase in the percentage of plastic, and it is assumed that the resistance increases. Still, from the other important conclusions during the work, we noticed the following: DPET is a more brittle material than PET, and its plasticity is higher than PET.

The oil-to-asphalt ratio (O/A) of bitumen oils decreases as PET polymers adsorb them, creating a distinct dispersion phase, raising viscosity and causing penetration erosion [31]. In addition, modified bitumen becomes stiff and can absorb energy to increase compressive strength. However, because DPET is more oily than PET, its compressive strength is lower than that of the PET-modified sample. [28]

3.3 Sound insolation

Sound insulation is one of the important properties that must be available in bricks. The sound insulatioTherefore, thef the mixture containing bitumen modified with plastic was examined. The findings of the acoustic insulation test of 11 brick mixture samples with PET are displayed in Fig. 10. The change in the acoustic insulation of modified bitumen with DPET is shown in Fig. 11.

About Fig. 10, different sound waves were projected, starting from 100 Hz to reaching 10Kh. As for the number of samples, it is 11 samples, as shown previously. The figure shows each sample with a specific colour and its value for sound insulation at each sound effect. The sound insulation increases gradually with the increase in the amount of plastic added, so we notice the sound insulation reaches 95 Hz by adding 10% of PET. In comparison, the increase is gradual until it reaches 5% so that the sound insulation is more than 100 Hz, and the increase in sound insulation goes by increasing the addition rates to get higher A value of 110 when adding 20 per cent of plastic.

As for Fig. 11, the increase in sound insulation also occurs gradually, as happened with the addition of PET. However, the difference is that the percentage of sound insulation by adding DPET is lower. Where the value of the insulation is 87 Hz when adding 10% of DPET, compared to the percentage of adding 10% of PET, which started with an acoustic insulation value of 95 Hz, the continued addition of plastic will increase the insulation to reach 108.8 Hz at the rate of expansion of 20%, which is a high value, but less than the addition of PET.

From the above f, the following findings can be noticed; The brick mixtures containing DPET particles have lower acoustic insulation than the reference bricks with PET particles. And also, When DPET or PET particles increase, the acoustic insulation of the brick mixture increases. It grows until it reaches 10%, the maximum replacement used in the current study.

From the above findings, notice that the acoustic insulation of the brick mixtures was increased with the DPET and PET particles. This increase is possible because the material’s density affects the acoustic insulation. Since the DPET and PET particles have a lower density than sand, the DPET particles (including the agglomeration) tend to slow the transmission of the sound wave, increasing the levels of sound lost across the brick mixture [32].

The project of a plastic waste recycling plant construction is a relevant solution to the environmental problem in the region, in addition, it is socially significant and cost-effective.

2. Recycling is solve the complex problem of saving natural resources and recycling plastic waste in the production of building materials.

3. From the literature cited in this paper, it is possible to state that the implementation of recycling of plastic waste provides numerous alternatives to enhance detailed studies regarding environmental and economic impact assessments.

4. As a result, there is also a greater appreciation of the product and the process considered. Parallel to this, it was possible to verify that the work regarding the reuse of plastic waste in the construction sector mainly concentrates the justifications around the issue of alternative recycling for this waste, but this is no less important.

5. However, more holistic studies are needed regarding plastic waste incorporated in the construction sector, as this can promote a long-term perspective, making it possible to consider more complete and long-term studies.

6. The use of plastic waste is a good and acceptable alternative to the production of building materials with lighter weight and at lower costs.

Future strategies for improved waste management, potential investment and research directions are highlighted. New options for recycling wastes plastics in construction are also presented to provide practical and economical solutions to extract maximum value and ensure their continued use in a closed loop system.

7. Different form the production of conventional bricks, which requires temperatures of up to 1000 degrees, the output of this form of brick only requires modest temperatures, not surpassing 200 degrees, by the work completed. In addition to, The preparation time is comparable to regular bricks and is no longer than three hours. Preparation takes between 24 and 48 hours.

The materials used in the research are waste-derived, and recycling them is sustainable and environmentally friendly, as opposed to the production of standard bricks, which degrades the environment and necessitates the use of quarries and funds from the government to prepare the materials.

The direct use of Eco-bricks in multiple situations significantly influenced the effort’s implementation. Construction-related plastic waste was a problem that Eco-bricks addressed. Eco-bricks could be used in fundamental construction. Additionally, they can be used as decorative accents in public areas like cemeteries. Additional applications could include testing how well eco-bricks stabilize soil and slopes or act as barriers. In locations where significant levels of anthropogenic pollution are present or may be short due to rapid industrialisation, ecological approaches to the production of building units are growing in popularity for cleaner manufacturing processes. It has been considered in the past to use PET bottles as an addition to building units. However, scientists are also aware of inventive ways to make ecological bricks. A structural unit built entirely of PET bottles packed with plastic bags was first constructed. Recycling these materials is considered unique and exciting, with potential uses in the building industry.

The following conclusions are limited to the materials used and the conditions under which the tests were conducted:

Reduce plastic waste by recycling.

PET is a flexible polymer since it displays a variety of microcrack fronts that develop during mechanical impact fracture.

When PET is depolymerized and put in a hotter environment, the surface changes and gets more holes.

Magnesium impurities remain after depolymerization in DPET.

PET has compressive properties higher than DPET because of minor impurities.

Sound insulation is inversely proportional to the density of the material.

Compared with traditional bricks, the new brick mixture has more compressive strength than conventional bricks.

Conflict-of-Interest

We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us. We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property. We further confirm that any aspect of the work covered in this manuscript that has involved either experimental animals or human patients has been conducted with the ethical approval of all relevant bodies and that such approvals are acknowledged within the manuscript.

B. S. Al-shaver, “Production of Lightweight Clay Bricks Using Polymer Wastes,” vol. 36, no. 8, 2018.
A. B. Ngowi, “Creating competitive advantage by using environment-friendly building processes,” Build. Environ., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 291–298, 2001, doi: 10.1016/S0360-1323(00)00006-8.
G. Dodbiba and T. Fujita, “Progress in separating plastic materials for recycling,” Phys. Sep. Sci. Eng., vol. 13, no. 3–4, pp. 165–182, 2004, doi: 10.1080/14786470412331326350.
R. F. Motlog, “Effect of Using Plastic and Rubber Wastes as Fine Aggregate on Some Properties of Cement Mortar,” vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 1688–1699, 2016.
V. Goodship, “Plastic recycling,” Sci. Prog., vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 245–268, 2007, doi: 10.3184/003685007X228748.
H. S. Abed, “Production of Lightweight Concrete by Using Construction Lightweight Wastes,” vol. 37, no. 1, 2019.
D. S. Achilias, C. Roupakias, P. Megalokonomos, A. A. Lappas, and V. Antonakou, “Chemical recycling of plastic wastes made from polyethylene (LDPE and HDPE) and polypropylene (PP),” J. Hazard. Mater., vol. 149, no. 3, pp. 536–542, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.06.076.
F. Engineering, U. K. M. Bangi, and S. De, “Development of a Prototype Automated Sorting System for Plastic Recycling D . A . Wahab , A . Hussain , E . Scavino , M . M . Mustafa and H . Basri,” vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 1924–1928, 2006.
T. Astrup, T. Fruergaard, and T. H. Christensen, “Recycling of plastic: Accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions,” Waste Manag. Res., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 763–772, 2009, doi: 10.1177/0734242X09345868.
D. Lazarevic, E. Aoustin, N. Buclet, and N. Brandt, “Plastic waste management in the context of a European recycling society: Comparing results and uncertainties in a life cycle perspective,” Resour. Conserv. Recycl., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 246–259, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.09.014.
E. B. A. V. Pacheco, L. M. Ronchetti, and E. Masanet, “An overview of plastic recycling in Rio de Janeiro,” Resour. Conserv. Recycl., vol. 60, pp. 140–146, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.12.010.
H. H. Jony, “Effect of Polymer Additives on Permeability of Asphalt Concrete Mixtures,” vol. 36, no. 1, 2018.
A. Brems, J. Baeyens, and R. Dewil, “Recycling and recovery of post-cet alonsumer plastic solid waste in a European context,” Therm. Sci., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 669–685, 2012, doi: 10.2298/TSCI120111121B.
Z. A. Hussein, Z. M. Shakor, M. Alzuhairi, and F. Al-, “Thermal and catalytic cracking of plastic waste : a review,” Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem., vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–18, 2021, doi: 10.1080/03067319.2021.1946527.
H. Pachman and B. J. Tierney, “Inquiring Minds topic – 23 Oct . 2015 The Reign of Recycling,” 2015.
R. H. J. M. Gradus, P. H. L. Nillesen, E. Dijkgraaf, and R. J. van Koppen, “A Cost-effectiveness Analysis for Incineration or Recycling of Dutch Household Plastic Waste,” Ecol. Econ., vol. 135, pp. 22–28, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.021.
L. Canopoli, B. Fidalgo, F. Coulon, and S. T. Wagland, “Physico-chemical properties of excavated plastic from landfill mining and current recycling routes,” Waste Manag., vol. 76, pp. 55–67, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.043.
T. Zink and R. Geyer, “Material Recycling and the Myth of Landfill Diversion,” J. Ind. Ecol., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 541–548, 2019, doi: 10.1111/jiec.12808.
M. K. Eriksen, J. D. Christiansen, A. E. Daugaard, and T. F. Astrup, “Closing the loop for PET, PE and PP waste from households: Influence of material properties and product design for plastic recycling,” Waste Manag., vol. 96, pp. 75–85, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.07.005.
T. Thiounn and R. C. Smith, “Advances and approaches for chemical recycling of plastic waste,” J. Polym. Sci., vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 1347–1364, 2020, doi: 10.1002/pol.20190261.
M. Alzuhairi, H. Al-kaisy, and M. Khdheer, “Depolymerization of Waste Plastic Using Bubble Column for Nano Alumina Blended Coating,” 2022.
K. K. Jha and T. T. M. Kannan, “Recycling of plastic waste into fuel by pyrolysis - A review,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 37, no. Part 2, pp. 3718–3720, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.181.
J. P. Lange, “Managing Plastic Waste-Sorting, Recycling, Disposal, and Product Redesign,” ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng., vol. 9, no. 47, pp. 15722–15738, 2021, doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c05013.
H. Mohammed, M. Alzuhairi, S. I. Ibrahim, and S. S. Hussien, “Ternary waste plastic blends for binding and adhesion,” 2021.
N. Mashaan, A. Chegenizadeh, and H. Nikraz, “Laboratory properties of waste PET plastic-modified asphalt mixes,” Recycling, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4–13, 2021, doi: 10.3390/recycling6030049.
F. A. Ahangar, U. Rashid, J. Ahmad, T. Tsubota, and A. Alsalme, “Conversion of waste polyethylene terephthalate (Pet) polymer into activated carbon and its feasibility to produce green fuel,” Polymers (Basel)., vol. 13, no. 22, 2021, doi: 10.3390/polym13223952.
F. C. C, T. D, and S. M. R, “Experimental study on axial compressive strength and elastic modulus of the clay and fly ash brick masonry,” J. Civ. Eng. Constr. Technol. , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 134–141, 2013, doi: 10.5897/JCECT12.089.
R. Panowicz, T. D. 2 Marcin Konarzewski 1,*, M. Szala, and M. C. ´nska 3 and P. P. ´nska, Magdalena Łazi, “Properties of Polyethylene Terephthalate ( PET ) after,” Materials (Basel)., 2021.
M. A. Alhussain Alzuhairi, “Nano MgO catalyst for chemical depolymerization of polyethylene terephthalate (PET),” Iraqi J. Phys., vol. 16, no. 36, pp. 85–93, 2018, doi: 10.30723/ijp.v16i36.33.
Z. Ge, H. Yue, and R. Sun, “Properties of mortar produced with recycled clay brick aggregate and PET,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 93, pp. 851–856, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.081.
Y. Imanbayev et al., “Modification of Bitumen with Recycled PET Plastics from Waste Materials,” Polymers (Basel)., vol. 14, no. 21, p. 4719, 2022, doi: 10.3390/polym14214719.
A. Prof, M. Alzuhairi, A. Prof, and S. Imad, “Properties Investigation of Cement Mortar by Adding Depolymerized Plastics Waste Prepared In Bubble Column Reactor A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Materials Engineering / University of Technology in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the ,” 2022.

No competing interests reported.

supplementaryfile1.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Depolymerized Waste Plastic Aggregates for Sustainable and Eco-friendly Bricks

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Experimental parts

2.1 Materials

2.2 Mixing Process:

2.3 Sample preparation

2.4.1 Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM):

2.4.2 Compressive Strength Test :

Results and discussion

3.1 Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM)

3.2 Compact characteristic:

3.3 Sound insolation

The economic viability of this study

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1