4.7 Article

Reuse of glass waste in the manufacture of ceramic tableware glazes

Journal

CERAMICS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 47, Issue 15, Pages 21061-21068

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.04.108

Keywords

Ceramic; Glaze; Recycle; Waste glass

Funding

  1. Keramika Family

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Various studies are being conducted to promote the understanding of sustainability, with a focus on the sustainability of production processes in corporate settings. This particular study evaluated the use of glass waste in place of frit in glaze compositions in the ceramic industry, concluding that it is suitable to use 3% glass waste instead of frit in the production of ceramic tableware.
Today, various studies are carried out to spread the understanding of sustainability. The sustainability of production processes gains importance in corporate areas. In this study, the use of glass waste instead of frit used in glaze compositions in the ceramic industry was evaluated. The chemical and physical properties of glass wastes on samples were examined. The glaze formulations were prepared using 3%, 5%, and 8% by weight of glass waste instead of frit. Glass wastes were added to glaze compositions and 12 different glaze formulation studies were carried out. Transparent, Opaque, and Matte test glazes were prepared with glass waste added glaze formulations, and these glazes were applied to ceramic bodies. SEM (scanning electron microscope) analysis of standard glaze and glass waste added glazes was performed to determine the microstructural and morphological characterizations. Also, surface whiteness, brightness, L*a*b values, glaze flows, harcort test results, and final water absorption values were compared. As a result of the studies, it has been determined that it is appropriate to use 3% glass waste by weight instead of the frit in the production of ceramic tableware.

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