Applications of Solar Panel Waste in Pavement Construction: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jason Zhu and Version 3 by Jason Zhu.

Waste from used solar panels will be a worldwide problem in the near future mainly due to the strong uptake in solar energy and the necessity of disposing solar panel systems at the end–of–life stage, as these materials are hazardous. While new techniques and strategies are often investigated to manage the end–of–life of solar panels effectively, there is huge potential in recycling and reusing solar panel waste as components for alternate products. Numerous studies have been conducted on using alternate materials instead of conventional materials in pavement construction.The findings present opportunities to use different solar panel waste materials such as glass, aluminium (Al), silicon (Si), and polymer waste as potential replacement materials in various types of pavement construction.

  • solar panel waste
  • waste utilization
  • recycling of materials

1. Composition and Material Properties of a Solar Panel

The material composition of solar panels is introduced. The environmental hazard of solar panel waste and the end–of–life (EOL) management of solar panel materials is also introduced. The section shows the benefits of recycling wasted solar panels in pavement construction to eliminate these environmental hazards.
A typical solar energy system consists of a solar panel, a solar controller, an inverter, and a group of batteries [1][2]. Effectively, a solar panel (also known as a photovoltaic or a PV module) converts solar radiation into electrical energy. The solar controller regulates the voltage and current to prevent overcharging batteries. The battery group stores the energies, and the inverter converts the direct current into alternate current to use in the household [1]. A solar panel element is the most critical component of the solar energy system, and there are three main types of this component [3]. Crystalline silicon (c–Si) is the most common solar panel type used in the commercial market, which can be either monocrystalline or multi–crystalline. The thin–film solar panel consists of amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride (CdTe), and copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). Concentrator phonotactic solar panels can be dye–sensitized, organic, or hybrid panels. Dye–sensitized panels consist of cells with light–absorbing dye and a metal oxide semiconductor that carries the electric current. C–Si solar panels are extensively used in the market, with a share of over 95% of total solar panel usage. while thin–film and concentrator phonotactics account for around 4% and 0.3%, respectively [1][4]. Due to current excessive usage and the potentially high possibility of waste collection in the future, only the application of waste c–Si panels is considered in this entry. It is also essential to understand the composition of c–Si panels to investigate future recycling and reuse options for solar panel waste.
Solar cells are the most critical part of the panels; they generate energy and are composed of a silicon (Si) wafer, a silver (Ag) electrode on the front side, and an Al electrode on the rear side. The cells are electrically interconnected (with tabbing) by copper (Cu) wires, creating a string of cells in a series (60 or 72 cells are the standard numbers that are generally used), which assemble into modules [1][5].
The wider application of solar panels also leads to waste accumulation at the end–of–life (service life 25–30 years) [6][7]. For example, Paiano [7] predicted that the total waste generated by solar panels in 2050 (1,783,268 tons) could be 2125 times the waste generated in 2022 (839 tons) in Italy. Similarly, KEI [8] estimated that the accumulative solar panel waste could be up to 820,000 tons in Korea by 2040. This waste contains environmentally hazardous substances, making its management a challenging task. Specifically, crushed glass powders can cause the lung condition known as silicosis when inhaled [9]. Waste glass also deteriorates in the atmosphere, leading to calcium leaching [10]. Additionally, polymer fractions are a potential pollutant that causes cancer and neurological damage, and it can impair the development of reproductive systems [11]. Aluminium waste can damage the quality of ground and surface waters [12][13]. It can also cause loss of plasma– and hemolymph ions, leading to regulatory failure in gill–breathing animals such as fish and invertebrates [14][15]. Silicon (Si), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), tin (Sn), and lead (Pb) in the waste can also be toxic and harmful to the environment [16]. It is important to recycle these wastes considering their environmental impact and market values [17].
The end–of–life (EOL) management of solar panels is evolving, and it considers the harmful effects and market values of substances in the waste. Solar panels, including their junction boxes and cables, are cleaned as a general step. Visual inspection is then carried out to detect any damage to the panels. Subsequently, three treatments can be carried out: mechanical treatment (also called physical treatment), chemical treatment, and thermal treatment [18]. Mechanical treatment is a physical separation, where crushing and seizing processes are applied to the PV panel modules [3][19]. Prior to this treatment, the frame, electrical cables, and junction box are removed. The remaining parts of the solar panels are crushed and refined to pieces of 4 to 5 mm in size using a hammer mill. During the refinement, glass and polymers are naturally separated from other large pieces due to the size of the mill cutting. The remainder goes through either a thermal treatment or a chemical treatment.
Thermal treatment is the heating and cooling process for separating and recovering valuable materials. The mechanically pre–treated panels are heated to 400–650 °C and cooled down afterwards [20][21]. Polymer components are burned/cracked during the heating process [3]. The treatment can further separate glass from solar cells, recovering glass in the remaining pieces. An overall glass recovery rate of 91% can be achieved by combing mechanical and thermal treatments [20].
Chemical treatment refers to the chemical etching and recovery until the targeted metals are recovered and the remainder from the mechanical and thermal treatments are subjected to chemical treatment. In this treatment, metals are dissolved using various reagents. For example, sodium hydroxide (NaOH) can be used for Si etching, methanesulfonic acid (CH3SO3H) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) can be used for Al etching, and nitric acid (HNO3) can be used etching of Cu and Ag [18]. After chemical etching, a simple filtration process can be applied to leaching solutions to recover Si. Subsequently, a combination of filtration and heating processes can be applied to recover Al. Copper can then be recovered by adding hydroxy–5–nonyl acetophenone oxime and H2SO4 to the leaching solution and using the electro–winning method. Ag can later be recovered by applying hydrochloride acid (HCl), sodium hydroxide (NaOH), and hydrazine hydrate (N2H4·H2O) to the solutions [22].
Although different EOL management methods have been developed for solar panels, they still have negative impacts. Firstly, the uncovered fractions after the mechanical treatment, chemical treatment, and thermal treatment are sent to a landfill and, in some cases, partially incinerated. These fractions still contain Cu, Ag, Sn, and Pb, as none of the current treatments can achieve a 100% recovery rate for these metals [3][22]. Secondly, the treatment procedures, especially the thermal and chemical treatments, are energy–intensive and create harmful impacts on the environment. Weckend et al. [4] mentioned that polymer decomposition in the thermal treatment produces toxic gases and results in high energy consumption. Chowdhury et al. [3] indicated that the silicon etching and rinsing procedure can release toxic gases such as nitrous oxide (NO2) into the environment. In addition, chemical treatment can be hazardous to human health due to the use of acidic solutions. The remaining acidic solutions after chemical treatment can also be an issue.
Thirdly, the glass and solar panels can deteriorate under actual working conditions. This can affect the quality of glass and metals recovered from the waste treatment. For example, Ardente et al. [23] raised concerns about low glass quality after recovery. To overcome the limitations cited above (i.e., Chowdhury et al. [3], Weckend et al. [4], and Huang et al. [22]), Imteaz et al. [24], Panditharadhya et al. [25], and Idrees et al. [26] suggested that some components of wasted solar panels (e.g., glass, aluminium, silicon) can be used in pavement construction applications following the mechanical treatment process. The potential feasibility of using c–Si panel waste in the two main types of pavements, i.e., rigid (concrete) and flexible (asphalt) pavements, was investigated in another study [27].

24. Concrete Pavement Applications

2.1. Waste Glass as an Aggregate

The use of glass waste in concrete is not a novel research area, as initial studies were reported back in early 1963 by Schmidt and Saia [28]. Some studies attempted to investigate the mechanical properties of using waste glass as a natural aggregate replacement material in concrete. The results highlighted a degradation in compressive and flexure strength with the introduction of waste glass as coarse aggregate replacement material in concrete. This is mainly due to preventions in energy releasement during the hydration reaction, as glass aggregate cannot absorb water. The irregular shape of waste glasses can also affect the bond between aggregates and cement pastes in concrete. It is also worth investigating the angularity number of glass, which can quantify waste glass shape effects on the properties of concrete. However, this quantification has not been carried out so far. Polley et al. [29] and Zheng [30] further indicated that the alkali–silica reaction (ASR) initiated in waste glass particles creates alkali oxides in cement. This reaction can cause pressure accumulation inside the aggregate, leading to concrete expansion and strength degradation.
Topcu and Canbaz [31] reported a higher level of reduction in compressive strength for concrete containing waste glass compared with other studies, with a loss of 49% in compressive strength when 60% of crushed stone (coarse aggregate) was replaced with glass waste in the concrete. However, according to other studies, the loss in compressive strength is only 23.8% to 27.0%, respectively, when 100% of the crushed stone is replaced with waste glass [32][33]. The resultant comparisons between these two studies are reliable considering the similar type of cement (CEM II) and water–cement ratios in the concrete mix. This could mainly be due to the irregular shape of the waste glass used, which can improve the bond between aggregates and cement pastes [31].
A smaller glass size can reduce the strength degradation level of concrete by causing pozzolanic reactions and filling the pores in concrete mixes. The presence of larger glass particles might further weaken the concrete structure because of their high friability [29]. Ismail and Al–Hashmi [34] suggested that the gradation of waste glass with a size smaller than 0.3 mm can cause significant pozzolanic reactions. Ismail and Al–Hashmi [34], Turgut and Yahlizade [35], and Du and Tan [36] also found an increase in compressive and flexure strength in concrete with increasing fine glass waste contents and improved pozzolanic reactions. However, Terro [32] and de Castro and de Brito [37] showed that the level of reduction in compressive strength is larger when fine aggregates are replaced in concrete compared with coarse aggregate. The conflicting results in these studies show the importance of conducting further studies on optimizing the replaced glass size and content in concrete to obtain sustainable concrete with high strength for pavement material.
The study by Keryou and Ibrahim [38] is the only one of its kind that found strength increments in concrete with larger glass sizes used as coarse aggregate (>4 mm). They claimed that this was because of the interlocking and friction increments among mixed particles in concrete due to the existence of the glass. However, Omoding et al. [33] indicated that ASR over–dominates the interlocking effect and degrades the mechanical properties of concrete accordingly. Therefore, further studies are necessary to investigate the interlocking effects of different glass particles. Moreover, the chemical composition of the glass type (e.g., toughened glass, soda–lime glass, laminated glass, etc.) can also affect the alkali–silica reaction (ASR) and their degradation effect on concrete strength. There are also conflicting findings on concrete strength degradation based on various glass types. Park et al. [39] indicated that green glass showed less ASR expansion than brown glass due to the sizeable Cr2O3 component; however, other studies have highlighted contradictory results, such as Dhir et al. [40]. Therefore, future studies are required to establish how the strength of the concrete is affected by the presence of glass waste of varying chemical compositions. The c–Si panel uses tempered glass, and there are limited studies on the effect of using waste tempered glass on concrete strength. Instead, most studies have focused on bottle glass waste in concrete (i.e., soda–lime glass, treated soda–lime glass, or borosilicate glass).
For the concrete mix design, several studies indicated that a lower water–cement ratio can decrease the ASR between glass and cement, leading to smaller strength reductions in the concrete [32][35][41]. Furthermore, Du and Tan [42] showed that concrete containing a large portion of fly ash and slag cement contributes to pozzolanic reactions, potentially increasing strength in concrete containing glass. In addition, the level of strength increase with the extension of the concrete curing time due to the longer pozzolanic reaction time. Besides concrete strength analyses, some recent studies have also estimated the durability of concrete containing different levels of waste glass. The results illustrate an increase in concrete durability due to the addition of waste glass. de Castro and de Brito [37] indicated an enhancement in concrete chloride penetration resistance with the increasing proportion of glass components. The chloride penetration depth reduces by 20% when 10% of the course and fine aggregate is replaced by cement. Du and Tan [42] carried out a rapid chloride penetration test. The results indicate that the total charge passing the concrete was reduced by 66.7% when 30% of fine aggregate was replaced by glass, indicating a significant increase in the chloride penetration resistance.

2.2. Waste Glass as a Cement Replacement Material

Similar to the case of aggregate replacement, cement replacement in concrete using glass waste also demonstrates a reduction in the mechanical properties of concrete. Similar to the case of aggregate replacement, the reductions in mechanical properties can be affected by the size, glass and cement type, and mix design of the concrete. The strength reduction is significantly higher as compared with aggregate replacement, mainly due to weaker bonds between cement and aggregates with the introduction of glass particles in the place of cement [43]. The studies further highlighted that if glasses were used with a highly reactive pozzolana in the concrete mix, such as silica fume, the pozzolanic activity of the glass could be promoted. However, silica fume can also contribute to ASR [44]. Therefore, further experimental studies are required to justify improvements in concrete strength due to the addition of silica fume. Pozzolanic activity in glass–cement mixtures can also be promoted by performing heat treatment [45]. However, more experimental investigations are needed to assess the overall impact of heat treatment on the strength of concrete. Moreover, heat treatment can be energy–intensive, which could lead to additional costs, as well as environmental and practical handling implications [46].
Adding waste glass to concrete can generally reduce its strength. This strength reduction level decreases with the decreasing water–cement ratio of the concrete, owing to the reasons mentioned in case 1 [43][47]. Additionally, Shao et al. [43] compared the strength reduction level for concrete cured after 28 and 90 days. They found that the reduction level lessens with curing time increments since it allows for more time for pozzolanic activity. The curing time increments can also form denser and less permeable concrete microstructures because of the filling effect of glass particles. However, the test results by Schwarz et al. [48] do not support this finding. Therefore, further investigations are required in this area.

2.3. Waste Glass Together as an Aggregate and Cement Replacement Material

Similar to the case of the solo replacement of aggregate or cement with glass, the combined replacement of cement and sand in concrete also results in a reduction in the compressive and flexural strength of the concrete. The reduction mechanism and the parameters that affect the reductions are similar to those given in previous cases. There are only a limited number of studies where the effect of using waste glass as cement and aggregate replacement in concrete is highlighted. However, these studies investigated only a maximum of 20% cement replacement and 50% aggregate replacement in concrete.

2.4. Aluminium (Al) Waste in Concrete

In most of the previous studies, aluminium (Al) waste was crushed into a powder (i.e., aluminium dust) and added as a cement replacement material in concrete. These investigations highlight a general reduction in the mechanical properties of the modified materials. Mailar et al. [49] quantified this reduction by testing the compressive and flexure strengths of concrete with different Al dust contents. Concrete samples with two different water–cement ratios (0.40 and 0.45) were tested, with an average Al dust size of 90 µm. Similar tests investigated the mechanical properties of Al–waste–incorporated concrete with an average Al size of 150 μm and water–cement ratios of 0.40, 0.55, and 0.80 (see, for example, Elinwa and Mbadike [50] and Mbadike and Osadere [51]). The observed test results clearly show that mechanical properties in concrete further reduce with an increase in Al dust content. This can be attributed to the fact that Al dust affects the bonding strength between aggregate and cement paste, thereby reducing the mechanical properties of the concrete [52]. In addition, Al dust can absorb water in the concrete mix, reducing water content and thus affecting the strength of the concrete. Furthermore, Al dust generates hydrogen gas when in contact with water, increasing pressure in the concrete and reducing its strength [50].
The durability characteristics of concrete, such as water penetration resistance, acid attack through water absorption, and acid resistance, have been enhanced with the addition of Al dust to the concrete mix [49]. The mass loss after being immersed in sulphuric acid with 5% weight for 30 days was reduced by 57.2% for concrete with a 30% replacement of cement with aluminium dross. This can be attributed to the fact that Al dust can fill the voids in concrete due to its small size, which reduces the pores of the concrete [49]. However, there is a lack of other durability studies on concrete with Al dust, including air permeability, chloride resistance, and sulphate attack resistance tests.
It should be noted here that one study has used Al dust as a partial fine aggregate replacement material in concrete [53]. 1%, 2%, and 5% of the sand were replaced by aluminium waste in the concrete, and the resulting mechanical strengths indicated a reduction of 3.6%, 18.7%, and 21% in the compressive strength, respectively. In addition, there was an increment in concrete durability based on the water absorption test (66.3% reduction in the water absorption rate at a 5% sand replacement). The decrease in bond strength of the concrete aggregate and the reduction in concrete porosity led to strength reduction and durability increments. Inspired by fibre–reinforced concrete, Muwashee et al. [54] added Al strips to the concrete mix during production, and 22% and 238% increases in compressive and flexural strengths were observed by adding 2.5% Al strips to concrete by volume. This was mainly because Al strips can delay the formation of cracks and make the concrete matrix stronger.

2.5. Polymer Waste in Concrete

Polymer waste in a c–Si panel mainly consists of encapsulant and back–sheet foil. For encapsulant, Dulsang et al. [55] and Khan et al. [56] replaced the cement with different levels of waste encapsulant in concrete manufacturing. They tested the 28–day compressive strength. The water–cement ratio was 0.40 in both studies. Dulsang et al. [55] found a 68.8% reduction in the compressive strength with waste encapsulant content increasing from 3 to 10%. However, Khan et al. [56] found that compressive strength increases with encapsulant content increments. Waste encapsulant had an average size of 4.5 mm in Dulsang et al. [55] and 0.41 mm in Khan et al. [56]. Large encapsulant size can create internal voids in concretes and affect the bond between the plastic aggregate and the cement paste. This can be avoided with small encapsulant waste sizes [56]. Dulsang et al. [55] also mentioned that encapsulant is a water–reducing polymer. A small encapsulant size may increase its water–reducing effect, enhancing the bond between cement hydrates and the inert aggregates.
Apart from studies on regular concrete, Azadmanesh, Hashemi [57] added different levels of encapsulant to Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC) and tested the 28–day compressive strength afterwards. The encapsulant size ranged from 1 to 7 µm. It could be seen that there was a limited reduction in compressive strength with an encapsulant content of 5%. The study also indicated that a small encapsulant size can prevent strength reduction in concrete. However, it did not show that a small encapsulant size contributes to its water–reducing effect. Otherwise, compressive strength should be increased with encapsulant content increments. Further studies are, therefore, needed.
Only Khan et al. [56] quantified changes in the 28–day flexure strength among these studies. Flexure strength increases by 17% when encapsulant waste reaches 20% due to the water–reducing effect of the encapsulant. More studies are also needed in this field.
For durability, Dulsang et al. [55] showed that concrete’s sorptivity coefficient can be reduced by over 92.1% when encapsulant content reaches 10%. They also found that concrete weight loss reduces from 15% to 5% when encapsulant waste increases from 3% to 10%. Increased tortuosity due to encapsulant waste leads to sorptivity reduction and acid–resistance enhancement.
To the best of the current knowledge, no studies have been conducted to test the strength and durability of concrete with back–sheet foil (i.e., polyvinyl fluoride (PVF)).

2.6. Silicon Waste in Concrete

Based on Ren et al. [58], there is less cement in concrete to produce hydrates when SiC particles partially replace cement. This leads to strength reduction at SiC levels of 5% and 10%. However, SiC is highly abrasive and can act as a reinforcing filter in concrete mixes with significant SiC content. This reinforcing effect dominates the strength reduction effect and eventually leads to an increase in concrete strength. In addition, large SiC particle content can lead to capillary suction, vapour diffusion, and capillary condensation, which can transport water from SiC waste to cement paste, promotes the hydration of the cement in the paste, and increases concrete strength.
Małek et al. [59] and Idrees et al. [26] indicated that the highly abrasive nature of SiC leads to an increase in concrete strength, even with a small amount of SiC content. Małek et al. [59] and Idrees et al. [26] also found an increase in flexure strength due to the highly abrasive nature of SiC in concrete mix and the promotion of hydration in the cement. More studies are, therefore, needed to clarify the effect of SiC on concrete properties.
Besides concrete, Jiang et al. [60] used SiC particles extracted from silicon solar cell waste in CEM I mortars and observed an increase in compressive and flexural strength. However, Fernández et al. [61] found that an increased proportion of silicon waste can reduce the compressive and tensile strength of concrete with calcium aluminate cement (CAC), as the bond between the cement paste and aggregate can be reduced due to the existence of silicon waste. These contradictory finds indicate that more studies are needed to investigate cement properties containing SiC particles. In addition, based on a study on concrete with waste glass [32][35][41], it is likely that the differences between cement types could also lead to variations in concrete strength, but this needs further studies.
Ren et al. [58] tested chloride resistance with a rapid chloride permeability test for durability. The total charging recorded in 6 h reduced by 85.7% in the rapid chloride permeability test with 20% SiC, indicating a significant increase in chloride resistance. Ren et al. [58] also found water absorption was reduced by 10.7% when SiC content increased to 20%. Adding SiC increases concrete’s durability due to the reduction in its porosity. However, Idrees et al. [26] found a reduction in chloride resistance for concrete containing SiC particles. This is because Idrees et al. [26] used SiC particles with s large size (5.5 mm compared with 50 µm in Ren et al. [58]). The large size of SiC particles increased concrete porosity instead. Comparing these two studies indicates that size control over SiC particles is essential before it is added to concrete.

3. Asphalt Pavement Applications

Asphalt is a mix of sand, gravel, broken stones, soft materials, and bituminous binder (asphalt binder) that can be used in the wearing surface and base construction of pavements. Only a handful of studies have been carried out to estimate the properties of asphalt mixtures made with c–Si panel waste components. These studies primarily focused on using different levels of waste glass in asphalt mixtures in pavements and seldom considered other waste constituents in a solar panel [62][63][64][65][66][67].
The results highlight that stability is slightly reduced with the increase in waste glass in the asphalt mixture. However, until the waste glass content in the asphalt mixture reached 20%, no significant reduction in stability was observed. Adhesion loss between the binder and glass, skid resistance loss, reduced stripping resistance, and increased ravelling potential were identified as the main reasons for this reduction in stability [62]. The presence of broken glass in the mixture has also been reported to contribute to reductions in stability. However, these issues can be corrected by adding lime to the mixture [63]. Marandi and Ghasemi [68] indicated that adding rubber polymers can also eliminate degradation in the stability of an asphalt mixture with a glass content of up to 5%.
In addition to stability, Arabani [64] and Su and Chen [63] found that asphalt mixtures with recycled glass can increase the skid resistance and night visibility of asphalt pavements, eventually leading to improved driving conditions at night. Lachance–Tremblay et al. [69] found no noticeable degradation in compaction ability, rutting resistance, thermal cracking resistance, or asphalt mixture stiffness with 25% waste glass content. Shafabakhsh and Sajed [70] also found that adding waste glass can increase the stiffness modulus, dynamic properties, and resistance of asphalt mixtures against deformation and rutting. Glass can increase the interlocking effect between aggregates, helping asphalt maintain its workability, which includes properties such as stability, skid resistance, night visibility, compaction ability, rutting resistance, thermal cracking resistance, stiffness modulus, dynamic properties, deformation resistance, and rutting resistance. The Federal Highway Administration [71] and Wu et al. [72], through their findings, showed that asphalt mixtures with glass contents of up to 15% and 25% can be used for wearing surfaces and base construction, respectively, in pavement construction. Moses Ogundipe and Segun Nnochiri [67] tested the stability of asphalt with glass sizes of up to 25 mm. They found a significant degradation in mechanical properties, as a large glass size can affect the bond between glass particles and asphalt. The collective interpretation of these studies highlights that larger than 4.75 mm glass pieces can reduce stability in the asphalt mixture. Therefore, it is essential to maintain the crushed glass size at 4.75 mm to avoid the workability degradation of asphalt pavement.
However, asphalt grades and mixing design can also affect workability. The optimum asphalt content and workability in an asphalt–glass mixture can significantly change with different asphalt grades and mixing temperatures [67]. However, there is a severe lack of precedents in the literature relating to this aspect. In addition, most studies have considered incorporating waste glass in hot mix asphalt (HMA) mixtures, while other categories, such as stone mastic asphalt (SMA), have not been considered. Further studies are, therefore, needed to compare properties, such as the workability of SMA asphalt mixtures with different glass percentages [71].

References

  1. Xu, Y.; Li, J.H.; Tan, Q.Y.; Peters, A.L.; Yang, C.R. Global status of recycling waste solar panels: A review. Waste Manag. 2018, 75, 450–458.
  2. Sherwani, A.; Usmani, J. Life cycle assessment of solar PV based electricity generation systems: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 540–544.
  3. Chowdhury, M.S.; Rahman, K.S.; Chowdhury, T.; Nuthammachot, N.; Techato, K.; Akhtaruzzaman, M.; Tiong, S.K.; Sopian, K.; Amin, N. An overview of solar photovoltaic panels’ end–of–life material recycling. Energy Strategy Rev. 2020, 27, 100431.
  4. Weckend, S.; Wade, A.; Heath, G.A. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels; National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2016.
  5. Lunardi, M.M.; Alvarez–Gaitan, J.P.; Bilbao, J.I.; Corkish, R. A Review of Recycling Processes for Photovoltaic Modules. In Solar Panels and Photovoltaic Materials; Intech Open: London, UK, 2018; pp. 9–27.
  6. Ganescu, V.; Pascu, A. A study on prevalent factors behind efficiency deterioration of a typical low power solar panel. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Microelectronics: International Microelectronics Assembly and Packaging Society, Orlando, FL, USA, 30 September–3 October 2013; pp. 384–388.
  7. Paiano, A. Photovoltaic waste assessment in Italy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 99–112.
  8. KEI. Management Status and Improvement Plans of Waste Solar Panels; Korea Environment Institute: Seoul, Korea, 2018.
  9. Rai, A.K.; Singh, G.; Tiwari, A.K. Comparative study of soil stabilization with glass powder, plastic and e–waste: A review. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 32, 771–776.
  10. Gueli, A.M.; Pasquale, S.; Tanasi, D.; Hassam, S.; Lemasson, Q.; Moignard, B.; Pacheco, C.; Pichon, L.; Stella, G.; Politi, G. Weathering and deterioration of archeological glasses from late Roman Sicily. Int. J. Appl. Glass Sci. 2020, 11, 215–225.
  11. Rajmohan, K.V.S.; Ramya, C.; Viswanathan, M.R.; Varjani, S. Plastic pollutants: Effective waste management for pollution control and abatement. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2019, 12, 72–84.
  12. Shinzato, M.C.; Hypolito, R. Effect of disposal of aluminum recycling waste in soil and water bodies. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 1–10.
  13. Borggaard, O.K.; Gimsing, A.L. Fate of glyphosate in soil and the possibility of leaching to ground and surface waters: A review. J. Pest Manag. Sci. Former. Pestic. Sci. 2008, 64, 441–456.
  14. Jaishankar, M.; Tseten, T.; Anbalagan, N.; Mathew, B.B.; Beeregowda, K.N. Toxicity, mechanism and health effects of some heavy metals. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2014, 7, 60–72.
  15. Rosseland, B.O.; Eldhuset, T.D.; Staurnes, M. Environmental effects of aluminium. Environ. Geochem. Health 1990, 12, 17–27.
  16. Pandey, G.; Madhuri, S. Heavy metals causing toxicity in animals and fishes. Res. J. Anim. Vet. Fish. Sci. 2014, 2, 17–23.
  17. Sevigné-Itoiz, E.; Gasol, C.M.; Rieradevall, J.; Gabarrell, X. Environmental consequences of recycling aluminum old scrap in a global market. J. Resour. Conserv. 2014, 89, 94–103.
  18. Tao, M.; Fthenakis, V.; Ebin, B.; Steenari, B.M.; Butler, E.; Sinha, P.; Corkish, R.; Wambach, K.; Simon, E.S. Major challenges and opportunities in silicon solar module recycling. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2020, 28, 1077–1088.
  19. Elgharbawy, A.S.A.A. Review on corrosion in solar panels. Int. J. Smart Grid 2018, 2, 218–220.
  20. Zhang, J.; Lv, F.; Ma, L.Y.; Yang, L.J. The status and trends of crystalline silicon PV module recycling treatment methods in Europe and China. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 724–725, 200–204.
  21. Pagnanelli, F.; Moscardini, E.; Granata, G.; Atia, T.A.; Altimari, P.; Havlik, T.; Toro, L. Physical and chemical treatment of end of life panels: An integrated automatic approach viable for different photovoltaic technologies. Waste Manag. 2017, 59, 422–431.
  22. Huang, B.; Zhao, J.; Chai, J.; Xue, B.; Zhao, F.; Wang, X. Environmental influence assessment of China’s multi-crystalline silicon (multi-Si) photovoltaic modules considering recycling process. Solar Energy 2017, 143, 132–141.
  23. Ardente, F.; Latunussa, C.E.; Blengini, G.A. Resource efficient recovery of critical and precious metals from waste silicon PV panel recycling. Waste Manag. 2019, 91, 156–167.
  24. Imteaz, M.A.; Ali, M.Y.; Arulrajah, A. Possible environmental impacts of recycled glass used as a pavement base material. Waste Manag. Res. 2012, 30, 917–921.
  25. Panditharadhya, B.J.; Sampath, V.; Mulangi, R.H.; Shankar, A.U.R. Mechanical properties of pavement quality concrete with secondary aluminium dross as partial replacement for ordinary portland cement. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 431, 032011.
  26. Idrees, M.; Chaudhary, H.; Akbar, A.; Mohamed, A.; Fathi, D. Effect of Silicon Carbide and Tungsten Carbide on Concrete Composite. Materials 2022, 15, 2061.
  27. Jain, S.; Joshi, Y.; Goliya, S. Design of rigid and flexible pavements by various methods & their cost analysis of each method. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2013, 3, 119–123.
  28. Schmidt, A.; Saia, W. Alkali–aggregate reaction tests on glass used for exposed aggregate wall panel work. ACI Mater. J. 1963, 60, 1235–1236.
  29. Polley, C.; Cramer, S.M.; Cruz, R.V.d.l. Potential for using waste glass in Portland cement concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 1998, 10, 210–219.
  30. Zheng, K. Pozzolanic reaction of glass powder and its role in controlling alkali–silica reaction. J. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2016, 67, 30–38.
  31. Topcu, I.B.; Canbaz, M. Properties of concrete containing waste glass. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 267–274.
  32. Terro, M.J. Properties of concrete made with recycled crushed glass at elevated temperatures. Build. Environ. 2006, 41, 633–639.
  33. Omoding, N.; Cunningham, L.S.; Lane–Serff, G.F. Effect of using recycled waste glass coarse aggregates on the hydrodynamic abrasion resistance of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 268, 121177.
  34. Ismail, Z.Z.; Al-Hashmi, E.A. Recycling of waste glass as a partial replacement for fine aggregate in concrete. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 655–659.
  35. Turgut, P.; Yahlizade, E. Research into concrete blocks with waste glass. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2009, 3, 186–192.
  36. Du, H.; Tan, K.H. Effect of particle size on alkali–silica reaction in recycled glass mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 66, 275–285.
  37. de Castro, S.; de Brito, J. Evaluation of the durability of concrete made with crushed glass aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 41, 7–14.
  38. Keryou, A.B.; Ibrahim, G.J. Effect of using windows waste glass as coarse aggregate on some properties of concrete. Eng. Technol. J. 2014, 32.
  39. Park, S.B.; Lee, B.C.; Kim, J.H. Studies on mechanical properties of concrete containing waste glass aggregate. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 2181–2189.
  40. Dhir, R.; Dyer, T.; Tang, M. Expansion due to alkali–silica reaction (ASR) of glass cullet used in concrete. In Proceedings of the 2003 International Symposium “Advances in Waste Management and Recycling”, Dundee, UK, 9–11 September 2003; pp. 751–760.
  41. Sopov, V.; Korkh, O.; Izbash, M.Y. A study of the alkali–silica reaction in recycled glass concrete. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 907, 012062.
  42. Du, H.; Tan, K.H. Waste glass powder as cement replacement in concrete. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2014, 12, 468–477.
  43. Shao, Y.; Lefort, T.; Moras, S.; Rodriguez, D. Studies on concrete containing ground waste glass. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 91–100.
  44. Maas, A.J.; Ideker, J.H.; Juenger, M.C. Alkali silica reactivity of agglomerated silica fume. J. Cem. Concr. Res. 2007, 37, 166–174.
  45. Pan, Z.; Tao, Z.; Murphy, T.; Wuhrer, R. High temperature performance of mortars containing fine glass powders. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 16–26.
  46. Doni, A.; Dughiero, F. Electrothermal heating process applied to c-Si PV recycling. In Proceedings of the 2012 38th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Austin, TX, USA, 3–8 June 2012; pp. 757–762.
  47. Khmiri, A.; Samet, B.; Chaabouni, M. A cross mixture design to optimise the formulation of a ground waste glass blended cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 28, 680–686.
  48. Schwarz, N.; Cam, H.; Neithalath, N. Influence of a fine glass powder on the durability characteristics of concrete and its comparison to fly ash. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2008, 30, 486–496.
  49. Mailar, G.; Sreedhara, B.; Manu, D.; Hiremath, P.; Jayakesh, K. Investigation of concrete produced using recycled aluminium dross for hot weather concreting conditions. Resour. Effic. Technol. 2016, 2, 68–80.
  50. Elinwa, A.U.; Mbadike, E. The use of aluminum waste for concrete production. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2011, 10, 217–220.
  51. Mbadike, E.M.; Osadere, N. Effect of incorporation of aluminium waste in concrete matrix using different mix ratio and water cement ratio. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 2, 58–74.
  52. Paktiawal, A.; Alam, M. An experimental study on effect of aluminum composite panel waste on performance of cement concrete. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 83–98.
  53. Rahim, N.L.; Ibrahim, N.M.; Salehuddin, S.; Che Amat, R.; Mohammed, S.A.; Hibadullah, C.R. The Utilization of Aluminum Waste as Sand Replacement in Concrete; Trans Tech Publications: Bäch, Switzerland, 2014; Volume 594.
  54. Muwashee, R.S.; Al-Jameel, H.A.; Jabal, Q.A. Investigating the behavior of concrete and mortar reinforced with Aluminum waste strips. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 7, 211–213.
  55. Dulsang, N.; Kasemsiri, P.; Posi, P.; Hiziroglu, S.; Chindaprasirt, P. Characterization of an environment friendly lightweight concrete containing ethyl vinyl acetate waste. Mater. Des. 2016, 96, 350–356.
  56. Khan, K.A.; Ahmad, I.; Alam, M. Effect of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) on the setting time of cement at different temperatures as well as on the mechanical strength of concrete. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. J. 2019, 44, 4075–4084.
  57. Azadmanesh, H.; Hashemi, S.A.H.; Ghasemi, S.H. The effect of styrene-butadiene rubber and ethylene vinyl acetate polymers on the mechanical properties of Engineered Cementitious Composites. Compos. Commun. 2021, 24, 100656.
  58. Ren, Q.; Jiang, Z.; Li, H.; Zhu, X.; Chen, Q. Fresh and hardened properties of self-compacting concrete using silicon carbide waste as a viscosity–modifying agent. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 200, 324–332.
  59. Małek, M.; Jackowski, M.; Życiński, W.; Łasica, W.; Owczarek, M.J.M.T. Influence of silicone carbide additions on the mechanical properties of concrete. Mater. Technol. 2020, 54, 595–599.
  60. Jiang, Z.; Ren, Q.; Li, H.; Chen, Q. Silicon carbide waste as a source of mixture materials for cement mortar. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 11, 1–8.
  61. Fernández, L.J.; Ferrer, R.; Aponte, D.; Fernandez, P. Recycling silicon solar cell waste in cement–based systems. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2011, 95, 1701–1706.
  62. Kandhal, P.S. Waste Materials in Hot Mix Asphalt—An Overview; Report No: NCAT Report No. 92–6; National Center for Asphalt Technology: Auburn, AL, USA, 1992.
  63. Su, N.; Chen, J. Engineering properties of asphalt concrete made with recycled glass. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2002, 35, 259–274.
  64. Arabani, M. Effect of glass cullet on the improvement of the dynamic behaviour of asphalt concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 1181–1185.
  65. Issa, Y. Effect of adding crushed glass to asphalt mix. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2016, 62, 35–44.
  66. Salem, Z.T.A.; Khedawi, T.S.; Baker, M.B.; Abendeh, R. Effect of waste glass on properties of asphalt concrete mixtures. Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 11, 117–131.
  67. Moses Ogundipe, O.; Segun Nnochiri, E. Evaluation of the effects of waste glass in asphalt concrete using the Marshall test. Eng. Rev. 2020, 40, 24–33.
  68. Marandi, S.M.; Ghasemi, M. Laboratory studies of the effect of recycled glass powder additive on the properties of polymer modified asphalt binders. Int. J. Eng. 2013, 26, 1183–1190.
  69. Lachance-Tremblay, É.; Vaillancourt, M.; Perraton, D. Evaluation of the impact of recycled glass on asphalt mixture performances. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2016, 17, 600–618.
  70. Shafabakhsh, G.; Sajed, Y. Investigation of dynamic behavior of hot mix asphalt containing waste materials; case study: Glass cullet. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2014, 1, 96–103.
  71. Federal Highway Administration, U.S.D.O.T. User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction: Waste Glass. Available online: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/97148/068.cfm (accessed on 5 July 2022).
  72. Wu, S.; Yang, W.; Xue, Y. Preparation and properties of glass-asphalt concrete. Wuham China Key Lab. Silic. Mater. Sci. Eng. Minist. Educ. Wuham Univ. Technol. 2004. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237644653_Preparation_and_Properties_of_Glass-asphalt_Concrete (accessed on 5 July 2022).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback