Abstract

—

Over a million tonnes of cigarette butts (CBs) areproduced worldwide annually. These CBs accumulate in theenvironment due to the poor biodegradability of the cellulose acetatefilters and pose a serious environmental risk. This paper presentssome of the results from a continuing study on recycling CBs intofired clay bricks. Properties including compressive strength, flexuralstrength, density, water absorption and thermal conductivity of firedclay bricks are reported and discussed. Furthermore, leaching of heavy metals from the manufactured clay bricks was tested. Theresults show that the density of fired bricks was reduced by about 8 –30 %, depending on the percentage of CBs incorporated into the rawmaterials. The compressive strength of bricks tested was 12.57, 5.22and 3.00 MPa for 2.5, 5.0 and 10 % CB content respectively. Waterabsorption and initial rate of absorption values increased as density,and hence porosity, of bricks decreased with increasing CB volume.The leaching test results revealed trace amounts of heavy metals.

Keywords

—

Cigarette butts, Fired clay bricks, Light bricks,Recycling waste, Thermal conductivity.

NTRODUCTION

ORLDWIDE, cigarette butts (CBs) are the mostcommon type of litter. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that in 2004 over 5.5 trillion cigaretteswere produced in the world [1]. This is equivalent to anestimated 1.2 million tonnes of cigarette butt waste per year.These figures are expected to increase by more than 50% by2025, mainly due to an increase in world population [2]. InAustralia alone, an estimated 25 to 30 billion filteredcigarettes [3] are smoked each year; of these, an estimated 7billion are littered [4].CBs accumulate in the environment mainly due to the poorbiodegradability of the cellulose acetate filters. CB filtersrelease a range of toxic chemicals as they deteriorate [5], [6].CBs are carried by stormwater into watercourses andultimately the ocean where the chemicals they contain pose arisk to the organisms of both freshwater and marineenvironments [3], [7].

Aeslina Abdul Kadir (PhD candidate), School of Civil, Environmental andChemical Engineering, RMIT University, 3001, Melbourne, Australia (e-mail:aeslina.abdulkadir@student.rmit.edu.au).Abbas Mohajerani (PhD, Senior Lecturer), School of Civil, Environmentaland Chemical Engineering, RMIT University, 3001, Melbourne, Australia.(corresponding author phone: +61 3 99253082; fax: +61 3 96390138; e-mail:dr.abbas@rmit.edu.au).

Landfilling and incineration of CB waste are not,universally, environmentally sustainable nor economicallyfeasible disposal methods. Even when correctly binned andsent to landfill far from natural waterways, CBs remain anenvironmental hazard [8]. Also, landfilling of waste with highorganic content and toxic substances is in general becomingincreasingly costly and difficult [9]-[11]. Incineration of CBsis also a seemingly unsustainable solution as emissions fromthe burning waste contain various hazardous substances [12].Recycling CBs is problematic because there are no easymechanisms or procedures to assure efficient and economicalseparation and recycling of the entrapped chemicals. Analternative could be to incorporate CBs in a sustainablecomposite building material such as fired bricks.Brick is one of the most accommodating masonry units as abuilding material due to its properties. Attempts have beenmade to incorporate waste in the production of bricks; forinstance, the use of rubber [13], limestone dust and woodsawdust [14], processed waste tea [15], fly ash [16], [17],polystyrene [18] and sludge [19]. Recycling of such wastes byincorporating them into building materials is a practicalsolution to the pollution problem. In addition, addingcarbonaceous industrial wastes has also been demonstrated tobe an efficient and environmentally advantageous way of reducing fuel use for brick-making. This paper describes someof the procedures and results from a study on incorporatingCBs into fired clay bricks. Physical and mechanical propertiesof several brick samples with different CB contents arepresented and discussed.II.

ATERIALS AND

ETHODS

The CBs (of different brands and sizes) used in this study(Fig. 1) were provided by Buttout Australia Pty Ltd. The buttshad been collected from dry receptacles. Upon delivery, theCBs were disinfected at 105

C for 24 hours and then stored insealed plastic bags. The soil used was brown silty clayey sandprepared for making fired clay and provided by Boral BricksPty Ltd, Australia. The classification tests including liquidlimit, plastic limit, plasticity index and particle sizedistribution were carried out according to Australian Standard[20]. Chemical analyses were carried out to determine themain chemical components of the experimental soil. Chemicalcomposition of the raw clay samples was determined using X-ray Fluorescence (XRF).

Aeslina Abdul Kadir, and Abbas Mohajerani

Possible Utilization of Cigarette Butts in Light-Weight Fired Clay Bricks

Fig. 1 Cigarette butts used in the study

Proctor standard compaction tests were conducted,according to Australian Standard [21], to determine optimummoisture contents (OMC) and maximum dry densities for theexperimental soil (control sample) and the mixed soil-CBssamples.Four different mixes were used for making fired brick samples (Table I). The CB content by volume depends ondegree of disintegration of CBs during the mixing andcompaction of samples. These values were estimated using thedensity of compacted mixes and the density of the compactedCBs alone in the compaction mould.

TABLE

IXES

SED IN THIS

TUDY

MixtureidentificationPercentage of CBs by weight(%)Estimatedpercentage of CBsby volume(as compacted)(%)CB (0.0)CB (2.5)CB (5.0)CB (10.0)02.55.010.00102030

The mixes were made using a Hobart mechanical mixerwith a 10 litre capacity for 5 minutes. Potable water for theOMCs was used in order to make high density brick samples.The samples were compacted manually in appropriate mouldsusing predetermined masses corresponding to the maximumdensity (found from standard compaction tests). The sampleswere made in three sizes (Fig. 2), cube (100 x 100 x 100 mm),beam (225 x 110 x 75 mm) and brick (300 x 100 x 50 mm),for determining compressive strength, modulus of rupture,rate of water absorption, total water absorption and the densityof the manufactured bricks.The specimens were dried at 105

C for 24 hours, removedfrom the moulds and were fired in a (Barnstead/Thermolyne30400) furnace at 1050

C. The fired samples were tested forcompressive strength, flexural strength, density, waterabsorption and initial rate of absorption. All tests were carriedout according to the Australian Standard [22] and the resultsreported are the mean of three values. Also, Australian BottleLeaching Procedure (ABLP), [23], was used for conducting aleachate analysis for the manufactured clay bricks. Leachatesamples were prepared in triplicate and analyzed usingInductive Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrophotometer (ICPMS).

Fig. 2 Compacted bricks, beams and cubes (soil-CBs mix)

III.

ESULTS AND

ISCUSSION

Some of the physical and chemical properties of the soilused in making the experimental bricks are presented inTables II and III.

TABLE

IIP

ROPERTIES OF THE

OIL

SED IN

AKING

IRED

RICKS

Soil Physical Properties Test ResultsParticles < 75 µm (%) 29Liquid Limit (%) 31Plastic Limit (%) 21Plasticity index (%) 10Maximum Dry Density (kg/m

) 1807Optimum moisture content (%) 17TABLE

IIIC

HEMICAL

OMPOSITION OF THE

OIL

SED IN

AKING

IRED

RICKS

Compound Formula AtomicWeightAveragecomposition(wt.%)SiO

14 58.73Al

13 18.75Fe

26 5.032K

O 19 3.446MgO 12 1.639TiO

22 0.5079Na

O 11 0.204CaO 20 0.189Loss on Ignition 9.60%

The density of the manufactured bricks decreased almostlinearly from 2118 kg/m

for the control samples (0 % CBs) to1482 kg/m

for bricks with 10 % CB content (Fig. 3). Thedensity of bricks decreased by 8.3 %, 23.9 % and 30 % when2.5 %, 5 % and 10 % CBs was incorporated into the rawmaterials (Table IV). The bricks became more porous as CBcontent increased (Figs. 4 and 5). Low-density or light-weight

bricks have great advantages in construction including, forexample, lower structural dead load, easier handling, lowertransport costs, lower thermal conductivity, and a highernumber of bricks produced per tonne of raw materials. Lightbricks can be substituted for standard bricks in mostapplications except when bricks of higher strength are neededor when a particular look or finish is desirable for architecturalreasons. The light-weight bricks produced by incorporating2.5 % to 10 % CBs by mass, equivalent to approximately 10to 30 % by volume can be used in different applicationsaccording to the required strength.

y = -65.143x + 2073R

= 0.90210001500200025000.02.55.07.510.012.5CBs (% by mass)

D r y D e n s i t y ( k g / m

)

Fig. 3 Effect of CB content on density of fired bricks

TABLE

IVE

XPERIMENTAL

ESULTS

FOR THE

ONTROL

IX AND

THER

RIAL

IXES

ONTAINING

MixtureidentificationCompressiveStrength(MPa)FlexuralStrength(MPa)WaterAbsorption(%)Initial Rateof Absorption(IRA)(kg/m

/min)AverageDensity(kg/m

)CB (0.0)CB (2.5)CB (5.0)CB (10.0)25.6512.575.223.002.792.482.401.245915180.21.42.34.92118194116111482*Average values of 3 test results

Fig. 4 Surface texture of bricks for mixes with 0 %, 2.5 %, 5 % and10 % CBs

Fig. 5 Cross sections of bricks for mixes with 0 %, 2.5 %, 5 % and10 % CBs

The compressive strength of bricks tested (Fig. 6) wasreduced markedly from 25.65 MPa (for 0 % CBs) to 12.57,5.22 and 3.00 MPa for 2.5, 5.0 and 10 % CB contentrespectively (Fig. 7). Compressive strength is important fordetermining the load bearing capability of the brick. Highermixing speed and longer duration of mixing might lead tofiner mixtures with higher compressive strength results; this iscurrently under investigation. Furthermore, differenttemperature regimes during firing might lead to highercompressive strength.

Fig. 6 Compressive strength test

y = -2.1158x + 20.864R