4.7 Article

Changes of asphalt fumes in hot-mix asphalt pavement recycling

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 258, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120586

Keywords

Asphalt fumes; Reclaimed asphalt pavements; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Oxidation; Health

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51678510]
  2. Occupational Safety and Health Council of Hong Kong [K-ZB84]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hot-mix asphalt pavement recycling is widely practiced for its economic and environmental benefits. Existing studies are mainly focused on the engineering properties of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) materials, without considering their impacts on the generated asphalt fumesda widely recognized environmental hazard. The effects of using RAP on asphalt fumes are systematically studied in this research. Asphalt binders from different sources were used to create RAP materials in three aging conditions. Asphalt fumes were generated and collected from non-aged asphalt materials as well as RAP materials, followed by gravimetric and chemical analysis of the collected asphalt fumes. RAP materials were found to generate greater amount of particulates in asphalt fumes as compared with non-aged ones. RAP materials are also associated with increase in the types and concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in asphalt fumes, especially those PAHs with more than three aromatic rings. PAHs increase in asphalt fumes is particularly noticeable for RAP created in the natural aging condition. It is reasonable to conclude that asphalt fumes generated from RAP become more hazardous, hence deserving more attention from researchers and practitioners. The mechanisms of the increase in PAHs are discussed, in addition to field exposure studies and mitigation measures. (C) 2020 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