| Literature DB >> 35207912 |
Marta Castellote1, Eva Jiménez-Relinque1, María Grande1, Francisco J Rubiano1, Ángel Castillo1.
Abstract
After more than two years wearing surgical masks due to the COVID-19 pandemic, used masks have become a significant risk for ecosystems, as they are producing wastes in huge amounts. They are a potential source of disturbance by themselves and as microplastic contamination in the water system. As 5500 tons of face masks are estimated to be used each year, there is an urgent need to manage them according to the circular economy principles and avoid their inadequate disposal. In this paper, surgical wear masks (WM), without any further pretreatment, have been introduced as addition to mortars up to 5% in the weight of cement. Mechanical and microstructural characterization have been carried out. The results indicate that adding MW to the cement supposes a decrease in the properties of the material, concerning both strength and durability behavior. However, even adding a 5% of WM in weight of cement, the aspect of the mortars is quite good, the flexural strength is not significantly affected, and the strength and durability parameters are maintained at levels that-even lower than the reference-are quite reasonable for use. Provided that the worldwide production of cement is around 4.1 Bt/year, the introduction of a 5% of WM in less than 1% of the cement produced, would make it possible to get rid of the mask waste being produced.Entities:
Keywords: addition to mortars; circular economy; face masks; strength and durability properties
Year: 2022 PMID: 35207912 PMCID: PMC8879833 DOI: 10.3390/ma15041371
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Shredded MW ready to be included in the mortar, and aspect of some of the mixes.
Mixes cast with different amounts of mask waste (MW).
| Cement | Water | Sand | Superplasticiser | % MW Weight vs. Cem | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MW-0 | 1 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.0065 | 0 |
| MW-0.5-A | 1 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.01 | 0.52 |
| MW-1-A | 1 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.01 | 1.0 |
| MW-1-B | 1 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.01 | 1.0 |
| MW-2.7-A | 1 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.01 | 2.66 |
| MW-5-A | 1 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.01 | 4.98 |
A—dry mixing of MW; B—MW mixed previously with 2/3 of the superplasticiser.
Figure 2(a) Compressive and flexural strength for the samples with different MW (%). The standard deviations are given as error bars. (b) Loss in compressive strength after the heating tests with respect to the initial values.
Figure 3Elemental mapping images for carbon (in red) taken by BSE on golden metalized samples for different amounts of MW in the mortars.
Microstructure characteristics of samples.
| Total Porosity (%vol) | Bulk Density | Average Pore Diameter (µm) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MW-0 | 9.58 | 2.19 | 0.033 |
| MW-0.5-A | 12.30 | 2.17 | 0.060 |
| MW-1-A | 14.46 | 1.99 | 0.044 |
| MW-1-B | 17.03 | 1.90 | 0.058 |
| MW-2.7-A | 15.73 | 1.94 | 0.058 |
| MW-5-A | 16.68 | 1.83 | 0.056 |
Figure 4Differential pore size distributions of the specimens.
Figure 5Water absorption for the different samples.
Figure 6Capillary absorption coefficient for the different samples.
Figure 7Resistivity of the different samples.
Chloride diffusion coefficients (10−12 m2/s).
| Deff | Deff | Dapp | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MW-0 | 2.54 | — | — |
| MW-0.5-A | 2.78 | — | — |
| MW-1-A | 5.61 | 3.06 | 5.50 |
| MW-1-B | 5.05 | 2.50 | 6.23 |
| MW-2.7-A | 4.52 | 2.53 | 5.64 |
| MW-5-A | 10.8 | 6.87 | 16.2 |
Potential durability of the different mixes in this research according to the limits given in [46].
| INDICATOR * | MW-0 | MW-0.5-A | MW-1-A | MW-1-B | MW-2.7-A | MW-5-A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total porosity (MIP) | Moderate | Moderate | Low | Very low | Low | Very low |
| Electrical resistivity | Low | Low | Very low | Very low | Very low | Very low |
| Effective Cl diffusion coefficient-Deff | — | — | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Apparent Cl diffusion coefficient-Dapp | — | — | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Low |
* limit values used prescribed for concrete.