4.5 Article

Fire-resistant cellulose boards from waste newspaper, boric acid salts, and protein binders

期刊

CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 1537-1546

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10098-021-02046-7

关键词

Cellulose boards; Waste newspaper; Soy protein binder; Borate salts; Fire-resistant; Mechanical properties

资金

  1. CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-Brazil)
  2. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico-Brazil)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies have shown that fire-resistant cellulose boards with low density and adequate flexural strength can be produced using waste newspapers and other materials, making them suitable for use as building materials.
Housing construction consumes more materials than any other economic activity, with a total of 40.6 Gt/year. Boards are placed between construction materials to serve as non-load-bearing partitions. Studies have been performed to find alternatives to conventional materials using recycled fibers, agro-industrial waste, and protein binders as raw materials. Here, fire-resistant cellulose boards with low density and adequate flexural strength were produced for use as non-load-bearing partitions using waste newspapers, soy protein, boric acid, and borax. A central composite design was employed to study the influence of the board component percentage on flame retardancy (UL 94 horizontal burning test), density (ASTM D1037-12), and flexural strength (ISO 178-2010). The cellulose boards were characterized by thermal analysis (ASTM E1131-14) and scanning electron microscopy. Fire-resistant cellulose boards were successfully made with low densities (120-170 kg/m(3)) and flexural strength (0.06-0.64 MPa). The mechanical performance and fire resistance of cellulose boards suggest their suitability for use as building materials. A useful and sustainable construction material with great potential is produced with the valorization of waste materials. [GRAPHICS] .

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

4.5
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