State University of Ponta Grossa (UEPG), Department of Materials Engineering, Av. General Carlos Cavalcanti 4748, 84030-900 Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil.
Federal University of Technology - Paraná, Department of Production Engineering, Av. Monteiro Lobato km 04, 84016-210 Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil.
Sci Total Environ. 2021 Jun 1;771:145276. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145276. Epub 2021 Jan 21.
Glass residues are available worldwide and are disposed of in large amounts in landfills. However, glass waste presents great potential to be used as raw material to produce foam glass boards, a product used in industries such as the construction sector. Conventional foaming agents (e.g. carbon black, carbonates, and sulfates) used in the production of foam glass boards release greenhouse gases into the environment, such as carbon dioxide. Conversely, sodium hydroxide releases only steam during the foaming process. Consequently, an insightful study is necessary to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of sodium hydroxide in comparison to other common foaming agents. Accordingly, the objective of this research is to carry out a cradle-to-gate Life Cycle study with four foam glass boards produced by different foaming agents: sodium hydroxide, carbon black, silicon carbide and dolomite. Global warming potential (GWP), acidification and human toxicity by air were considered as impact categories for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). The results from the four foam glass boards were compared to an expanded polystyrene (EPS) board. Results evidenced that the use of sodium hydroxide provides better environmental performance regarding GWP, releasing 0.46 kg CO eq., while the use of carbon black has less acidification potential with 1.95. 10 kg SO eq. Human toxicity by air was the only impact category in which EPS has better performance (8.66. 10 m air). LCIA results demonstrate that foam glass boards that stand out as safe (not emitting toxic gases in case of fire) are also interesting materials for the environment.
玻璃残渣在全球范围内都有供应，并且大量被丢弃在垃圾填埋场中。然而，玻璃废料具有很大的潜力可以被用作生产泡沫玻璃板的原材料，这种产品在建筑等行业中得到了广泛应用。在生产泡沫玻璃板时，传统的发泡剂（例如碳黑、碳酸盐和硫酸盐）会向环境中释放温室气体，如二氧化碳。相比之下，氢氧化钠在发泡过程中仅释放蒸汽。因此，有必要进行一项深入的研究，以分析氢氧化钠与其他常见发泡剂相比的优缺点。因此，本研究的目的是使用四种不同发泡剂（氢氧化钠、碳黑、碳化硅和白云石）生产的四块泡沫玻璃板进行摇篮到大门的生命周期研究。全球变暖潜能（GWP）、酸化和空气毒性被视为生命周期影响评估（LCIA）的影响类别。将这四种泡沫玻璃板的结果与膨胀聚苯乙烯（EPS）板进行了比较。结果表明，在 GWP 方面，氢氧化钠的使用提供了更好的环境性能，释放了 0.46 公斤 CO eq，而碳黑的使用具有较小的酸化潜力，为 1.95 公斤 SO eq。空气毒性是 EPS 具有更好性能的唯一影响类别（8.66. 10 m air）。LCIA 结果表明，泡沫玻璃板不仅安全（在火灾情况下不会释放有毒气体），而且对环境也具有重要意义。
