4.7 Article

Improving circular economy by assessing the use of fly ash as a replacement of lime pastes reducing its environmental impact

期刊

PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
卷 159, 期 -, 页码 1008-1018

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2022.01.074

关键词

Fly ashes; Lime paste; Reactivity; Waste; Circular economy

资金

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Universidad de los Andes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, bituminous coal, sugar cane, untreated and pretreated hazardous waste ashes were tested as supplementary cement materials. The reactivity of these materials was analyzed, and it was found that sugarcane and untreated hazardous waste ashes are suitable for the production of construction supplies. The E-factor analysis showed that replacing fly ash contributes to the circular economy, reducing solid waste and improving environmental quality.
In this work, bituminous coal, sugar cane, untreated and pretreated hazardous waste ashes are tested as supplementary cement materials, analyzing their reactivity in lime pastes prepared according to ASTM C-305, using a 0.5 water/lime ratio. The hydration process was stopped with acetone at the ages of 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, 90 and 180 d. Mineral phases were determined by thermogravimetry, XRD, and SEM finding high contents of SiO2 and Al2O3 in the coal and sugarcane ashes, while in the hazardous waste ashes low contents of these oxides were found. Samples of sugarcane and untreated hazardous waste ashes seems to be attractive to be used as substitutes in the production of construction supplies. In addition to this, an E-factor analysis was carried out, which showed that carrying out fly ash replacements in any quantity contributes to the circular economy of all the economic activities involved. Reducing the amount of solid waste to be disposed of and improving the local and regional environmental quality.(C) 2022 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by 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