Abstract
Sustainable futures can be achieved by limiting non-renewable resource consumption and minimizing waste and associated emissions. Sustainable modified geofoam (MGF) blocks made of sustainable materials contribute to sustainability goals from environmental, societal, and economic perspectives. This study aims to develop MGF blocks prepared by blending cement and rice husk ash (RHA) as a binding material, water, and recycled expanded polystyrene beads. RHA is a silicon-rich agro-waste ash that is used to partially replace up to 30% of cement. MGF blocks were prepared by mixing beads at percentages of 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, and 1.5% by the dry weight of the binding material at different water/binding material ratios. The MGF blocks were cured for 7 days, 28 days, and 56 days. This study compares the environmental impacts, energy consumption, and cost analysis of the production of traditional geofoam (TGF) and MGF blocks. MGF can reduce environmental impacts by about 80–95% compared to TGF. The MGF was found to be an eco-friendly, energy-efficient, and cost-effective material.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the submitted article.
References
Al-Mansour A, Chow CL, Feo L et al (2019) Green concrete: by-products utilization and advanced approaches. Sustain 11:1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195145
ASTM (2016) Standard test method for compressive properties of rigid cellular plastics D1621-16 West Conshohocken PA
Bayraktar OY (2019) The possibility of fly ash and blast furnace slag disposal by using these environmental wastes as substitutes in portland cement. Environ Monit Assess 191:560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7741-4
Čekon M, Struhala K, Slávik R (2017) Cardboard-based packaging materials as renewable thermal insulation of buildings: thermal and life-cycle performance. J Renew Mater 5(1):84–93. https://doi.org/10.7569/jrm.2017.634135
Chiaia B, Fantilli AP, Guerini A, Volpatti G, Zampini D (2014) Eco-mechanical index for structural concrete. Construct Build Mater 67:386–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.12.090
Dissanayake DMKW, Jayasinghe C, Jayasinghe MTR (2017) A comparative embodied energy analysis of a house with recycled expanded polystyrene (EPS) based foam concrete wall panels. Energy and Build 135:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.11.044
El-Attar MM, Sadek DM, Salah AM (2017) Recycling of high volumes of cement kiln dust in bricks industry. J Clean Prod 143:506–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.082
Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (2014) http:// faostat.fao.org. Accessed 8 Nov 2007
Gomes R, Silvestre JD, Brito JD (2020) Environmental life cycle assessment of the manufacture of EPS granulates, lightweight concrete with EPS and high-density EPS boards. J Build Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101031
Henry CS, Lynam JG (2020) Embodied energy of rice husk ash for sustainable cement production. Case Stud Chem Environ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2020.100004
Hossain SKS, Mathur L, Roy PK (2018) Rice husk/rice husk ash as an alternative source of silica in ceramics: a review. J Asian Ceramic Soc 6(4):299–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/21870764.2018.1539210
https://universalconstructionfoam.com/resources/Geofoam-for-Road-Construction.pdf)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/219339/us-prices-of-cement/
Jamil M, Kaish ABMA, Raman SN, Zain MFM (2013) Pozzolanic contribution of rice husk ash in cementitious system. Constr Build Mater 47(10):588–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.088
Jang H, Jang Y, Jeong B, Cho NK (2021) Comparative Life cycle assessment of marine insulation materials. J Mar Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9101099
Joel S (2020) Compressive strength of concrete using fly ash and rice husk ash: a review. Civil Eng J 6(7):1400–1410. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2020-03091556
Joglekar SN, Kharkar RA, Mandavgane SA, Kulkarni BD (2019) Process development of silica extraction from RHA: a cradle to gate environmental impact approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:492–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3648-9
Juarez RIC, Finnegan C (2021) The environmental impact of cement production in Europe: a holistic review of existing EPDs. Cleaner Environ Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100053
Kim TH, Chae CU (2016) Environmental impact analysis of acidification and eutrophication due to emissions from the production of concrete. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060578
Lal BRR, Hinge VA, Nawkhare SS (2019) Shanker K (2019) Experimental studies on bottom ash and blast furnace slag based geomaterial under compressive loading ASCE Geo-Congress. GSP 312:232–240. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784482148.024
Lal BRR, Sonali SN (2016) Experimental study on plastic strips and eps beads reinforced bottom ash-based material. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0066-2
Liu X, Chen X, Yang L, Chen H, Tian Y, Wang Z (2016) A review on recent advances in the comprehensive application of rice husk ash. Res Chem Intermed 42:893–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11164-015-2061-y
Marchetti E (2020) Use of agricultural wastes as supplementary cementitious materials, master thesis, school of architecture and the built environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, pp 105
Meshram RB, Kumar S (2021) Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of geopolymer cement manufacturing with Portland cement in Indian context. Int J Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03336-9
Morth (2013) Specifications for road and bridge works. Ministry of road Transport & Highways, 5th Revision, Indian Roads Congress
Muwashee RS (2020) The sustainability of cement mortar with raw sewage sludge and rice husk ash. Civil Eng J. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2020-03091456
Padade AH, Mandal JN (2014) Expanded polystyrene-based geomaterial with fly ash. Int J Geomech 14(6):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000390
Prakasan S, Palaniappan S, Gettu R (2020) Study of energy use and CO2 emissions in the manufacturing of clinker and cement. J Inst Eng India Ser A 101:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-019-00409-4
Ramchandra P (2016) Potential applications of rice husk ash waste from rice husk biomass power plant. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 53:1469–1485
Shimamoto Y, Suzuki T (2019) Recycle of rice husk into agro-infrastructure for decreasing carbon dioxide. Paddy Water Environ 17:555–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-019-00752-z
Simonsen M, Walnum HJ (2011) Energy chain analysis of passenger car transport. Energies 4(2):324–351. https://doi.org/10.3390/en4020324
Singh B (2018) Rice husk ash. J Waste Suppl Cementitious Mater Concrete 13:417–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102156-9.00013-4
Swachh Bharat Mission (2019) Plastic waste management issues, solutions & case studies, ministry of housing & urban affairs, government of india, www.mohua.gov.in
Uttaravalli AN, Srikanta D, Gidla BR (2020) Scientific and engineering aspects of potential applications of post-consumer (waste) expanded polystyrene: a review. Process Saf Environ Prot 137(5):140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.02.023
Wang F, Miao L (2009) A Proposed lightweight fill for embankments using cement-treated yangzi river sand and expanded polystyrene (EPS) beads. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68:517–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-009-0228-8
Won-Jun P, Kim T, Roh S, Kim R (2019) Analysis of life cycle environmental impact of recycled aggregate. Appl Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9051021
Zhang Z, Han W, Chen X, Yang NA, Lu C, Wang Y (2019) The life-cycle environmental impact of recycling of restaurant food waste in Lanzhou, China. Appl Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9173608
Zhu W, Li M, Zhang C, Zhao G (2008) Density and strength properties of sand-expanded polystyrene beads mixture. ASCE GeoCongress. https://doi.org/10.1061/40972(311)5
Acknowledgements
The authors are highly grateful to Dr. K. Mallikarjuna Rao, Professor at SVU College of Engineering, Tirupati-517502, for his encouragement.
Funding
No funding was received to carry out this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
[Second author] conceptualized and supervised the study; [First author, Second author] helped in methodology, writing—original draft preparation, and writing—review and editing; [First author] was involved in formal analysis and investigation.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This material is the author’s original work, which has not been previously published elsewhere. The paper is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. The paper reflects the author’s research and analysis in a truthful and complete manner.
Consent to participate
The authors declare their consent to participate.
Consent to publish
The authors declare their consent to publish in the journal.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Yeruva, T., Godavarthi, V.R.S.R. Comparison of environmental impacts of traditional geofoam and modified geofoam made with silicon-rich agro-waste ash and recycled EPS composites. Paddy Water Environ 22, 243–255 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-023-00964-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-023-00964-4