Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Influence of gypsum wastes on the workability of plasters: Heating process

and microstructural analysis
~ o-Rojas a, *, J. De Brito b, I. Flores-Colen b, M.F.C. Pereira c, P. Rubio-de-Hita a
M.A. Pedren
a
Departamento de Construcciones Arquitect� onicas 1, Escuela T�ecnica Superior de Arquitectura, Universidad de Sevilla, Avenida Reina Mercedes, n_ 2, 41012, Sevilla,
Spain
b
CERIS, Instituto Superior T�ecnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisboa, Portugal
c
CERENA, Instituto Superior T�ecnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisboa, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The construction sector consumes 95% of the total production of gypsum due to its multiple applications.
Gypsum waste Gypsum plaster is one of the most common indoor coating material (pastes and mortars), but it can also be used
Workability in prefabricated products like plasterboards, blocks and decorative elements. Gypsum waste recycling provides a
Plasters
solution to an important environmental problem from the use of gypsum plaster, which is the generation of large
Heating process
Microstructural analysis
amounts of wastes at different phases (production, construction, rehabilitation and demolition).
This paper studies two different replacement alternatives of natural gypsum: Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD)
gypsum and gypsum waste obtained from industrial plasterboard production. The influence of the previous types,
amounts of waste (25, 50, 75 and 100 wt%) and different heating temperatures (100 � C, 150 � C and 180 � C) and
processes on the workability of gypsum plasters is evaluated and discussed, based on a microstructure analysis
using XRD and SEM techniques.
This research highlights the feasibility, in terms of workability, of using Gypsum Plasterboard Waste (GPW),
without any heating process, as a replacement gypsum in plasters. Despite the fact that a higher amount of water
was necessary in the production of the mixes, a good workability was achieved. On the other hand, the unfea­
sibility of using unheated FGD as a constituent of plasters was demonstrated. However, a good performance, in
terms of workability, of the FGD was obtained when the powder was subjected to a heating process at 180 � C
during 6 h.

1. Introduction incorporating different types of waste for the generation of materials

The construction sector is one of the most responsible for current
environmental problems. On the one hand, the processes of obtaining
and producing construction materials consume large amounts of natural
resources, while generating significant amounts of waste from
manufacturing, construction, rehabilitation and demolition activities. In
2014, 868 million tons of construction and demolition waste (CDW)
were generated in the EU-28, representing 34.7% of the total European
waste for that year [1]. Furthermore, one of the main challenges set by
the European Union within the Horizon 2020 program is to be able to
properly manage the waste generated, on which CDW are included. In
that context, European Directive 2008/98/CE defines a target for 2020:
70% of all CDW must be recycled. In this context, many researchers and
companies in the sector have been studying the feasibility of
and products in construction [2–6].
The construction sector consumes 95% of the total production of
gypsum due to its multiple applications. Gypsum plaster [7,8], used as
pastes or mortars for renderings, is one of the most common indoor
coating material, but it can also be used in prefabricated products like
plasterboards, blocks and decorative elements [9,10]. However, this
also has a negative impact on the environment because of the energy
consumption for the manufacture of gypsum to be applied in
construction.
Gypsum plaster for construction, bassanite (CaSO4⋅0.5H2O - calcium
sulphate hemihydrate) is obtained by drying calcination of natural
gypsum (CaSO4⋅2H2O - calcium sulphate dihydrate) rock at 105 � C to
200 � C. After that, water must be added, generating an exothermic re­
action, explained by Le Chatelier, on which the gypsum plaster

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mpedreno@us.es, mjesus.moralesconde@gmail.com (M.A. Pedre~
no-Rojas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101143
Received 11 August 2019; Received in revised form 13 December 2019; Accepted 21 December 2019
Available online 25 December 2019
2352-7102/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.A. Pedre~
no-Rojas et al. Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101143

Fig. 1. Gypsums in their original state before the shaving process. A. CG (CaSO4⋅0.5H2O). B. FGD (CaSO4⋅2H2O). C. GPW after the cutting process (CaSO4⋅0.5H2O
and CaSO4⋅2H2O).

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of each type of gypsum used in the study.

Fig. 3. XRD of the gypsum powders used in the study in their original state.

2
M.A. Pedre~
no-Rojas et al. Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101143

Fig. 4. Comparative SEM images (2400x) of the gypsum powders, from very small particles. A. CG. B. FGD. C. GPW.

Jimenez-Rivero and García-Navarro [18,19]. They found that the eco­

Table 1 nomic and environmental cost of recycling gypsum plaster waste (GPW)
Temperature and time used for each heating process. is lower than the cost of its disposal in landfills (87% of GPW ended in
Heating process Without heating (WH) Temperature [� C] Time [h] landfills in the EU-28) according to the different economic, social and
environmental factors that they analysed. They also conducted an
– –
experimental procedure to maximize the GPW content in the production
100–6 100 6 of gypsum plasters and plasterboards [20]. Camarini et al. evaluated the
100–24 100 24
effects of several temperatures (120 � C, 150 � C and 200 � C) and heating
150–3 150 3
150–6 150 6 times (1, 2, 5, 8, 16 and 24 h) on the use of gypsum waste as a
180–3 180 3 replacement of natural gypsum. The best results were obtained when the
180–6 180 6 material was heated at 150 � C. They concluded that the mechanical and
environmental behaviour of the new gypsum-waste based materials is
better than the one obtained for commercial gypsum [21]. Finally,
rehydrates becoming a hard material as shown in eq. (1) [11,12]. Suarez et al. used 5% of recycled gypsum, as a set retarder replacing
105 to 200 � C
natural gypsum, in the generation of cement mortars. They achieved a
CaSO4 ⋅ 2H2 O → CaSO4 ⋅0:5H2 O þ 1:5H2 O→ CaSO4 ⋅2H2 O reduction of 65% in the embodied energy and CO2 emissions [22].
þ Heat (1) In addition to the commercial gypsum and the recycling of gypsum
waste, another type of gypsum has been found. It is a synthetic material,
When water is added, the material turns into the original state again. with the same chemical composition as gypsum, which is obtained from
It means that gypsum wastes generate a closed-loop recycling process on the desulphurization of gases in coal-fired power stations [23]. It is
which the chemical composition of the material does not change [13]. called flue gas desulphurization (FGD) gypsum and its use as a
That gives a solution to an important environmental problem of the use replacement of natural gypsum is widely extended around the world
of gypsum plaster, which is the generation of large amounts of wastes at [24]. However, more than 13 million tons of FGD ended in landfills each
different phases (production, construction, rehabilitation and demoli­ year in the United States [25]. For that reason, many researchers tried to
tion). According to Ahmed et al. more than 15 million tons of gypsum increase the use of that material in different sectors: gypsum products,
products ended in landfills annually in the world [14]. For that reason, cements and concretes and agriculture uses. In that sense, for con­
the use of gypsum waste as substitute of commercial one is an option struction applications, most of those investigations used a certain
that some researchers and enterprises have developed in the last years heating temperature (105–200 � C) and maintained it until all the gyp­
[15–17]. sum is transformed into Bassanite (3–24 h) [26–30].
In that sense, it must be highlighted the contributions made by Up to now, most of the studies that used gypsum wastes submitted

3
M.A. Pedre~
no-Rojas et al. Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101143

Fig. 5. XRD of the FGD powders without and after the different heating processes.

4
M.A. Pedre~
no-Rojas et al.
Fig. 6. SEM images of FGDs powders. A. WH. B. 100–24. C. 150–6. D. 180–6. Highlights: particle cracks (red).
the material to a previous calcination process (105–200 � C), reducing
the environmental benefits of the recycling procedure [21].
This paper discusses the workability of plasters produced with two
types of gypsum waste (Flue Gas Desulphurization gypsum and gypsum
waste obtained from industrial plasterboard production), focusing on
different heating processes and on the microstructure analysis of the
plasters. This paper is a complementary to a previous publication [31]
on which the mechanical and environmental behaviour of the plasters
were evaluated.
The paper has two main parts. In the first one (sections 2.1 and 2.2),
the waste before and after heating processes is characterized and specific
techniques (XRD, SEM) and different heating process are presented.
In the second part (in sections 3, 4 and 5), the main results of the
paper are presented and discussed for plasters.
2. Gypsum powder wastes under analysis
2.1. Materials characterization in their original state
In order to develop the new gypsum plasters, three different kinds of
gypsum were employed (Fig. 1):
- Commercial or natural gypsum (CG): traditional (controlled setting)
gypsum for construction, or B1 gypsum according to standard UNE-
EN 13 279–1 [7], was used for comparison purposes (Fig. 1A).
- Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) Gypsum: This synthetic material
(Fig. 1B) was generated by the desulphurization of gases in Pego’s
coal power plant (Portugal).
- Gypsum Plasterboard Waste (GPW) from Production: The waste was
given by Gypfor, a plasterboard production plant in Sines (Portugal).
5
Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101143
The GPW used for this project was taken from the waste powder
produced during the plasterboards cutting process (Fig. 1C).
Fig. 2 presents the original particle size distribution of each type of
gypsum used on the experimental program. Only particles smaller than
1 mm were taken to generate the new composites.
X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) method was used to obtain the chemical
composition of each gypsum. A XPERT-PRO PANALYTICAL diffrac­
tometer system was used, operating with a CuKα radiation with 35 mA
and 40 kV as generator settings. To identify the crystalline phases High
Score Plus with PDF2 database was used. Fig. 3 shows the diffractogram
of each material and it can be noticed that, as expected, the commercial
gypsum is mostly 100% bassanite (CaSO4⋅0.5H2O) with a small amount
of calcite (CaCO3), the FGD is only composed by gypsum (CaSO4⋅2H2O),
while the GPW is a mixture of these particles (gypsum and bassanite).
The characterization obtained with the XRD could also be checked
with the images from Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), which was
conducted using a FEI TENEO field emission scanning electron micro­
scope. Thus, Fig. 4 shows an important difference, related with the size
and the shape of the particles, between the FGD and the other two
materials. It was observed that commercial gypsum particles (Fig. 4A)
had an intermediate size between FGD and GPW ones (5–15 μm). The
FGD (Fig. 4B) had larger (20–50 μm) and very round particles, while in
the others the particles were smaller and with straighter shapes. On the
other hand, in the GPW sample (Fig. 4C) fibres are visible.
2.2. Materials characterization after various heating processes
Apart from using the gypsum material in their original state,
different heating processes were carried out on both types of gypsum
waste under analysis, which were used to develop the new plaster
M.A. Pedre~
no-Rojas et al.
Fig. 7. XRD of the GPW powders after the various heating processes.
composites. For all heating processes, a CONTROLS 10-D1396 labora­
tory oven was used. The material was heated in the oven using different
rectangular trays of 40 � 25 cm2, in which approximately 4 kg of waste
was deposited. The waste was distributed evenly in the tray, so that the
largest surface area of material was exposed to the heating procedure.
After heating, the powder was cooled at laboratory temperature (23 � C)
during 3 h before using them to make the mixes. The temperature and
time used for each heating process is shown in Table 1.
2.2.1. Flue gas desulphurization gypsum (FGD)
Fig. 5 shows the results for the XRD of the FGD powders after each
heating process. As expected, the amount of gypsum particles decreased
when heating occurred. However, only one of the developed calcination
methods (180 � C for 6 h) changed all the gypsum particles into bas­
sanite. Furthermore, the calcination at 100 � C for 24 h changed a large
amount of gypsum into bassanite, and only a minimum amount of
gypsum remained.
As shown in Fig. 6, degradation of the gypsum particles occurred
when they were subjected to the heating process. Those cracks were
more significant in particles heated for 6 h at 180 � C, looking similar to
the images obtained for commercial gypsum (Fig. 4A).
6
Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101143
2.2.2. Gypsum plasterboard waste (GPW)
Fig. 7 shows the diffractograms obtained for GPW after each heating
process. As expected, the amount of gypsum particles decreased with
calcination. 3 h at 150 � C were enough to substitute all gypsum with
bassanite. However, 6 h at 100 � C were not enough to fully eliminate the
gypsum phase, i.e. a small part remained in the material. Finally, as in
the commercial gypsum (Fig. 3), a small amout of calcite was found in
the heated gypsum.
The SEM images obtained for GPW after the various heating pro­
cesses, and their influence on the glass fibres, are presented in Fig. 8. The
obtained particle size and shape of the materials were very similar to the
ones of commercial gypsum. Furthermore, no bigger differences were
perceived when the heated gypsum was compared with the non-heated
one. However, Fig. 8C and D and shows that a small degradation in the
glass fibre was found when the GPW was heated at 150 � C and 180 � C for
6 h.
3. Workability study in plasters
In this section, the workability of using various gypsum wastes as
partial or complete replacement of natural gypsum in plasters was
M.A. Pedre~
no-Rojas et al. Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101143

Fig. 8. SEM images of GPW powders (left side) and glass fibre details (right image). A. WH. B. 100–24. C. 150–6. D. 180–6. Highlights: glass fibre surface
degradation (blue).

7
M.A. Pedre~
no-Rojas et al. Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101143

Table 2
Composition of the various gypsum plaster mixes under study.
Gypsum plaster Commercial gypsum [wt. %] FGD [wt. %] Gypsum plasterboard waste [wt. %]

Reference 100 – –

FGD 25 WH 75 25 –
100–6
FGD 50 100–24 50 50 –
150–3
FGD 75 150–6 25 75 –
180–3
FGD 100 180–6 – 100 –

GPW 25 WH 75 – 25
100–6
GPW 50 100–24 50 – 50
150–3
GPW 75 150–6 25 – 75
180–3
GPW 100 180–6 – – 100

3.1. Gypsum plaster mixes

Different percentages of both types of waste, submitted to various

heating processes, were used as a substitute of natural gypsum to
develop the new gypsum plasters. All of those new mixtures are pre­
sented in Table 2.
Apart from the reference sample, four substitution ratio mixes (25,
50, 75 and 100 wt %) per type of gypsum waste and per type of heating
process were produced.

3.2. Workability and water content

Fig. 9. Flow table method.
analysed. Workability is one of the most relevant properties of plasters in
the fresh state. This property must be controlled during all the imple­
mentation process of the gypsum plasters in the walls or ceilings. By
achieving a fluid consistency, workability can be guaranteed. In that
sense, workability is directly related with the water/gypsum (w/g) ratio
of the mixes.
Workability is directly related with the water/gypsum (w/g) ratio of
the mixes. According to the standard [8], the water content of each mix
can be measured using the flow-table test (Fig. 9). The w/g ratio is
determined by trial and error until a 165 � 5 mm diameter is achieved
after a truncated cone (40 mm of height and inner diameters of 65 mm
and 75 mm), filled with slurry, is removed and jolted with 15 vertical
blows to the flow table at a constant speed of 1 revolution per second.
First, following the flow-table method, the w/g ratio of the reference

Fig. 10. Water/gypsum ratio of the FGD plasters.

8
M.A. Pedre~
no-Rojas et al. Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101143

Fig. 11. Water/gypsum ratios of the GPW plasters.

Table 3
Physical and mechanical properties of the various gypsum plaster mixes under study.
Gypsum plaster Dry bulk density [g/cm3] Flexural strength [MPa] Compressive strength [MPa] Emod [MPa] Thermal conductivity [W/mK]

Reference 1.34 3.09 7.32 5080 0.250

FGD 50 WH 1.30 0.11 0.21 960 0.248

FGD 50 100–24 1.09 1.07 2.39 2840 0.244
FGD 50 180–6 1.08 3.15 7.65 5230 0.239
FGD 100 100–24 1.10 0.31 0.92 1760 0.241
FGD 100 180–6 1.09 3.27 7.88 5560 0.236

GPW 50 WH 1.00 1.58 4.38 3020 0.217

GPW 50 100–24 0.92 2.32 7.29 4420 0.201
GPW 50 180–6 0.90 2.46 6.74 4470 0.195
GPW 100 WH 0.98 3.41 8.61 5690 0.203
GPW 100 100–24 0.86 2.17 6.40 4360 0.186
GPW 100 180–6 0.84 2.53 6.18 4180 0.181

sample was determined. For the reference material, made exclusively
with commercial gypsum, a ratio of 0.55 was achieved.
Once this value was obtained, in a first phase, it was decided to use
the 0.55 ratio for the mixes with gypsum waste and adapt it depending
on the type of material used. In the case of the plasters with FGD, it was
observed that, as expected, this value was excessive since it contained a
high percentage of gypsum particles, requiring a smaller amount of
water to set. On the other hand, in the GPW mixes there was a need to
increase the water content, as the setting process began just a few sec­
onds after adding the kneading water. Thus, the correct w/g ratio for
each composite, according to the standard [8], had to be determined.
Fig. 10 shows the w/g ratios of the various FGD composites. The
amount of water needed decreased as the waste content increased.
Furthermore, that decrease was bigger in plasters with waste without
heating. It was also observed that the FGD 100 WH sample could not be
produced because the powder did not react with the water at all. This
behaviour can be justified with the diffractograms of each material
shown in Fig. 4. According to them, when the amount of gypsum par­
ticles in the waste is bigger, the amount of kneading water decreases.
Finally, it was observed that when FGD heated at 180 � C was used to
create the new plasters, w/g ratio was, in all the cases, the same as for
the reference sample (0.55).
On the other hand, the w/g ratio for GPW plasters increased when
the waste content went up. As seen in Fig. 11, that increase is bigger in
mixes that use GPW without heating. With only 5% of gypsum waste, a
water increase of 45% was obtained to reach the standard requirements,
according to the flow table method. This behaviour is similar with the
one obtained by Camarini et al. who used citric acid as a set retarder for
the plasters with gypsum waste [32]. Finally, as happened with FGD
plasters, it was found that when GPW heated at 180 � C was used to
create the new plasters, w/g ratio was, in all the cases, the same as for
the reference sample (0.55).
4. Physical and mechanical characterization of the new plasters
The physical and mechanical characterization of the new plasters
with a recycled gypsum matrix was reported on a previous research
[31]. There, the dry bulk density, the flexural and compressive strength,
dynamic Young’s modulus (Emod) and thermal conductivity of the new
mixes were analysed, according to the standards [7,8]. However, and
trying to facilitate the interpretation of the results of the present paper, a
summary of the physical and mechanical characterization of these
plasters is included in Table 3.
The dry bulk density of the plasters decreased, in all cases, when the
content of waste increased. That drop was higher in mixes that con­
tained waste with a more intense heating process. The mechanical tests
for FGD gypsum plasters revealed that 180 � C during 6 h were needed in
the heating process to use that waste as substitute of the commercial

9
M.A. Pedre~
no-Rojas et al.
Fig. 12. SEM images of the reference plaster. A. 600x. B. 2400x. Highlights: grouped elongated crystals (green).
gypsum in plasters. However, for GPW plasters, it was noticed that,
without any heating process, the waste could perfectly be used in plas­
ters, even improving the mechanical results relative to the reference
material. Finally, the thermal conductivity of the plasters had a slight
improvement when the content of waste increased, and was better for
those with a more intense heating process.
5. Microstructural analysis
In order to justify the behaviour of each type of plaster when various
gypsum wastes were added to the mixture, a SEM analysis was carried
out.
Fig. 12 shows the SEM images obtained for the reference plaster,
exclusively made with commercial gypsum. In it, all the material had
reacted when water was added to the mix, generating a homogeneous
structure of grouped elongated crystals that have a length between 20
μm and 40 μm. Those measurements were in accordance with other
studies of the literature [12,33,34].
Fig. 13 presents the SEM images obtained for FGD25 WH, FGD25
100–24, FGD100 100–24, FGD25 150–6, FGD100 150–6, FGD25 180–6
and FGD100 180-6 plasters. The gypsum particles did not react with the
kneading water. Furthermore, the adherence between those particles
and the rest of the matrix was not good enough. Big pores (50–75 μm)
appeared in the plasters. Only commercial gypsum particles (Fig. 13A, B
and D), and the small percentage of bassanite particles from FGD after
the heating processes (Fig. 13C), reacted with water creating gypsum
crystals in the plaster. In addition, in that case crystals were not as
elongated as the ones of the reference plaster, having a more flattened
shape [35].
The SEM image of plaster FGD100 150–6 (Fig. 13E) seemed very
similar to the ones of the FGD powders (Fig. 6). This meant that no
particles had reacted with the water, forecasting a bad behaviour of that
plaster composite.
Finally, the SEM images of plasters FGD25 180–6 and FGD100 180–6
(Fig. 13F and G) seemed very similar to the ones of the reference ma­
terials (Fig. 12). In them, it could be seen that all the particles have
reacted with the water, forming crystals very similar to those obtained
for commercial gypsum. In addition, FGD100 180-6 sample (Fig. 13G)
showed larger crystals and a more compact matrix than the reference
plaster.
SEM images of some GPW plasters are shown in Fig. 14. The internal
structure of the matrices was very similar to that of the reference one
(Fig. 12). Those results are analogous to those achieved by Camarini and
Pinheiro, who also obtained a very similar structure for both types of
plasters [36]. However, the crystal lengths were shorter (5–15 μm) for
10
Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101143
GPW composites, which meant a more compact gypsum matrix for all
the mixes. This could be translated into an improvement of the me­
chanical properties of the mixes. In all cases, a good adherence between
the gypsum matrix and the glass fibres was achieved, being better in
composites with 100% of GPW. Furthermore, the compactness of the
matrix was better in mixes with GPW without heating.
6. Conclusions
In this research, the workability of plasters with Flue Gas Desul­
phurization Gypsum (FGD) and Gypsum Plasterboard Waste (GPW), as
partial or total replacement of natural gypsum, was analysed, including
several heating processes. In addition, a microstructural analysis using
XRD and SEM was carried out. The following conclusions were obtained:
- The XRD and SEM analysis of the two gypsum wastes (in powder)
used in this study in their original state showed that FGD is fully
composed of gypsum particles, while GPW had a mixture of gypsum
and bassanite in its chemical composition. Furthermore, the presence
of glass fibres in GPW was found using SEM.
- The gypsum powder wastes under study were subjected to various
heating processes. It could be noticed that, for FGD, the calcination at
180 � C for 6 h was the only one that changed all the gypsum particles
into bassanite. However, 3 h at 150 � C were enough to substitute all
the gypsum by bassanite in GPW. In addition, a small surface
degradation in the glass fibres was perceived when the GPW was
heated at 150 � C and 180 � C for 6 h.
- In terms of workability of the plasters, it was observed that the
water/gypsum ratio adequate for the reference sample was excessive
for FGD mixes, since they contained a high percentage of gypsum
particles, requiring a smaller amount of water to set (up to 54.5%
less). On the other hand, in the GPW mixtures the need to increase
the amount of water was detected (up to 236.4% more), as the setting
process began just a few seconds after adding the water to the mix.
- The SEM analysis of the FGD plasters showed that the gypsum par­
ticles did not react with the water in order to create the plaster.
Moreover, the adherence between those particles and the rest of the
matrix was not good enough. On the other hand, the SEM images of
plasters with FGD heated at 180 � C for 6 h formed crystals, very
similar to those obtained for commercial gypsum.
- The internal structure of the matrices of GPW plasters is very similar
to that of the reference mix. However, the crystal lengths were
shorter (5–15 μm vs. 20–40 μm) for GPW composites, which meant a
more compact gypsum matrix for all the mixes. In all cases, a good
adherence between the gypsum matrix and the glass fibres was
M.A. Pedre~
no-Rojas et al. Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101143

Fig. 13. SEM images of FGD plasters (600x). A. FGD25 WH sample. B. FGD25 100-24 sample. C. FGD100 100-24 sample. D. FGD25 150-6 sample. E. FGD100 150-6
sample. F. FGD25 180-6 sample. G. FGD100 180-6 sample. Highlights: dihydrate original state particles (blue), gypsum crystals (green) and bad adherence between
these materials (red).

11
M.A. Pedre~
no-Rojas et al. Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101143

Fig. 14. SEM images of GPW plasters (600x). A. GPW25 WH sample. B. GPW100 WH sample. C. GPW25 100-24 sample. D. GPW100 100-24 sample. E. GPW25 150-6
sample. F. GPW100 150-6 sample. Highlights: glass fibre good adherence (blue) and compact gypsum matrix (green).

12
M.A. Pedre~
no-Rojas et al.
achieved, being better in composites with 100% of GPW. Addition­
ally, the compactness of the matrix was better in mixes that used
GPW without heating.
In conclusion, even though a higher water content was necessary in
the production of the mixes, a good workability was achieved when
unheated GPW was used. On the other hand, the unfeasibility of using
unheated FGD as a constituent of plasters was demonstrated. However, a
good performance, in terms of workability, was obtained when the FGD
powder was subjected to a heating process at 180 � C during 6 h.
Finally, according to those results, the recycling of both types of
materials would result in different environmental impacts because of the
heating processes [33]. It should be noted that the gypsum waste from
plasterboards has been used in powder. Under normal circumstances, a
crushing procedure must be conducted to obtain the correct particle size
of the GPW, which would increase the environmental benefits of that
solution.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
M.A. Pedren ~ o-Rojas: Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing. J. De Brito: Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Formal analysis. I. Flores-Colen: Writing - original draft, Writing - re­
view & editing, Formal analysis. M.F.C. Pereira: Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing. P. Rubio-de-Hita: Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing.
Acknowledgements
Pedren
~ o-Rojas, MA (author) wishes to acknowledge the financial
support provided by the FPU Program of Spain’s Ministry of Education
(FPU15/02939). The authors also acknowledge the following manu­
facturers and companies: Gypfor, Gyptec and EDP. The authors also
acknowledge the support of the CERIS research unit from IST, and FCT
(Foundation for Science and Technology).COMPLIANCE WITH
ETHICAL STANDARDS.
References
[1] Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat. (Accessed August 2019).
[2] M. Gomes, J. de Brito, Structural concrete with incorporation of coarse recycled
concrete and ceramic aggregates: durability performance, Mater. Struct. 42 (5)
(2009) 663–675.
[3] N. Saikia, J. de Brito, Use of plastic waste as aggregate in cement mortar and
concrete preparation: a review, Constr. Build. Mater. 34 (2012) 385–401.
[4] M. Del Río Merino, J. Santa Cruz, P. Villoria, R. Santos, M. Gonz� alez, Eco plaster
mortars with addition of waste for high hardness coatings, Constr. Build. Mater.
158 (2018) 649–656.
[5] A. San-Antonio, M. Del Río, C. Vi~ nas, P. Villoria, Lightweight material made with
gypsum and EPS waste with enhanced mechanical strength, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28
(2) (2015), 04015101.
[6] M.A. Pedre~ no-Rojas, M.J. Morales-Conde, F. P�erez-G� alvez, C. Rodríguez-Li~na
�n,
Eco-efficient acoustic and thermal conditioning using false ceiling plates made
from plaster and wood waste, J. Clean. Prod. 166 (2017) 690–705.
[7] UNE-EN 13279-1, Gypsum Binders and Gypsum Plasters - Part 1: Definitions and
Requirements, 2006.
[8] UNE-EN 13279-2, Gypsum Binders and Gypsum Plasters - Part 2: Test Methods,
2006.
13
Journal of Building Engineering 29 (2020) 101143
[9] J. De Brito, I. Flores-Colen, Gypsum plasters, in: Materials for Construction and
Civil Engineering, Springer, Cham, 2015, pp. 123–184.
[10] R.H. Geraldo, S.M. Pinheiro, J.S. Silva, H.M. Andrade, J. Dweck, J.P. Gonçalves,
G. Camarini, Gypsum plaster waste recycling: a potential environmental and
industrial solution, J. Clean. Prod. 164 (2017) 288–300.
[11] J. Fo�rt, R. Cerný,
� Carbon footprint analysis of calcined gypsum production in the
Czech Republic, J. Clean. Prod. 177 (2018) 795–802.
[12] E.M. Gartner, Cohesion and expansion in polycrystalline solids formed by
hydration reactions—the case of gypsum plasters, Cement Concr. Res. 39 (4)
(2009) 289–295.
[13] GtoG Project. http://gypsumtogypsum.org/. (Accessed August 2019).
[14] A. Ahmed, K. Ugai, T. Kamei, Investigation of recycled gypsum in conjunction with
waste plastic trays for ground improvement, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (1) (2011)
208–217.
[15] H. Begliardo, M. Sanchez, M. Cecilia Panigatti, S. Garrappa, Reuse of recovered
construction gypsum plaster: a study based on aptitude requirements of argentine
and Chilean standards, Revista de la Construcci� on 12 (3) (2013) 27–35.
[16] A. Erbs, A. Nagalli, V. Mymrine, K.Q. Carvalho, Determination of physical and
mechanical properties of recycled gypsum from the plasterboard sheets, Cer^ amica
61 (360) (2015) 482–487.
[17] N. Papailiopoulou, H. Grigoropoulou, M. Founti, Energy analysis of the effects of
high-level reincorporation of post-consumer recycled gypsum in plasterboard
manufacturing, Waste and Biomass Valorization 8 (5) (2017) 1829–1839.
[18] A. Jim� enez-Rivero, J. García-Navarro, Indicators to measure the management
performance of end-of-life gypsum: from deconstruction to production of recycled
gypsum, Waste and Biomass Valorization 7 (4) (2016) 913–927.
[19] A. Jim�enez-Rivero, J. García-Navarro, Exploring factors influencing post-consumer
gypsum recycling and landfilling in the European Union, Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
116 (2017) 116–123.
[20] A. Jim� enez-Rivero, J. García-Navarro, Characterization of quality recycled gypsum
and plasterboard with maximized recycled content, Mater. Construcci� on 67 (328)
(2017) 137.
[21] G. Camarini, K.D. Dos Santos Lima, S.M. Pinheiro, Investigation on gypsum plaster
waste recycling: an eco-friendly material, Green Mater. 3 (4) (2016) 104–112.
[22] S. Su�arez, X. Roca, S. Gasso, Product-specific life cycle assessment of recycled
gypsum as a replacement for natural gypsum in ordinary Portland cement:
application to the Spanish context, J. Clean. Prod. 117 (2016) 150–159.
[23] F. Wirsching, R. Hüller, R. Olejnik, FGD definitions and legislation in the European
Communities, in the OECD and in Germany, in: Studies in Environmental Science,
vol. 60, Elsevier, 1994, pp. 205–216.
[24] Eurogypsum. http://www.eurogypsum.org/. (Accessed August 2019). FGD:
quality criteria and analysis methods.
[25] American Coal Ash Association. https://www.acaa-usa.org/. (Accessed August
2019).
[26] J.C. Lee, S.L. Bradshaw, T.B. Edil, C.H. Benson, Quantifying the benefits of flue gas
desulfurization gypsum in sustainable wallboard production, Coal Combustion and
Gasification Products 4 (2012) 17–20.
[27] D.Y. Lei, L.P. Guo, W. Sun, J.P. Liu, C.W. Miao, Study on properties of untreated
FGD-based high-strength building materials, Constr. Build. Mater. 153 (2017)
765–773.
[28] C. Leiva, C.G. Arenas, L.F. Vilches, J. Vale, A. Gimenez, J.C. Ballesteros,
C. Fern� andez-Pereira, Use of FGD in fire resistant panels, Waste Manag. 30 (6)
(2010) 1123–1129.
[29] D.B. Watts, W.A. Dick, Sustainable uses of FGD in agricultural systems:
Introduction, J. Environ. Qual. 43 (1) (2014) 246–252.
[30] Y.C. Zhang, S.B. Dai, J. Huang, S.G. Duan, Z.Z. Zhi, Preparation of thermal
insulation plaster with FGD, Kemija u Industriji: Casopis
� kemi�cara i kemijskih
in�zenjera Hrvatske 65 (5–6) (2016) 283–288.
[31] M.A. Pedre~ no-Rojas, I. Flores-Colen, J. De Brito, C. Rodríguez-Li~
na�n, Influence of
the heating process on the use of gypsum wastes in plasters: mechanical, thermal
and environmental analysis, J. Clean. Prod. 215 (2019) 444–457.
[32] G. Camarini, M.C.C. Pinto, A.G. de Moura, N.R. Manzo, Effect of citric acid on
properties of recycled gypsum plaster to building components, Constr. Build.
Mater. 124 (2016) 383–390.
[33] A. Gmouh, S. Eve, A. Samdi, R. Moussa, J. Hamel, M. Gomina, Changes in plaster
microstructure by pre-stressing or by adding gypsum grains: microstructural and
mechanical investigations, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 352 (1–2) (2003) 325–332.
[34] M.J. Morales-Conde, C. Rodríguez-Li~ na
�n, M.A. Pedre~ no-Rojas, Physical and
mechanical properties of wood-gypsum composites from demolition material in
rehabilitation works, Constr. Build. Mater. 114 (2016) 6–14.
[35] S. Zhong, K. Ni, J. Li, Properties of mortars made by uncalcined FGD-fly ash-ground
granulated blast furnace slag composite binder, Waste Manag. 32 (7) (2012)
1468–1472.
[36] G. Camarini, S.M. Pinheiro, Microstructure of recycled gypsum plaster by SEM,
Adv. Mater. Res. 912 (2014) 243–246.