Content uploaded by Johane Duque
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Johane Duque on Mar 15, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Transformation of Municipal Solid Waste
Incineration (MSWI) Ash into
High-Performance Composite Material for
Sustainable Construction
Joane Duque Ph.D.
(Email: johaneduque@ashcretech.com)
Alternative email: johaneduque@yahoo.com
Ashcrete Technologies R&D Center -Ashcrete Technologies
Phone: 86-15857805007
ABSTRACT
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSWI) ash is a byproduct of Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facilities and
poses significant environmental and logistical challenges due to its hazardous composition and landfill
disposal requirements. This study presents a comprehensive process that fully transforms 100% of MSWI
ash, including aged ash from monofills, into a durable and high-performance composite material called
Ashcrete. The process integrates advanced chemical stabilization, a multi-stage nanocomposite treatment,
and optimized material blending techniques to ensure full utilization of the ash. The process generates no
residual waste, utilizing the entirety of the ash as a raw material for beneficial applications. Through
proprietary chemical stabilization and material blending techniques, Ashcrete achieves exceptional
mechanical properties, and environmental safety. This approach eliminates the need for landfill disposal,
mitigates environmental risks such as heavy metal leaching, and contributes to a circular economy. By
converting a problematic waste stream into valuable resources for construction and infrastructure, this
technology provides a sustainable, zero-waste solution that aligns with global efforts to advance waste
management and promote sustainable development.
1. Introduction
1.1 Background and Objectives:
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSWI) has become a cornerstone of modern waste management
systems, particularly in densely populated urban areas. It serves the dual purpose of significantly reducing
waste volume (by up to 90%) and recovering energy for power generation. Currently, there are 75 facilities
2
in the United States that recover energy from the combustion of municipal solid waste. These facilities exist
in 25 states, mainly in the Northeast. The amount of ash generated ranges from 15-25 percent (by weight)
and from 5-15 percent (by volume) of the MSW processed [1]. About 27 million metric tons of municipal
solid waste are used as fuel in Waste-to-Energy (WTE) power plants, generating about seven million tons of
combined bottom ash and fly ash (combined ash) annually [2]. This ash comprises two primary fractions:
bottom ash, which constitutes 80–90% by weight and is collected from the furnace chamber, and fly ash,
accounting for 10–20% by weight, which is captured by air pollution control systems ( [3] [4]).
The management of MSWI ash is governed by federal and state regulations, such as the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which classifies MSWI fly ash as a hazardous waste due to its
elevated concentrations of toxic substances, including heavy metals like mercury, cadmium, and arsenic, as
well as dioxins and furans ( [5] [6]). However, when MSWI bottom ash and MSWI fly ash are combined
and stabilized, they are classified as a non-hazardous material under specific conditions, provided leaching
tests (e.g., the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, TCLP) confirm that hazardous constituents are
immobilized ( [7] [8]). This practice of ash combination is often adopted to simplify handling,
transportation, and processing, as well as to comply with landfill disposal requirements set forth by
environmental agencies ( [9] [10]).
Despite being treated as a waste stream, MSWI ash contains valuable minerals, including silica, calcium,
and aluminum oxides, making it a potential resource for construction applications [11]. Countries like
Denmark, Germany, Japan and China have already implemented policies to promote the recycling of
MSWI ash in road construction, concrete, and other infrastructure projects ( [12] [13] ). However, in the
United States, the vast majority of ash is disposed of in landfills or ash monofills [14], exacerbating
environmental concerns, including groundwater contamination risks due to heavy metal leaching.
One of the major challenges in utilizing MSWI ash lies in its untreated state, which lacks the structural
integrity and environmental safety required for reuse [15]. To address this, advanced stabilization and
transformation technologies are needed. These processes must not only mitigate environmental risks but
also ensure compliance with regulatory standards while creating economically viable materials for industrial
applications ( [16] [17]).
The innovative technology discussed in this study addresses these challenges by transforming 100% of
MSWI ash into beneficial materials, eliminating the need for landfilling and reducing the environmental
footprint of WTE operations. The process of combination of fly ash and bottom ash ensures uniformity in
material properties, enhances stabilization efficiency, and complies with regulatory frameworks for reuse.
This approach aligns with circular economy principles and global sustainability goals, offering a pathway to
zero-waste solutions in waste management [18].
The primary objective of this research is to validate a comprehensive process that transforms 100% of
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSWI) ash into beneficial, high-performance construction materials,
ensuring that no residual waste is generated. This study addresses the environmental and regulatory
challenges associated with MSWI ash disposal while maximizing its valorization in sustainable
applications. To achieve this, the research aims to characterize the MSWI ash, through detailed physical,
chemical, and mineralogical analyses to understand their composition, particle morphology, heavy metal
content, and leaching behavior [3] [16] [19] [20] [21]. Furthermore, it reviews existing legislation
3
governing MSWI ash classification and disposal, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hazardous waste regulations, and state-level mandates
requiring the combination of bottom and fly ash before landfill disposal [22] [23] [24] [25].
The study focuses on developing a zero-waste ash transformation process by optimizing pre-treatment
methods, such as chemical stabilization, to immobilize heavy metals and enhance ash reactivity for
applications in concrete production [26] [27] [28] [29]. It evaluates the mechanical and durability properties
of the transformed material, including compressive strength, to ensure compliance with ASTM standards
for construction applications [30] [31]. Additionally, the research mitigates heavy metal leaching risks by
conducting Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests before and after transformation to
verify compliance with EPA limits for leachable metals, ensuring environmental safety [32].
Industrial scalability and economic viability are assessed by analyzing process costs, potential energy
savings, and the commercial benefits of integrating MSWI ash-derived materials into the construction
industry [33] [34]. By achieving these objectives, the study demonstrates that MSWI ash, when properly
treated, can be entirely repurposed into valuable materials, eliminating the need for landfill disposal and
contributing to a more sustainable waste management paradigm.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Raw Materials
The primary raw material in this study is Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSWI) bottom ash. To
ensure consistency, samples were collected under different operational conditions. The ash, already
processed for ferrous metal extraction, primarily consists of non-combustible residues such as glass,
ceramics, and minerals.
A multi-stage nanocomposite treatment was applied to enhance ash reactivity and immobilize heavy metals.
The process included sun-drying to reduce moisture content, mechanical grinding for particle refinement,
and chemical stabilization with nanomaterials to improve cementitious properties. Portland cement was
used as a binder.
Additionally, a high-range water-reducing admixture or superplasticizer was used to enhance workability
and optimize the water-to-binder ratio. The water-reducing admixture is a high-performance powder
admixture based on the new generation of polycarboxylate ether polymer. Tap water was used to prepare
the samples. The chemical composition of MSWI bottom ash and, was analyzed using X-ray fluorescence
(XRF) and is presented in Table 1.
Table1. Chemical composition of BA (% by mass).
SiO₂
CaO
Al₂O₃
Fe₂O₃
Na₂O
K₂O
MgO
SO₃
Cl
Other
48.2
18.5
9.8
12.3
2.1
1.9
3.2
1.5
0.3
2.2
4
Fine Silica sand with the particle size distribution given in Table 2 was used as a filler in the test.
Table 2. Fine Silica Sand Particle Size and Particle Diameter.
Mesh Size
Particle Diameter (Microns)
Particle Diameter (mm)
30-50 Mesh
297-595 µm
0.297-0.595 mm
2.2 Mix Design and Sample Preparation
In this study, two distinct mix designs were formulated to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating Municipal
Solid Waste Incineration (MSWI) bottom ash as a primary component in construction materials. In both
designs, the binder composition was maintained at 22.5% Portland cement, with the remaining proportions
adjusted between bottom ash and fine silica sand to assess their combined effects on the material properties.
Mix Design One: This formulation comprised 65% MSWI bottom ash, 22.5% Portland cement, and 12.5%
fine silica sand. The inclusion of fine silica sand aimed to enhance the particle packing density and
contribute to the overall strength development of the composite material. 36 samples were made, Table 3
and Graphic 1 show the frequency distribution of compressive strengths, Table 4 and Graphic 2 show the
frequency distribution of the block’s densities.
Mix Design Two: In this variant, the proportion of MSWI bottom ash was increased to 70%, while
maintaining the same 22.5% of Portland cement. The remaining 7.5% consisted of fine silica sand. This
design intended to maximize the utilization of bottom ash, thereby reducing the reliance on natural sand
resources and evaluating the impact on the material's performance. 36 samples were made, Table 4 and
Graphic 2 show the frequency distribution of compressive strengths.
For both mix designs, a high-range water-reducing admixture, specifically a superplasticizer, was
incorporated to improve workability and achieve the desired consistency without increasing the water
content. Additionally, a multi-stage nanocomposite treatment was applied to the bottom ash prior to mixing.
This treatment involved the sequential application of nano-sized additives designed to modify the surface
characteristics of the ash particles, enhance their reactivity, and promote better bonding within the
cementitious matrix.
The preparation process for each mix involved thoroughly blending the dry components: Bottom Ash,
Portland cement, and Fine Silica sand, to ensure a uniform distribution of materials. Following this, the
superplasticizer was mixed with the calculated amount of water and added to the dry mix to achieve the
target workability. The resulting mixtures were then cast into molds and subjected to a controlled curing
regime to facilitate hydration and strength development.
By systematically varying the proportions of bottom ash and fine silica sand, and incorporating advanced
treatments and admixtures, this study aims to identify optimal mix designs that leverage waste materials
while maintaining or enhancing the performance characteristics required for construction applications.
5
3. Results and Discussion
In Mix Design One, which comprised 65% bottom ash, 22.5% Portland cement, and 12.5% fine
silica sand, the block compressive strengths (in MPa) ranged from 30.8 to 35.9 Mpa. The
average compressive strength of Mix Design Two was approximately 34.0 Mpa. The frequency
distribution of these compressive strengths is detailed in Table 3 and Graphic 1. Additionally,
the block densities for Mix Design One, measured in g/cm³, ranged from approximately 1.777
grams to 1.796 grams, as shown in Table 4 and Graphic 2. These results suggest that the higher
fine silica sand content in Mix Design One effectively enhanced particle packing density,
resulting in a denser cementitious matrix and superior compressive strength.
In contrast, Mix Design Two, which consisted of 70% bottom ash, 22.5% Portland cement, and
7.5% fine silica sand, produced compressive strengths (in MPa) ranged from 28.3 to 32.3 Mpa.
The average compressive strength of Mix Design Two was approximately 30.5 MPa, with its
frequency distribution illustrated in Table 5 and Graphic 3. The block densities for this mix
ranged from about 1.7558 to 1.7752 g/cm³ as shown in Table 6 and Graphic 4. The reduced
density and lower compressive strength in Mix Design Two indicate that while maximizing
bottom ash utilization, the lower proportion of fine silica sand may result in a weaker interfacial
bonding within the cementitious matrix.
The advanced treatments applied, namely the superplasticizer and the multi-stage nanocomposite
treatment, proved effective in mitigating the typical deleterious reactions when mixing MSWI
ash with Portland cement. These treatments enhanced the reactivity of the bottom ash and
improved the bonding at the microscale, which contributed positively to the overall performance
of the blocks. However, the effectiveness of these treatments appeared to be sensitive to the ash-
to-sand ratio, as evidenced by the superior performance of the 65% IBA mix compared to the
70% IBA mix.
The comparative performance of the two mix designs underscores a critical trade-off: while
increasing the proportion of bottom ash enhances waste valorization and sustainability by
reducing natural sand consumption, it also tends to compromise compressive strength. The 65%
IBA mix, with its higher fine silica sand content, achieved compressive strengths within the
range typical for conventional concrete (20–40 MPa), making it suitable for structural
applications such as pavements and low-rise construction. On the other hand, the 70% IBA mix,
despite its lower strength, may be appropriate for non-load-bearing applications such as partition
walls and fill material, offering a more sustainable alternative by significantly reducing natural
sand usage.
These findings are consistent with literature reports indicating that elevated ash replacement
levels tend to reduce compressive strength [35]. Moreover, the superior performance of the 65%
IBA mix can be attributed to the synergistic effects of fine silica sand and nanocomposite
treatments, which have been shown to enhance the mechanical properties of ash-concrete
6
systems [36]. Overall, the study demonstrates that optimizing the ash-to-sand ratio is essential to
balance sustainability with structural performance, and further research exploring intermediate
ash contents or alternative additives, such as nano-silica, is warranted.
Table 3 Compressive Strengths Frequency Distribution 65% IBA in mix design.
Mpa
Frequency
Quantity
30.8-31.8
8
31.8-32.8
1
32.8-33.8
5
33.8-34.8
5
34.8-35.8
12
35.8-36.8
5
Graphic 1 Compressive Strengths Frequency Distribution 65% IBA in mix design.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
30.8-31.8 31.8-32.8 32.8-33.8 33.8-34.8 34.8-35.8 35.8-36.8
Frequency
Compressive Strength Mpa
Compressive Strength 65% IBA
7
Table 4 IBA 65% Density Frequency Distribution
Density Ranges
g/cm3
Quantity
1.7773-1.7803
5
1.7803-1.7833
3
1.7833-1.7863
8
1.7863-1.7893
6
1.7893-1.7923
5
1.7923-1.7953
7
1.7953-1.7983
2
Graphic 2 IBA 65% Density Frequency Distribution.
Table 5 Compressive Strengths Frequency Distribution 70% IBA in mix design
Mpa
Frequency
Quantity
28.3-29.3
6
29.3-30.3
7
30.3-31.3
13
31.3-32.3
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.7773-1.7803 1.7803-1.7833 1.7833-1.7863 1.7863-1.7893 1.7893-1.7923 1.7923-1.7953 1.7953-1.7983
Quantity
Density g/cm³
65% IBA Block Density g/cm3
8
Graphic 3 Compressive Strengths Frequency Distribution 70% IBA in mix design.
Table 6 IBA 70% Frequency Distribution Density
Density Ranges
g/cm3
Quantity
1.7558-1.7588
7
1.7588-1.7618
3
1.7618-1.7648
6
1.7648-1.7678
2
1.7678-1.7708
5
1.7708-1.7738
8
1.7738-1.7768
5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
28.3-29.3 29.3-30.3 30.3-31.3 31.3-32.3
Quantity
Compressive Strength Mpa
Compressive Strength 70% IBA
9
Graphic 4 IBA 65% Density Frequency Distribution.
4. Conclusions
This study demonstrates the feasibility of transforming Municipal Solid Waste Incineration
(MSWI) bottom ash into high-performance construction materials through an optimized process
that integrates a multi-stage nanocomposite treatment and the use of a superplasticizer. Two mix
designs were evaluated, with Mix Design One containing 65% bottom ash, 22.5% Portland
cement, and 12.5% fine silica sand, and Mix Design Two incorporating 70% bottom ash, 22.5%
Portland cement, and 7.5% fine silica sand. The results clearly indicate that the 65% mix, which
benefits from a higher fine silica sand content, produced superior compressive strengths (mean:
33.9 MPa) compared to the 70% mix (mean: 30.4 MPa). This performance improvement is
attributed to enhanced particle packing density and a denser cementitious matrix that effectively
reduces voids and promotes stronger interfacial bonding.
Additionally, the advanced treatment processes applied specifically, the multi-stage
nanocomposite treatment proved effective in mitigating the undesirable reactions that typically
occur when MSWI ash is mixed with Portland cement. The incorporation of a superplasticizer
further enhanced the workability and consistency of the mixtures without compromising the
hydration process. Although the 70% bottom ash mix exhibited lower compressive strength, it
presented more consistent performance as indicated by a reduced coefficient of variation, and it
offers greater sustainability by reducing natural sand consumption significantly.
The comparative analysis of the two mix designs highlights a critical trade-off between
maximizing waste valorization and maintaining structural integrity. For applications where high
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.7558-1.7588 1.7588-1.7618 1.7618-1.7648 1.7648-1.7678 1.7678-1.7708 1.7708-1.7738 1.7738-1.7768
Quantity
Density g/cm³
70% IBA Block Density g/cm3
10
strength is paramount, the 65% bottom ash mix is recommended. Conversely, for non-load-
bearing or secondary applications where sustainability is prioritized, the 70% mix could serve as
a viable alternative. These findings are consistent with previous studies that have reported
similar trends in ash-concrete systems, thereby validating the approach adopted in this work.
In summary, this research contributes to the development of a sustainable, zero-waste solution
for repurposing MSWI ash, aligning with circular economy principles and reducing the
environmental burden of traditional disposal methods.
Author Contributions: Joane Duque Ph.D. is the founder and owner of Ashcrete Technologies,
which develops technologies related to the research presented. The study was conducted with
the objective of advancing scientific understanding in this field, and every effort was made to
ensure objectivity and rigor in the methodology and conclusions
Funding: This research was funded by Ashcrete Technologies.
11
Reference
[1]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., "Energy Recovery from the Combustion of Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW)," 28 12 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/smm/energy-recovery-
combustion-municipal-solid-waste-msw. [Accessed 28 1 2025].
[2]
T. Yixi, A. (. Bourtsalas, K. Shiho , M. Siwei and N. J. Themelis, "Performance of structural concrete
using Waste-to-Energy (WTE) combined ash," Waste Management, vol. 118, pp. 180-189, 2020.
[3]
A. J. Chandler and et al., Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Residues, Amsterdan: ELSEVIER, 1997.
[4]
U. E. P. Agency, "National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling," 28 11
2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-
recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials#Combustion.
[5]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Overview," 11 09 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/rcra/resource-conservation-and-
recovery-act-rcra-overview.
[6]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Defining Hazardous Waste: Listed, Characteristic and
Mixed Radiological Wastes," 17 12 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/hw/defining-
hazardous-waste-listed-characteristic-and-mixed-radiological-wastes.
[7]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "SW-846 Test Method 1311: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure," 12 08 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw-846-test-method-
1311-toxicity-characteristic-leaching-procedure.
[8]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Frequent Questions about the Identification of Non-
hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Wastes," 09 05 2024. [Online]. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/rcra/frequent-questions-about-identification-non-hazardous-secondary-
materials-are-solid-wastes.
[9]
U.S. Environmetal Protection Agency, "Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP)," 07 01 2025.
[Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/lmop.
[10
]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Municipal Solid Waste Landfills," 21 02 2024. [Online].
Available: https://www.epa.gov/landfills/municipal-solid-waste-landfills.
[11
]
U.S. Environemtal Protection Agency, "Frequent Questions About the Methodology for Evaluating
the Beneficial Use of Industrial Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials and the Beneficial Use
Compendium," 08 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/smm/frequent-questions-
about-methodology-evaluating-beneficial-use-industrial-non-
hazardous#:~:text=Beneficial%20use%20(BU)%20involves%20the,specifications%2C%20and%20do
es%20not%20pose.
12
[12
]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Sustainable Materials Management Web Academy," 31 07
2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-management-web-
academy.
[13
]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "U.S. State and Local Waste and Materials Characterization
Reports," 06 01 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-
waste-and-recycling/us-state-and-local-waste-and-materials.
[14
]
(EPA)., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Energy Recovery from the Combustion of Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW)," 28 12 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/smm/energy-recovery-
combustion-municipal-solid-waste-msw.
[15
]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) ash co-disposal:
Influence on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) concentration in landfill leachate," 02 10
2023. [Online]. Available:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=CESER&dirEntryId=358419.
[16
]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes
and Recycling," 08 11 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-
materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials.
[17
]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Sustainable Materials Management Prioritization Tools,"
25 01 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-management-
prioritization-tools.
[18
]
U.S. Environmetal Protection Agency, "Waste Reduction Model (WARM)," 13 11 2024. [Online].
Available: https://www.epa.gov/warm.
[19
]
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), "ASTM Standards for Cement and Concrete,"
2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.astm.org/.
[20
]
A. Bayuseno and W. Schmahl, "Understanding the chemical and mineralogical properties of the
inorganic portion of MSWI bottom ash," Waste Management, vol. 30, no. 8–9, pp. 1509-1520,
2010.
[21
]
P. Piantone and et al, "Mineralogical study of secondary mineral phases from weathered MSWI
bottom ash: implications for the modelling and trapping of heavy metals," Applied Geochemistry,
vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 1891-1904, 2004.
[22
]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Standards for Hazardous Waste Incinerators, 40 CFR Part
264, Subpart O," 23 January 1981. [Online]. Available: chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
03/documents/46fr7666.pdf.
13
[23
]
R. Del Valle-Zermeño and et al, "Material characterization of the MSWI bottom ash as a function of
particle size. Effects of glass recycling over time," Science of The Total Environment, vol. 581–582,
p. 581–582, 2017.
[24
]
D. Wei and et al, "Immobilization of heavy metals from MSWI fly ash using a novel cementitious
material: Long-term leaching behavior and mechanism," Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management, vol. Volume 26, p. 1804–1818, 2024.
[25
]
H. Belevi and H. Moench, "Factors Determining the Element Behavior in Municipal Solid Waste
Incinerators. 1. Field Studies," Research Gate, 2000.
[26
]
I. Garcia-Lodeiro and et al, "Manufacture of hybrid cements with fly ash and bottom ash from a
municipal solid waste incinerator," Construction and Building Materials, vol. 105, pp. 218-226,
2016.
[27
]
C. C. Wiles, "Municipal solid waste combustion ash: State-of-the-knowledge," Journal of Hazardous
Materials, vol. 47, no. Issues 1–3, pp. 325-344, 1996.
[28
]
O. Ginés and et al, "Combined use of MSWI bottom ash and fly ash as aggregate in concrete
formulation: Environmental and mechanical considerations," Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol.
169, no. Issues 1–3, pp. 643-650, 2009.
[29
]
U. Müller, "The microstructure of concrete made with municipal waste incinerator bottom ash as
an aggregate component," Cement and Concrete Research, vol. Volume 36, no. Issue 8, pp. 1434-
1443, 2006.
[30
]
B. Hooi Cho and et al, "Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSWI) Ashes as Construction
Materials—A Review," Materials, vol. , p. 13(14), 2020.
[31
]
J. Liu and et al, "Resource utilization of municipal solid waste incineration fly ash - cement and
alkali-activated cementitious materials: A review," Pub Med, 2022 .
[32
]
A. Jinwoo and et al, "Effect of chemical treatment of MSWI bottom ash for its use in concrete,"
Magazine of Concrete Research, no. 67, pp. 179-186, 2015.
[33
]
J. Liu, "Valorization of municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash (MSWIBA) into cold-bonded
aggregates (CBAs): Feasibility and influence of curing methods," Science of The Total Environment,
vol. Volume 843, 2022.
[34
]
X. Dou and et al, "Review of MSWI bottom ash utilization from perspectives of collective
characterization, treatment and existing application," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
vol. 79, pp. 24-38, 2017.
[35
]
S. Zhang and et al, "Use of municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash as a supplementary
cementitious material in dry-cast concrete," Construction and Building Materials, vol. 266, no. 10,
p. Part A, 2021.
14
[36
]
S. Ramasamy, "Influence of nano silica on impact resistance and durability of fly ash concrete in
structural buildings," Revista Materia, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-
7076-RMAT-2023-0340.
