Transforming Urban Waste into Construction blocks for a Sanitation Infrastructure: A Step towards addressing Rural Open Defecation Harish T Mohan AMMACHI Labs, Amrita School of Engineering, Amritapuri, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amrita University, India
[email protected] Lauriane Masson, School of Engineering, Ecole polytechnique féderale de Lausanne (EPFL), CH1015 Lausanne, Switzerland)
[email protected]
Department of Civil Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering, Coimbatore, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amrita University India, 1
[email protected], 2
[email protected], 3
[email protected], 4
[email protected],
[email protected] Renjith Mohan Amrita center for international programs, Amrita School of Engineering, Amritapuri, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amrita University, India
[email protected]
Sreevalsa Kolathayarline1, Anil Kumar Sharma K2 Monish3, Ashwathi G Krishnan4, Thiviya S K5
Abstract—Developing nations like India face major challenges in their developmental efforts due to issues related to waste management and open defecation. While the urban community faces challenges related to plastic waste which has become almost all pervasive, the rural counterpart’s open defecation continues to pose significant health threats. Lack of large-scale utilization of plastic from the urban population has been a challenge for civic administrators. The state is same as the rural population in terms of adequate sanitation infrastructure due to the cost of raw materials and lack of skilled workers. This paper discusses a potential solution to address these issues in concern; i.e. transforming urban plastic waste into interlocking construction blocks and then to construct low-cost, rapid build toilets. A study was conducted to examine the effectiveness of using LDPE (Low-Density Polyethylene), HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) (major sources of waste) with easily procurable materials like sand, rice husk and saw dust, in different proportions to create the interlocking blocks. The study included a comparison of the mechanical and thermal properties of different proportions of raw materials to find the optimum composition. The paper also discusses the design and construction of toilet structure based on the (1) acceptance of the rural community, (2) construction with interlocking bricks method, and (3) availability of resources. The environmental and economic sustainability advantages of the proposed solution with very minimum skills, fewer construction materials, and shorter build time as compared to conventional methods have also been explored in this paper.
978-1-5090-6046-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
Keywords— Urban waste management; Rural sanitation infrastructure; sustainability; interlocking block; composites; plastic waste; soil; sand; sawdust; coconut oil
I.
INTRODUCTION
Waste management has gain lot of importance in the developing countries which have a great effect on India in recent decades with the lack of effective misdeed. With recent survey reflecting the factor that the population of the country reaching 1.32 billion (July 2016) with a population density of approximately 382 per sq km [1]. Over to it, a 7 % average economic growth in last two decades shows the rapid economic development along with the population pressure which will escalate the consumer waste which is a foreseen threat to the health and sanitation in both rural and urban sector. Recent figures from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) status report on Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in 2015, states that 0.143million tons of solid waste are generated per day [2] in the country out of which only 23% has been processed properly. Recent studies have drawn the figure that around 90% of Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSW) is open fired or landfilled without following proper safety regulations which in turn cause health problem and environmental issues. These practices discourage the initiatives to practice standardized water, soil and water pollution quality in the nation Narrowing it down to the plastic waste, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) latest survey brings up the facts that 60 cities [3] estimated to produce around 15,342.6 tonnes per day
plastic waste. Out of this enormous waste produced 92.05 tonnes per day is collected and recycled and around 6,137 tonnes are littered and uncollected Plastic waste after collection progress through stages like segregation, cleaning, drying and storage, some cases its shredded and used. Segregation is a time-consuming process in which separating the collected plastic waste to Polypropene(PP), HDPE, LDPE, PET and discarded one which goes for landfill. Current sanitation scenario in India India accounts for roughly one-third of the world population, of which two -third of the country’s population practice open defecation [4]. Around 71% population live in rural sector out of which 90% don't have access to improved sanitation facilities. In India, most of the urban settlement has satisfactory sanitary facilities except few settlements in slum areas. In rural areas of many parts of the country, the issue is more severe with the problem of open defecation being practiced for decades. Recently there were attempts by Government to create awareness and build low cost toilets in rural areas of India. In this context, the use of urban plastic waste as a construction material for rural sanitation facilities become relevant.These factors have to lead to a high impact vulnerability factor in the country. Poor sanitation which is accounted to 1.8 million dead every year due to diarrheal diseases in which 90%are children under 5. Diarrhea, soiltransmitted hemonth infection, schistosomiasis and trachoma are some infectious diseases caused due to poor sanitation [5]. Women in India are the most vulnerably affected population due to lack of hygiene and sanitation. Top to the lack of privacy and dignity, women are more exposed to a vulnerable situation which potentially creates situations with high risk of physical and sexual assault. Women have to walk far into the jungle or to remote land to relieve them or to help a family member which is time and energy consuming in case of working homemakers. One of the other challenges faced is when a girl hits puberty, without proper access to private facilities which in turn has found to have an effect on school attendance and dropout rates. The scenario is not different for the working women, where unhygienic facilities causing women to have higher rates of absenteeism which leads to subsequently lose productivity and income. This paper replicates the study carried out with the waste plastic in categories blended with rurally available materials like soil, sand rice husk and saw dust in different proportion and its mechanical properties have been studied. Leading to this study an economical and feasible combination can be suggested to make interlocking construction blocks without compromising on the physical properties. II.
MODEL
A community driven model always has shown [6] more positive results compared to the corporate installed sanitation projects. The relation of the poor rural women with limited and inaccessible sanitation infrastructure is very clear.
The Same sector also represents a substantial portion of unskilled workers as per Inter- Agency Task Force on Rural Women in United Nation 2009. Community driven development activity, giving more emphasis on women group has shown more effective with gender equitable awareness (United Nations 2009). Ammachi Labs[7], Amrita University has been training women from the rural sector to build their own toilet through technical and vocational education and training (TVET) by empowering marginalized communities. This technology enhanced, the community-led approach has been successfully driving the entire community towards total
Fig. 1. Interlocking Block model and Toilet wall construction method
sanitation. The courses are deployment in 17 different states across the country, where rural women group has given the training to build the toilet with computerized training module and games for the proper understanding in presence of expert masonry skilled expert. During this process, it was observed that women struggled to understand the brick laying and wall building process. The concrete blocks are heavier to lift for them which has led to time-consuming and lengthy processes. The skill required for conventional type toilet building is studied in details and came up with solution of using interlocking blocks made for plastic mixed with locally available filler. In the toilet building, two layers of blocks are made in with two blocks in width with one layer over the other layer which is perpendicular to each other. These two layer described goes under the ground level which will act as a foundation for the toilet building structure. A rebar is run across the middle of the foundation to connect the block in and four rebars is projected out vertical in each corner. Wall is constructed as shown in Fig.1, where rebar will be run across the border making it as cube. Rebar structure will give more structural strength. This kind of construction will ensure the structure strength with minimum skill and less construction materials like cement. This will ensure the women group expertise in rapid construction of toilet infrastructure. III.
STATE OF ART
Plastics are sorted into two categories: thermoplastic and thermosetting plastic. The thermoplastic is a polymer which is heated and molded to specific shape without bonding agents. It is less stable than thermosetting plastic but it is reversible and it can be recycled without affecting the properties of the
material [11]. It represents 78% of the total plastic while thermosetting plastics, that are mainly epoxy resins and polyurethane, constitute only 22% [12]. PP (Polypropylene) and PE (Polyethylene) are the most common reused thermoplastic in construction materials, followed by PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate). Polyethylene is generally sorted into groups: LDPE (Low-Density Polyethylene), HDPE (HighDensity Polyethylene) and LLDPE (Linear-Low Density Polyethylene) [11]. PE plastics are the most prevalent plastic in the world, used for films, bags, rigid container, pipes, and toys. They represent an amount of 17% and 11% of the total plastics on earth for LDPE and HDPE respectively [12]. It is a low-cost soft material, low in strength, hardness and water absorption but high in ductility and impact strength. However, it is barely recycled, especially LDPE, as it becomes a dirty and oily waste. PET is used for the plastic bottles. It is rigid and own high chemical and water resistance. However, contrarily to PE, it is breakable and the melting temperature is really high (260° for PET against 130°C for PE) [24] [11]. For all these reasons, we focus our research on LDPE plastic and HDPE contrarily to PP and PET. Plastic should be mixed with a filler to create a construction material so that the composite shows the properties of the two materials. Many papers study the incorporation of plastic in concrete but in a little amount. Usually, under 2% of total weight is added, as a higher amount decreases the mechanical properties of the material [8], [25], [26]. This is not sufficient, though, to resolve the problem of the huge amount of littered plastics. Moreover, the production of cement used in concrete and mortar rejects a huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and doesn’t make it an eco-friendly product. Only a few amount of papers focus on the adding of plastic in sand, soil or clay bricks. The soils are hard materials giving a good compressive strength and usually affordable in the area of the construction. This is a common material, used for millennial everywhere in the world due to its good compressive strength and as it is collected directly in the area of the construction. Puutaraj et Al. [9] studied the incorporation of PET in bricks made of laterite quarry waste and bounded with bitumen. With an optimum quantity of 70% of PET plastic by weight of soil and 2% of bitumen, they obtain a compressive strength of 8.16MPa. The bitumen assists in transforming the PET from thermoplastic to thermosetting plastic. Another study creates bricks made of polystyrene and clay with a respective ratio of 0.6:1. They show that adding of plastic reduces the compressive strength but greatens the toughness, hardness and thermal resistance by the forming of pores [27]. The sand presents better mechanical properties than the soil but it is less affordable and it becomes a rare material. Wahid et al., 2015 [10] use a traditional cement mixer to create a sand-PET-cement material. By adding cement, will decisive the heating process, just adding water will and improve the reaction between the different material. Numerous research study has been done based on natural residues, like wood flour [10], sawdust [14], rice husk [19], [22], bamboo powder[21] coir [18] and other lignocelluloses
materials [16]. They present good stiffness and are lightweight, in addition, to being affordable, biodegradable, and easily findable close to the area of the construction [13]. However, they concede bad water, chemical and insect resistances and are highly inflammable [14]. Due to the low thermal stability of the lignocelluloses materials, it is necessary to be really careful about the heating process of the composite, as, at a temperature close to 200°C, the material degrades, and the mechanical properties and density of the composites decrease [16]. Moreover, volatile matters, odors, and gas are released from composites made of plastics or sawdust, and particularly when the two are mixed, but it shown no impact onto the human health [20]. The coupling agent is necessary to improve the adhesion between the hydrophilic natural residues and the hydrophobic plastics [11], [13]. This difference of chemical properties make them incompatible and this lack of interfacial bonding causes problems for the mechanical properties and the porosity [21]. By improving the surface contact and the adhesion, it creates also a homogeneous repartition of the filler in the final material with less porosity. Most of the coupling agent are chemical products, quite expensive and potentially harmful for environment, like MAPE (Maleic anhydride Polyethylene) [13][22], MAPP (Maleic anhydride Polypropylene)[13][21], EVAL (ethylene–vinyl alcohol copolymer) [21], Fusabond[15], or silane and alkalis treatment for the natural fibers [17],[18],[22]. However, natural oils based on coconut [11] or soybean[23] can be good alternatives in term of price, availability, and as an eco-friendly material, which can reduce the melting point of PE plastic. With 10% of coconut oil, the porosity and water absorption are reduced while the density and flexural strength are greatened [11]. IV.
MATERIALS & METHODS
Waste plastic materials mainly contribute of LDPE and HDPE in which majority of the waste has been landing filled or open fire. A. Materials Used 1) Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) shredded pieces: The LDPE is shredded sizable pieces from locally available waste LDPE plastic bags, in the range from 5mm to 50mm.The density is 0.91∼0.92g/cm3 and melting temperature is between 105 to 120°C. 2) High density polyethylene (HDPE) / LDPE granules: The granules are composed of a ratio of HDPE/ LDPE (15:4) manufactured with local waste manufacturing company Oreon Plastics Coimbatore. The density found out to be 1.05 g/cm3 and melting temperature is close to 160°C.
Graph:1 Granulometric curve
LDPE- fine
LDPE- coarse
Sawdust
Sand
HDPE Pellets
Fig. 2. Material used in the specimen
The filler materials are picked in considering availability in rural scenarios which are readily accessible like soil and sand, and it's a by-product of another process like sawdust and rice husk. a) Sawdust: The sawdust is collected from the local wood workshop within the campus of Amrita University, Ettimadai. As the samples are not pure and contain no vegetal components, the sawdust is sieved the particles under 425μm. b) Rice Husk: Rice husks are provided from rice mill which is very readily available in South India. The hulls are used without any modification in shape and without any treatments. The material density found out to be 0.21g/cm3. c)
Sand: The granulometric curve of the sand is presented in the graph 1 with a density of 1.645 g/cm3
d) Soil: The soil from the rural Sadivayil village from Coimbatore is a sieve in a screen of 425μm which ensure the smaller particle size. The soil density determine to be 1.690 g/cm3 e)
Coconut oil: Coconut oil is one of the natural oil available in South India which can act as a good bounding agent and can be accessed by the rural community. The coconut oil was bought from KLF Nirmal Industries Ltd with a viscosity of 100.8 cP at 30.4°C , pH of 6.45 and density is 0.912 g/cm3.
f)
Waste coconut oil: The waste coconut oil was also taken into account which will be a waste product after the deep fry process in cooking which will be more economically viable. The filtered waste coconut oil was provided by the main kitchen of the university. The density is lighter than the fresh coconut oil to 0.90 g/cm3.
B. Proccess Moulds of different sizes (5cmx5cm and 7cmx7cm) were prepared. Blocks of different mix proportions were made, composed of LDPE or HDPE plastic along with different filler materials like sand/soil/sawdust/rice husk. Mould was filled different proportions and hand compacted as when sample undergoes through heating process its shrink in size. So to ensure the decent size for the testing purpose, height of the mould is increased. After that, the sample was kept inside the oven at 200°C for two hours for the LDPE samples and four hours for the HDPE ones. Then moulds were taken out and were mechanically compacted and allowed to cool for 24hours in ambient temperature. After compaction, the height of the block was reduced around 2.5 to 3 cm. Hence, the blocks are cut into cubes of 2.5 or 3 cm to ensure more accurate outcome in the following tests to cool for 24 hours in ambient atmosphere. C. Tests and Experiments Methods Four different tests were carried out at the Department of the Civil Engineering, Amrita University,Ettimadai and consisted of: (1) dry density test, (2) compression test, (3) water absorption test , (4) Thermo gravimetric Analysis (TGA).
1)
Density of material: Results on the density of samples are relevant as we are addressing the women group since weight is a factor for its implementation. The density of the samples is calculated by mass by volume method in which the volume is found by volume of water displaced after immersing in the water.
2) Compressive strength: The prepared specimen was tested by compression testing machine after 24 hours of cooling. The load was applied gradually and arrived in a conclusion that even though it shows minor deformation , but there will not be any failure since the plastic has elastic property. The load at which the size of the cube reduces to 30% of the original size of the cube is accounted to calculate the compressive strength i.e. the Load divided by the area of specimen gives the compressive strength of plastic cube. 3) Water absorption: The water absorption was calculated according to Rahman et al [24]. It corresponds to the norm IS 3495 for burned clay bricks. The weight of the sample was measured before (W1) and after (W2) kept in water for 24 hours. After taking out the sample from the water, it is dried quickly with a tissue and directly weighed. The percentage of water absorption is obtained applying the following formula: However, we regret that very accurate values were not obtained as the weighing balance rounds off to 2g. The maximum reasonable water absorption for brick is 20%. In a country subject to the monsoon it is better to target on water absorption less than 5%.
V.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Density Comparing the LDPE with soil, sand rice husk and saw dust it was observed sand has the higher density 1.21g/cm3 followed by soil 0.98g/cm3 and the rice husk and saw dust have a lower density. By adding 10% coupling agent coconut oil it was observed that a major reduction in rice husk with LDPE mixture and a minor reduction in LDPE with the sand mixture but it was observed that LDPE with saw dust and soil density increase. So it is evident that soil and sand have higher density than plastic so by having a higher portion of this filler will make higher density. In the case of Saw dust and rice husk which are having lighter density than plastic, presents lower density by an increase in filler portion. B. TGA Analysis Rice husk contains more ash and less lignin than wood dust [13]. As lignin give the stiffness of the material [11], the rice husk is less hard than wood dust. The TGA and derivative thermogravimetry (DTG) curves of the sawdust and rice husk are depicted in graph2. The TGA graph of sawdust and rice husk shows three main stages of degradation. The first one, from 25°C to 75°C and 80°C (respectively for sawdust and RH), represents the evaporation of the water content until 8% and 11% (respectively) of the total weight, this last value corresponding to the moisture content of the fillers.
4) Thermo gravimetric Analysis (TGA) for Evaluation of Reactivity Parameters: Since we put the sample in an oven at a high temperature, the thermal stability of the fillers is important. From TGA the changes in filler material property with respect to temperature can be determined. In this study, the TG- analysis was determined by the instrumental method. TGA-601 automatic elemental analyser was used for thermogravimetric analysis. The TGA-601 thermogravimetric analyser is used to determine the composition of organic, inorganic and synthetic materials. It measures weight loss as a function of temperature in a controlled environment. After an analysis method has been selected empty crucible are loaded into the furnace carousel. The analysis method controls the carousel, furnace and balance operation. On completion of crucible tear, each crucible is presented to the operator for sample loading. The starting sample weight is measured and stored automatically. Once all the crucibles have been closed, analysis begins. The weight loss of each sample is measured and the furnace temperature is controlled according to the selected analysis method, the percent weight loss in each sample for the analysis step is printed at end of the analysis. Based on the DTG curves the reactivity parameters such as peeking temperature, the initial temperature of devolatilization, burnout temperature, ignition time and burnout time are determined.
Graph: 2 Thermogravimetry curve graph
CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF THE LIGNOCELLULOSIC FILLERS (RICE HUSK FLOUR AND WOOD FLOUR) [13]
TABLE I.
Holocellulose
RHF2 WF2
59.9 62.5
Others
Lignin
Ash
20.6
13.2
6.5
0.4
10.9
26.2
The second stage occurred for the decomposition of hemicellulose during a range of 220°C to 312 and 318 respectively with the reduction of 10% and 15% of the total weight. The peak with the highest rate of degradation hemicelluloses (%/°C) is at 302°C for sawdust. No peak
appears for Rice husk. Then the last stage is for the lignin as the degradation of this natural polymer necessitates a higher temperature [16]. The range is at the end of the second stage to 390°C approximately. The peak of degradation appears at 340°C and 348°C respectively. Hence, our working temperature is 200°C sawdust shows 8% reduction in weight compared to 11 %of rice husk which replicates the fact the sawdust is much more stable material than rice husk. In the next step, the natural polymers are reduced to ash. At 600°C, 64% of the total mass of the sawdust is gone as ash or gas, and 70% for rice husk. The difference of the amount of residue can be explained by the fact that little particles of others material, like plastic or iron, can be melt with the sawdust wastes. In figure 2, we can read than the sawdust contains 4.4% more diverse particles than rice husk. These particles are more thermally resistant than vegetal and there are the ones that remain at a very high temperature. C. Compressive Strength In India, according to IS: 1077 standards recommend a minimum value of 3.5MPa for compressive strength [28]. However, this is fragile strength compare to a minimum compressive strength for clay brick in European code is 5MPa. Moreover, the ASTM norm advises a minimum of 10.7 MPa for brick for light weather area and 20.7 MPa for hard weather [29]. a) LDPE Sand: From the Table IV, we can infer that a highest quantity of sand decreases the compressive strength of the material but the adding of coconut oil slightly increases it. This behaviour can be explain by a lack of adhesion between the sand and the plastic, leading to a reduce of the strength. The adhesion is higher with a smaller quantity of sand (ratio 1:1) compare to 1:2 and :1.5 ratios and even better with the addition of 10% of coconut oil. The maximum obtained value is 14.5 MPA for a ratio of 1:1 with 10% of coupling agent and without coupling agent 13 MPA . These values of the compressive strength are really good as they reach all the minimum of ASTM standard except for the ratio 1:2 that enter in the European norm. b) LDPE Soil: When coupling agent is added, the strength is always higher than 10MPa, filling with the ASTM Standard. The bigger strength is attained with 10% of waste coconut oil for a ratio 1:1 with 11.96 MPa. However, the two other samples with the same ratio and 10% or 5% of coconut oil get similar value (10.79MPa and 10.26Mpa respectively). Hence, by reducing the coconut oil to 5%, the mechanical properties are nearly not moving. The use of waste coconut oil instead of unused coconut oil decreases considerably the price of the sample while keeping the nearly same strength. Use of 5% of waste oil should be study in future research for this composition.
TABLE II. Sl. No
LDPE WITH SOIL AND ITS MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Average Density
LPDE Soil
Average Compressive Strength(Mpa)
Cocon ut oil
Water absorp tion %
1
1.22
1:1
9.35
0%
6.66
2
1.52
1:1
10.79
10%
1.75
3
1.24
1:1
10.26
5%
2.13
4
1.16
1:1
11.96
0.91
5
1.15
1:2
Bad quality
10% (1) 0%
6
1.50
1:2
8.8
10%
0.96
7
1.22
1:3
Bad quality
0%
16.70
TABLE III. Sl. No
1 2 3
LDPE WITH SAWDUST AND ITS MECHANICAL PROPERTIES LDPESawdust
Averag e Density
Average Compressive Strength(Mpa)
Cocon ut oil
Water absor ption %
1:0.5
0.54
6.63
0%
-
1:0.5
0.97
11.28
10%
4.17
1:0.66
1.15
14.4
0%
19.05
TABLE IV. Sl. No
16.67
LDPE WITH SAND AND ITS MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
LDPE: Sand
Density
Average Compressive Strength(Mpa)
Cocon ut oil
Water absorp tion %
1
1:1
1.21
13.05
0%
4.035
2
1:1
1.12
14.46
10%
1.19
3
1:1.5
1.31
11.84
0%
7.40
4
1:1.5
1.4
7.55
10%
1.55
5
1:2
1.32
8.45
0%
8.95
TABLE V.
LDPE WITH RICE HUSK AND ITS MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Sl. No
LDPE:Ri ce husk
Density
1
1:0.33
0.57
2
1:0.5
3 4
Cocon ut oil
Water absorp tion %
9.50
10%
22.6
0.75
3.855
0%
45
1:1
0.46
3.395
0%
69.56
1:1
0.29
Bad quality
10%
85.71
TABLE VI. Sl. No
Average Compressive strength (Mpa)
HDPE WITH SOIL AND ITS MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
HDPE: Soil
Density
Average Compressive Strength(Mpa)
Cocon ut oil
Water absorp tion %
Sl. No
HDPE: Soil
Density
Average Compressive Strength(Mpa)
Cocon ut oil
Water absorp tion %
1
1:1.5
1.17
10.2
0%
10.95
2
1:1.5
1.26
11.29
10%
2.50
3
1:1.5
1.31
12..91
5.88
4
1:1.5
1.2
13.09
Waste oil 10% 5%
5
1:2
1.39
11.2
10%
3.77
6
1:0.75
1.16
19.04
0%
2.60
7
1:1
1.1
10.25
0%
9.90
8
1:1
1.29
14.18
10%
4.00
TABLE VII.
8.16
HDPE WITH SAWDUST AND ITS MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Sl. No
HDPE :sawdust
Density
Average Compressive Strength(Mpa)
Cocon ut oil
Water absorp tion %
1
1:0.33
0.78
5.62
5%
12.82
2
1:0.5
0.64
1.06
no
32.5
3
1:0.5
0.72
5.28
10%
25.58
4
1:0.66
0.72
4.49
0%
23.68
5
1:0.66
0.64
4.27
10%
35.75
LDPE-Sand
LDPE-Soil
LDPE-Sawdust
Moreover, the behaviour of this kind of composite is the same than for LDPE- Sand as soil and sand are similar in chemical and mechanical properties. So we can conclude the same things about the influence of the ratio and coconut oil. Indeed, the adding of coupling agent always enhances the strength contrary to the added of more filler that degrades the material. The compressive strength of the ratio 1:2 and 1:3 was not accurate as these samples were very brittle and already cracks before to be tested. Hence they get a very bad quality. c)
The sample of 1:0.66 without coconut oil get a really good strength with a value of 14.4Mpa, which is 117% higher than for the sample of the same characteristic but with a ratio of 1:0.5. However, we cannot compare these two samples as we used finer plastic particles for the high strength and really coarse for the lower strength. Hence, the finer plastic particles allow better mechanical properties influenced by a more homogeneous matrix.
LDPE – Sawdust: The sample with a ratio 1:0.5 of
plastic by sawdust without coconut oil obtains only a value of 6.6MPa but when we add 10 % coconut oil the value is improved of 70% and attained 11.3 MPa passing the ASTM standard value.
d) LDPE - Rice Husk: From the Table V, we can infer that with a lower amount of rice-husk, the strength of the composite increase. Besides, the coconut oil enhance the material. In the ratio, 1:0.33 compressive strength increased from 6.4Mpa to 9.50Mpa with the addition of coconut oil as coupling agent. This results is clear the mark set by ASTM standards These value are bad compared to the composites made of sand, soil or sawdust. However, it still satisfies the Indian norm for the ratio of 1:0.5 and 1:0.33, but only the 1:0.33 samples are qualified for the European. e)
HDPE Soil: Similarly we observe that a higher
amount of Soil in the material decrease the strength and the addition of coconut oil always improve it. The best composition is with 1:1 and 10% of coconut oil where the sample reach 14.18 Mpa. This is the best value obtained against all the compositions presented in this paper.
LDPE- Rice Husk HDPE- Soil HDPE- Sawdust For the ratio 1:1.5, the different samples with coconut oil (10% coconut, 10% waste coconut and 5% coconut) get nearly the same values (around 13Mpa) as for the LDPE-Soil composites. It corresponds to an enhancement of 30% compared to the one without coconut oil. f)
HDPE Sawdust: From the Table VII, we conclude
that with a lower amount of sawdust, the strength of the composite increases. Besides, the addition of coconut oil enhances the material. The sample with a 1:0.33 and with 10% of coconut oil obtains the best compressive strength: 7.42Mpa. However, this value is not so good. Indeed for the same ratio of 1:0.5 with 10% coconut oil, the material with HDPE obtains 5.62Mpa while the one with LDPE, doubles and reaches 11.28MPa. It shows that the adhesion between HDPE and sawdust is not good even with coconut oil. It can be explain by the fact
the sawdust is a good insulated material compared to soil and inhibit the propagation of the heat in the material when the sample is in the oven. Besides, HDPE need a higher temperature to melt properly as it is big granules and not shredded film like the sawdust. These factors lead to a bad melted HDPE that is not mix properly with the sawdust.
respectively with 10% coconut oil as coupling agent shows a good result. HDPE different proportion with soil clear the standards which intern clarify that the same results can be obtained from the HDPE sand mixture too. HDPE saw dusk fail to achieve the strength which also forecasts that HDPErice husk will not be recommended. Even though results have shown that with coconut oil compressive strength increases but in an economic point of view it's without coconut oil is more affordable.
D. Water Absorption Test The maximum reasonable water absorption for brick is of 20%. However, as the bricks are aimed for a water room and moreover in a country subject to the monsoon, it is better to target on a water absorption less than 5%.
As we are proposing to use it in sanitation infrastructure water absorption is a vital factor in which LDPE with soil shows much better results with less than 1% , with coconut oil helps reduce the water content more effectively. Based on the appearance of the brick samples, aesthetic pleasure of LDPE brick is more than the HDPE brick. LDPE bricks are polychromatic on the other hand HDPE bricks are dark gray in colour.
For the composites made of soil or sand, with LDPE or HDPE, the water resistance is proportional to the amount of plastic in the composites as the plastic owns really good water resistance properties. Furthermore, the addition of the coupling agent decrease widely the water absorption. It can be explain by a more homogeneous matrix with finer pores so the pores are not connected between them and the water cannot be stored inside structure. The density decreases logically with a lower amount of sand as the density of sand is far higher than the plastic one. The coconut oil seems also to reduce the heaviness of the brick by created more pores. The LDPE composites own a better water resistance than the HDPE one for the same composition (1.75% against 4% for the Ratio 1:1 and 10% coconut oil for example). It is explained by voids inside the HDPE samples. However, the water absorption is nearly the same between sand and soil samples. For the natural filler composites, the water absorption is huge compared to the soil/sand fillers. Rice husk is the worst material for water absorption with values between 45 to 85%.The adding of coconut oil reduced the water absorption for the sawdust composites. For example, in the HDPEsawdust composites it decreases of 58% and 21% for a ratio of 1:0.66 and 0:0.5 respectively. However, it seems there is no logic about the influence of the part of the filler on the water absorption as the values are fluctuated too much, being really high values. The lowest value for HDPE-sawdust composites is only of 10% which corresponds to a bad water absorption. About the LDPEsawdust composites, the resistance absorption seems better than for the previous composites as we obtain a value of 4.2% for one of the sample. VI.
CONCLUSION
Industrial economic feasibility is an important factor, considering this into account LDPE is much cheaper than the HDPE.Furthermore, HDPE has got a good recycle value and LDPE is usually open fired or land filled which makes LDPE more prominent material to be used. All the LDPE composite with Sand and soil clear the limit set by the ASTM standard which is very promising as soil and sand will be available in the rural sector compare to saw dust and rice husk. LDPE and sawdust in the ratio of 1:0.5
As material availability to be considered soil and sand approachable to rural community is more than sawdust and rice husk but rice husk and saw dust samples have low density makes lighter block which will ensure the women group more workability. The scope of this paper is housing for sanitation facilities constructed from proposed bricks. This becomes important as one reason for lack of sanitation facilities in rural villages is the cost involved in construction of toilets. The septic tanks for containing sanitary waste also can be constructed using proposed technique. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank Sri Mata Amritanandamayi Devi, Chancellor of Amrita University and the M.A. Math for funding this initiative. The authors would also like to thank the faculty members, researchers, staff of Live-in-LabsTM Program, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham (Amrita University) Kerala, India. REFERENCES [1]
[2]
[3]
[4] [5]
[6] [7]
Census.(2011). Registrar General Of India. Retrived from http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov results/data_files/india/Final_PPT_2011_chapter3.pdf Ministry of Environmnet, Forest and Climate Change (2015). "Action Plan for Management of Municipal Solid Waste". Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). Available fromhttp://www.cpcb.nic.in/NGTorderdatedFeb-05-2015.pdf As listed by website http://www.cpcb.nic.in/divisionsofheadoffice/pcp/management_plasticw aste.pdf WHO/UNICEF. Progress on drinking-water and sanitation: 2012 update. World Health Organization: Geneva, 2012 Pruss-Unstun A, Bos R, Gore F, Bartram J. Safer water, better health: costs, benefi tsandsustainability of interventions to protect and promote health: World Health Organization: Geneva; 2008.20 Memon, Mushtaw Ahmed. "Innovation in Community DrivenComposting, Kitakyushu Initiative Network." (2004). SrividyaSheshadri, Christopher Coley, Rao R. Bhavani. “Training India’s first female toilet builders: An argument for improving sanitation through women empowerment and social inclusion”.International Conference on Sustainable Development (ICSD) 2015, September 23– 24, 2015, Columbia University, New York City
[8]
[9] [10] [11]
[12] [13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] [18] [19]
Alfahdawi, Ibrahim H., et al. "UTILIZING WASTE PLASTIC POLYPROPYLENE AND POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE AS ALTERNATIVE AGGREGATES TO PRODUCE LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE: A REVIEW." Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 11.8 (2016): 1165-1173 G.Miruthula, L.Kokila and G.Bala Murugan. " Experimental Investigation on Plastic-Soil Bricks." (2016) Hiremath, Puttaraj Mallikarjun, and Shanmukha Shetty. "Utilization of Waste Plastic in Manufacturing of Plastic-Soil Bricks." (2014). Wahid, Siti Aishah, Sullyfaizura Mohd Rawi, and Norlia Md Desa. "Utilization of Plastic Bottle Waste in Sand Bricks." Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, ISSN (2015): 2090-4304. Koranteng, Joyce. Developing composites from waste plastic and sawdust. Diss. 2016. Achilias, D. S., et al. "Chemical recycling of plastic wastes made from polyethylene (LDPE and HDPE) and polypropylene (PP)." Journal of Hazardous Materials 149.3 (2007): 536-542 Yang, Han-Seung, et al. "Effect of different compatibilizing agents on the mechanical properties of lignocellulosic material filled polyethylene bio-composites." Composite Structures 79.3 (2007): 369-375. Hamid, Mohd Rashid Yusof, and Ahmad Haji Sahrim. "Effect of flame retardants on wood plastic composites-HDPE based." Key Engineering Materials. Vol. 471. Trans Tech Publications, 2011. Guzman, Angel Daniel Muñoz, and María Giovanna Trotta Munno. "Design of a brick with sound absorption properties based on plastic waste & sawdust." IEEE Access 3 (2015): 1260-1271. Saheb, D. Nabi, and Jyoti P. Jog. "Natural fiber polymer composites: a review." Advances in polymer technology 18.4 (1999): 351-363. Ichazo, M. N., et al. "Polypropylene/wood flour composites: treatments and properties." Composite structures 54.2 (2001): 207-214. Arrakhiz, F. Z., et al. "Mechanical properties of high density polyethylene reinforced with chemically modified coir fibers: impact of chemical treatments." Materials & Design 37 (2012): 379-383.
[20] Arjmandi, Reza, et al. "Rice husk filled polymer composites." International Journal of Polymer Science 2015 (2015). [21] Félix, Juliana S., Celia Domeño, and Cristina Nerín. "Characterization of wood plastic composites made from landfill-derived plastic and sawdust: Volatile compounds and olfactometric analysis." Waste management 33.3 (2013): 645-655. [22] Kim, Jae-Pil, et al. "Wood–polyethylene composites using ethylene– vinyl alcohol copolymer as adhesion promoter." Bioresource technology 97.3 (2006): 494-499. [23] Chen, Ruey Shan, et al. "Biocomposites based on rice husk flour and recycled polymer blend: Effects of interfacial modification and high fibre loading." BioResources 10.4 (2015): 6872-6885. [24] Chen, H. C., T. Y. Chen, and C. H. Hsu. "Effects of wood particle size and mixing ratios of HDPE on the properties of the composites." European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 64.3 (2006): 172-177 [25] Rahman, Khandkar Siddikur, et al. "Flat-pressed wood plastic composites from sawdust and recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET): physical and mechanical properties." SpringerPlus 2.1 (2013): 629. [26] Usman, Mohd, Azher Javaid, and Sandeep Panchal. "Feasibility of Waste Polythene Bags in Concrete." [27] Sharma, Raju, and Prem Pal Bansal. "Use of different forms of waste plastic in concrete ea review." Journal of Cleaner Production 30 (2015): 1e10. [28] Quaranta, Nancy, et al. "Addition of polymeric wastes as pore formers in ceramic lightweight bricks." WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 128 (2010): 447-458. [29] Cited from :http://www.civilengjournals.com/images/Ebooks/1077.pdf [30] Munoz, P., et al. "Fired clay bricks made by adding wastes: Assessment of the impact on physical, mechanical and thermal properties." CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS 125 (2016): 241252.
