4.7 Article

Influence of incinerated biomedical waste ash on the properties of concrete

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 226, Issue -, Pages 428-441

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.239

Keywords

Concrete; IBWA; SEM; Immobilization; Compressive strength; Split tensile strength; Durability; Leaching; Heavy metal; Stabilization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Biomedical waste is combination of medical waste from various sources like hospitals, research centers, clinics etc. and that presently or in the future poses a significant risk to human, plant or animal life. As it is produced in abundance and therefore cannot be treated or disposed of without special precautions. Generally biomedical waste is burned in incineration plant and produce Incinerated Biomedical Waste Ash (IBWA). It is considered dangerous or lethal because it may contain toxic substances such as heavy metals (hazardous waste). Typically, IBWA is dumped in a landfill to limit its spreading in the environment. But as none of the landfills is 100% leak-proof. This paper presents the influence of incinerated biomedical waste ash as fine aggregate replacement on the strength and permeation properties of concrete. For this purpose, a control concrete mix was made and four concrete mixes were made with four different percentages (5, 10, 15, and 20%) of IBWA. Results from the experimental study show that the incorporation of 5% IBWA as a partial sand replacement advances the strength and durability performance of the concrete. Compressive and split tensile strength test were performed upto age of 56 days and rapid chloride penetrability test (R.C.P.T.), water absorption, sorptivity and leachate analysis were performed upto age of 28 days. Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test was performed and results indicates that it is non-hazardous. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available