4.7 Article

Recycling of sewage treatment plant (STP) waste in red ceramics

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.12.192

关键词

Recycling; Sewage; STP waste; Red ceramics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the potential use of sewage treatment plant waste in the production of red ceramic. The waste, obtained from a plant in Campos dos Goytacazes -RJ, was added to clayey ceramic body. Various formulations with different percentages of waste were prepared and fired at 800 degrees C. The results showed that the waste improved the flexural strength and water absorption of the ceramic, and its addition increased the overall mechanical strength.
This study aimed to evaluate the use of sewage treatment plant (STP) waste on the pro-duction of red ceramic. The raw materials used were clayey ceramic body and STP waste from Campos dos Goytacazes -RJ. The raw materials were characterized through tech-niques of X-ray fluorescence and X-ray diffraction; moreover. The thermal behavior of STP waste was evaluated by DSC/TG/DTG analysis. The formulations of the clayeys ceramics were prepared with use 0, 3, 5, 10 and 15 wt% STP waste. Through these formulations, specimens were prepared by extrusion with 30% moisture content and fired at 800 degrees C. The evaluated physical and mechanical properties of the fired ceramics were water absorption, linear shrinkage, flexion strength and relative density. The microstructure of fired pieces was investigated by scanning electron microscopy. The results showed the STP waste increased the resistance to flexion and water absorption. The use of the waste improved the mechanical strength of the ceramic mass and tended to increase the flexural strength with the increase in the waste content added to the specimen. This type of waste can be aproveited in red ceramic by up to 15% by mass.(c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

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