Feasibility of using Toothpaste Industry Sludge Containing CaCO3 in Manufacturing Bricks


Call for Papers - April 2019

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Feasibility of using Toothpaste Industry Sludge Containing CaCO3 in Manufacturing Bricks

Feasibility of using Toothpaste Industry Sludge Containing CaCO3 in Manufacturing Bricks

Mr. Surinder Kumar, FIE Research Scholar, Chitkara University, HP

Dr. Varinder Kr. Kanwar Professor cum Registrar

Ms Upasana Grover, JRF,

Chitkara University, HP

Chitkara University, Himachal Pradesh, India

Abstract Bricks are one of the major building construction materials and are widely used around the world. Clay is the main component of brick. In this study, an effort has been made to utilize the toothpaste sludge (i.e. waste product of toothpaste industry) in bricks. The objective of this present work is to study the stabilization and solidification of industry sludge and then to study engineering behavior of this stabilized and solidified sludge. This paper presents an experimental investigation carried out to analyze the feasibility of using toothpaste sludge waste to reduce the quantity of clay as there is a greater shortage of clay in many parts of the world. Initially, XRF characterization of toothpaste sludge has been carried out. The bricks are prepared by toothpaste sludge with varying compositions reduced the quantity of clay by 10%-50%. From experimentation, it is observed that waste created bricks are light weighted, sound, water absorbing and meet compressive strength requirements.

Keywords: Bricks, industrial waste material, toothpaste sludge, light weight, compressive strength

  1. INTRODUCTION

    The construction industry is one of the important pillars of any nation. As India is under development, the growth of construction industry in India is very fast. There is a huge demand of good quality construction for which the basic requirement is good quality building materials. Brick is one of the most important and widely used building material all over the world. It is among the oldest and most sempiternal building materials. It is the simplest of all building materials. Brick is made up of clay and water which is then hardened by drying and burning. Some of the important characteristics of bricks that make it popular building material are its highly economical cost, high compressive strength and good durability. There is an increase in demand of bricks which is resulting in the escalation of cost in India. This problem can be tackled by using some waste material to replace some part of the primary component which in turn can also solves the disposal problem of the waste material. This will also help in economizing the resources. It will help in conservation of resources and reducing pollution. Also, there will be reduction in construction cost. One such material is toothpaste industry sludge. Huge amount of dry toothpaste sludge is produced on daily basis. There are two ways to solve the problem. One is the disposal of solid or dry waste like land filling and the other is using it as fertilizers. But even then, some harmful material is still inside the sludge which causes environmental pollution.

    Few studies have been performed on utilizing sludge materials in the process of brick making. The clay which is excavated is mixed with sludge to improve brick properties. The study presented investigation of effect of textile mill sludge in burnt clay. It showed that textile mill sludge upto 15% can be added to get a compressive strength of 3.5 N/mm2 and water absorption of 20%.(Shrikant S Jahagirdhar,May 2013). Another study showed that the brick earth can be replaced with treatment plant sludge upto 40% by weight and are more durable (G.Reddy Babu, June 2013). Another study presented the result of utilization of dry sludge from water treatment plant as building material. It showed that the maximum percentage that can be mixed with the clay is 50%.(JooHwaTay, 1987).

    So, we decided to replace dry toothpaste sludge as soil. Experiments have been performed to study the effect of 10- 50% clay replacement with toothpaste sludge.

  2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

    A. Materials Used

    Materials used in the study were locally procured. The toothpaste sludge was taken from a local toothpaste making factory. The clay soil was also taken from a nearby locally based brick kiln. The sludge was kept in containers. It was available in powdered form. The physical properties of sludge were as per Table-1. The chemical composition was calculated from XRF tests. The composition is described as below in table 2(a&b).

    Material

    Specific Gravity

    Fineness Modulus

    Toothpaste Sludge

    2.38

    2.51

    Table-1: Physical Properties of Material Used

    Table-2a: Chemical composition Clay

    S. no.

    Component

    Percentage

    1

    SiO2

    67

    2

    Al2O3

    26

    3

    Fe2O3

    3

    4

    Na2O

    1

    5

    MgO

    1

    6

    P2O5

    Trace

    7

    SO3

    0.5

    8

    K2O

    2

    9

    CaO

    0.1

    10

    Cr2O3

    Trace

    11

    MnO

    Trace

    12

    NiO

    Trace

    13

    CuO

    Trace

    14

    ZnO

    Trace

    15

    Cl

    Trace

    Table-2b: Chemical composition of toothpaste sludge

    S. no

    Die

    Soil(kg)

    Sludge (kg)

    Sludge

    %

    Identity

    1

    Sk

    80

    0

    0

    B1

    2

    Sk

    72

    8

    10

    B2

    3

    Sk

    64

    16

    20

    B3

    4

    Sk

    56

    24

    30

    B4

    5

    Akm

    48

    32

    40

    B5

    6

    Akm

    40

    40

    50

    B6

    Mix proportions of several mixes are as in Table-3. Table-3: Mix Proportions of trial mixes

    Zr

    Composition

    Percentage

    O

    50.15%

    Ca

    20.61%

    Si

    20.55%

    C

    7.23%

    Na

    0.64%

    S

    0.39%

    Mg

    0.26%

    Al

    0.07%

    Cl

    0.03%

    P

    0.03%

    Fe

    0.02%

    Sr

    0.01%

    K

    53ppm

    Cu

    14ppm

    5ppm

    C.Weight of the brick after formation

    The weight of a few samples of each type was taken and then average weight was found out to get the desired standard weight. The average weight of each type is given below:

    S. no.

    Brick type

    Weight(kg)

    1

    B1

    2.920

    2

    B2

    2.228

    3

    B3

    1.950

    4

    B4

    1.831

    5

    B5

    1.765

    6

    B6

    1.313

    Table-4: Weight of Bricks

    B. Mixing and Proportions

    Sludge is mixed properly in the ingredients of brick in desired proportion. Sample prepared from all these mixes were compared and tested for several strength parameters. Fig 1 shows pictures of bricks while mixing and formation.

    Fig 1: Figures of bricks while mixing and formation

    D.Water Absorption

    The bricks of each type were dipped in water tank and water absorption was found out on a period of 24 hours. The table 5 below shows the weight of each type and the percentage of water absorption after standard time.

    Table-5: %age absorption after 24 hours

    S.

    no.

    Brick Type

    Initial Weight

    24 hours weight

    % weight after absorption

    1

    B1

    3.008

    3.480

    15.70

    2

    B2

    2.232

    2.600

    16.50

    3

    B3

    1.878

    2.201

    17.20

    4

    B4

    1.763

    2.161

    22.60

    5

    B5

    1.712

    2.237

    30.70

    6

    B6

    1.363

    1.908

    41.20

    Fig 2 below shows the pictures of water absorption process in which each brick was dipped in separate container containing water.

    Fig 2: Water Absorption of bricks

    E. Compressive Strength

    The bricks casted were tested for compressive tests by firstly curing the bricks for a day and then a mixture of cement and aggregate was added to it in ratio 1:3 in the frog section. The bricks were then covered with a damp jute bag for a day and then bricks were cured for 3 days. After drying, the compressive strength was tested in UTM. Following table 6 shows the amount of compressive strength of bricks.

    S. no.

    Bricks type

    Compressive strength

    ( N/mm2 )

    1

    B1

    13.50

    2

    B2

    13.6

    3

    B3

    13.4

    4

    B4

    7.4

    5

    B5

    6.5

    6

    B6

    4.5

    Table 6: Compressive strength of bricks

    F. Efflorescence Test

    The bricks were tested for efflorescence by placing them in tray in vertical position and adding 25cm water twice. Then physical examination was done. Table 7 below shows the results for efflorescence.

    S. no.

    Brick type

    Efflorescence

    1

    B1

    Nil

    2

    B2

    Nil

    3

    B3

    Nil

    4

    B4

    Slight

    5

    B5

    Slight

    6

    B6

    Slight

    Table-7: Efflorescence of bricks

    G.Soundness Test

    Two bricks of same type were taken and struck against each other. If it does not break and a metallic ringing sound forms then the bricks are sound. Table 8 below shows the details of soundness of samples.

    S. no

    Brick type

    Soundness

    1

    B1

    Satisfactory

    2

    B2

    Satisfactory

    3

    B3

    Satisfactory

    4

    B4

    Not Satisfactory

    5

    B5

    Not Satisfactory

    6

    B6

    Not Satisfactory

    Table-8: Soundness of bricks

    Fig 3 below shows compressive strength test on Universal testing machine.

    Fig 3: Compression Test on UTM

    The bricks were dipped into separate containers for a period of 28 days and the water in which the bricks were dipped was tested and compared to fresh water before dipping. Comparison was done on certain parameters like pH, conductivity, turbidity, hardness and the amount of chlorides.

    1. pH Test

      pH of water in which bricks were dipped was tested for a period of 7 days, 21 days and 28 days and compared with fresh water. The table 9 below shows the value for pH test.

      S. no.

      Brick type

      Fresh Water

      7 day

      21 Day

      28 Day

      1

      B1

      7.3

      7.31

      7.78

      8.58

      2

      B2

      7.3

      7.68

      7.79

      8.59

      3

      B3

      7.3

      7.68

      7.82

      8.61

      4

      B4

      7.3

      7.83

      7.92

      8.69

      5

      B5

      7.3

      7.71

      7.81

      8.65

      6

      B6

      7.3

      7.84

      7.92

      8.71

      Table-9: pH test of bricks

      Fig 4 below shows the test conducted on pH meter and its calibration.

      Fig 4: pH meter

    2. Conductivity Test

      Samples prepared were also tested for conductivity for a period of 7 days, 21 days and 28 days and were compared with fresh water used to dip the samples. The table 10 below shows conductivity of samples

      Table-10 Conductivity test of bricks

      S. no.

      Brick type

      7 day

      21 Day

      28 Day

      1

      B1

      0.901

      0.922

      1.280

      2

      B2

      0.911

      0.931

      1.365

      3

      B3

      0.983

      0.990

      1.792

      4

      B4

      1.215

      1.430

      1.927

      5

      B5

      1.220

      2.58

      2.650

      6

      B6

      1.310

      2.828

      2.640

      Fig 5 below shows the conductivity tests performed on water sample dipped with bricks.

      Fig 5: Conductivity test

    3. Hardness Test

    Hardness of water in which bricks were dipped was tested for a period of 7 days, 21 days and 28 days and compared with fresh water. The table 11 below shows the value for test.

    Table-1:1 Hardness test of bricks

    S. no.

    Brick type

    7 day

    21 Day

    28 Day

    1

    B1

    375

    1062.5

    1212.5

    2

    B2

    400

    700

    800

    3

    B3

    525

    912.5

    900

    4

    B4

    800

    1180

    1350

    5

    B5

    775

    2225

    2250

    6

    B6

    825

    2540

    2800

    Fig 6 below shows chemical tests performed on water sample in which bricks were dipped for hardness test.

    Fig 6: Hardness test

    K.Chloride Test

    Chloride of water in which bricks were dipped was tested for a period of 7 days, 21 days and 28 days and compared with fresh water. Figure 7 shows the chloride test in chemical lab on water in which bricks were dipped. The table 12 below shows the value for chlorides test.

    Fig 7: Chloride test

    Table-12 Chlorides test of bricks

    S. no.

    Brick type

    7 day

    21 Day

    28 Day

    1

    B1

    79.97

    82.98

    86.64

    2

    B2

    74.98

    84.98

    89.97

    3

    B3

    69.98

    74.35

    89.47

    4

    B4

    89.97

    87.97

    91.48

    5

    B5

    89.97

    84.98

    94.98

    6

    B6

    109.96

    109.48

    116.47

  3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

    The results and properties of various mixes tested are shown below.

    A. Weight

    The weight results show that all the bricks are light in weight as compared to the standard brick B1 which does not contain any quantity of slump. So, all the bricks are light weight bricks, which is an advantage in construction.

    Fig 7: Initial and final weight after absorption

    4

    3

    2

    1

    Initial

    Weight

    Final Weight

    0

    B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

    B. Water Absorption

    According to the Indian standards, water absorption for class I and class II bricks should not be more than 20% after 24 hours immersion. The result of water absorption shows that the samples B1, B2 and B3 have absorption under standard value and hence acceptable. But the rest of the samples have a greater amount of absorption. Fig 7 and 8 shows the comparison of initial and final weight and percentage of water absorption respectively.

    Fig 9: Compressive strength of bricks

    Compressive strength N/mm2

    15

    10

    5

    Compressive

    strength N/mm2

    0

    B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

    D.Efflorescence Test

    According to IS:3495 part-3 1992, When there is no perceptible deposit, efflorescence is NIL, but there is slight efflorescence when 10% of exposed area has thin deposit of salts. In our specimens, samples with 0, 10 and 20% sludge have nil efflorescence but the rest have slight efflorescence.

    E. Soundness Test

    A brick is sound only if it does not break and ringing sound is produced. The bricks with 10% and 20% sludge are sound and can be used for construction.

    1. pH Test

      According to Indian standards, the samples with greater pH have low risk of corrosion. So, all our samples have pH greater than 7 and thus are less prone to corrosion. Fig10 below shows chart of pH value of different samples at different days.

      Fig 8: Water Absorption after standard time

      24 hrs absorption

      60

      40

      24 hrs

      1. absorption

        0

        B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

        9

        8.5

        8

        7.5

        7

        6.5

        Fig 10: pH test of bricks

        B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

        Fresh water 7 day

      2. day

    28 day

    C.Compressive Strength

    The result of compressive strength shows that, the compressive strength of brick can be maintained within standard acceptable limits by addition of sludge to a limited quantity of 10% and 20% i.e. B2 & B3, but the compressive strength of brick mix will decrease on excess addition of slump i.e. more than 20%. Fig 9 shows the comparative study of compressive strength test results of various mixes.

    G.Conductivity Test

    The tests performed show that our specimen brick B1 without any sludge have conductivity less than 1 and so is shown in brick B2 and B3. Hence these bricks are acceptable to use. Fig 11 shows the comparison of conductivity of different samples.

    3

    2.5

    2

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    Fig 11: Conductivity test of bricks

    B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

    7 day

    21 day

    28 day

  4. CONCLUSION

After the experimental investigation of use of toothpaste sludge in following conclusions were made:

  • The toothpaste sludge can be utilized as an additive in the form of powder in the production of bricks upto 20% of replacement of soil(clay).

  • Light weight materials are formed as we keep increasing the amount the sludge in brick.

  • Compressive strength holds well if sludge is added up to 20%, further increasing the percentage of sludge in bricks will lead to decrease in the compressive strength of bricks.

  • Addition of sludge in bricks leads to well sounded bricks provided a limited amount of sludge is added.

  • Addition of sludge in bricks leads to negligible efflorescence in it provided a limited amount of 20%

  1. Hardness Test

    When compared to B1 i.e. 0% sludge, we see that B2 and B3 both have almost same hardness which is near to B1 and thus are acceptable. Fig12 below shows the hardness test results of water in which bricks were soaked.

    Fig 12 Hardness test of water soaked bricks

    3000

    2500

    2000

    1500

    1000

    500

    0

    7 day

    21 day

    28 day

    B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

  2. Chloride Test

    The chloride tests show the corrosion prone amount of the bricks. Low values usually are less prone to corrosion. We see that B2 and B3 have lower values of corrosion than the sample brick B1 and then the value increases. So, B1, B2 and B3 are acceptable. Figure 13 below shows the chloride content of various specimens.

    140

    120

    100

    80

    60

    40

    20

    0

    Figure-13: Chlorides test of bricks

    is added.

    • With addition of 20% of sludge there is lower chloride content and higher pH content than the specimen without sludge which means resistance to corrosion.

REFRENCES

[1] Alaa. A. Shakir, Siva kumar Naganathan, Kamal Nasharuddin Bin Mustapha, Development of Bricks from Waste material: A Review Paper, Australian Journal of basic and Applied Sciences, vol.7(8), pp. 812-818, 2013.

[2] N. Cruz-Pérez, F. A. Corpas-iglesias, The use of different forms of waste in the manufacture of ceramic bricks, Applied Clay Science, vol. 52, pp. 270-276, 2011.

[3] S. Dhanapandian, M. Shanthi, C. Manoharan, T. Ramkumar, A. Deiveegan, Investigation of Granite Waste Incorporated Clay Brick as A Building Material, International Journal of Recent Scientific Research, vol 4, pp. 107-113, 2010

[4] A. Abdul Kadir, A. Mohajerani, Recycling cigarette butts in lightweight fired clay bricks, Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Construction Materials, vol. 164(5), pp. 219-229, 2011

[5] A. B Aziz Abdul Latif, Ahmad TarmiziAbd.Karim, Ahmad Shukri Ahmad, Mohd. BaharudinRidzuan and Yung-Tse Hung, Phytoremediation of Metals in Industrial Sludge by Cyperus KyllingiaRasiga, Asystassia Intrusa and Scindapsus Pictus Var Argyaeus Plant Species, International Journal of Integrated Engineering, vol 4(2), pp. 1-8, 2012.

[6] A. Abdul Kadir& Noor AmiraSarani, An overview of wastes recycling in fired clay bricks, International Journal of Integrated Engineering, vol 4(2), pp. 53-69, 2012.

[7] A. Abdul Kadir & Abbas Mohajerani, Bricks: An Excellent Building Material for Recycling Wastes, Proceedings of the Lasted International Conference Environmental Management and Engineering (EME 2011), July 4-6, Calgary, AB, Canada, pp. 108-115, 2011.

7 day

21 day

28 day

[8] M. Collepardi, Degradation and restoration of masonry walls of historical buildings, Material and Structure/ Materiouset constructions. Department of Science of Materials and Earth, university of Ancoma, Italy, vol 23, pp. 81-102, 1990

[9] A. Abdul Kadir, A. Mohajerani, Properties improvement of fired clay bricks incorporating with cigarette butts, Advanced Materials Research, vol. 535-537, pp. 1723-1730, 2012.

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *