Journal of Environmental Management 143 (2014) 186e196

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Review

Development of eco-friendly porous fired clay bricks using

pore-forming agents: A review
Cecile Bories a, b, c, *, Marie-Elisabeth Borredon a, b, Emeline Vedrenne a, b,
Gerard Vilarem a, b
a
Universit
e de Toulouse, INPT, LCA (Laboratoire de Chimie Agro-Industrielle), ENSIACET, 4 all

ee Emile Monso - BP 44362, 31030 Toulouse Cedex 4, France
b
INRA, UMR 1010 CAI, Toulouse, France
c
Arterris Innovation, 24 avenue Marcel Dassault, 31500 Toulouse, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Today, clay bricks are facing technological challenges and are uncompetitive compared to materials such
Received 13 May 2013 as concrete. Their performance must be improved if they are to stand up to the competition. Increasing
Received in revised form environmental concerns over the accumulation of unmanaged wastes from agricultural or industrial
10 April 2014
productions have made these good candidates for incorporation into building materials to improve their
Accepted 11 May 2014
Available online
performance. This process leads to the formation of pores in the bricks, producing lightweight and
sustainable building materials.
This paper reviews the different pore-forming agents from renewable or mineral resources as
Keywords:
Clay brick
described in the literature. It also presents the impact of pore-forming agents on the physical, mechanical
Renewable or fossil and mineral waste and thermal properties of clay bricks.
recycling © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sustainable building material
Porosity
Thermal conductivity
Compressive strength

1. Introduction
Worldwide, bricks are a major building material and perhaps
one of the oldest. Since 3000 BC, as humans started to settle, bricks
appeared as an interesting product, resistant, easily workable and
usable, meaning that people could effectively protect themselves
against the elements such as rain or wind and predators. For many
years, bricks were hand-molded and sun-dried giving them rather
fragile properties, but around 2500 BC the first fired bricks were
produced, allowing people to make larger buildings (Chabat, 1881).
In most countries, the development of bricks continued through
the ages and especially at the beginning of industrialization in 1830,
with the invention of a brick press by Auguste Virebent. Brick in-
dustries started to develop during the Industrial Revolution,
grouping into factories, and thus production expanded (Brongniart,
1844).
* Corresponding author. INP-ENSIACET, Laboratoire de Chimie Agro-Industrielle,

e Emile Monso - BP 44362, 31030 Toulouse Cedex 4, France. Tel.: þ33 (0)
4alle
534323558; fax: þ33 (0)534323597.
E-mail address: cecile.bories@ensiacet.fr (C. Bories).
Since then, bricks have been used continuously for the con-
struction of buildings because of their interesting physical, me-
chanical and thermal properties, especially their strength,
durability and compactness (Kadir and Sarani, 2012; Sutas et al.,
2012). It is indeed an economical product with cheap and abun-
dant raw materials (for example clay and sand) and produced via a
simple manufacturing process (drying, firing).
With the arrival on the construction market of high perfor-
mance concrete (HPC) in the 1980's, bricks started to lose their
market share and almost disappeared. In 2001, bricks accounted for
only 2% of annual sales in the French building materials industry,
whereas the concrete sector dominated the market with about 70%
of sales (SESSI and Ministe

re de l’Economie, des Finances et de
l’Industrie, 2003). Traditional bricks came up against technolog-
ical barriers because of their limited thermal insulation properties
and high weight, making them difficult to use for tall buildings.
Therefore, there is a need to design an innovative material with
improved performance (thermal and mechanical).
In order to achieve such improvements, incorporation of parti-
cles into the clay mixture could be envisaged, creating voids during
the firing process, and thus positively modifying brick properties.
Nowadays and especially over the past twenty years, wastes have

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.006
0301-4797/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C. Bories et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 143 (2014) 186e196
often been used for this purpose (Devant et al., 2011). This could be
an alternative way to reuse these materials, instead of dumping or
burning them, while enhancing thermal and mechanical properties
of bricks. Moreover, with the increasing popularity of environ-
mentally friendly products, it could be of interest to produce a
material that benefits the environment, while retaining the requi-
site performance (Dhanapandian and Gnanavel, 2010).
2. Generalities on porous clay bricks
Brick manufacturers have always wanted to develop products
exhibiting the best insulation properties, because of environmental
regulations and the growing demand for such a product (Demir
et al., 2005). A way to reduce thermal conductivity would be to
create cavities within the structure (Gualtieri et al., 2010), thus,
increasing the porosity, giving more air contained and so thermal
conductivity would fall.
In order to raise porosity, additives can be incorporated into the
clay mixture before firing (Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012a), and the
amount and nature of the matter chosen have a direct impact on
the physical properties of the bricks developed. Actually, addition
of materials that burn during the firing process lead to the creation
of pores that decrease the product's density and thermal conduc-
tivity, but also unfortunately its mechanical resistance, by modi-
fying its composition and microstructure (Ba
nhidi and Go €mze,
2008; Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012a). It is thus necessary to find a
compromise between thermal and mechanical properties in order
to produce a competitive brick.
The focus, for the purposes of this review, will be restricted to
fired clay-bricks containing pore-forming agents.
2.1. Pore-forming agents
Most of the pore-forming agents can be divided into two
groups: those from renewable resources and those from mineral
resources (those not classifiable in either of these groups will not
be dealt with here). Renewable additives are affordable, abundant
and have little impact on the environment (Demir et al., 2005).
During the firing step, they break down completely, creating pores
with different sizes and forms (Ba
nhidi and Go € mze, 2008) and
giving off energy that can be used in the firing furnace (Demir
et al., 2005). Similarly, the agents from mineral resources are
interesting as they also generate gases during firing. However, a
larger quantity of material needs to be added to obtain such an
effect than with renewables, leading to a more expensive product.
They also induce negative changes in the plasticity of the mixture
by increasing the water demand to obtain the desired rheology
(Demir et al., 2005).
2.1.1. Renewable agents
The development of world agricultural and industrial produc-
tion has led to the accompanying production of large quantities of
waste. Most of these residues are not adequately managed and are
often landfilled or burned (Demir and Orhan, 2003; Alonso-
Santurde et al., 2011). Nowadays, with increasing concern for the
environment, researchers are interested in the production of new
building materials, for instance clay bricks incorporating these
wastes, especially the organic ones (Algin and Turgut, 2008).
Products or by-products of agricultural crops have for example
been used, as they are abundant and quite cheap: wheat straw, corn
cob, several seeds (rape, maize, wheat and sunflower (Saiah et al.,
2010)), grass (Demir, 2008), olive mill solid residue (de la Casa
et al., 2012; La Rubia-García et al., 2012), sunflower seed shell
(Ba
nhidi and Go€ mze, 2008), rice husk (Carter et al., 1982; Chiang
187
et al., 2009; Sutas et al., 2012), rice husk ash (Sutas et al., 2012)
and rice peel (Ba
nhidi and Go €mze, 2008).
Industrial wastes have also been incorporated into bricks: from
the wood industry e resinous wood fibers (Saiah et al., 2010) or
sawdust (B
anhidi and Go €mze, 2008; Demir, 2008), from the to-
bacco industry e tobacco waste (Demir, 2008) or cigarette butts
(Kadir et al., 2010), from the brewing industry e spent grains (Russ
et al., 2005) or bagasse (Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011; Martínez et al.,
2012), from the paper industry e Kraft pulp residues (Demir et al.,
2005), recycled paper processing residues (Sutcu and Akkurt, 2009)
or concentrates of bleach plant membrane filtration (Shukla et al.,
2010), from the biodiesel industry e glycerin and spent earth
from filtration (Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012a), from the sugarcane
industry (Faria et al., 2012), from the tea and coffee industry (Demir,
2006; Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011), from biomass incineration

rez-Villarejo et al., 2012) and from charcoal production
(Pe
(Phonphuak and Thiansem, 2012). Wastewater and sludge have
also been reused in clay bricks: from olive mill (Mekki et al., 2008;
Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011), from acidic processes (Koseoglu et al.,
2010) or from various plants (Giugliano and Paggi, 1985; Wiebusch
and Seyfried, 1997; Basegio et al., 2002; Weng et al., 2003; Eliche-
Quesada et al., 2011; Herek et al., 2012).
Table 1 shows most of the “organic” pore-forming agents found
in the literature that have been tested, how they are generally used,
and the quantity incorporated (by weight) into clay bricks. What is
noteworthy is that the chosen materials are locally available and
cheap (or even free), and more or less recycled, which explains their
diversity; they were not particularly chosen for their composition
or properties but more for their abundance.
2.1.2. Pore-forming agents from mineral resources
In order to produce lightweight construction bricks, pore-
forming agents from mineral resources have also been incorpo-
rated. During the firing step as renewable agents they break down,
producing carbon dioxide (essentially by decomposition of calcium
carbonate), leading to porous materials, with different pore sizes.
The properties of the bricks obtained are interesting but depend,
among other things, on the nature and quantity of the pore-
forming agent added.
Various types of wastes have been added to bricks: sands
(Alonso-Santurde et al., 2011; Quijorna et al., 2012 combined with
slags), slags (Shih et al., 2004; Dondi et al., 2010), ashes and dust
(Domínguez and Ullman, 1996; Cultrone and Sebasti
an, 2009; Lin,
2006; Koseoglu et al., 2010), tailings (Uslu and Arol, 2004;
Menezes et al., 2005; Topçu and Işıkdag , 2007; Chen et al., 2011),
marble residues (Saboya Jr. et al., 2007; Montero et al., 2009; (Eliche-
Quesada et al., 2012b) or even marble and granite powder
(Dhanapandian and Gnanavel, 2010), waste glass (Lin, 2007; Dondi
et al., 2009) or waste from phosphoric acid plants (Abalı et al., 2007).
Table 2 summarizes the “inorganic” products described in the
literature, how they are generally used and the percentage incor-
porated (by weight) into clay bricks.
2.2. Methodology for manufacturing porous bricks
Porous bricks are usually prepared using the following process
(Fig. 1). The raw materials (clay, pore-forming agents) are first
chosen and characterized, then mixed together with addition of
water. The resulting mixtures are then molded manually or by
extrusion. Finally, the drying and firing steps lead to the desired
bricks.
Various types of bricks with different shapes (bricks, cubes,
cylindrical test pieces) have been produced and described in the
literature. Several methods for molding (molding box, manual
compaction, extrusion, press) and conditions of drying and firing
188 C. Bories et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 143 (2014) 186e196

Table 1
Pore-forming agents from renewable resources incorporated into fired clay bricks.

Waste material Main uses % w/w incorporated References

Wheat straw (WSW) Livestock feed, litter, paper 5.9 Saiah et al., 2010
industry,
biofuel, energy (by heating)
Corn cob (CCB) Livestock feed and bedding, 6.0
charcoal production, biofuel,
industrial source of furfural
Rape seed (RSD) Livestock feed, vegetable oil for 9.1
human consumption, biodiesel
Maize seed (MSD) Livestock feed, human food, biofuel, 9.0
extraction of starch for plastics/
adhesives
Wheat seed (WSD) Staple food for human 9.1
Sunflower seed (SSD) Human food, vegetable oil for 9.1
human consumption, livestock feed
(seedcake)
Grass (GSS) Livestock feed 2.5e10.0 Demir, 2008
Olive mill solid residue (OMSR) Livestock feed, composting, soil 3.0e12.0 De la Casa et al., 2012
amendment, bioethanol, pesticide 5.0e25.0 La Rubia-García et al., 2012
Sunflower seed shell (SSSL) Natural absorbent, source of 4.0e7.0
nhidi and Go
Ba €mze, 2008
antioxidants, biocarbon
Pineapple leaf fibres (PLF) e 0.25e0.75 Chan, 2011
Oil palm fruit bunch fibres (OPF) 0.25e0.75
Microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) Tablets for medicinal purpose 5.0e10.0 Mohammed et al., 2014
Rice straw (RSW) Paper industry, charcoal 5.0e1.0 Mohammed et al., 2014
Rice husk (RHK) production, water treatment, 10.0e70.0 Carter et al., 1982
livestock feed 10.0e20.0 Chiang et al., 2009
2.0e10.0 Sutas et al., 2012
5.0e15.0 €rhan and Şimşek, 2013
Go
Rice husk ash (RHA) Fuel, additive in concrete mixtures, 2.0e10.0 Sutas et al., 2012
Rice peel (RPL) insulation, soil fertilizer 4.0e7.0
nhidi and Go
Ba €mze, 2008
Resinous wood fibers (RWF) Paper industry, insulation 7.0 Saiah et al., 2010
Sawdust (SDT) Biofuel 4.0e7.0
nhidi and Go
Ba €mze, 2008
2.5e10.0 Demir, 2008
Up to 25.0 Devant et al., 2011
Tobacco waste (TWE) Biofuel 2.5e10.0 Demir, 2008
Cigarette butts (CBS) Not recycled: environmental 2.5e10.0 Kadir et al., 2010
hazard
Brewers’spent grains (BSG) Livestock feed, compost, growing 3.5 Russ et al., 2005
medium for mushrooms,
bioethanol
Bagasse from brewery (BFB) 2.5 Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011
2.5e10.0 Martínez et al., 2012
Kraft pulp residues (KPR) Agricultural use, compost, additive 2.5e10.0 Demir et al., 2005
in cement mixtures
Recycled paper residues (RPR) Cement or glass ceramics 10.0e30.0 Sutcu and Akkurt, 2009
manufacturing, lightweight and
porous ceramic composite
Membrane filtration (bleach) (MFN) Agricultural use, compost, additive 12.0 Shukla et al., 2010
in cement mixtures
Glycerin (GRN) Cosmetics, pharmaceuticals 15.0 Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012a
Spent earth biodiesel filtration Not recycled: environmental 20.0 Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012a
(SEBF) problem
Sugarcane bagasse ash (SBA) Soil fertilizer, additive in concrete, 5.0e20.0 Faria et al., 2012
mortar, cement mixtures
Processed waste tea (PWT) Growing medium for mushrooms, 2.5e5.0 Demir, 2006
soil fertilizer, particleboard, biofuel
Coffee grounds (CGS) Vermicomposting, growing 3.0 Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011
medium for mushrooms, biofuel
Ash from biomass incinerator (ABI) Additive in concrete/cement 10.0e50.0
rez-Villarejo et al., 2012
Pe
mixtures, asphaltic pavement
mixes, used in agriculture
Charcoal (CCL) Fuel, art, purification/filtration 2.5e10.0 Phonphuak and Thiansem, 2012
Olive mill wastewater (OMW) Not recycled: environmental 19.5 Mekki et al., 2008
problem 6.5 Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011
Acidic process wastewater (APW) Not recycled: environmental 2.5e40.0 Koseoglu et al., 2010
problem
Urban river sediments (URS) Not recycled: environmental 50.0e70.0 Xu et al., 2014
problem
Sludge (SDG) Additive in cement mixtures, Up to 15.0 Giugliano and Paggi, 1985
lightweight aggregates Up to 40.0 Wiebusch and Seyfried, 1997
10.0e30.0 Basegio et al., 2002
10.0e40.0 Weng et al., 2003
5.0e15.0 Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011
Up to 25.0 Devant et al., 2011
5.0e24.0 Herek et al., 2012
 C. Bories et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 143 (2014) 186e196 189

Table 2
Pore-forming agents from fossil or mineral resources used for developing porous clay bricks.

Waste material Main uses % w/w incorporated References

Foundry sand Additive in concrete mixtures, soil 10.0e35.0 Alonso-Santurde et al., 2011
reinforcement, asphaltic pavement 5.0e35.0 Quijorna et al., 2012
mixes
Slags (steel, tionite) Additive in cement, aggregates 5.0e30.0 Shih et al., 2004
3.0e9.0 Dondi et al., 2010
Ashes and dust Additive in cement, aggregates, 20.0 Domínguez and Ullman, 1996
sand, asphalt paving, flagstones 0.5e15.0 Cultrone and Sebastia
n, 2009
10.0e40.0 Lin, 2006
2.5e40.0 Koseoglu et al., 2010
Tailings (boron, granite, perlite, Not recycled: environmental 10.0e40.0 Uslu and Arol, 2004
hematite) problem 20.0e60.0 Menezes et al., 2005
5.0e50.0 Topçu and Işıkdag , 2007
77.0e100.0 Chen et al., 2011
Marble residues Road construction, concrete 15.0e20.0 Saboya Jr. et al., 2007
aggregates, cement mixtures 15.0e35.0 Montero et al., 2009
10.0e20.0 Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012b
Marble and granite powder Not recycled: environmental 10.0e50.0 Dhanapandian and Gnanavel, 2010
problem
Waste glass Road construction, concrete 10.0e40.0 Lin, 2007
aggregates, fiberglass insulation, 2.0e5.0 Dondi et al., 2009
composite materials
Phosphogypsum Roof covering, additive in cement 1.0e20.0 Abalı et al., 2007
mixture

have also been used. Table 3 summarizes the methods described in
the articles quoted in Table 1.
Concerning raw materials, clay was extracted from deposits and
the additives (pigments, vegetable pore-forming agents or organic
industrial wastes for instance) were characterized by studying their
chemical composition (X-ray fluorescence, moisture content, density,
grading) and thermal behavior (Thermo gravimetric analysis (TGA) or
Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)) (Kornmann, 2009).
These components were then ground in a rolling mill to pro-
mote contact between crumbled clay and pore-forming agents and
to enhance homogeneity. All these products were mixed together
while adding water to control and regulate humidity. Indeed, water
content is a key factor that can influence the shaping and the drying
of the final product (17e30.0%w/w recommended by Saiah et al.,
2010).
This mixture was then molded to obtain the desired form. Three
different ways of shaping can be used: molding bricks manually
(ancient method), pressing, or extruding (fastest process)
(Kornmann, 2009).
Afterwards, the molded bricks were dried to eliminate residual
water, and this step has the significant impact on the physical
properties of the final product. The temperature and the drying
time must be carefully chosen in order to retain the resistance of
the brick, and avoid cracks or fractures (Demir and Orhan, 2003).
The drying step generally requires 1e4 days (Kornmann, 2009).
Finally, bricks were fired in a furnace where the temperature
was carefully controlled and increased gradually to avoid black
cores, reaching a maximum of between 850  C and 1150  C. During
the heating process, the mixture loses its water and other volatile
compounds (Demir and Orhan, 2003). After leveling off, the furnace
temperature was decreased to room temperature in order to cool
the product and ensure a good shape for the finished brick. This
step allows the production of bricks with better thermal and me-
chanical properties (Kornmann, 2009).
3. Measurements and results
Once the samples had been prepared using the protocols
described above, the impact of the added pore-forming agent on
different properties of fired clay bricks was studied.
3.1. Physical properties
Several physical properties of these porous clay bricks were
determined: linear shrinkage, loss on ignition, density, water ab-
sorption and porosity. In this study, only the best product from each
published article was considered (the mass percentage of the pore-
forming agent added is indicated each time).
Even if the experiments from the literature were undertaken
with completely different parameters (nature of the pore-forming
agent, grading, rate of incorporation), it is still possible to make
some comparisons and generate specific pairs, or ‘couplings’ of
“pore-forming agent & percentage incorporated”.
 Linear shrinkage was determined by measuring the length of
the sample either before and after drying or before and after
firing, or even over the whole process using a caliper according
to the standard ASTM C210-95. In Fig. 2, the firing linear
shrinkage (before and after firing) expressed as a percentage
and calculated according to the following formula is presented,
as these results were more readily available.

Fig. 1. Methodology for manufacturing porous clay bricks.

190 C. Bories et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 143 (2014) 186e196

Table 3
Methodology used in literature for preparing fired clay bricks.

References Size of the sample (mm) Molding Drying Firing

Saiah et al., 2010 e Extrusion Between 20 to 50 h 850e1150  C

Demir, 2008 100  75  40 Extrusion 21  C e 60%RH for 72 h, 2  C/min up to 600  C then
then 110  C 4  C/min up to 900  C
De la Casa et al., 2012 130  130  18 Extrusion Room temperature for 12 h Up to 1020  C (24 h cold to
then 110  C for 24 h cold)
La Rubia-García et al., 2012 60  30  10 Pressing 110  C for 48 h Up to 950  C in 24 h
thermal cycle
Chan, 2011 100  50  30 Pressing Room temperature for 7 Up to 800  C in 5 days
days, from 40 to 200  C for 7
days
Mohammed et al., 2014 Cylinder Diameter ¼ 25 Pressing e 800, 900 and 1000  C (5  C/
min)
B
€ mze, 2008
anhidi and Go 300  300  50 Molding box Room temperature for 72 h 100  C/min up to 900  C
then 90  C
Chiang et al., 2009 55x20 Pressing e 5  C/min up to 800
e1100  C
Sutas et al., 2012 100  150  300 Molded by casting e Up to 700  C (7 days cycle)
€rhan and Şimşek, 2013
Go 70  50  40 Extrusion Room temperature 700e1000  C (2.5  C/min)
overnight, 55  C for
necessary time
Kadir et al., 2010 100  100  100 Hand molding 105  C for 24 h Up to 1050  C
225  110  75
300  100  50
Russ et al., 2005 Length ¼ 200, Extrusion Room temperature for 72 h Up to 950  C for 6 h
diameter ¼ 16 then 130  C for 72 h
Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011 60  30  10 Pressing (54.5 MPa) 110  C for 48 h 10  C/min up to 950  C
Martínez et al., 2012 60  30  10 Pressing (54.5 MPa) 110  C for 48 h 10  C/min up to 950  C
Demir et al., 2005 40x33 and 150  25  25 Extrusion 21  C e 40%RH for 72 h, 2  C/min up to 600  C then
then 105  C 5  C/min up to 900  C
Sutcu and Akkurt, 2009 85  85  10 Pressing (10 MPa) Room temperature 2.5  C/min up to 600  C
overnight then 45  C for 1 h then 10  C/min up to
1100  C
Shukla et al., 2010 95  48  42 Pressing e At 925  C for 1 h
Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012a 30  10  60 Pressing (54.5 MPa) e 3  C/min up to 1050  C
Faria et al., 2012 Cylinder Diameter ¼ 25 Pressing (21 MPa) 110  C for 24 h Up to 1000  C (24 h cold to
cold)
Demir, 2006 40  70  100 Laboratory extrusion 21  C e 60%RH for 72 h, 2  C/min up to 600  C then
then 105  C 5  C/min up to 900  C

rez-Villarejo et al., 2012
Pe 60  30  10 Pressing (54.6 MPa) 110  C for 48 h 10  C/min up to 950  C
Phonphuak and Thiansem, 50  95  30 Hand molding Room temperature for 24 h Up to 900, 950, 1000 or
2012 then 110  C for 24 h 1100  C then cooled down
Mekki et al., 2008 65  45  20 e e 920  C
Koseoglu et al., 2010 140x80 Pressing (15 MPa) 107  C for 24 h 1080  C for 4 h
Xu et al., 2014 70  70  70 Pressing (20 MPa) Room temperature for 24 h 1000e1100  C (5  C/min,
then 105  C for 24 h held at 600  C for 1h and at
firing temperature for 2h)
Basegio et al., 2002 60  20  8 Pressing (20 MPa) 110  C for 24 h 1000, 1100 and 1180  C for
2 h respectively
Weng et al., 2003 230  110  60 Molding Room temperature for 24 h 880e1000  C for 6 h
then 103  C for 24 h
Devant et al., 2011 e Extrusion e From room temperature to
980  C (160  C/h)
Herek et al., 2012 73  55  35 Extrusion 100  C for 24 h 100e900  C for 72 h

2009) as a large contraction could create problems as it may cause

L  Lfired
Linear firing shrinkageð%Þ ¼ dried  100
Ldried
where Ldried is the length of the oven-dried sample (mm) and Lfired
is the length of the fired sample (mm).
During firing, especially during sintering at high temperatures,
ceramic particles fuse together leading to greater proximity and
thus enhancing linear shrinkage (Martínez et al., 2012).
From Fig. 2, it can be seen that some pore-forming agents induce
negative shrinkage, i.e. a small expansion of the material. This phe-
nomenon typically occurs during sintering of materials containing
small amounts of water. Conversely, other pore-forming agents give
positive shrinkage, representing water evaporating out of the system.
Bricks must have a firing linear shrinkage lower than 8% in order to
retain good mechanical performance (Weng et al., 2003; Kornmann,
tension and breakage (Mekki et al., 2008). In Fig. 2, shrinkage clearly
depends on the pore-forming agent used, so no real comparison can
be made between them. However, it can be seen that for all the ad-
ditives tested, linear shrinkages are below 8%. In addition, the lower
this result, the better the final product's properties.
 Loss on ignition was determined by measuring the mass loss of
the sample between the drying and firing steps. The results ob-
tained are summarized in Fig. 3. They are expressed as a per-
centage, and calculated according to the following formula for
different pore-forming agents incorporated into fired clay bricks:
Wdried  Wfired
Loss on ignitionð%Þ ¼  100
Wdried
 C. Bories et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 143 (2014) 186e196 191

Fig. 2. Firing linear shrinkage for samples made with several pore-forming agents. (MSD: maize seed, WSD: wheat seed, RWF: resinous wood fibers, RSD: rape seed, CCB: corn cob,
WSW: wheat straw, SSD: sunflower seed (Saiah et al., 2010), SDT: sawdust, TWE: tobacco waste, GSS: grass (Demir, 2008), OMSR: olive mill solid residue (de la Casa et al., 2012),
BSG: brewer's spent grains (Russ et al., 2005), SDG urban or brewery: sludge, CGS: cigarette grounds, BFB: bagasse from brewery, OMW: olive mill wastewater (Eliche-Quesada et al.,
2011), BFB: bagasse from brewery (Martínez et al., 2012), GRN: glycerin, SEBF: spent earth biodiesel filtration (Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012a), SBA: sugarcane bagasse ash (Faria et al.,
2012), ABI: ash from biomass incinerator (Pe
rez-Villarejo et al., 2012), CCL: charcoal (Phonphuak and Thiansem, 2012), OMW: olive mill wastewater (Mekki et al., 2008), tannery
SDG: sludge (Basegio et al., 2002), SDG: sludge (Weng et al., 2003) and URS: urban river sediments (Xu et al., 2014)).

where Wdried is the weight of the oven-dried sample (g) and Wfired
is the weight of the fired sample (g).
Weight loss on ignition increases with the incorporation of pore-
forming agents. Indeed, the addition of components (organic or
otherwise) into the clay mixture, creates porosity in the system
during the process (drying and firing) by dehydroxylation and car-
bonate decomposition (e.g. mineral carbonates from clay or organic
ones from pore-forming agents). This formation of voids leads to a
decrease in mass since air is lighter than both clay and pore-forming
agents. It also induces densification of the material that could affect
compression properties of the fired products and so weaken the
structure (Lin, 2006). Thus, in order to retain good performance,
weight loss on ignition should remain below 15% (Weng et al., 2003).
Most of the pore-forming agents described in Fig. 3 give a loss on
ignition lower than this value, except for tobacco waste (TWE 5%
used by Demir, 2008) with a loss of 16.10% and Kraft pulp residues
(KPR 5% tested by Demir et al., 2005) with a loss of 15.75%.
As for linear shrinkage, it is not possible to compare the different
additives (different quantities of incorporated matter). Depending
on their characteristics (chemical composition, density), the results
are completely different.
 Apparent porosity was measured on fired clay samples using
Archimedes' method described in standard ASTM C 373-88. The
results obtained on the porous bricks produced with the pore-
forming agents summarized in Table 1, are shown in Fig. 4,
although fewer figures are available as this property was rarely
measured.
The incorporation of pore-forming agents increases the
apparent porosity of the system. Indeed, during drying and firing,
the added particles burn leaving voids due to their breakdown, but
also to gas emissions by decomposition of the matter (water, carbon
dioxide).
From Fig. 4, all the samples tested have an apparent porosity of
between 35 and 65%. Noteworthy, there is no fixed maximal
porosity for fired clay bricks. However, as it is closely linked to the
mechanical properties of the product, a very high value could be

Fig. 3. Loss on ignition for samples made with different pore-forming agents. (MSD: maize seed, WSD: wheat seed, RWF: resinous wood fibers, RSD: rape seed, CCB: corn cob,
WSW: wheat straw, SSD: sunflower seed (Saiah et al., 2010), SDT: sawdust, TWE: tobacco waste, GSS: grass (Demir, 2008), OMSR: olive mill solid residue (de la Casa et al., 2012), SDG
urban or brewery: sludge, CGS: cigarette grounds, BFB: bagasse from brewery, OMW: olive mill wastewater (Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011), BFB: bagasse from brewery (Martínez et al.,
2012), KPR: Kraft pulp residues (Demir et al., 2005), PWT: processed waste tea (Demir, 2006), ABI: ash from biomass incinerator (Pe
rez-Villarejo et al., 2012), OMW: olive mill
wastewater (Mekki et al., 2008), SDG: sludge (Weng et al., 2003) and URS: urban river sediments (Xu et al., 2014)).
192 C. Bories et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 143 (2014) 186e196

Fig. 4. Apparent porosity for fired clay bricks containing the pore-forming agents given in Table 1. (MSD: maize seed, WSD: wheat seed, RWF: resinous wood fibers, RSD: rape seed,
CCB: corn cob, WSW: wheat straw, SSD: sunflower seed (Saiah et al., 2010), SDT: sawdust, TWE: tobacco waste, GSS: grass (Demir, 2008), MCC: microcrystalline cellulose, RSW: rice
straw (Mohammed et al., 2014), RHK: rice husk (Chiang et al., 2009), crushed RHK and ground RHK: rice husk (Go € rhan and Şimşek, 2013), BSG: brewer's spent grains (Russ et al.,
2005), RPR: recycled paper residues (Sutcu and Akkurt, 2009), PWT: processed waste tea (Demir, 2006), CCL: charcoal (Phonphuak and Thiansem, 2012) and tannery SDG: sludge
(Basegio et al., 2002)).

problematic, since the material would be composed of more holes
than matter and therefore very fragile.
Thus, brewer's spent grains (BSG 3.5% used by Russ et al., 2005)
and rice husk (RHK 15% tested by Chiang et al., 2009), which pro-
duce bricks with porosities of 65.5% and 58% respectively, cannot be
used in an industrial context since these bricks would be too fragile.
 Water absorption of these lightweight bricks was determined
using the standard procedure ASTM C 373-88. The samples were
dried at 110  C for 24 h and weighed to constant mass. They
were then cooled for 24 h and totally immersed in water. After
soaking for 24 h, they were dried and reweighed to constant
mass. The water absorption of the fired samples containing
pore-forming agents given in Table 1, is shown in Fig. 5.
The creation of porosity due to the incorporation of pore-
forming agents in the fired clay brick leads to an increase in wa-
ter absorption. The voids in the structure while immersed, are filled
with water and, depending on the arrangement of the pores and
the way they are linked together, this can penetrate the material
more or less easily, with a preferential pathway.
Figs. 4 and 5 show that samples with a high water absorption
capacity are also characterized by high porosity, for example rice
husk (RHK 15% used by Chiang et al., 2009) with a water absorption
of 52% and a porosity of 58%. These two properties are closely related,
and the same profile was observed for porosity (Fig. 4) and water
absorption (Fig. 5) in the samples tested by Saiah et al. (2010),
illustrated by the MSD (maize seed) and SSD (sunflower seed) bars
on the above histograms. However, the samples containing brewer's

Fig. 5. Water absorption of brick samples with pore-forming agents. (MSD: maize seed, WSD: wheat seed, RWF: resinous wood fibers, RSD: rape seed, CCB: corn cob, WSW: wheat
straw, SSD: sunflower seed (Saiah et al., 2010), SDT: sawdust, TWE: tobacco waste, GSS: grass (Demir, 2008), OMSR: olive mill solid residue (De la Casa et al., 2012; La Rubia-García
et al., 2012), RHK: rice husk (Chiang et al., 2009), crushed RHK and ground RHK: rice husk (Go € rhan and Şimşek, 2013), CBS: cigarette butts (Kadir et al., 2010), BSG: brewer's spent
grains (Russ et al., 2005), SDG urban and brewery: sludge, CGS: coffee grounds, BFB: bagasse from brewery, OMW: olive mill wastewater (Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011), BFB: bagasse
(Martínez et al., 2012), KPR: Kraft pulp residues (Demir et al., 2005), RPR: recycled paper residues (Sutcu and Akkurt, 2009), GRN: glycerin, SEBF: spent earth from biodiesel filtration
(Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012a), SBA: sugarcane bagasse ash (Faria et al., 2012), PWT: processed waste tea (Demir, 2006), ABI: ash from biomass incinerator (Pe
rez-Villarejo et al.,
2012), CCL: charcoal (Phonphuak and Thiansem, 2012), OMW: olive mill wastewater (Mekki et al., 2008), tannery SDG: sludge (Basegio et al., 2002), SDG: sludge (Weng et al.,
2003), textile SDG: sludge (Herek et al., 2012) and URS: urban river sediments (Xu et al., 2014)).
 C. Bories et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 143 (2014) 186e196 193

Fig. 6. Bulk density of fired brick samples with pore-forming agents. (MSD: maize seed, WSD: wheat seed, RWF: resinous wood fibers, RSD: rape seed, CCB: corn cob, WSW: wheat
straw, SSD: sunflower seed (Saiah et al., 2010), SDT: sawdust, TWE: tobacco waste, GSS: grass (Demir, 2008), OMSR: olive mill solid residue (De la Casa et al., 2012; La Rubia-García
et al., 2012), MCC: microcrystalline cellulose, RSW: rice straw (Mohammed et al., 2014), RHK: rice husk (Chiang et al., 2009), RHK: rice husk, RHA: rice husk ash (Sutas et al., 2012),
CBS: cigarette butts (Kadir et al., 2010), BSG: brewer's spent grains (Russ et al., 2005), SDG urban and brewery: sludge, CGS: coffee grounds, BFB: bagasse from brewery, OMW: olive
mill wastewater (Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011), BFB: bagasse (Martínez et al., 2012), KPR: Kraft pulp residues (Demir et al., 2005), RPR: recycled paper residues (Sutcu and Akkurt,
2009), GRN: glycerin, SEBF: spent earth from biodiesel filtration (Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012a), SBA: sugarcane bagasse ash (Faria et al., 2012), PWT: processed waste tea (Demir,
2006), ABI: ash from biomass incinerator (Pe
rez-Villarejo et al., 2012), CCL: charcoal (Phonphuak and Thiansem, 2012), OMW: olive mill wastewater (Mekki et al., 2008), tannery
SDG: sludge (Basegio et al., 2002), SDG: sludge (Weng et al., 2003) and URS: urban river sediments (Xu et al., 2014)).

spent grains (BSG 3.5% tested by Russ et al., 2005) show the highest
apparent porosity with a water absorption of only 23.83%. This might
be explained by the structure of pores and the way they are inter-
connected, helping water to circulate within the material.
For water absorption, no standardized maximum value exists.
However, a very large absorption capacity could be detrimental for
the final brick as it may affect the durability of the product and its
resistance to natural conditions (Pe
rez-Villarejo et al., 2012).
 Bulk density of these products was measured by calculating the
ratio of the dry mass of the brick to its volume, according to
ASTM Standard C 373-88. The bulk density and the density
change (compared to the reference results without pore-
forming agents) obtained for the porous bricks, produced with
the pore-forming agents given in Table 1, are shown in Fig. 6 and
Fig. 7, respectively.
Adding pore-forming agents into the clay mixture, that burn and
break down during the manufacturing process, decreases the
density of the material, as shown in Fig. 7. As bricks are too heavy
and compact, research has focused on developing lightweight
products, and reducing their weight while reusing wastes was an
interesting solution to obtain the desired results.
For the samples tested, the decrease of the density is not
negligible (from 10 to 25%) except for microcrystalline cellulose
(MCC 10% by Mohammed et al., 2014) brewer's spent grains (BSG
3.5% by Russ et al., 2005) and sugarcane bagasse ash (SBA 10% used
by Faria et al., 2012) which is surprising, since brewer's spent grains

Fig. 7. Density change of samples containing pore-forming agents (abbreviations are same as for Fig. 6).
194 C. Bories et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 143 (2014) 186e196

(BSG) show the highest apparent porosity value that should nor-
mally lead to a large decrease in density.
Too much reduction in density could lead to structural defects,
especially mechanical ones. Recommended density for a traditional
brick is between 1.8 and 2 g/cm3 (Weng et al., 2003). Fig. 6 shows
that most of the samples are not between these two values, espe-
cially rice husk (RHK 15% for Chiang et al., 2009), urban sludge (SDG
urban 10% for Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011) and olive mill wastewater
(OMW 6.5% for Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011) that have the lowest
values (around 1 g/cm3).
This property must be taken into consideration and correlated
with mechanical performance. Indeed, the most important char-
acteristic for a construction material piled up to build walls for
instance, is its resistance, to avoid buildings falling down.
3.2. Mechanical characterization
To ensure the engineering quality of a material, especially for
building construction use, mechanical testing is the essential
criteria. Thus the compression or bending strength for each
porous fired sample is measured and shown in Fig. 8.
As explained previously, the decrease in density of the material,
due to the creation of porosity has important consequences con-
cerning the product's mechanical resistance. The samples with the
lowest compressive strength (Fig. 8), and so the lowest resistance
(rice husk RHK 15% tested by Chiang et al., 2009; rice husk RHK 6%
and rice husk ash 6% by Sutas et al., 2012) also have a low density,
especially rice husk RHK 15% (Fig. 7), and the mechanical properties
of excessively lightweight products decreased sharply. Therefore,
compromises must be found between weight loss and resistance in
order to avoid the production of fragile materials. In fact, according
to industrial standards, a traditional brick to be sufficiently strong,
must not have a compressive strength below 100 kg/cm2 (Weng
et al., 2003). For the samples shown in Fig. 8, most are under this
recommended limit, thus either the percentage incorporated is too
high or the additive used is not appropriate (for all the different
percentages).
Conversely, some samples tested are very resistant after firing
(in particular the bricks produced by Eliche-Quesada et al. (2011)
(SDG urban 15% to OMW 6.5%) and by Martínez et al. (2012) (BFB
2.5%). Interestingly these porous products have high mechanical
properties, and their reference values (without additives) are also
very resistant (624 kg/cm2 for Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011; 663 kg/
cm2 for Martínez et al., 2012).
To produce viable lightweight porous bricks, mechanical per-
formance must be retained to ensure a durable and resistant
product. But, with the creation of porosity within the system, the
thermal performance of the material developed is also impacted.
3.3. Thermal properties
Modification in thermal behavior was also investigated but only
in a few papers, as shown in Fig. 9. The insulation capacity of the
porous fired clay bricks was determined by measuring thermal
conductivity.
Compared to the reference values, the incorporation of pore-
forming agents leads to a decrease in thermal conductivity
(Fig. 9). Indeed, the increase in porosity (whatever the type of pores
(open or closed), or interconnections) has an influence on the
thermal properties of the product. Thermal insulation is thus
improved.
Different behavior was found depending on the nature and
quantity of pore-forming agents added to the mixture. The highest
values were obtained for olive mill solid residue (OMSR 15% used by
La Rubia-García et al., 2012) with a decrease of about 70% and for
glycerin (GRN 15% for Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012a) and sawdust
(SDT 7% tested by Ba
nhidi and Go €mze, 2008) that both show a
decrease of about 40%. The smallest decreases (around 7e10%.) are
found for bagasse from brewery, and urban sludge samples (BFB
2.5% and SDG urban 15% for Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011).
Traditional bricks are characterized by a thermal conductivity of
between 0.3 and 0.8 W/m*K. In Fig. 9, most of the porous bricks are
below this value, which could be very promising for further ex-
periments. With thermal regulations continually evolving to pro-
duce products with improved insulation properties, the
incorporation of additives that create porosity when fired, could be
an innovative solution to produce enhanced materials.

Fig. 8. Mechanical strength for fired clay bricks containing pore-forming agents. (MSD: maize seed, WSD: wheat seed, RWF: resinous wood fibers, RSD: rape seed, CCB: corn cob,
WSW: wheat straw, SSD: sunflower seed (Saiah et al., 2010), SDT: sawdust, TWE: tobacco waste, GSS: grass (Demir, 2008), OMSR: olive mill solid residue (De la Casa et al., 2012; La
Rubia-García et al., 2012), SSSL: sunflower seed shell, RPL: rice peel, SDT: sawdust (B
anhidi and Go € mze, 2008), MCC: microcrystalline cellulose, RSW: rice straw (Mohammed et al.,
2014), RHK: rice husk (Chiang et al., 2009), crushed RHK and ground RHK: rice husk (Go € rhan and Şimşek, 2013), RHK: rice husk, RHA: rice husk ash (Sutas et al., 2012), CBS: cigarette
butts (Kadir et al., 2010), SDG urban and brewery: sludge, CGS: coffee grounds, BFB: bagasse from brewery, OMW: olive mill wastewater (Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011), BFB: bagasse
(Martínez et al., 2012), KPR: Kraft pulp residues (Demir et al., 2005), RPR: recycled paper residues (Sutcu and Akkurt, 2009), GRN: glycerin, SEBF: spent earth from biodiesel filtration
(Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012a), PWT: processed waste tea (Demir, 2006), ABI: ash from biomass incinerator (Pe
rez-Villarejo et al., 2012), CCL: charcoal (Phonphuak and Thiansem,
2012), SDG: sludge (Weng et al., 2003) and URS: urban river sediments (Xu et al., 2014)).
 C. Bories et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 143 (2014) 186e196
Fig. 9. Thermal conductivity of porous fired clay bricks with the additives quoted on Table 1. (MSD: maize seed, WSD: wheat seed, RWF: resinous wood fibers, RSD: rape seed, CCB:
corn cob, WSW: wheat straw, SSD: sunflower seed (Saiah et al., 2010), OMSR: olive mill solid residue (La Rubia-García et al., 2012), SSSL: sunflower seed shell, RPL: rice peel, SDT:
sawdust (B
anhidi and Go € mze, 2008), crushed RHK and ground RHK: rice husk (Go €rhan and Şimşek, 2013), SDG urban and brewery: sludge, CGS: coffee grounds, BFB: bagasse from
brewery, OMW: olive mill wastewater (Eliche-Quesada et al., 2011), RPR: recycled paper residues (Sutcu and Akkurt, 2009), GRN: glycerin, SEBF: spent earth from biodiesel filtration
(Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012a) and URS: urban river sediments (Xu et al., 2014)).
4. Conclusion
Clay bricks have traditionally been used as construction mate-
rials, giving people the wherewithal to build shelters and keep
themselves safe. These affordable products have always performed
adequately (mechanical resistance and thermal insulation), but
nowadays with the expansion of new materials on the market, clay
bricks need to be more competitive with improved properties.
For at least the past thirty years, with the advent of increasing
concerns for the environment, bricks have been modified by
incorporating wastes, either from renewable or mineral resources.
These pore-forming agents, used mainly to give lightweight ma-
terials, also modified other properties such as porosity, water ab-
sorption, density, mechanical resistance and even thermal
insulation. For these new materials, it is crucial to find a compro-
mise in order to produce an innovative product with both high
mechanical and thermal performance.
The incorporation of waste (such as wastes from renewable or
fossil and mineral resources) into building materials could be an
interesting way to minimize pollution issues by reducing soil
contamination (landfill) or by removing toxic materials (Arsenovic
et al., 2012). However, it is important not only to consider envi-
ronmentally friendly products, but the whole process, including all
the negative effects of production (gas emissions due to the drying
and firing steps, electrical consumption, raw material trans-
portation). Thus, further studies need to be conducted in order to
evaluate the environmental effects of the incorporation of wastes
such as rice husk, charcoal.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the agricultural cooperative

ne

es and the French
ARTERRIS, the Regional Council of Midi-Pyre
Ministry for Higher Education and Research.
References
Abalı, Y., Yurdusev, M.A., Zeybek, M.S., Kumanlıog lu, A.A., 2007. Using phospho-
gypsume and boron concentrator wastes in light brick production. Constr. Build.
Mater. 21, 52e56.
Algin, H.M., Turgut, P., 2008. Cotton and limestone powder wastes as brick material.
Constr. Build. Mater. 22, 1074e1080.
Alonso-Santurde, R., Andre
s, A., Viguri, J.R., Raimondo, M., Guarini, G., Zanelli, C.,
Dondi, M., 2011. Technological behaviour and recycling potential of spent
foundry sands in clay bricks. J. Environ. Manag. 92, 994e1002.
195
Standard C210e95 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1995.
Standard Test Method for Reheat Change of Insulating Firebrick.
Standard C373e88 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1988.
Standard Test Method for Water Absorption, Bulk Density, Apparent Porosity,
and Apparent Specific Gravity of Fired Whiteware Products.
Arsenovic, M., Radojevic, Z., Stankovic, S., 2012. Removal of toxic metals from in-
dustrial sludge by fixing in brick structure. Constr. Build. Mater. 37, 7e14.

nhidi, V., Go
Ba €mze, L.A., 2008. Improvement of Insulation Properties of Conven-
tional Brick Products, 589. Materials Science Forum, pp. 1e6.
Basegio, T., Berutti, F., Bernardes, A., Bergmann, C.P., 2002. Environmental and
technical aspects of the utilisation of tannery sludge as a raw material for clay
products. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 22, 2251e2259.
Brongniart, A., 1844. Traite
des arts ce
ramiques ou Des poteries conside
re
es dans
leur histoire, leur pratique et leur the
orie. In: par Alexandre Brongniart, Tome 1.
A. Mathias (Paris).
Carter, G.W., Cannor, A.M., Mansell, D.S., 1982. Properties of bricks incorporating
unground rice husks. Build. Environ. 17, 285e291.
De la Casa, J.A., Romero, I., Jime
nez, J., Castro, E., 2012. Fired clay masonry units
production incorporating two-phase olive mill waste (Alperujo). Ceram. Int. 38,
5027e5037.
Chabat, P., 1881. La brique et la terre cuite: e
tude historique de l’emploi de ces
mate
riaux, fabrication et usages, motifs de construction et de de
coration choisis
dans l’architecture des diffe
rents peuples. In: par Pierre Chabat.,..; avec la col-

lix Monmory, Se
rie 1. May et Motteroz (Paris).
lab. de Fe
Chan, C.-M., 2011. Effects of natural fibres inclusion in clay bricks: physico-
mechanical properties. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 3, 51e57.
Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., Chen, T., Zhao, Y., Bao, S., 2011. Preparation of eco-friendly
construction bricks from hematite tailings. Constr. Build. Mater. 25, 2107e2111.
Chiang, K.-Y., Chou, P.-H., Hua, C.-R., Chien, K.-L., Cheeseman, C., 2009. Lightweight
bricks manufactured from water treatment sludge and rice husks. J. Hazard.
Mater. 171, 76e82.
Cultrone, G., Sebasti
an, E., 2009. Fly ash addition in clayey materials to improve the
quality of solid bricks. Constr. Build. Mater. 23, 1178e1184.
Demir, I., 2006. An investigation on the production of construction brick with
processed waste tea. Build. Environ. 41, 1274e1278.
Demir, I., 2008. Effect of organic residues addition on the technological properties of
clay bricks. Waste Manag. 28, 622e627.
Demir, I., Orhan, M., 2003. Reuse of waste bricks in the production line. Build.
Environ. 38, 1451e1455.
Demir, I., Serhat Baspınar, M., Orhan, M., 2005. Utilization of kraft pulp production
residues in clay brick production. Build. Environ. 40, 1533e1537.
Devant, M., Cusido
, J.A., Soriano, C., 2011. Custom formulation of red ceramics with
clay, sewage sludge and forest waste. Appl. Clay Sci. 53, 669e675.
Dhanapandian, S., Gnanavel, B., 2010. Using granite and marble sawing power
wastes in the production of bricks: spectroscopic and mechanical analysis. Res.
J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2, 73e86.
Domínguez, E.A., Ullman, R., 1996. “Ecological bricks” made with clays and steel
dust pollutants. Appl. Clay Sci. 11, 237e249.
Dondi, M., Guarini, G., Raimondo, M., Zanelli, C., 2009. Recycling PC and TV waste
glass in clay bricks and roof tiles. Waste Manag. 29, 1945e1951.
Dondi, M., Guarini, G., Raimondo, M., Zanelli, C., Fabbriche, D.D., Agostini, A., 2010.
Recycling the insoluble residue from titania slag dissolution (Tionite) in clay
bricks. Ceram. Int. 36, 2461e2467.
Eliche-Quesada, D., Martínez-García, C., Martínez-Cartas, M.L., Cotes-Palomino, M.T.,
Pe
rez-Villarejo, L., Cruz-Pe
rez, N., Corpas-Iglesias, F.A., 2011. The use of different
forms of waste in the manufacture of ceramic bricks. Appl. Clay Sci. 52,
270e276.
196 C. Bories et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 143 (2014) 186e196
Eliche-Quesada, D., Martínez-Martínez, S., Pe
rez-Villarejo, L., Iglesias-Godino, F.J.,
Martínez-García, C., Corpas-Iglesias, F.A., 2012a. Valorization of biodiesel pro-
duction residues in making porous clay brick. Fuel Process. Technol. 103,
166e173.
Eliche-Quesada, D., Corpas-Iglesias, F.A., Pe
rez-Villarejo, L., Iglesias-Godino, F.J.,
2012b. Recycling of sawdust, spent earth from oil filtration, compost and
marble residues for brick manufacturing. Constr. Build. Mater. 34, 275e284.
Faria, K.C.P., Gurgel, R.F., Holanda, J.N.F., 2012. Recycling of sugarcane bagasse ash
waste in the production of clay bricks. J. Environ. Manag. 101, 7e12.
Giugliano, M., Paggi, A., 1985. Use of tannery sludge in brick production. Waste
Manag. Res. 3, 361e368.
Go€rhan, G., Şimşek, O., 2013. Porous clay bricks manufactured with rice husks.
Constr. Build. Mater. 40, 390e396.
Gualtieri, M.L., Gualtieri, A.F., Gagliardi, S., Ruffini, P., Ferrari, R., Hanuskova, M.,
2010. Thermal conductivity of fired clays: effects of mineralogical and physical
properties of the raw materials. Appl. Clay Sci. 49, 269e275.
Herek, L.C.S., Hori, C.E., Reis, M.H.M., Mora, N.D., Tavares, C.R.G., Bergamasco, R.,
2012. Characterization of ceramic bricks incorporated with textile laundry
sludge. Ceram. Int. 38, 951e959.
Kadir, A.A., Sarani, N.A., 2012. An overview of wastes recycling in fired clay bricks.
Int. J. Integr. Eng. 4, 53e69.
Kadir, A.A., Mohajerani, A., Roddick, F., Buckeridge, J., 2010. Density, strength,
thermal conductivity and leachate characteristics of light-weight fired clay
bricks incorporating cigarette butts. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2, 179e184.
Kornmann, M., 2009. Mate
riaux de terre cuite: Proprie
te

s et produits (Techniques
de l'Inge
nieur).
Koseoglu, K., Polat, M., Polat, H., 2010. Encapsulating fly ash and acidic process
waste water in brick structure. J. Hazard. Mater. 176, 957e964.
Lin, K.-L., 2007. The effect of heating temperature of thin film transistor-liquid
crystal display (TFT-LCD) optical waste glass as a partial substitute partial for
clay in eco-brick. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1755e1759.
Lin, K.L., 2006. Feasibility study of using brick made from municipal solid waste
incinerator fly ash slag. J. Hazard. Mater. 137, 1810e1816.
Martínez, M.L., Eliche, D., Cruz, N., Corpas, F., 2012. Utilizacio
n de bagazo de la
industria cervecera para la produccio
n de ladrillos para construccio
n. Mater.
Construccio
n 62, 199e212.
Mekki, H., Anderson, M., Benzina, M., Ammar, E., 2008. Valorization of olive mill
wastewater by its incorporation in building bricks. J. Hazard. Mater. 158,
308e315.
Menezes, R.R., Ferreira, H.S., Neves, G.A., Lira, H., de, L., Ferreira, H.C., 2005. Use of
granite sawing wastes in the production of ceramic bricks and tiles. J. Eur.
Ceram. Soc. 25, 1149e1158.
Mohammed, M.S., Ahmed, A.E.-S.I., Osman, R.M., Khattab, I., 2014. Combinations of
organic and inorganic wastes for brick production. Polym. Compos. 35, 174e179.
Montero, M.A., Jord
an, M.M., Herna
ndez-Crespo, M.S., Sanfeliu, T., 2009. The use of
sewage sludge and marble residues in the manufacture of ceramic tile bodies.
Appl. Clay Sci. 46, 404e408.

rez-Villarejo, L., Eliche-Quesada, D., Iglesias-Godino, F.J., Martínez-García, C.,
Pe
Corpas-Iglesias, F.A., 2012. Recycling of ash from biomass incinerator in clay
matrix to produce ceramic bricks. J. Environ. Manag. 95 (Suppl.), S349eS354.
Phonphuak, N., Thiansem, S., 2012. Using charcoal to increase properties and
durability of fired test briquettes. Constr. Build. Mater. 29, 612e618.
Quijorna, N., Coz, A., Andres, A., Cheeseman, C., 2012. Recycling of Waelz slag and
waste foundry sand in red clay bricks. Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 65, 1e10.
La Rubia-García, M.D., Yebra-Rodríguez, A.,
Eliche-Quesada, D., Corpas-Iglesias, F.A.,
Lo
pez-Galindo, A., 2012. Assessment of olive mill solid residue (pomace) as an
additive in lightweight brick production. Constr. Build. Mater. 36, 495e500.
Russ, W., Mo €rtel, H., Meyer-Pittroff, R., 2005. Application of spent grains to increase
porosity in bricks. Constr. Build. Mater. 19, 117e126.
Saboya Jr., F., Xavier, G.C., Alexandre, J., 2007. The use of the powder marble by-
product to enhance the properties of brick ceramic. Constr. Build. Mater. 21,
1950e1960.
Saiah, R., Perrin, B., Rigal, L., 2010. Improvement of thermal properties of fired clays
by introduction of vegetable matter. J. Build. Phys. 34, 124e142.
SESSI, and Ministe

re de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, 2003. Les
mate
riaux de construction en chiffres.
Shih, P.-H., Wu, Z.-Z., Chiang, H.-L., 2004. Characteristics of bricks made from waste
steel slag. Waste Manag. 24, 1043e1047.
Shukla, S.K., Kumar, V., Mudgal, M., Morchhale, R.K., Bansal, M.C., 2010. Utilization
of concentrate of membrane filtration of bleach plant effluent in brick pro-
duction. J. Hazard. Mater. 184, 585e590.
Sutas, J., Mana, A., Pitak, L., 2012. Effect of Rice husk and Rice husk ash to properties
of bricks. Procedia Eng. 32, 1061e1067.
Sutcu, M., Akkurt, S., 2009. The use of recycled paper processing residues in making
porous brick with reduced thermal conductivity. Ceram. Int. 35, 2625e2631.
_
Topçu, I.B., , B., 2007. Manufacture of high heat conductivity resistant clay
Işıkdag
bricks containing perlite. Build. Environ. 42, 3540e3546.
Uslu, T., Arol, A.I., 2004. Use of boron waste as an additive in red bricks. Waste
Manag. 24, 217e220.
Weng, C.-H., Lin, D.-F., Chiang, P.-C., 2003. Utilization of sludge as brick materials.
Adv. Environ. Res. 7, 679e685.
Wiebusch, B., Seyfried, C.F., 1997. Utilization of sewage sludge ashes in the brick and
tile industry. Water Sci. Technol. 36, 251e258.
Xu, Y., Yan, C., Xu, B., Ruan, X., Wei, Z., 2014. The use of urban river sediments as a
primary raw material in the production of highly insulating brick. Ceram. Int.
40, 8833e8840.