Research to Industry and Industry to Research

Pivato, Managing editor: Alberto

doi:10.31025/2611-4135/2021.14081

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a topic is also worthy of being analyzed as it is directly linked to the classification of such materials (i.e., to define if it should be considered as a waste or a by-product). Particularly, if the "end-of-waste" status of inert waste [27] is achieved, such a classification allows simpler authorization processes than full and ordinary ones asked of waste treatment plants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Bottom Ash as a Candidate Pozzolanic Material: Comparison of Test Methods

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New generations of green concretes are often consuming large amounts of industrial waste, as recycled or manufactured aggregates and alternative binders substituting ordinary Portland cement. Among the recycled materials that may be used in civil engineering works, construction and demolition waste (C&DW), fly ashes, slags and municipal solid waste incinerator bottom ashes (MSWI BA) are those most diffused, but at the same, they suffer due to a large variability of their properties. However, the market increasingly asks for new materials capable of adding some specific features to construction materials, and one of the most interesting is the pozzolanic activity. Hence, this work deals with an experimental study aimed at assessing the technical feasibility of using an industrial waste comprised largely of MSWI BA, with small quantities of C&DW and electric arc furnace slag (EAFS), in green cement-based mixtures (cement paste and mortars). The aim of the work is to achieve the goal of upcycling such waste and avoiding its disposal and landfilling. Particularly, the test methods for assessing the pozzolanic activity of this waste are discussed, analyzing the efficacy of indirect methods such as the strength activity index (SAI), the conductivity test and the efficiency factor (k), together with a direct method based on lime consumption.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Bottom Ash as a Candidate Pozzolanic Material: Comparison of Test Methods

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Compost Heat Recovery Systems: Global Warming Potential impact estimation and comparison through a Life Cycle Assessment approach

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compost Heat Recovery Systems (CHRS) represent an innovative technology to provide domestic decentralized thermal energy, recovering the heat naturally produced during the aerobic biodegradation of waste biomass, coming from gardening/farming/forestry activities. CHRSs represent an alternative to centralized grid-connected power systems and are usually installed (combined with most traditional systems) to power underfloor heating systems (UHS) or domestic hot water systems (DHWS), lowering impacts and costs of thermal energy production. In this study, the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CHRSs (measured as kgCO2-eq/kWh) was investigated using life cycle assessment (LCA) approach, considering the whole life cycle of an average plant. CHRSs showed a negative Net value of GWP impact, equal to -0.268 kgCO2-eq/kWh, as full balance of positive (0.062 kgCO2-eq/kWh) and negative (-0.329 kgCO2-eq/kWh) emissions. Negative emissions are related to avoided primary materials, replacement of natural gas used as traditional thermal energy production and replacement of mineral fertilizers. Considering only the positive emissions (0.062 kgCO2-eq/kWh), CHRSs emerged to be in line with Solar Hot-Water Systems (0.061 kgCO2-eq/kWh mean value) and slightly higher than Geothermal Systems (0.019 kgCO2-eq/kWh mean value). Along with GWP impact, other midpoint and endpoint impact indicators were assessed and all showed a negative Net value: Particulate Matter PM (-2.36E-5 kgPM2.5-eq/kWh), Fresh Water eutrophication FWE (-6.78E-06 kgP-eq/kWh), Fresh Water ecotoxicity FWec (-2.10E-01 CTUe/kWh), Human Toxicity cancer effect HTc (-5.68E-09 CTUh/kWh), Human Toxicity non-cancer effect HTnc (-3.51E-09 CTUh/kWh) and Human Health HH (-5.22E-08 DALY/kWh). These results demonstrate that CHRS is extremely convenient considering both environmental and human health consequences.

show abstract

Research to Industry and Industry to Research

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Assessment of a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Bottom Ash as a Candidate Pozzolanic Material: Comparison of Test Methods

Assessment of a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Bottom Ash as a Candidate Pozzolanic Material: Comparison of Test Methods

Compost Heat Recovery Systems: Global Warming Potential impact estimation and comparison through a Life Cycle Assessment approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About