Utilization of metalized plastic waste of food packaging articles in geopolymer concrete

  • Ankur C. BhogayataEmail author
  • Narendra K. Arora


The metalized plastics are extensively used by the food packaging industry. The metalized plastic wastes (MPW) are largely unfit for reuse and recycle process and impose harmful impacts to the environment. The MPW may be sustainably utilized in construction materials. The fly ash-based geopolymer concrete (GPC) has emerged as a sustainable construction material in the past few decades. Therefore, a novel combination of MPW and GPC may hold the potential of preparing a greener and sustainable construction material. The objectives were to obtain the optimum dosage of MPW fibers and to evaluate the corresponding response of the fresh and strength properties of the modified GPC. To explore the effectiveness of the addition of MPW into GPC, the life cycle assessment was studied for MPW and the novel composite prepared by combining GPC and MPW. The results exhibited improvement of strength properties of modified GPC specimens due to MPW fibers with a reduced trend of improvement of workability. It was observed that an addition of 1% MPW fibers by volume of the mix showed good performance of the composite for all test conditions. The sustainability assessment of the novel composite demonstrated promising outcomes ensuring the feasibility of usage of MPW into the GPC.


Metalized plastic waste Geopolymer concrete Life cycle analysis Sustainability 



The authors are thankful to the Marwadi University for facilitating the sources of the raw materials and testing laboratory facilities. The authors also acknowledge the support by the industrial packaging unit “Umiya Plastics” located at Shapar—an industrial area near Rajkot city for providing MPW. The authors are thankful to the colleagues, students, and staff of the Department of Civil Engineering at Marwadi University for their help and contribution to the experimental program.


  1. 1. Accessed 14 June 2018
  2. 2.
    Horodytska O, Valdés FJ, Fullana A (2018) Plastic flexible films waste management—a state of the art review. Waste Manag. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hopewell J, Dvorak R, Kosior E (2009) Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364(1526):2115–2126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Understanding plastic film: its uses, benefits and waste management options. Prepared for the American Plastics Council by Headley Pratt Consulting, December 1996. Accessed 11 Jan 2017
  5. 5.
    Narayan P (2001) Analysing plastic waste management in India. Case study of polybags and PET bottles. IIIEE Rep 2001:11 (Lund, Sweden) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhogayata AC, Arora NK (2017) Fresh and strength properties of concrete reinforced with metalized plastic waste fibers. Constr Build Mater 146:455–463. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhogayata AC, Arora NK (2018) Impact strength, permeability and chemical resistance of concrete reinforced with metalized plastic waste fibers. Constr Build Mater 161:254–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mohammad Hosseini H, Tahir MM, Sam ARM (2018) The feasibility of improving impact resistance and strength properties of sustainable concrete composites by adding waste metalized plastic fibers. Constr Build Mater 169:223–236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DM, Rangan BV. On the development of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 101(6):467–472.
  10. 10.
    Albitar M, Ali MM, Visintin P, Drechsler M (2017) Durability evaluation of geopolymer and conventional concretes. Constr Build Mater 136:374–385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh B, Aishwarya G, Gupta M, Bhattacharyya SK (2015) Geopolymer concrete: a review of some recent developments. Constr Build Mater 85:78–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Habert G, De Lacaillerie JDE, Roussel N (2011) An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends. J Clean Prod 19(11):1229–1238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yin S, Tuladhar R, Shi F, Combe M, Collister T, Sivakugan N (2015) Use of macro plastic fibres in concrete: a review. Constr Build Mater 93:180–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sharma R, Bansal PP (2016) Use of different forms of waste plastic in concrete–a review. J Clean Prod 112:473–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gu L, Ozbakkaloglu T (2016) Use of recycled plastics in concrete: a critical review. Waste Manag 51:19–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siddique R, Khatib J, Kaur I (2008) Use of recycled plastic in concrete: a review. Waste Manag 28(10):1835–1852. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guo S, Hu J, Dai Q (2018) A critical review of the performance of portland cement concrete with recycled organic components. J Clean Prod. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nuaklong P, Sata V, Chindaprasirt P (2016) Influence of recycled aggregate on fly ash geopolymer concrete properties. J Clean Prod 112:2300–2307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Irshidat MR, Abdel-Jawad YA, Al-Sughayer RJ (2018) Feasibility of producing sustainable geopolymer composites made of locally available natural pozzolan. Mater Cycles Waste Manag 20:1751. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    bin Mohamed Rashid MR, Mijarsh MJA, Seli H et al (2018) Sago pith waste ash as a potential raw material for ceramic and geopolymer fabrication. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 20:1090. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kinnunen P, Yliniemi J, Talling B et al (2017) Rockwool waste in fly ash geopolymer composites. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 19:1220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Al-Majidi MH, Lampropoulos AP, Cundy AB, Tsioulou OT, Al-Rekabi S (2018) A novel corrosion resistant repair technique for existing reinforced concrete (RC) elements using polyvinyl alcohol fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete (PVAFRGC). Constr Build Mater 164:603–619. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shaikh FUA, Fairchild A, Zammar R (2018) Comparative strain and deflection hardening behaviour of polyethylene fibre reinforced ambient air and heat cured geopolymer composites. Constr Build Mater 163:890–900. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zanotti C, Borges PH, Bhutta A, Banthia N (2017) The bond strength between the concrete substrate and metakaolin geopolymer repair mortar: effect of curing regime and PVA fiber reinforcement. Cement Concr Compos 80:307–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sukontasukkul P, Pongsopha P, Chindaprasirt P, Songpiriyakij S (2018) Flexural performance and toughness of hybrid steel and polypropylene fiber reinforced geopolymer. Constr Build Mater 161:37–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bhutta A, Borges PH, Zanotti C, Farooq M, Banthia N (2017) Flexural behavior of geopolymer composites reinforced with steel and polypropylene macro fibers. Cement Concr Compos 80:31–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shaikh FUA (2013) Review of mechanical properties of short fibre reinforced geopolymer composites. Constr Build Mater 43:37–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Geueke B, Groh K, Muncke J (2018) Food packaging in the circular economy: overview of chemical safety aspects for commonly used materials. J Clean Prod. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Herbes C, Beuthner C, Ramme I (2018) Consumer attitudes towards biobased packaging—a cross-cultural comparative study. J Clean Prod. Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Part WK, Ramli M, Cheah CB (2015) An overview on the influence of various factors on the properties of geopolymer concrete derived from industrial by-products. Constr Build Mater 77:370–395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lyu SJ, Wang TT, Cheng TW, Ueng TH (2013) Main factors affecting mechanical characteristics of geopolymer revealed by experimental design and associated statistical analysis. Constr Build Mater 43:589–597. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Islam A, Alengaram UJ, Jumaat MZ, Ghazali NB, Yusoff S, Bashar II (2017) Influence of steel fibers on the mechanical properties and impact resistance of lightweight geopolymer concrete. Constr Build Mater 152:964–977. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dahlbo H, Poliakova V, Mylläri V, Sahimaa O, Anderson R (2018) Recycling potential of post-consumer plastic packaging waste in Finland. Waste Manag 71:52–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    IS: 1199–1959 (1959) Methods of sampling and analysis of concrete. Bureau of Indian Standards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    IS: 516–1959 (1959) Methods of tests for strength of concrete. Bureau of Indian Standards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    ACI 544 ACI Committee 544, Fiber reinforced concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sumajouw DM, Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Rangan BV (2007) Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: study of slender reinforced columns. J Mater Sci 42(9):3124–3130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mohsen Q, Mostafa NY (2010) Investigating the possibility of utilising low kaolinitic clays in production of geopolymer bricks. Ceram Silikaty 54(2):160–168Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gourley JT, Johnson GB (2005) Developments in geopolymer precast concrete. In: World congress geopolymer, pp 139–143Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Messina F, Ferone C, Molino A, Roviello G, Colangelo F, Molino B, Cioffi R (2017) Synergistic recycling of calcined clayey sediments and water potabilization sludge as geopolymer precursors: upscaling from binders to precast paving cement-free bricks. Constr Build Mater 133:14–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil engineering, Faculty of EngineeringMarwadi Education Foundation’s Group of InstitutionsRajkotIndia
  2. 2.L. E. College of EngineeringMorbiIndia

Personalised recommendations