2020
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-11693-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transforming waste disposals into building materials to investigate energy savings and carbon emission mitigation potential

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…where C e is the unit cost of electricity (0.082 USD/kWh) as per the Indian scenario, and COP indicates the cooling system's coefficient of performance (2.5). Carbon emission mitigation (CO 2 ) is the carbon mitigated through annual energy saving [53], and it is given by Equation ( 8):…”
Section: Cost Assessment Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where C e is the unit cost of electricity (0.082 USD/kWh) as per the Indian scenario, and COP indicates the cooling system's coefficient of performance (2.5). Carbon emission mitigation (CO 2 ) is the carbon mitigated through annual energy saving [53], and it is given by Equation ( 8):…”
Section: Cost Assessment Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The thermal transmittance of buildings varies linearly with the ratio of the surface area of the building envelope to the total volume of the building (Loukaidou et al 2017). Arumugam and Shaik (2021) studied the dynamic thermal performance and carbon mitigation potential of bricks by adding agricultural waste to the conventional mud-brick and found that the addition of the wastes enhances both the structural and thermal performance of the building. A study by Kirankumar et al (2020) on energy and cost analysis of various glass materials in Indian climatic zones concluded that it is always desirable to place the window in the Southeast direction because of the highest cost-saving potential.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Scientists have used different methods [ 19 ] to increase the porosity in modern brick production. A wide variety of waste materials have also been tested as sources of additives, including paper production residue [ 20 ]; cigarette butts [ 21 ]; rice husk ash [ 22 , 23 ]; kraft pulp production residue [ 24 ]; waste tea [ 25 ]; sawdust [ 26 ]; vine shoots [ 27 ]; vegetable matter [ 28 ]; pineapple leaf fibers [ 29 ]; organic matter [ 7 ]; sugarcane bagasse ash waste [ 30 ]; incorporated biomasses [ 31 ]; corn cobs [ 32 ]; organic and inorganic wastes [ 33 ]; ice husks, sawdust, coir pith and fly ash [ 16 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]; granite sawing wastes [ 39 ]; municipal solid waste incinerator slag [ 40 ]; kaolin fine quarry residue, granulated blast-furnace slag and granite–basalt fine quarry residue [ 41 ]; Waelz slag and waste foundry sand [ 42 ]; industrial nanocrystalline aluminum sludge [ 43 ]; waste glass [ 44 ]; construction and demolition waste [ 45 ]; and crumb rubber, cement kiln dust, mine tailings, slags, wood sawdust, cotton waste, limestone powder and petroleum effluent treatment plant sludge [ 19 , 46 , 47 , 48 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%