4.7 Article

Utilization of waste cathode ray tube funnel glass for ultra-high performance concrete

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 249, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119333

关键词

Waste recycling; Cathode ray tube; Sustainability; Ultra-high performance concrete; Mechanical properties; Lead leaching

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFC0705400]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51878225, 51678200]
  3. Program of Shenzhen Science and Technology Plan [JCYJ20170811160514862]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cathode ray tube (CRT) funnel glass is classified as a hazardous waste because it contains lead, which can endanger the environment and human health. In this paper, an innovative cementitious material, ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) was introduced to recycle hazardous waste CRT without lead extraction. Crushed CRT funnel glass without lead extraction was used to replace sand as fine aggregate in various ratios in UHPC. The mechanical properties and toxic heavy metal leachability of UHPC were investigated. Results showed that the addition of CRT glass can increase the flowability and decrease the compressive and flexural strength of UHPC. Analyses by X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy demonstrated that the CRT glass increases the porosity, inhibits cement hydration, and weakens the interfacial transition zone, resulting in the reduced strength of UHPC. Meanwhile, the leached lead concentration of UHPC was still below regulatory limit of U.S. code even when the replacement ratio reaches 100%. The working principle behind the sharp drop in leached lead in UHPC was proposed, that is the dense microstructure and low permeability coefficient of UHPC can effectively restrain the lead leaching from CRT glass. The findings of this study can provide an effective alternative to recycling hazardous waste CRT without limitations on the replacement ratio and safety concern. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据