Next Article in Journal
Testing the Capacity of Staphylococcus equorum for Calcium and Copper Removal through MICP Process
Previous Article in Journal
Mineralogy and Geochemistry of Seabed Sediments of the Chiloé–Taitao Area, Southern Chile, and Implications for Ore Deposits
Article

Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling through Conventional Jig, Air Jig, and Sensor-Based Sorting: A Comparison

1
Departament d’Enginyeria Minera, Industrial i TIC, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Barcelona Tech, Manresa, 08242 Barcelona, Spain
2
Mineral Processing Laboratory, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre 91501-970, Brazil
3
Université Gustave Eiffel, MAST, GPEM, F-44344 Bouguenais, France
4
Federal Institute of Amapá, Brazil Novo, Macapá 68909-398, Brazil
5
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidad de La Costa, Barranquilla 080002, Atlántico, Colombia
6
Campus Bagé, Federal University of Pampa, Bagé 96460-000, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Carlito Tabelin
Minerals 2021, 11(8), 904; https://doi.org/10.3390/min11080904
Received: 11 July 2021 / Revised: 17 August 2021 / Accepted: 18 August 2021 / Published: 21 August 2021
The paper presents a comparison of the concentration methods conventional jig, air jig, and sensor-based sorting to treat construction and demolition waste. All tests were made with concrete, brick, and gypsum particles and the tests aim to separate these materials into different size ranges, depending on the method. The equipment tested, conventional jig, air jig, and sensor-based sorting present good results to concentrate construction and demolition waste particles, with different concentrations and mass recoveries. The results show particularly good mass recoveries and particle concentration for conventional jig, especially for concrete and gypsum particles. Sensor-based sorting should preferably use concentration circuits for best results. View Full-Text
Keywords: construction and demolition waste; sensor-based sorting; wet jig; air jig construction and demolition waste; sensor-based sorting; wet jig; air jig
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Hoffmann Sampaio, C.; Ambrós, W.M.; Cazacliu, B.G.; Oliva Moncunill, J.; Veras, M.M.; Miltzarek, G.L.; Silva, L.F.O.; Kuerten, A.S.; Liendo, M.A. Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling through Conventional Jig, Air Jig, and Sensor-Based Sorting: A Comparison. Minerals 2021, 11, 904. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11080904

AMA Style

Hoffmann Sampaio C, Ambrós WM, Cazacliu BG, Oliva Moncunill J, Veras MM, Miltzarek GL, Silva LFO, Kuerten AS, Liendo MA. Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling through Conventional Jig, Air Jig, and Sensor-Based Sorting: A Comparison. Minerals. 2021; 11(8):904. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11080904

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hoffmann Sampaio, Carlos, Weslei M. Ambrós, Bogdan G. Cazacliu, Josep Oliva Moncunill, Moacir M. Veras, Gérson L. Miltzarek, Luis F.O. Silva, Ariane S. Kuerten, and Maria A. Liendo 2021. "Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling through Conventional Jig, Air Jig, and Sensor-Based Sorting: A Comparison" Minerals 11, no. 8: 904. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11080904

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop