Next Article in Journal
RANS Simulation of Minimum Ignition Energy of Stoichiometric and Leaner CH4/Air Mixtures at Higher Pressures in Quiescent Conditions
Next Article in Special Issue
The Ignition Phenomenon and Mechanism of Welding Spatters Under Different Current Intensities
Previous Article in Journal
Prediction and Simulation of Biodiesel Combustion in Diesel Engines: Evaluating Physicochemical Properties, Performance, and Emissions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fire Endurance of Spherical Concrete Domes Exposed to Standard Fire
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fire
Volume 7
Issue 10
10.3390/fire7100365
fire-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Circular Economy Perspective: Recycling Wastes through the CO2 Capture Process in Gypsum Products. Fire Resistance, Mechanical Properties, and Life Cycle Analysis

by
Jaime D. Ruiz-Martinez
1,
Virginia Moreno
2,
Judith González-Arias
3,
Begoña Peceño Capilla
4,
Francisco M. Baena-Moreno
1 and
Carlos Leiva
1,*
1
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Seville, Camino de los Descubrimientos, s/n, 41092 Seville, Spain
2
Departamento de Ciencias de la Salud y Biomédicas, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Loyola, Campus de Sevilla, Avenida de las Universidades, s/n, Dos Hermanas, 41074 Seville, Spain
3
Inorganic Chemistry Department and Materials Sciences Institute, University of Seville-CSIC, 41004 Seville, Spain
4
Facultad de Ciencias del Mar, Escuela de Prevención de Riesgos y Medioambiente, Universidad Católica del Norte, Larrondo 1281, Coquimbo 1780000, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fire 2024, 7(10), 365; https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7100365
Submission received: 16 September 2024 / Revised: 4 October 2024 / Accepted: 9 October 2024 / Published: 11 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fire Prevention and Flame Retardant Materials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In recent years, the implementation of CO2 capture systems has increased. To reduce the costs and the footprint of the processes, different industrial wastes are successfully proposed for CO2 capture, such as gypsum from desulfurization units. This gypsum undergoes an aqueous carbonation process for CO2 capture, producing an added-value solid material that can be valorized. In this work, panels have been manufactured with a replacement of (5 and 20%) commercial gypsum and all the compositions kept the water/solid ratio constant (0.45). The density, surface hardness, resistance to compression, bending, and fire resistance of 2 cm thick panels have been determined. The addition of the waste after the CO2 capture diminishes the density and mechanical strength. However, it fulfills the requirements of the different European regulations and diminishes 56% of the thermal conductivity when 20%wt of waste is used. Although the CO2 waste is decomposed endothermically at 650 °C, the fire resistance decreases by 18% when 20%wt. is added, which allows us to establish that these wastes can be used in fire-resistant panels. An environmental life cycle assessment was conducted by analyzing a recycling case in Spain. The results indicate that the material with CO2 capture waste offers no environmental advantage over gypsum unless the production plant is located within 200 km of the waste source, with transportation being the key factor.

1. Introduction

SO2, a harmful gas produced by the combustion of sulfur in coal-based power generation, creates acid rain. Wet limestone desulfurization has proven to be by far the most efficient process due to its low energy consumption and reliability. In this process, SO2 is removed through absorption, which is then recovered as a gypsum slurry and dehydrated to create FGD gypsum [1]. By 2020, the global FGD gypsum output reached 260 million tons [1]. Approximately 75%wt is recycled, with the majority going into the production of gypsum boards (80%wt) and as cement retarder [2], and, to a lesser extent, road base [3], concrete bricks [4], agriculture [5], and soil stabilization [6], but 25%wt is deposited in landfills. This fact presents a clear opportunity to further explore circular economy processes based on the utilization of FGD gypsum.
On the other hand, the reduction of CO2 emissions is an important dilemma for our society. As is well known, there are a wide variety of carbon capture and storage technologies to reduce CO2 emissions [7]. These technologies include methods such as physical and chemical absorption, membrane separation, and adsorption [8]. Notable commercially available processes using mono-ethanolamine for CO2 capture include: (1) the Kerr-McGee/AGG Lummus Crest process; (2) the Fluor Econamine FG PlusSM process; and (3) the Kansai Mitsubishi Carbon Dioxide Recovery Process [9]. Some researchers highlight potential technical challenges in storing carbon dioxide, including a shortage of suitable storage wells and the increasing footprint for transporting commercial products for CO2 capture [10].
As a halfway solution to this global scale dilemma, researchers have proposed the use of industrial effluents and wastes for CO2 capture [11]. Utilizing industrial effluents and residues can reduce CO2 emissions and prevent these materials from ending up in landfills. Some of the materials used include, for example, steelmaking slag, combustion fly ash [12], black liquor [13], cement waste [14], incineration bottom ash [15] carbide slag [16], and FGD [17]. The utilization of these waste materials has the potential to enhance the sustainability of carbon capture by obviating the necessity for the manufacture and transportation of supplementary adsorbents/absorbents. Furthermore, it may be feasible to extract value-added compounds from the interactions between CO2 and these wastes.
Nowadays, there is a lack of fire resistance in different materials. Therefore, it is urgent to include fire protection techniques [18]. Some progress has already been made and these techniques are classified as active and passive. The former requires automatic detection and extinguishing devices. The latter, on the other hand, ensures that there is a delay in the spread of the fire. The major purpose of this second category is to keep the temperature of a construction material down from its level to prevent structural collapse [19]. Some researchers investigated the recycling of various wastes in the production of passive fire prevention products. Some of the wastes that have been added to passive fire materials are: polyamide powder waste [20], coal and biomass bottom/fly ashes [21,22,23,24], mollusk shells [25,26], ashes from municipal waste incineration [27,28], phosphogypsum [29], TiO2 waste [30], zeolites [31], granulated blast furnace slag [32], FeNi slag [33], and polyurethane foam wastes [34]
The main novelty of this work consists of the analysis of the physical, mechanical, and fire resistance properties and the environmental impact of recycling solid waste produced during the capture of CO2 as a construction material. Therefore, not only the CO2 emissions of an industrial process have been reduced, but it has been analyzed in detail how the recycling of this waste has reduced the emissions associated with the manufacture of gypsum panels. The presence of carbonates may be advantageous, with an analysis of their physical, mechanical, and fire resistance properties, as well as a life cycle assessment of the boards made with this material compared to commercial gypsum boards.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials and Experimental Procedure for CO2 Capture

PanReac-AppliChem supplied the chemicals used in the study, including sodium and calcium carbonate and sodium hydroxide (99% purity). A commercial gypsum (COMg, AFIMOSA S.L., Seville, Spain) was also used in compliance with EN 13279-1 [35]. The gypsum waste (FGD) utilized was supplied from flue gas desulphurization units in Compostilla (Ponferrada, Spain).
The method used to obtain the materials was previously described in [17]. In this previous work, the quantities used were very small because the tests were performed at the laboratory scale. In this work, we aimed to use the waste as a construction material and, for this, the quantities need to be greater. Thus, taking into account the parameters optimized in the old process, the first step consists of diluting 100 g of Na2CO3 in 2000 mL of distilled water with constant stirring. When this is completely diluted, 160.8 g of the FGD gypsum waste is added. Stirring is constant at all times and at 900 rpm. The reaction time, that is, from when the residue is added, is 2 h. As explained in [17], the pH of the reaction is measured in order to corroborate that the solution is alkaline due to the presence of carbonates. Thus, the pH is about 11.5. It should be noted that the experiments were performed in triplicate to check the reproducibility and efficiency of the method, which is ±3%. Finally, when the reaction is finished, the solution is left to settle for 2 h. Then, the largest amount of supernatant is removed with the help of a pipette and the rest is evaporated by placing the product in an oven at 120 °C for 24 h. The yield of the process was 70.35%, which is in accordance with our previous work.

2.2. Physicochemical Characterization of FGD Gypsum before and after CO2 Capture

The waste powders produced were analyzed using several methods to confirm the production of calcium carbonate. The wastes were characterized using XRD, Raman spectroscopy, and SEM to analyze the calcium carbonate production and investigate its main properties. Raman spectroscopy observations were performed using a Horiba Xplora plus spectrometer. The Bruker D8C X-ray diffractometer was used. The diffraction patterns were recorded using Cu Kα radiation (λ = 0.154 nm). A TENEO equipment (FEI) was employed for microstructural characterization. The particle size distribution of commercial gypsum and CO2 waste was measured by laser diffraction and the specific gravity was measured with a pycnometer.

2.3. Fabrication Process of the Fire Resistance Materials

The waste from CO2 capture was not previously treated (drying, grinding, or screening) before being employed in gypsum panels. This study developed two compositions in which trash was replaced by gypsum (0, 5, and 20% by weight). A reduction in the commercial gypsum content necessitated a corresponding reduction in the water content (0.45, 0.42, and 0.40, respectively) because the CO2 waste does not require water during the mixing while the commercial gypsum requires water for its hydration reaction (CaSO4 + 2H2O → CaSO4∙2H2O). All components were carefully mixed with a laboratory kneader. Initially, commercial gypsum and CO2 waste were added to the kneader and combined for three minutes. Water was then added to the solid mixture and stirred thoroughly until a homogeneous paste was created. Finally, the molds are filled to carry out the various tests. After 24 h, the molds are removed and maintained for another 27 days in a room at 65% humidity and 25 °C.

2.4. Methods for the Evaluation of Physical, Mechanical, and Fire Resistance Properties of the Gypsum-Based Products

The density was obtained by averaging 6 samples with an accuracy of ±0.2 g. An investigation on porosity has been undertaken using a Micromeritics Autopore IV (Norcross, GA, USA) mercury intrusion porosimeter. The measured pore size ranged from 0.007 to 150 μm. To prepare the samples, 5 mm pellets were formed and subsequently subjected to drying in an oven at 105 °C until a constant mass was attained.
Surface hardness has been measured using a Shore C durometer according to EN 12859 [36]. For each composition, five measurements were taken on different faces. A machine (Tinius Olsen-TO317EDG) was also used to determine the flexural (Rf) and compressive (Rc) [37] strengths. Flexural and compressive strength tests were performed on 3 and 4 16 cm × 4 cm × 4 cm samples, respectively.
Samples of a concentration range of 90–130 mg were collected from the test panels’ surfaces for the purpose of TG-SDTA measurement. A heating rate of 10 °C/min was set between 20 and 1000 °C, with air as purging gas.
The thermal conductivity (σ) at 23 °C has been calculated from the geometric density (ρ), the specific heat (Cp), and the thermal diffusivity (α), according to the following equation:
σ = ρ × Cp × α
using a Laser Flash device (LFA-1000, Linseys, Selb, Germany) for thermal diffusivity measurements and a modulated Q20 DSC device (TA Instruments, Barcelona, Spain) for specific heat measurement (Cp) and the density (ρ) according to the 1097-7 standard method [30].
The fire-resistance test was carried out according to EN 1363-1 [38], which is similar to other international standards. The experimental set-up has been described elsewhere [39] in panels of 2 cm of thickness. The insulating capacity is defined as the time necessary to reach 180 °C (160 + ambient temperature) in the non-exposed surface when the other is subjected to the standard time–temperature curve from EN 1363-1 [38].

2.5. Life Cycle Assessment

A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted to evaluate the potential environmental advantages associated with the substitution of waste generated in CO2 capture in contrast to conventional material (COMg). The LCA methodology was applied according to ISO 14044 and ISO 14040 standards [40,41].
Scope and Goal: The aim is to assess the environmental impact of integrating CO2 capture waste into fire-resistant materials. The analysis covered from cradle to grave. Figure 1 illustrates the main phases of the investigation:
Transport: All raw materials are transported from their origin to the production plant, from the final product to its point of use, and finally to disposal.
Raw materials and extraction are considered as follows: (1) Commercial gypsum according to EN 13279-1 [35]: Gypsum is extracted from quarries in its di-hydrated form; calcination is necessary to obtain hemi-hydrated gypsum. (2) CO2 capture waste (CO2C).
Production involves four stages: (1) Mixing and kneading, where gypsum and the capture waste are combined according to the compositions specified in Section 2.3. (2) Molding, where the material is placed in a one-square-meter mold. (3) Curing, the phase where the drying and hardening properties of the materials are ensured, according to Section 2.3. (4) Dismantling, which involves the removal of the mold in accordance with Section 2.3.
Use: To ensure that the materials met the same fire resistance category, different materials were allowed to have different thicknesses. For this reason, this stage is considered to have low significance.
End of life: All produced waste is sent to the landfill as construction and demolition waste.
A functional unit must have comparable fire resistance qualities to the typical material (commercial gypsum, COMg). As a result, the material thickness was estimated after obtaining the fire resistance data (Section 3.4 Fire Test), maintaining the height and length. This aspect is critical, as the material thickness parameter profoundly impacts the duration of fire resistance [23].

2.5.1. Life Cycle Inventory

To develop the foreground inventory based on the functional unit (1 m2), it is crucial to determine the thickness of each material, which will be outlined in the results section (Section 3.4). All data related to input and output background inventory were compiled using Ecoinvent 3.10.
Regarding raw materials, the process included calcining di-hydrated gypsum to produce hemi-hydrated gypsum. The di-hydrated gypsum was heated in a rotary kiln powered by natural gas and electricity. Producing hemi-hydrated gypsum required 820.60 MJ of thermal energy (including losses) and 28 kWh of electricity per ton [25]. Emissions from the natural gas combustion during dehydration were estimated from the data of Labein [42]. The CO2 capture waste did not undergo any treatment.
Once the thicknesses and densities of the materials are established in Section 3, the data on energy and electricity consumption, as well as waste generation during production, were gathered from a gypsum panel factory and aligned with Peceño et al. [25].
Section 17 of the European Commission’s 2000 Waste Catalogue indicates that waste generated at every stage of the system was classified as construction and demolition waste and disposed of in landfills, as reported by Galvez-Martos et al. [43].
The gypsum calcination and di-hydrated gypsum extraction processes were carried out in Sorbas (Almería, Andalusia), with the hemi-hydrated gypsum transported 360 km to a production facility in Seville (Yesos Afimosa). The CO2 capture waste originated from a thermal power plant in Compostilla (León, Spain), situated 802 km from the material production site. Waste produced during the manufacturing process was planned to be transported 42 km to a landfill in Utrera, Seville, Andalusia.
After production, it was expected that the materials would be transported 200 km to their intended use location. The plan included transporting end-of-life waste to a landfill 100 km away [44]. Distance estimates for transportation activities were made using the Google Maps™ application [45]. The transport of the different solid components was carried out by road, as Regulation Nº. 715 (EC) [46] sets, using a 16–32 ton Euro 6 truck.

2.5.2. Environmental Impact Assessment

The software used to analyze the LCA was SigmaPro (9.6.0.1 version), developed by PRé Consultants [47]. Environmental impacts were evaluated employing the ReCiPe 2016 (midpoint) methodology [48]. This method provides a thorough evaluation across a wide range of impact categories, including freshwater eutrophication (FEP), marine eutrophication (MEP), ozone depletion (ODP), ecosystem photochemical oxidant formation (EOFP), terrestrial acidification (TAP), human health photochemical oxidant formation (HOFP), marine ecotoxicity (METP), freshwater ecotoxicity (FETP), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TETP), cancer-related human toxicity (HTPc), mineral resource scarcity (SOP), non-cancer-related human toxicity (HTPnc), climate change (GWP), fine particulate matter formation (PMFP), water depletion (WCP), land use (LOP), and fossil resource scarcity (FFP).
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the reliability of the findings, utilizing the pivotal factors identified in the case study analysis.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characterization of the Waste after the CO2 Capture

Characterizing the physical and chemical properties of the powder samples is crucial for evaluating product quality and process feasibility. We have also characterized the waste carbonated to verify the product’s physicochemical quality. The results are presented in Figure 2.
The first step involved confirming the presence of carbonates using Raman spectroscopy. This was useful for identifying species in the powder. Figure 2a shows the findings of the Raman analysis for the carbonated trash. The Raman spectra of solid particles from carbonation tests reveal the CaCO3 band at 1086 cm−1 matches a commercial CaCO3 structure, confirming the success of the experiments. The crystal structure of calcium carbonate is crucial for its usability and can also be determined using XRD analysis (Figure 2b), which is the same as a commercial sample, demonstrating that the result is calcite, the most stable form of CaCO3, as indicated by the sharp peak at 28°. Calcite, the most stable form of CaCO3, has various industrial applications. SEM images in Figure 2c,d show the morphology of the carbonated waste. The calcite’s evolved rectangular or rhombohedral shape confirms the effective transformation of the final product.

3.2. Particle Size Distribution

As shown in Figure 3, the residue after CO2 capture has a particle size distribution within the same range as commercial gypsum, between 5 and 200 μm. However, commercial gypsum has a mode at 37 μm, whereas the residue after CO2 capture shows a more uniform percentage of particles across the entire range.
The specific gravity of CO2 waste and commercial gypsum were measured using a pycnometer, and they are 2.73 and 3.31 g/cm3, respectively.

3.3. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Products

Table 1 shows that the density falls when the waste is increased. This is due to (a), as illustrated in Figure 3, and the larger particle size of waste and (b), the lower specific density of the waste compared with commercial gypsum (2.73 and 3.31, respectively). As can be observed in Figure 4, larger particle sizes of waste result in greater interparticle porosity, which has caused the micropores present in the pastes in the 0.5 to 10 µm range. The lower specific density of the particles is also associated with a higher internal porosity of these particles, resulting in an increase in porosity in the 0.01 to 0.1 µm range in the pastes. Despite the reduced density of CO2 capture waste materials compared to COMg, all of them have densities greater than 1100 Kg/m3, qualifying them as high-density panels, per EN 12859 [36].
Strength (compressive and flexural) diminished when the content of wastes was increased due to two principal factors, (1) calcium carbonate compounds have no binding capacity and (2) the porosity of the materials in the range between 1 and 100 µm is a key factor in the strength [32]. The pores in this range are large enough to act as structural defects, concentrating stresses and reducing the paste’s ability to withstand loads. Additionally, these pores can interconnect, creating pathways of weakness within the material. The presence of pores smaller than 0.01 µm increased when the waste content was increased, but had no impact on the mechanical qualities of the paste [49]. EN 13279-1 [35] needs a minimum compressive strength of 2 MPa, which is met by both composites.
Surface hardness decreases with increasing waste content. The trend of this parameter and that described for compressive strength are quite similar and this is due to the fact that both have a direct relationship with porosity [32]. The superficial hardness must be higher than 80 Shore C for high-density panels according to EN 12859 [36], which is satisfied for both compositions.
Compressive and flexural strengths are similar to various materials including various wastes with comparable proportions (ashes from municipal waste incineration [28], mollusk shells [25], granulated blast furnace slag [32], TiO2 waste [30], or slightly better than zeolites [31]).

3.4. Thermal Conductivity and Fire Resistance

Table 2 shows the thermal properties of the COMg and 20CO2C, although the density practically does not decrease (7% reduction) when waste is added and the thermal properties decrease significantly (35% and 29% reduction of Cp and α, respectively, when the 5 and 20%wt waste are added), producing a diminution of 56% of the thermal conductivity. Both materials satisfy the requirement that the thermal conductivity at 23 °C should be less than 0.26 W/m·K, in line with EN 12859 [36]. The thermal conductivity of 20CO2C is lower than other gypsum panels with different wastes; 0.1544 W/(m·K) with an 8%wt of paraffin [50] and the thermal conductivity presents a range from 0.16 to 0.38 W/(m·K) when rice husk, silica, or slag were added [51]. On the other hand, Figure 5 shows the non-exposed surface temperature when the other surface of the panel is subjected to the standard temperature fire curve of EN 1363-1 [38].
The evaporation of water from a porous material, in its various forms (free, adsorbed, and crystallized), at elevated temperatures results in overpressure within the material. As a consequence of the overpressure, the evaporated water is forced into contact with the colder surface, where it condenses once more. This procedure creates a liquid coating that progressively spreads to the non-exposed surface. This movement expends some of the fire’s energy, keeping the temperature at around 100 °C, and this process causes an evaporation plateau (period of constant temperature in non-exposed surface) noticed during the fire resistance test, as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 6 shows the thermogravimetric analysis of COMg y 20CO2C; different endothermic peaks that belong to different types of water can be observed in the. Between 100 and 200 °C, gypsum is transformed to calcium sulfate (CaSO4·2H2O → CaSO4·H2O + 2 H2O) [52], and when the waste is added, the duration of the evaporation plateau in Figure 5 is reduced. Between 650 and 750 °C, the calcium carbonate is endothermically decomposed in CO2 and CaO. As shown in Figure 6, when the CO2 waste replaced the gypsum, the mass loss and the heat flow of the first peak were reduced. COMg presents a small peak of carbonate decomposition because commercial gypsum has a small addition of calcium carbonate during its production [21]. Nonetheless, when the CO2-based waste is added, the mass loss in the range of 650–750 °C proportionally increases to the content of waste. The energy absorbed in this range is low and it does not produce a new evaporation plateau but a reduction in the slope after the plateau is observed (Figure 5). This slightly reduces the effect of the shortening of the evaporation plateau duration. When 5 and 20%wt. of waste is added, the time to achieve 180 °C is reduced to 4 and 18%, respectively.

4. Life Cycle Assessment Analysis

4.1. Impact Categories

As shown in Figure 5 of Section 3.4, the material with 20% residue from CO2 capture would need to have an 18% greater thickness to match the fire resistance of COMg. Therefore, the life cycle data for COMg correspond to a thickness of 2 cm, while for the material with 20% residue from CO2 capture and 80% gypsum (20CO2C), the thickness is 2.36 cm. The life cycle inventory data for both materials are shown in Table 3.
As shown in Figure 7, in 13 out of the 18 impacts, the substitution of CO2 capture waste (20CO2C) for gypsum would not offer environmental advantages over the traditional material (COMg), with an increase ranging from 0.1% (FFP) to 14.1% (LOP). For these impacts, transportation was the main contributor for both COMg and 20CO2C, accounting for between 53.9% (HTPc) and 99.6% (LOP) for CO2C, and between 52.7% (FFP) and 99.4% (FETP) for COMg. This was due to the consumption of diesel and emissions associated with transport. The increase in the distances of the raw materials for the production of 20CO2C material compared to COMg (24.20 tkm and 19.48 tkm for 20CO2C and COMg, respectively) contributed to this.
In 5 out of the 18 impacts (FEP, HTPc, IRP, SOP, PMFP), the 20CO2C material showed environmental advantages over COMg. In these impacts, the extraction and calcination of gypsum contributed between 43.3% (HTPc) and 98.7% (SOP) for 20CO2C and between 50.8% (HTPc) and 99.1% (SOP) for COMg. The main cause of these impacts is the electricity consumption in the trommel kiln during the calcination of gypsum. The 20CO2C material achieves an electrical saving of 60Wh per panel compared to COMg.
The production step contributes relatively little to the impacts (<15.4% for COMg and <14.4% for 20CO2C). In this step, there is an increase in all the impacts for 20CO2C compared to COMg due to an increase in electricity consumption (1.21 Wh for 20CO2C and 1.17 Wh for COMg), associated with the increase in the thickness of the panel. There is a mass difference between the two materials (30.58 kg/FU for CO2C and 27.6 kg/FU for COMg), and therefore, the electrical power for kneading and molding is lower for 20CO2C.
The end-of-life step has a minimal contribution to the overall impacts (<5.3% for COMg and <5.2% for 20CO2C). Most of the impacts from landfilling are due to diesel usage for operating heavy machinery during disposal. The weight difference between the two barriers (30.58 kg/FU for CO2C versus 27.6 kg/FU for COMg) results in lower diesel consumption of heavy machinery for COMg.

4.2. Sensitivity Analysis

As shown in Figure 8, when the distance between the final material plant and the CO2 capture waste generation source is less than 200 km, the 20CO2C material results in a better scenario across all impacts compared to COMg. However, when the distance between the CO2 capture waste generation source and the production plant increases to 200–400 km, the 20CO2C material causes a worse environmental scenario in 7 out of the 18 impacts (MEP, LOP, TETP, FETP, WCP, METP, HTPnc) compared to COMg. As shown in Figure 6, in these impacts, transportation accounts for more than 84% of the total impact.
In the impacts FFP, TAP, ODP, GWP, EOFP, and HOFP, the 20CO2C material would result in a worse environmental scenario compared to COMg when the distance between the production plant and the CO2 capture waste generation site is between 400 and 800 km. This is because transportation contributes between 60.2% (FFP) and 83.6% (ODP) to the total impact. Additionally, gypsum and its calcination have a significant contribution, being the second most important factor in the total impact, with values ranging from 18.3% (GWP) to 38.8% (FFP).

5. Conclusions

This work has analyzed the physical, mechanical, and fire resistance properties and the environmental impact of recycling the solid waste produced during the capture of CO2 as a component of the gypsum panels. The principal conclusions of this work are:
-
The use of waste from CO2 capture produces a decrease in the density of the material, although in the ranges used, the material can be classified as high density.
-
The increase in the dosage of waste from CO2 capture produces a decrease in the flexural and compressive properties, although a dosage of up to 20%wt by weight satisfies all the mechanical requirements.
-
The replacement of commercial gypsum with waste from CO2 capture decreases the thermal conductivity and fire resistance, but this fire resistance decrease is less than that of the water chemically bound to the gypsum since the calcium carbonate present in the waste decomposes endothermically, absorbing part of the fire energy.
-
From the life cycle assessment, in the analyzed scenario, the material made with CO2 capture waste does not perform better in most environmental impacts compared to gypsum. Transportation becomes a critical factor for the sustainability of the recycling of this waste. The material made with CO2 capture waste presents environmental advantages over gypsum only if the distance between the gypsum production plant and the waste source is lower than 200 km compared with the distance between the gypsum extraction point and the gypsum production plant.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.M.B.-M., V.M. and. B.P.C.; Data curation, V.M. and J.D.R.-M.; Formal analysis, J.G.-A., V.M., B.P.C. and F.M.B.-M.; Investigation, J.D.R.-M., J.G.-A. and V.M.; Methodology, C.L. and F.M.B.-M.; Project administration, J.G.-A.; Re-sources, C.L. and J.G.-A.; Supervision, F.M.B.-M. and B.P.C.; Validation, J.D.R.-M. and J.G.-A. Writing—original draft, V.M., F.M.B.-M., B.P.C. and C.L.; Writing—review and editing, F.M.B.-M. and C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under grant number PID2019-110928RB-C33 and the grant FJC2021-047672-I co-financed by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and the European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR funds.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Maiti, S.; Jain, N.; Malik, J. A Comprehensive Review of Flue Gas Desulphurized Gypsum: Production, Properties, and Applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 393, 131918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Xie, Z.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Wei, C.; Gu, J. Application of the Industrial Byproduct Gypsum in Building Materials: A Review. Materials 2024, 17, 1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Maichin, P.; Jitsangiam, P.; Nongnuang, T.; Boonserm, K.; Nusit, K.; Pra-ai, S.; Binaree, T.; Aryupong, C. Stabilized High Clay Content Lateritic Soil Using Cement-FGD Gypsum Mixtures for Road Subbase Applications. Materials 2021, 14, 1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Phutthimethakul, L.; Kumpueng, P.; Supakata, N. Use of Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum, Construction and Demolition Waste, and Oil Palm Waste Trunks to Produce Concrete Bricks. Crystals 2020, 10, 709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Watts, D.B.; Dick, W.A. Sustainable Uses of FGD Gypsum in Agricultural Systems: Introduction. J. Environ. Qual. 2014, 43, 246–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Abdolvand, Y.; Sadeghiamirshahidi, M. Soil Stabilization with Gypsum: A Review. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. 2024, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Madejski, P.; Chmiel, K.; Subramanian, N.; Kuś, T. Methods and Techniques for CO2 Capture: Review of Potential Solutions and Applications in Modern Energy Technologies. Energies 2022, 15, 887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hekmatmehr, H.; Esmaeili, A.; Pourmahdi, M.; Atashrouz, S.; Abedi, A.; Abuswer, M.A.; Nedeljkovic, D.; Latifi, M.; Farag, S.; Mohaddespour, A. Carbon Capture Technologies: A Review on Technology Readiness Level. Fuel 2024, 363, 130898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chao, C.; Deng, Y.; Dewil, R.; Baeyens, J.; Fan, X. Post-Combustion Carbon Capture. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 2021, 138, 110490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Luis, P. Use of Monoethanolamine (MEA) for CO2 Capture in a Global Scenario: Consequences and Alternatives. Desalination 2016, 380, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baena-Moreno, F.M.; Leventaki, E.; Riddell, A.; Wojtasz-Mucha, J.; Bernin, D. Effluents and Residues from Industrial Sites for Carbon Dioxide Capture: A Review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 319–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dindi, A.; Quang, D.V.; Vega, L.F.; Nashef, E.; Abu-Zahra, M.R.M. Applications of Fly Ash for CO2 Capture, Utilization, and Storage. J. CO2 Util. 2019, 29, 82–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Leventaki, E.; Baena-Moreno, F.M.; Wojtasz-Mucha, J.; Sjöstedt, N.; Tajik, A.R.; Sardina, G.; Ström, H.; Bernin, D. Experimental Evaluation of Black Liquor Carbonation for Carbon Dioxide Capture. J. CO2 Util. 2023, 72, 102516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Li, L.; Yu, H.; Ji, L.; Zhou, S.; Dao, V.; Feron, P.; Benhelal, E. Integrated CO2 Capture and Mineralization Approach Based on KOH and Cement-Based Wastes. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 113382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sun, X.; Xu, B.; Yi, Y. Effects of Accelerated Carbonation on Fine Incineration Bottom Ash: CO2 Uptake, Strength Improvement, Densification, and Heavy Metal Immobilization. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 475, 143714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, Q.; Feng, P.; Shen, X.; Lu, J.; Ye, S.; Wang, H.; Ling, T.; Ran, Q. Utilization of Solid Wastes to Sequestrate Carbon Dioxide in Cement-Based Materials and Methods to Improve Carbonation Degree: A Review. J. CO2 Util. 2023, 72, 102502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Moreno, V.; González-Arias, J.; Ruiz-Martinez, J.D.; Balart-Gimeno, R.; Baena-Moreno, F.M.; Leiva, C. FGD-Gypsum Waste to Capture CO2 and to Recycle in Building Materials: Optimal Reaction Yield and Preliminary Mechanical Properties. Materials 2024, 17, 3774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yew, M.C.; Yew, M.K.; Yuen, R.K.K. Experimental Analysis of Lightweight Fire-Rated Board on Fire Resistance, Mechanical, and Acoustic Properties. Fire 2023, 6, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gravit, M.; Shabunina, D.; Nedryshkin, O. The Fire Resistance of Transformable Barriers: Influence of the Large-Scale Factor. Fire 2023, 6, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Romero-Gómez, M.I.; Silva, R.V.; Flores-Colen, I.; de Brito, J. Influence of Polypropylene Residues on the Physico-Mechanical and Water-Resistance Properties of Gypsum Plasters. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 371, 133674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Leiva, C.; Vilches, L.F.; Vale, J.; Fernández-Pereira, C. Fire Resistance of Biomass Ash Panels Used for Internal Partitions in Buildings. Fire Saf. J. 2009, 44, 622–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Galiano, Y.L.; Leiva, C.; Arenas, C.; Arroyo, F.; Vilches, L.; Pereira, C.F.; Villegas, R. Behaviour of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Panels Under Fire. Waste Biomass Valorization 2017, 8, 2485–2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jiang, Z.; Qin, B.; Shi, Q.; Ma, Z.; Shao, X.; Xu, Y.; Hao, M.; Yang, Y. Effect of Ball Milling Activation on CO2 Mineralization Performance in Fly Ash and Fire Resistance Capabilities of Mineralized Product. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 113954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mussa, M.H.; Radzi, N.A.M.; Hamid, R.; Mutalib, A.A. Fire Resistance of High-Volume Fly Ash RC Slab Inclusion with Nano-Silica. Materials 2021, 14, 3311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Peceño, B.; Alonso-Fariñas, B.; Vilches, L.F.; Leiva, C. Study of Seashell Waste Recycling in Fireproofing Material: Technical, Environmental, and Economic Assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 148102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Batistella, M.; Roux, J.-C.; Masarra, N.-A.; le Saout, G.; Xenopoulos, C.; Lopez-Cuesta, J.-M. Incorporation of Fly Ash in Flame-Retardant Systems of Biopolyesters. Polymers 2023, 15, 2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zanoletti, A.; Ciacci, L. The Reuse of Municipal Solid Waste Fly Ash as Flame Retardant Filler: A Preliminary Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Peceño, B.; Luna-Galiano, Y.; Varela, F.; Alonso-Fariñas, B.; Leiva, C. Study of a Fire-Resistant Plate Containing Fly Ashes Generated from Municipal Waste Incinerator: Fire and Mechanical Characteristics and Environmental Life Cycle Assessment. Materials 2024, 17, 1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Guedri, A.; Abdallah, F.; Mefteh, N.; Hamdi, N.; Baeza-Urrea, O.; Wagner, J.-F.; Zagrarni, M.F. Addition of Phosphogypsum to Fire-Resistant Plaster Panels: A Physic–Mechanical Investigation. Inorganics 2023, 11, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Salazar, P.A.; Fernández, C.L.; Luna-Galiano, Y.; Sánchez, R.V.; Fernández-Pereira, C. Physical, Mechanical and Radiological Characteristics of a Fly Ash Geopolymer Incorporating Titanium Dioxide Waste as Passive Fire Insulating Material in Steel Structures. Materials 2022, 15, 8493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Leiva, C.; Arenas, C.; Vilches, L.F.; Arroyo, F.; Luna-Galiano, Y.; Villegas, R.; Fernández-Pereira, C. Use of Zeolitized Coal Fly Ash as Main Component in Panels with High Fire Resistance. ACI Mater. J. 2018, 115, 393–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kielė, A.; Vaičiukynienė, D.; Bertašius, Š.; Krivenko, P.; Bistrickaitė, R.; Jocius, V.; Ramukevičius, D. Alkali-Activated Slag Coatings for Fire Protection of OPC Concrete. Materials 2023, 16, 7477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sakkas, K.; Nomikos, P.; Sofianos, A.; Panias, D. Utilisation of FeNi-Slag for the Production of Inorganic Polymeric Materials for Construction or for Passive Fire Protection. Waste Biomass Valorization 2014, 5, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gutiérrez-González, S.; Gadea, J.; Rodríguez, A.; Junco, C.; Calderón, V. Lightweight Plaster Materials with Enhanced Thermal Properties Made with Polyurethane Foam Wastes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 28, 653–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. EN 13279-1:2008; Gypsum Binders and Gypsum Plasters—Part 1: Definitions and Requirements. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
  36. EN 12859; Gypsum Blocks Definitions, Requirements and Test Methods. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
  37. EN 1015-11; Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonary—Part 11: Determination of Flexural and Compressive Strength of Hardened Mortar. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2000.
  38. EN 1363-1; Fire Resistance Tests—Part 1: General Requirements. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
  39. Vilches, L.F.; Leiva, C.; Vale, J.; Olivares, J.; Fernández-Pereira, C. Fire Resistance Characteristics of Plates Containing a High Biomass−Ash Proportion. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 4824–4829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  41. ISO 14044; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirement and Guidelines—International. Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  42. Fundación Labein. Guía Técnica Para La Medición, Estimación y Cálculo de Las Emisiones al Aire. Soc. Pública De Gestión Ambiental del Gobierno Vasco. 2005. Available online: https://www.euskadi.eus/contenidos/documentacion/eprtr/es_guia/adjuntos/residuos.pdf (accessed on 11 September 2024).
  43. Gálvez-Martos, J.L.; Styles, D.; Schoenberger, H.; Zeschmar-Lahl, B. Construction and Demolition Waste Best Management Practice in Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mercante, I.T.; Bovea, M.D.; Ibáñez-Forés, V.; Arena, A.P. Life Cycle Assessment of Construction and Demolition Waste Management Systems: A Spanish Case Study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012, 17, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Google Maps. Distances. 2024. Available online: https://www.google.com/maps/ (accessed on 10 September 2024).
  46. European Commission. Regulation (EC) No 715/2007—Of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on Type Approval of Motor Vehicles with Respect to Emissions from Light Passenger and Commercial Vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on Access to Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Information; European Commission: Strasbourg, France, 2007.
  47. PRé Consultants, B.V. PRé Consultants PRé Consultants SimaPro 9.6.0.1. LCA Software and Database Manual; PRé Consultants, B.V.: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  48. Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Elshout, P.M.F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.; Zijp, M.; Hollander, A.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe2016: A Harmonised Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ríos, J.D.; Leiva, C.; de la Concha, A.; Ariza, M.P.; Cifuentes, H. Influence of Graphene Oxide Concentration and Ultrasonication Energy on Fracture Behavior of Nano-Reinforced Cement Pastes. Crystals 2024, 14, 707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, C.; Wang, H.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Jiu, S. Mechanical and Thermal Properties of Thermally Conductive Enhanced Paraffin/Gypsum Composites. Processes 2023, 11, 999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Prałat, K.; Ciemnicka, J.; Koper, A.; Buczkowska, K.E.; Łoś, P. Comparison of the Thermal Properties of Geopolymer and Modified Gypsum. Polymers 2021, 13, 1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Leiva, C.; Vilches, L.F.; Vale, J.; Fernández-Pereira, C. Influence of the Type of Ash on the Fire Resistance Characteristics of Ash-Enriched Mortars. Fuel 2005, 84, 1433–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fire 07 00365 g001
Figure 1. Life Cycle System Boundaries for production of fire materials from CO2 capture waste and commercial gypsum.
Figure 1. Life Cycle System Boundaries for production of fire materials from CO2 capture waste and commercial gypsum.
Fire 07 00365 g001
Fire 07 00365 g002
Figure 2. Physicochemical characterization of the waste carbonated: (a) Raman spectra; (b) XRD diffractogram; (c,d) SEM images.
Figure 2. Physicochemical characterization of the waste carbonated: (a) Raman spectra; (b) XRD diffractogram; (c,d) SEM images.
Fire 07 00365 g002
Fire 07 00365 g003
Figure 3. Particle size distribution of commercial gypsum and CO2 waste.
Figure 3. Particle size distribution of commercial gypsum and CO2 waste.
Fire 07 00365 g003
Fire 07 00365 g004
Figure 4. Porosimetry analysis of the different pastes.
Figure 4. Porosimetry analysis of the different pastes.
Fire 07 00365 g004
Fire 07 00365 g005
Figure 5. Insulating capacity of the panels.
Figure 5. Insulating capacity of the panels.
Fire 07 00365 g005
Fire 07 00365 g006
Figure 6. TG-DSC of COMg and 20CO2C.
Figure 6. TG-DSC of COMg and 20CO2C.
Fire 07 00365 g006
Fire 07 00365 g007
Figure 7. LCA impacts of COMg and 20CO2C. Notes: Waste management includes landfill treatment for end-of-life materials, as well as rejected and lost items throughout manufacturing. To clarify, certain impacts have been scaled. To obtain the original value, multiply by the factor displayed on the x-axis for each applicable impact. GWP: climate change, ODP: ozone depletion, TAP: terrestrial acidification, EOFP: ecosystem photochemical oxidant formation, FEP: freshwater eutrophication, MEP: marine eutrophication, HTPc: human toxicity (cancer), HTPnc: human toxicity (non-cancer), PMFP: fine particulate matter formation, HOFP: human health photochemical oxidant formation, TETP: terrestrial ecotoxicity, FETP: freshwater ecotoxicity, WCP: water depletion (mineral), METP: marine ecotoxicity, LOP: land use, FFP: fossil resource scarcity.
Figure 7. LCA impacts of COMg and 20CO2C. Notes: Waste management includes landfill treatment for end-of-life materials, as well as rejected and lost items throughout manufacturing. To clarify, certain impacts have been scaled. To obtain the original value, multiply by the factor displayed on the x-axis for each applicable impact. GWP: climate change, ODP: ozone depletion, TAP: terrestrial acidification, EOFP: ecosystem photochemical oxidant formation, FEP: freshwater eutrophication, MEP: marine eutrophication, HTPc: human toxicity (cancer), HTPnc: human toxicity (non-cancer), PMFP: fine particulate matter formation, HOFP: human health photochemical oxidant formation, TETP: terrestrial ecotoxicity, FETP: freshwater ecotoxicity, WCP: water depletion (mineral), METP: marine ecotoxicity, LOP: land use, FFP: fossil resource scarcity.
Fire 07 00365 g007
Fire 07 00365 g008
Figure 8. Environmental impact of varying distances between the CO2 capture waste facility and the materials production facility. Note: Figure 6 illustrates the nomenclature meaning.
Figure 8. Environmental impact of varying distances between the CO2 capture waste facility and the materials production facility. Note: Figure 6 illustrates the nomenclature meaning.
Fire 07 00365 g008
Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of different ratios of gypsum/waste.
Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of different ratios of gypsum/waste.
SampleDensity (kg/m3)Superficial Hardness
(Shore C)		Compressive Strength
(MPa)		Flexural Strength
(MPa)
COMg1380 ± 1592 ± 38.3 ± 1.21.2 ± 0.2
5CO2C1349 ± 1289 ± 36.6 ± 0.90.8 ± 0.1
20CO2C 1296 ± 1082 ± 23.0 ±0.40.2 ± 0.1
Table 2. Thermal properties of COMg and 20CO2C at 23 °C.
Table 2. Thermal properties of COMg and 20CO2C at 23 °C.
Sample
(Ratio Gypsum/Waste)		Cp
(J/g·K)		Thermal Diffusivity (α)
(cm2/s)		Thermal Conductivity (W/m·K)
COMg0.32 ± 0.030.0035 ± 0.00020.155 ± 0.03
20CO2C0.21 ± 0.020.0025 ± 0.00010.068 ± 0.01
Table 3. Life cycle inventory data for two materials (COMg, and with CO2 capture waste, 20CO2C, with the same fire resistance).
Table 3. Life cycle inventory data for two materials (COMg, and with CO2 capture waste, 20CO2C, with the same fire resistance).
SectionInputOutputUnitCOMg20CO2C
Thicknesscm2.002.36
Volume (dm3) 20.0023.60
Gypsum calcinationGypsum di-hydrate kg30.6728.07
Natural gas MJ21.2219.42
Electricity kWh0.720.66
Gypsum hemi-hydrate2kg25.8623.67
Emissions to air
Methanemg0.030.03
Carbon Dioxidemg1.181.08
Carbon Monoxidemg0.210.19
Volatile Organic Compoundsmg0.110.10
Nitrogen Oxidesmg1.101.01
Nitrogen Dioxidemg0.020.02
CO2 capture waste kg-5.92
ProductionWater kg11.6413.31
Electricity Wh1.171.21
Waste to Landfill kg3.754.17
End of life Waste to Landfillkg27.6030.59
TransportTransport tkm19.4824.20
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ruiz-Martinez, J.D.; Moreno, V.; González-Arias, J.; Peceño Capilla, B.; Baena-Moreno, F.M.; Leiva, C. A Circular Economy Perspective: Recycling Wastes through the CO2 Capture Process in Gypsum Products. Fire Resistance, Mechanical Properties, and Life Cycle Analysis. Fire 2024, 7, 365. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7100365

AMA Style

Ruiz-Martinez JD, Moreno V, González-Arias J, Peceño Capilla B, Baena-Moreno FM, Leiva C. A Circular Economy Perspective: Recycling Wastes through the CO2 Capture Process in Gypsum Products. Fire Resistance, Mechanical Properties, and Life Cycle Analysis. Fire. 2024; 7(10):365. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7100365

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ruiz-Martinez, Jaime D., Virginia Moreno, Judith González-Arias, Begoña Peceño Capilla, Francisco M. Baena-Moreno, and Carlos Leiva. 2024. "A Circular Economy Perspective: Recycling Wastes through the CO2 Capture Process in Gypsum Products. Fire Resistance, Mechanical Properties, and Life Cycle Analysis" Fire 7, no. 10: 365. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7100365

APA Style

Ruiz-Martinez, J. D., Moreno, V., González-Arias, J., Peceño Capilla, B., Baena-Moreno, F. M., & Leiva, C. (2024). A Circular Economy Perspective: Recycling Wastes through the CO2 Capture Process in Gypsum Products. Fire Resistance, Mechanical Properties, and Life Cycle Analysis. Fire, 7(10), 365. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire7100365

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop