Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Analysis of energy use and emissions of greenhouse gases, metals and organic substances from construction materials used for artificial turf
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Mining and Geotechnical Engineering.
Ecoloop Stockholm.
2017 (English)In: Resources, Conservation and Recycling, ISSN 0921-3449, E-ISSN 1879-0658, Vol. 122, 362-372 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study applied a life cycle analysis approach to identify significant posts for energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with construction, use and removal of an artificial turf field. A chemical analysis of infills was conducted to describe leachability of metals and organic substances. The infill types studied were recycled tires (RT), virgin thermoplastic elastomers (TPE), virgin ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) and recycled EPDM (R-EPDM) from cables and automotive mats. The result shows that energy use and GHG emissions of an artificial turf field significantly correlates with material choice, maintenance and management of removed turf. Energy use and GHG emissions for infills was highest for TPE followed by EPDM. In summary, use of recycled material as infill, reuse of soil and rock on site and reuse of removed turf and infill could reduce energy use and GHG emissions. Leachates from RT and R-EPDM contained detectable concentrations of zinc, which was relatively high from R-EPDM. Organic substances, harmful for aquatic environments and/or humans were detected in all leachates but in highest concentration from R-EPDM followed by EPDM. In the literature, risk assessments focused predominantly on RT while assessments of other infills was less extensive or was missing. The result in this article stressed the need to include all infill types in risk assessments. Previous environmental risk assessments based on field measurements concluded risks with infills to be small or minimal. However, since these assessments are few, this study suggested verification of those results by field measurements.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 122, 362-372 p.
National Category
Geotechnical Engineering
Research subject
Soil Mechanics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-63046DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.03.007ScopusID: 2-s2.0-85017539636OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-63046DiVA: diva2:1088929
Note

Validerad; 2017; Nivå 2; 2017-04-18 (andbra)

Available from: 2017-04-18 Created: 2017-04-18 Last updated: 2017-04-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Magnusson, Simon
By organisation
Mining and Geotechnical Engineering
In the same journal
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Geotechnical Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 51 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf