Journal of Cleaner Production 20 (2012) 170e179

Environmental risks of using recycled crushed glass in road applications

M.M. Disfani
a,1
, A. Arulrajah
a,
*, M.W. Bo
b,2
, N. Sivakugan
c

a
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
b
DST Consulting Engineers Inc., 605
Hewitson Street, Thunder Bay, P7B 5V5 Ontario, Canada
c
Civil & Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland QLD 4811, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 15 February 2011
Received in revised form
15 July 2011
Accepted 27 July 2011
Available online 2 August 2011
Recycled crushed glass is the main by-product of the glass recycling industry. Insufficient knowledge of the geotechnical
characteristics of recycled glass and its environmental risks are the primary barriers in its application in road works. An
extensive suite of geotechnical and environmental tests were undertaken on two common types of recycled crushed glass ( fine
recycled glass and medium recycled glass) to study the potential of using them in road works as alternatives to natural
aggregates. Recycled glass was found to exhibit either equivalent or superior workability, hydraulic conductivity and shear
strength to


Keywords:
Recycled glass
Leachate contamination
Environmental risks
natural aggregates within the same soil classification and demonstrated the potential to substitute natural sand and gravel
mixtures in a range of road applications. To address the environmental concerns of using recycled glass in road work
applications, a comprehensive series of chemical and environmental tests including total and leachate concentration for a
range of contaminant constituents including heavy metals and aromatic hydrocarbons were carried out. Test results were
compared with environmental protection authorities requirements and indicated that no leaching hazard will be experienced
during the service life of recycled glass in road work applications. Other possible environmental risks along with health and
safety precautions and management suggestions have also been discussed.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirec t
Journal of Cleaner Production
journal homepage: www.elsev i er.com/locate/jclepr o
M.M. Disfani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 20 (2012) 170e179 171


* Corresponding author. Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences (H38), Swinburne
University of Technology, P.O Box 218, Hawthorn VIC 3122, Australia. Tel.: 613 92145741;
fax: 613 92148264.
E-mail addresses: mmiridisfani@swin.edu.au (M.M. Disfani), aarulrajah@swin.
edu.au (A. Arulrajah), mwinbo@dstgroup.com (M.W. Bo), Siva.Sivakugan@jcu.edu.
au (N. Sivakugan). 1 Present address: Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences (H38),
Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218, Hawthorn VIC 3122, Australia. Tel.:
613 92144679.
2 Tel.: 1807 626 1312.
are often angular shaped with a noticeable percentage of flat and elongated
particles in the mixture. The waste stream (municipal or industrial) from
which the waste glass have been obtained and the crushing procedure used by
glass recycling industries are believed to have significant effects on debris
content, gradation curve and the flakiness index of the final product (FHWA,
1998; Wartman et al., 2004; Landris, 2007). These parameters subsequently
affect other geotechnical characteristics of recycled glass with properties
-6526/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.020

varying from one supplier to another (Landris, 2007; Disfani et al., 2009).
Recycled crushed glass (on its own or in blends with natural or recycled
aggregates) can be used in a range of road work applications including
subbase, embankments material and drainage media in roads. By the year
2000, no data was available for use of recycled crushed glass in Australian
roads (Austroads, 2000). Even today the use of recycled glass in Australian
roads is still limited and rare as typically only 3e5% recycled glass is
permitted in granular products (Austroads, 2009). This is believed to be the
result of a lack of knowledge on the geotechnical engineering characteristics
of recycled glass and especially concerns on the environmental suitabilityof
using recycled glass in road works. It is believed that similar barriers are
faced in many other developed and developing countries.
This research study firstly investigates the geotechnical engineering
characteristics of two different sample types of recycled waste glass
produced in the state of Victoria, Australia through a comprehensive
laboratory study. Fine Recycled Glass (FRG) and Medium Recycled Glass
(MRG) are the main by-products of the glass recycling industry in Victoria
with FRG being the more common of the two. The geotechnical engineering
properties of FRG and MRG were studied by conducting an extensive suite
of laboratory tests including particle size distribution (sieve and hydrometer
analysis), specific gravity of the particles, compaction tests, Los Angeles
abrasion test, hydraulic conductivity, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), direct
shear and Consolidated Drained (CD) triaxial tests. The test results indicated
that FRG and MRG exhibit the strong potential to substitute naturally
occurring sand and gravel mixtures in a range of road work applications
such as filling material in trenches, behind the retaining walls, road
pavements and embankment fills.
The next phase of this research was undertaken to cover the knowledge
gap on possible environmental risks of using recycled glass in road work
applications during its service life. This comprised of a suite of chemical and
environmental tests. Total contaminant concentration and leachate
concentration tests (using two buffer solutions) were carried out for
substances which have an impact on the environment including but not
limited to heavy metals, sulfates and chlorides and aromatic hydrocarbons
(Valls and Vazquez, 2002; Dalgren et al., 2011). Leaching tests are essential
to ensure that no risk will be posed by the seepage water to the water
streams and groundwater resources, since the release of contaminant
constituents such as heavy metals into the deep soil and the groundwater
might have severe consequences (Hellweg et al., 2005). The most reliable
method to estimate the contaminant concentration in the seepage water is by
means of a leaching test (Susset and Grathwohl, 2011) which will provide
information about the impacts on groundwater in the life cycle of the
projects (Hellweg et al., 2005).
Results of total and leachate concentration tests were compared with
Environmental Protection Authority of Victoria (EPA Victoria) requirements
for fill material and also different categories of waste material. Results of
leachate concentration tests were also compared with US EPA guidelines to
provide a better insight into the environmental impacts of using recycled glass
in road work applications. The results of this study will facilitate the move
toward increasing recycling of glass worldwide and especially toward the 75%
overall recycling rate by 2013 strategy for the Victorian government, Australia
(Clay et al., 2007).
2. Review of past studies
Several studies are available on the suitability of using recycled glass in
concrete mixtures (Meyer and Xi, 1999; Corinaldesi et al., 2005; Taha and
Nounu, 2008) and also on using recycled glass in asphalt layers (Halstead,
1993; Meyer, 2001; Huang et al., 2007 ; Landris, 2007). Available research
studies indicate that recycled glass can be used as a free-draining material in
filters and drainage blankets (Clean Washington Center, 1998). Recycled glass
can be used as load bearing material in road pavements (Ooi et al., 2008 ;
Younus Ali et al., 2011) and has the potential to replace natural backfill material
in trenches and behind the retaining walls (Wartman et al., 2004; Ooi et al.,
2008). It has also been used as a bedding and backfill material around buried
pipes (Younus Ali et al., 2011).
1. Introduction
The worldwide movement toward a more sustainable society with diverse
constituencies including private sectors, governments and universities has
resulted in finding new ways of recycling and reusing waste material in a
range of applications (Lindsey, 2011). A sustainable society is one that
achieves the needs of current generation without jeopardizing the needs of
future generations while also reducing wastefulness believed to facilitate the
movement toward an improved sustainability (Lindsey, 2011).
Waste material is considered any type of material by-product of human
and industrial activity that has no lasting value (Younus Ali et al., 2011).
Escalating demand for virgin material and consequent increase in waste
material production around the world are major
concerns in a sustainable development. Recycling is considered one of the
main strategies in waste minimization and provides major benefits including
reducing the demand for new resources; cutting down transport and
production energy costs and using waste which would otherwise be piled at
landfill sites (Tam, 2009 ; Blengini and Garbarino, 2010).
Several types of waste materials; recycled crushed glass among them are
commonly used in geotechnical engineering applications such as road works
(Disfani et al., 2009). Waste glass is the mixture of different colored glass
pieces collected from municipal and industrial waste streams and is often
mixed with a wide range of debris including food remaining, plastic and metal
caps, ceramic, paper and soil (Wartman et al., 2004; Landris, 2007; Younus
Ali et al., 2011).
Crushed recycled glass is a product of the glass recycling industry and is
comprised of mixed colored glass particles which
Abbreviations
ASLP Australian Standard Leaching Procedure
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CBR California Bearing Ratio
CD Consolidated Drained
FRG Fine Recycled Glass
IWRG Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines
MRG Medium Recycled Glass
PIW Prescribed Industrial Waste
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
TC Total Concentration
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
172 M.M. Disfani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 20 (2012) 170e179
While there are a number of studies available on geotechnical properties of
recycled crushed glass, few of them focus on road work applications (Clean
Washington Center, 1998; Wartman et al., 2004; Ooi et al., 2008; Younus Ali et
al., 2011), and only a small number of them have discussed the environmental
concerns of using recycled glass in road applications (Clean Washington
Center, 1998; Wartman et al., 2004). This is despite the fact that one of the
primary arguments against using recycled material including recycled glass in
road applications is the possible spread of remaining pollutants (Dalgren et al.,
2011). Using recycled glass in road work applications requires a comprehensive
study on the environmental effects of the waste material to ensure that its
environmental impacts are considered throughout the life cycle of the project
(Hkkinen and Vares, 2011).
In one of the few studies on environmental risks associated with using
recycled glass; Clean Washington Center (1998) studied the environmental
suitability of using recycled glass as a construction material. Nevertheless there
is no reference to a broad assessment of total and leachate concentration in their
report. In the Clean Washington Center (1998) research; debris content,
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), total phosphorous, total kjeldahl
nitrogen, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, fixed and volatile solids,
semi-volatile organic, pH and total organic carbon, priority pollutant metals,
lead and leachable lead contamination of recycled glass samples were studied.
The leachate concentration was carried out using only one buffer solution
targeting a partial range of contaminant constituents (Clean Washington Center,
1998). Clean Washington Center (1998) stated that the chemical properties of
glass and glass cullet leachate are all within the acceptable ranges implying that
recycled glass does not pose any problems for construction aggregate users
(Clean Washington Center, 1998).
As part of a research on select engineering characteristics of two different
sample types of crushed recycled glass carried out by Wartman et al. (2004);
leaching characteristics of recycled glass samples were reported. Leaching
assessment was conducted following Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) and Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) only
for a limited number of heavy metals (Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium,
Lead, Mercury, Selenium and Silver) using only one buffer solution (Wartman
et al., 2004).
A number of studies are available on geotechnical engineering
characteristics of recycled glass (Halstead,1993; Su and Chen, 2002; Landris,
2007; Ooi et al., 2008) or recycled glass in blends with other material (Grubb et
al., 2006; Malasavage et al., 2007; Younus Ali et al., 2011) implying the high
potential of recycled crushed glass as an alternative to natural aggregate.
However none of these studies make any reference to possible environmental
risks of using recycled glass in such applications.
Consequently, despite the fact that the geotechnical engineering suitability
of recycled glass has been proven by a number of researchers, the limited
knowledge on the environmental risks of recycled glass and its possible
environmental impacts during the service life of the material are still the main
barriers on using recycled glass in road work applications. While possible
adverse environmental effects of using recycled glass in road applications on
subsoils and groundwater should be studied (Beyer et al., 2009), the inadequate
research conducted to date has led to the unwelcome reality that a majority of
recycled glass still ends up in landfills in many countries worldwide.
3. Production and sampling
Sustainability Victoria is the State Government agency working with
Victorians in order to use resources in a more sustainable way and to reduce the
everyday impacts of communities and business on the environment (Clay et al.,
2007). With a population more than 5 million people (Clay et al., 2007), over
186,000 tons of waste recycled crushed glass was recovered in the year
2008e2009 in the state of Victoria (Sustainability Victoria, 2010). Municipal
recycled glass comprises mostly of food and drink bottles which are usually
collected at residential curbside, drop boxes or recycling stations (Landris,
2007).
Waste glass collected from curbside and from industrial sectors is
transferred into glass recycling sites in a condition shown in Fig. 1(a). At the
first step, the contaminants such as plastic and paper are removed from the
mixture. The product of this stage is shown in Fig. 1(b). The waste glass is then
crushed into small particles by using crushing equipments. Color sorting is the
next step with the aim of sorting glass pieces in three color categories of white,
green and amber shown in Fig. 1(c). After another round of debris removal and
quality control, the clean color sorted glass shown in Fig. 1(d) is ready for use
in bottle production industries. Due to various reasons including existence of
debris remaining and labels on glass pieces, it is not possible to sort out all glass
pieces based on their color category and consequently at the end of the color
sorting procedure, a noticeable amount of mixed colored glass particles will
remain. This by-product is not suitable for reuse in bottle production industries
due to mixed colour glass particles and presence of noticeable amount of debris.
Limited knowledge on the engineering properties of this type of recycled
crushed glass and concerns over its possible associated environmental risks has
led to disposal of recycled crushed glass into landfills.
Two different sample types of recycled crushed glass namely FRG (Fine
Recycled Glass) with the maximum particle size of 4.75 mm and MRG
(Medium Recycled Glass) with the maximum particle size of 9.5 mm were
collected from glass recycling sites in the vicinity of Melbourne, Australia.
Fig. 2(a) and (b) show the FRG and MRG sample types as-received to the
laboratory.
Initial visual inspection of FRG showed that it mainly comprises of sand
size particles (glass particles larger than 0.075 mm and smaller than 4.75
mm) while MRG mainly comprises of sand size particles with a noticeable
proportion of gravel size particles ( glass particles larger than 4.75 mm). The
flat, elongated particles were more noticeable in MRG while this was not the
case for FRG.
4. Geotechnical characteristics
Various international standards (ASTM, British and Australian) and test
methods are currently available for geotechnical laboratory testing of
recycled aggregates (Sivakugan et al., 2011). The geotechnical engineering
properties of FRG and MRG were studied by conducting an extensive suite
of laboratory tests and the results are presented in Table 1. Fig. 2(c) presents
gradation curves of FRG and MRG sample types.
M.M. Disfani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 20 (2012) 170e179 173
Fig. 1. (a) Waste glass collected from curbside (b) waste glass after contaminant removal (c) color sorting and further crushing (d) clean sorted color glass.
Fig. 2. (a) FRG sample type and (b) MRG sample types as-received to the laboratory (c) gradation curves of FRG and MRG.
Both FRG and MRG sample types are classified as well graded sand size
particles mixed with a small percentage of silt size particles (SW-SM). MRG
is coarser as its maximum particle size is 9.5 mm and it contains 25.5%
gravel size particles.
Table 1
Geotechnical characteristics of FRG and MRG.
Test FRG MRG
Soil Classification (USCS) SW-SM SW-
SM
Dmax (mm) 4.75 9.50
D 10 (mm) 0.15 0.20
Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) 7.6 16.3
Coefficient of curvature (Cc) 1.3 2.2
Fine size particles content
- < 0.075 mm (%)
5.4 5.2
Sand size particles content
- 0.075e4.75 mm ( % )
94.6 69.3
Gravel size particles content
- > 4.75 mm (%)
0.0 25.5
Specific gravity 2.48 2.50
Flakiness index
Standard proctor compaction
N/A
a
85.4
gd max (kN/m3)
16.7 18.0
wopt (%)
Modified proctor compaction
12.5 9.0
gd max (kN/m3)
17.5 19.5
w
opt
(%) 10 8.8
LA abrasion value (%) 24.8 25.4
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)
CBR
1.7 10
5
2.8 10
5

Using standard compaction effort 18e21 31e32
Using modified compaction effort
Direct shear test 40
(degree)
42e46 73e76
sn (30e120 kPa) 45e47 52e53
sn (60e240 kPa) 42e43 50e51
sn (120e480 kPa)
Triaxial shear test ( CD )
4cd (degree)
40e41 e
s0c (30e120 kPa)
40 42
s0c (60e240 kPa)
38 41
s0c (120e480 kPa)
35 41
a
Not Applicable.
Both FRG and MRG are derived from the same parent material and hence
should have the same specific gravity. It is determined to be about 2.50, which
is slightly less than that of quartz sand ( about 2.65). Table 1 shows that the
values of maximum dry densities obtained through compaction tests for FRG
174 M.M. Disfani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 20 (2012) 170e179
and MRG samples are 10e15% lower than the values generally found for the
natural aggregate within the same soil classification (Craig, 1992). This is
believed to be the result of lower specific gravity of recycled glass compared to
natural aggregates. Compaction curves of FRG and MRG are found to be
similar to characteristic convex shaped curves of natural aggregates with the
exception that recycled glass compaction curves are flatter than those of natural
aggregates (Disfani et al., 2009). This shows the low sensitivity of recycled
glass to water content changes in comparison to natural aggregate which gives
recycled glass the attributes of stable compaction and good workability over a
wide range of water contents in geotechnical engineering applications
(Wartman et al., 2004; Disfani et al., 2009).
To assess the durability and the abrasion resistance of recycled glass, Los
Angeles abrasion tests were carried out on both sample types and the results are
presented in Table 1. Test results suggest that LA abrasion values of FRG and
MRG samples are similar to that of crushed rock (24%) and lower than that of
recycled crushed concrete (28%) (Aatheesan et al., 2010; Younus Ali et al.,
2011).
The hydraulic conductivity (infiltration capacity) of a soil or aggregate
determines how much water or leachate can pass through the layer and seep into
the subsoil (Hellweg et al., 2005). Generally soils with a coarse soil texture
(gravel and sand) possess a higher hydraulic conductivity and consequently
permit a fast percolation, whereas soils with a fine texture (silts and clays) hold
back the water flow as a result of low hydraulic conductivity (Hellweg et al.,
2005). Table 1 shows hydraulic conductivity values for FRG and MRG samples
which suggest that recycled glass samples studied in this research are more
freedraining than most other natural aggregates within the same soil
classification.
Table 2
Basic environmental properties of FRG and MRG.
Test FRG MRG
Debris level (visual method) (%) 7 5
Debris level (weight method) (%) 1.23 2.01
Organic content (%) 1.3 0.5
pH value 9.9 10.1
As shown in Table 1, CBR values of FRG sample type are found to be
considerably lower than those of the MRG sample. This trend seems to be
related to higher values of maximum dry unit weight obtained for MRG sample
in compaction tests. The higher maximum dry unit weight for MRG
(considering that its specific gravity is approximately equal to FRG) is an
indication of better compaction which results into better particles contact and
eventually better shear performance of the MRG sample.
Shear strength parameters provide a good basis to predict the behavior of
aggregate materials under the effect of imposed static or dynamic loads where
the aggregates act as a load supporting medium (Clean Washington Center,
1998). Direct shear tests were performed under three successive normal stress
ranges of 30e120 kPa, 60e240 kPa and 120e480 kPa which correspond to
shallow to moderate overburden pressure (Wartman et al., 2004 ; Grubb et al.,
2006). Tests specimens were compacted to at least 95% of maximum dry unit
weight obtained in standard compaction tests. Linear Mohr-Coulomb envelopes
drawn for FRG and MRG samples resulted in internal friction angle values
reported in Table 1. Table 1 indicates that internal friction angle of MRG
sample is 10e15% higher than those of FRG sample which is in agreement with
higher CBR values of MRG samples.
Shear strength parameters of both FRG and MRG samples were also
obtained by drawing linear Mohr-Coulomb envelopes tangent to three
consecutive Mohr circles. The Mohr circles were drawn using results of CD
triaxial shear tests performed on specimens compacted to 90% maximum dry
unit weight obtained in standard compaction test. The drained internal friction
angles obtained for FRG and MRG via triaxial shear tests are 10e15% and
15e20% respectively lower than the internal friction angles obtained via direct
shear test. This is believed to be the result of a difference in boundary
conditions between direct shear and triaxial shear tests
Table 3
Different waste categories (EPA Victoria, 2010).
(Wartman et al., 2004) and also lower dry unit weight values achieved for
triaxial specimens.
Both recycled glass sample types studied in this research show internal
friction angles similar to those of well graded sand, well graded gravel or
sand and gravel mixtures in dense situation with angular shape particles
(Lambe and Whitman,1969). This along the results of compaction tests,
CBR values and LA abrasion results, prove the high potential of FRG and
MRG to replace sand and gravel mixtures in a range of road work
applications such as embankment fills and road subbase layers.
5. Debris level, organic content and pH
Debris levels of FRG and MRG were determined using American
Geological Institute Data sheet 23.1 and 23.2 (Clean Washington Center,
1998). Table 2 shows that the debris level determined by the weight method
is less than one fifth and less than half of the value obtained by the visual
method for FRG and MRG samples respectively. The primary reason for this
is that a high percentage of debris in the FRG sample comprises of very low
density material, predominantly paper. For the MRG sample, the debris
Category Description Management option
Fill Material Soil where:
the site assessment demonstrates the soil is not
contaminated; or
contamination concentrations do not exceed those speci fied in
IWRG soil hazard categorization and management (Table 4); or
any elevated levels of metals or other constituents can be
demonstrated to be of natural origin.
Use as fill material, e.g. site filling/leveling
Solid inert waste from an
industrial source
Waste arising from all commercial, industrial, building and
demolition activities.
Contaminant concentrations do not exceed those specified in IWRG
solid industrial waste hazard categorization and management (Table
4).
Building/demolition material, e.g. concrete, bricks, dry timber, plastic, glass,
metals, bitumen; and shredded tires.
- Reuse
- Recycling
- Landfill
Putrescible waste from an
industrial source
Wastes from commercial or industrial sources, e.g. vegetable processing, butchers
and domestic garbage.
- Composting
- Stockfood
- Recovery of energy
- Landfill
Prescribed industrial waste Has the potential to adversely impact human health and the
environment.
Manufacturing sources or contaminated soils.
Various treatment and disposal methods depending on waste
type and hazard category
M.M. Disfani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 20 (2012) 170e179 175
mainly consists of low density material such as wood, plastic and a lower
amount of paper.
Both FRG and MRG show a low organic content in the order of 1%,
although the higher organic content value of the FRG compared to MRG and
the fact that it is close to FRG debris level obtained by weight method is
further evidence that the majority of FRG debris is paper which adds up to
organic content value. The pH values of the recycled glass samples were
determined using the electrometric method. Both recycled glass samples
show a modest alkaline nature with the pH values ranging from 9.9 to 10.1.
6. EPA guidelines
EPAVictoria is responsible for protecting human health, amenity and the
environment from the hazards that may be posed by industrial wastes in
Victoria, Australia (EPAVictoria, 2005). In waste management hierarchy
charts introduced by different environmental protection organizations
worldwide including EPA Victoria, it is recommended that where
practicable, waste should be avoided, reduced, reused, recycled or used for
energy recovery before being treated or disposed to landfills (EPA Victoria,
2005).
6.1. Waste categorization
According to EPA Victoria regulations wastes can be included into one
of four types shown in Table 3.
Fill material consists of soil (being clay, silt and/or sand), gravel and
rock of naturally occurring materials and is often referred to as clean fill by
industry, and may be suitable for site filling or leveling depending on an
assessment of contaminant levels and intended use (EPA Victoria, 2010).
Soil may be classified as fill, when an assessment demonstrates that the
material is not contaminated or the contamination levels in form of Total
Concentration (TC) are not higher than the values specified in Table 4 as
maximum TC for fill material (EPA Victoria, 2010).
The second type of the waste according to EPA Victoria guidelines is
solid inert waste which is hard waste that has a negligible activity or effect
on the environment. The inert waste may be either a municipal or industrial
waste (EPA Victoria, 2010). Reuse and recycling options should be
investigated for this type of waste, as in many cases industrial waste, such as
building materials, can be reused or recycled (EPAVictoria, 2010). The
maximum contaminant concentration in the form of TC and Australian
Standard Leaching Procedure (ASLP) allowed for this type of waste is
shown in Table 4. Based on its source and production procedure; recycled
glass seems to lie inside this category.
Putrescible waste (the third type of waste) is waste able to be
decomposed by bacterial action. Problems associated with putrescible waste
landfills or reprocessing facilities can include vermin, seagulls, dust, odor,
insects, fires, litter, as well as surface and groundwater contamination by
leachate and consequently the design and operating requirements for
facilities accepting putrescible waste are generally more stringent than for
sites accepting solid inert waste only (EPA Victoria, 2010).
Prescribed Industrial Waste (PIW) may either be from a manufacturing
source or be contaminated soils. PIW has the potential to adversely impact
human health and the environment. Solid PIW must be categorized by
hazard before disposal (EPA Victoria, 2010) and is divided into three
categories called category A, B and C (EPA Victoria, 2007a) based on
contamination level.
6.2. Contaminant concentration procedures
Different contaminant and leaching procedures are utilized in different
countries for different purposes. Additionally, application of the results of
leaching tests differs between diverse legislations in different countries which
may result in a situation that a typical material which is allowed to be recycled
and reused in one country may not be so in another country (Dalgren et al.,
2011).
Recycled materials used in applications such as facades, foundations,
embankments, road works and etc. are subject to environmental conditions such
as rain and moisture content and consequently their contaminant emissions need
to be determined. This is done by leaching tests which provide the basis for
defining the life cycle of recycled materials within a given time period (Valls
and Vazquez, 2002). For each application of recycled material the leachable
concentration limits are necessary to limit the potential for leaching of
contaminants from waste/recycled material which will remain as a geotechnical
material for a long period of time (EPA Victoria, 2009b).
EPA Victoria also has set thresholds of TC and ASLP to help with
categorizing waste in order to determine the hazard classification (EPA
Victoria, 2007b). It is recommended that a two-step analytical process should
be followed when determining the hazard category of waste (EPAVictoria,
2007b). Initially TC should be determined for a range of contaminant
constituents and if, and only if, the TC values are less than the values
mentioned in Table 4 as maximum TC for fill material, the waste is categorized
as fill material (EPA Victoria, 2010). In all other situations leachable
concentration tests must be conducted on the material (EPA Victoria, 2007b). If
the TC values are higher than those specified in Table 4 for fill material, but
both TC and ASLP values (obtained with two buffer solutions; one slightly
acidic and one alkaline) are lower than the values shown in Table 4 as
thresholds for solid inert waste, then the waste is categorized as inert waste
(EPA Victoria, 2010).
176 M.M. Disfani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 20 (2012) 170e179
Before 1997, the US EPA specified Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) was the accepted method for leaching tests in Australia. In
1997 an Australian Standard Leaching Table 5
Suggested leaching fluids (Standards Australia, 1997).
Class Landfill category Leaching fluid
Class 1 In situdto be left undisturbed at the
site
Reagent water
Class 2 Monofilled

Class 3
2a: Putrescible material
2b: Non-putrescible material
Co-disposed with
Acetate buffer pH 5.0
Reagent water

3a: Putrescible material
3b: Non-putrescible material
Acetate buffer pH 5.0 or pH 2.9
Acetate buffer pH 5.0 or pH 2.9 and
Tetraborate buffer pH 9.2
(i.e. two leaches)
Class 4 Disposed of without confinement e.g.
dispersed over land
Reagent water
Procedure (ASLP) was developed and released and then opened its way to
substitute TCLP in Australia. However, in the state of Victoria until December
2007, there were very few accredited laboratories that could perform the ASLP
tests, and as such the TCLP results was subsequently reinstated as an acceptable
method in Australia for categorizing the waste/recycled material (EPA Victoria,
2007b).
TCLP was originally developed by US EPA for measurement of the
leachability of waste placed in putrescible landfills and consequently the
allowable leaching buffers are either 2.88 or 4.93 based on the pH of the waste
(Graham, 2004). This is to identify wastes likely to leach hazardous
concentrations of particular toxic constituents into the ground water under
conditions of improper management (URS Corporation, 2003). Based on TCLP
results a material is designated as a hazardous waste if any detected metals
found at concentrations in excess of 100 times the drinking water standard
(Wartman et al., 2004). Compared to TCLP, ASLP has an allowance for
variable waste receptors including non-putrescible and putrescible cells
incorporated into the methods (Graham, 2004). ASLP also allows variations to
the leaching buffer dependent on the proposed disposal method, including the
use of reagent water for non-putrescible mono cells (Graham, 2004). The ASLP
method furthermore accounts for site and waste specific assessment of
leachability in an Australian context (Graham, 2004).
Standards Australia (1997) states that the leaching fluid selected shall be
appropriate to the landfill category and should be selected using the guidance
provided in Table 5. ASLP also specifies that subject to regulatory approval for
a specific site assessment, other appropriate leaching fluids, such as local
groundwater or seawater, may be used in place of those mentioned in Table 5
(Standards
Australia, 1997).
7. Total and leachable concentration Results
Determining the leachate concentration of a material involves preparation of
the leachate through a leaching process. The preparation of leachate involves
contact between the solid matrix with the liquid (leaching fluid) to form
leachate solutions in order to determine which elements initially present in the
solid will be dissolved (Quina et al., 2011). The properties of the leachate
depend on several variables such as leaching fluid composition (e.g. pH),
method and time of contact, and liquid-to-solid ratio (Quina et al., 2011). These
altogether imply the importance of the leachate preparation method and its
effect on the test results.
This research aims to study the leachate hazards of using recycled glass in
road work applications such as embankment fills and road pavements during the
service life of the projects. Consequently reagent water which resembles rain
water seems to be the most appropriate leaching fluid in determining the
leachable concentration for these applications.
Contrary to this, Graham (2004) states that there is a possibility of acid
rain (pH: 3.6e4.9) which is the result of presence of organic acids such as
formic acid in the atmosphere. These organic acids believed to be formed in
the atmosphere by the photochemistry of organic compounds volatilized
from terrestrial vegetation (Graham, 2004). Furthermore the possibility of
acidic freshwater (pH: 4.0e4.5) which occurs in the first flush at the
beginning of wet season should also be taken into consideration in selecting
the appropriate leaching fluid (Graham, 2004).
National Land and Water Resources of Australia reported that from 1 to
3 million hectares of Australian agricultural land have extremely acidic
topsoil (pH < 4.3), between 11 and 21 million hectares have strongly acidic
topsoil (pH: 4.3e4.8) and 25 to 37 million hectares have moderately acidic
Table 4
TC and ASLP values for different categories of wastes along with test results obtained for FRG and MRG (EPA Victoria, 2009a, 2010).

Contaminant Maximum TC
a
for fill material Thresholds for FRG
MRG solid inert waste


TC
a
ASLP
b
TC
a
ASLP
b
(Acet) ASLP
b
(Borate) TC
a
ASLP
b
(Acet) ASLP
b
( Borate )
Arsenic 20 500 0.35 <5 <0.01 <0.1 <5 <0.01 <0.1
Barium e 6250 35 6 0.1 <0.1 53 0.31 0.1
Beryllium e 100 0.5 <5 <0.01 <0.1 <5 <0.01 <0.1
Cadmium 3 100 0.1 0.5 0.004 <0.02 <0.2 0.004 <0.02
Chromium 1 (Chromium VI) 500 2.5 <5 <0.01 <0.1 11 0.01 <0.1
Copper 100 5000 100 6 0.12 <0.1 6 0.06 <0.1
Lead 300 1500 0.5 12 0.19 <0.1 72 0.4 <0.1
Mercury 1 75 0.05 <0.05 <0.001 <0.01 <0.05 <0.001 <0.01
Nickel 60 3000 1 <5 <0.01 <0.1 <5 0.01 <0.1
Selenium 10 50 0.5 <5 <0.01 <0.1 <5 <0.01 <0.1
Silver 10 180 5 <5 <0.01 <0.1 7 <0.01 <0.1
Zinc 200 35 000 150 34 0.79 0.1 70 1.6 <0.1
Cyanide
Monocyclic aromatic
50 2500 4 <5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.05 <0.05
Hydrocarbons 7 50 N/A <0.1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.1 <0.001 <0.001
Benzene 1 4 0.05 <0.1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.1 <0.001 <0.001
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 20 50 N/A <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01
Benzo (a) pyrene 1 5 0.0005 <0.1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.1 <0.001 <0.001
PAHs (total) N/A 50 N/A <0.1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.1 <0.001 <0.001
a mg/kg of dry weight. b
mg/L.
M.M. Disfani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 20 (2012) 170e179 177
topsoil (pH: 4.8e5.5) (Graham, 2004). This implies the high possibility of
having acidic freshwater in the first flush of the wet season.
These facts along with the fact that it is on the safer side to consider a
more aggressive leaching fluid rather than using reagent water advocate
using acidic leaching buffer for leaching concentration tests. In addition as
recycled glass may be used in blends with other recycled material (such as
recycled concrete, recycled brick or crushed rock) class 3b of Table 5 seems
to be more suitable which also advocates using two leaching fluids one
slightly acidic and one alkaline.
Consequently, in preparation of leachate, the method described in
Australian Standard Wastes, sediments and contaminated soils: Part 3:
preparation of leachates-bottle leaching procedure ( AS
4439.3e1997) was followed and slightly acidic leaching fluid (pH 5) and
alkaline leaching fluid (pH 9.2) were used as leaching buffers (Standards
Australia. 1997). In order to prepare the leachate of recycled glass samples,
the solid material was placed in to the extraction bottle and the leaching fluid
slowly added and then the bottle was tightly sealed (Standards
Australia,1997). In the next step the extraction bottle was placed on the
rotator (in a counterbalanced position) and then was rotated for 18 h at 30
revolutions per minute at the ambient temperature of 22 5 C. After that the
extraction bottle was removed from the agitator and then the solids leachate
was filtered through a fresh glass fiber filter into a cleaned, dry, pressure
filtration device (Standards Australia, 1997).
Using this method ASLP tests with two buffer solutions ( acidic and
alkaline) were conducted on representative samples of FRG and MRG and
the results of TC and ASLP are presented in Table 4.
8. Discussion
Prior to using recycled glass in road work applications (such as
embankment fills and pavement layers) all the possible environmental risks
including the leaching hazard, exposure of contaminant constituents into
soil, surface and ground water as well as the potential to spread into
surrounding areas during the service life of the project should be
investigated.
8.1. Total contaminant hazards
TC values of FRG and MRG sample types presented in Table 4 were
compared with EPA Victoria requirement for fill material presented in Table
4. The comparison implies that for all the contaminant constituents with the
exception of chromium, TC values of FRG and MRG are far below the
threshold (e.g. less than one tenth for Cyanide, or less than 1% for
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons).
The chromium metal is found in a few oxidation states such as
hexavalent chromium (chromium VI) and trivalent chromium (chromium
III). The values reported for FRG and MRG are the total chromium
(chromium III chromium VI) while the EPA Victoria
Table 6
US EPA drinking water and hazardous waste thresholds (Wartman et al., 2004).
Contaminant US EPA
drinking water standard
(mg/L)
Hazardous waste
designation (mg/L)
Arsenic 0.05 5.0
Barium 2.0 100
Cadmium 0.005 1.0
Chromium 0.1 5.0
Lead 0.015 5.0
Mercury 0.002 0.2
Selenium 0.05 1.0
Silver 0.05 5.0
requirement presented in Table 4 as the threshold for fill material is on
hexavalent chromium (chromium VI). As such, FRG and MRG will go
beyond the chromium boundary only and only if all the chromium found in
the test is of type chromium VI which does not seem to be the case for FRG
and MRG. This comparison indicates that FRG and MRG lie in the category
of fill material according to EPA Victoria requirement which means they can
be used as fill material in applications such as filling and leveling (EPA
Victoria, 2010).
The fact that according to EPA Victoria (2010) recycled glass can be
used safely as fill material, implies that in the event of its application in
embankment fills or road pavement layers the environmental risks in the
form of exposure of contaminant constituents to soil and sediments and also
the risks associated with possible spread of material into surrounding areas
is not more than those risks associated with a traditional fill material.
8.2. Leaching hazards
According to EPA Victoria guidelines if a material is deemed suitable to
be used as a fill material there is no need to conduct ASLP tests on the
waste/recycled material. However in this research the ASLP assessment was
conducted to provide an evaluation of the possible leaching hazards of
recycled glass during its service life in case of its application in road works.
Furthermore this will help to have an assessment of the potential for
leaching of contaminants from recycled glass which will remain as a
geotechnical material in road pavements, embankment fills and retaining
walls for a long period of time (EPA Victoria, 2009b).
Comparison of TC and ASLP values (both acidic and alkaline) of FRG and
MRG with contaminant concentrations thresholds for solid inert waste shown in
Table 4, indicate that ASLP values of FRG and MRG lie far below the
threshold for all of the contaminant constituents. As the leaching contaminant
concentration of both FRG and MRG sample types are far below those
acceptable for solid inert waste (which is a hard waste that has a negligible
activity or effect on the environment) (EPA Victoria, 2010) it can be concluded
that the environmental risks of using recycled glass in road applications in
terms of contaminants leaching into water streams, surface or ground water is
negligible.
According to US EPA, a material is designated as a hazardous waste if any
detected metal occurs at concentrations larger than 100 times the drinking water
standard (Wartman et al., 2004). Table 6 shows the acceptable concentrations
for drinking water and the threshold for hazardous waste according to US EPA.
ASLP values of FRG and MRG (obtained with acidic leaching buffer) shown in
Table 4 can be compared with hazardous waste designation presented in Table
6. The ASLP values are again far below the threshold of hazardous waste
proving that they will not be categorized as hazardous waste according to USA
EPA as well.
8.3. Minimizing environmental impacts
Fig. 3 shows the water flow balance in a recycled glass layer used in a
subbase layer of a typical road pavement and indicates that part of the rainwater
evaporates or flows off on top of the surface and consequently does not get into
the recycled glass layer (Hellweg et al., 2005). The remaining fraction
(indicated in gray arrows) seeps into the base layer and part of it (indicated in
solid black arrows) enters into the recycled glass layer. From the recycled glass
layer the leachate will either move toward the drainage pipe ( and consequently
will flow into surface water streams or alternatively will be redirected into a
buffering zone) or it will seep directly into ground water table.
178 M.M. Disfani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 20 (2012) 170e179
While in Fig. 3 the cumulative widths of the arrows indicate the rough
proportions of the seepage flow (Hellweg et al., 2005) ; an appropriate design
tries to minimize the width of the arrow showing the percentage of leachate
moving towards the groundwater.
Appropriate design in road construction including road pavements, retaining
walls and embankment fills set targets in a way to minimize the percolation of
mineral recycling materials and as a consequence contaminant release can be
minimized or partly prevented (Susset and Grathwohl, 2011). On the other
hand, the environmental risks of using recycled material in geotechnical
engineering applications can be minimized by using recycled material in places
where it is capped (for example beneath a sealed road surface as shown in Fig.
3) or in locations that are elevated above the ground level (such as in an
overpass) (EPA Victoria, 2009b).
Another appropriate design can be achieved through appropriate
construction geometries and selection of soil materials in a way that the seepage
water bypasses recycled materials or its infiltration into recycled material is
minimized. This will reduce the average concentrations (averaged over the
cross-sectional area of the construction) at the bottom of such constructions
(Beyer et al., 2009).
However part of the water flow will get into the recycled material layer as
shown in Fig. 3. Designing a water purification plant connected to the recycled
material layer with a drainage system, can help in diverting the leachate into the
water purification plant (Hellweg et al., 2005). If the infiltration capacity of the
subsoil is very low, the leachate might flow laterally away and reach the surface
water. Another example of such design is designing a buffering zone that
prevents or reduces groundwater pollution by retardation and dispersion of
contaminated seepage water (Hellweg et al., 2005). This buffering zone can
also be considered as a source of groundwater pollution since heavy metals and
other contaminants seep to the saturated zone over a long period of time
(Hellweg et al., 2005).
Nevertheless, the remaining fraction will seep into the subsoil and
eventually will reach the groundwater. This reason makes it essential to assess
the leachate hazard of recycled crushed glass during its service life. This is
reached by conducting leachate contaminant concentration tests to make sure
that the leachate is not putting any negative impact on the groundwater
resources and water streams.
8.4. Human health concerns
In the event of using recycled glass in road work applications, human health
risks needs to be assessed including risks to site workers placing the material,
maintenance workers (after development) and incidental site users (EPA
Victoria, 2009b). The most common health concerns are the potential for skin
cuts and breathing glass dust during physical handling (Landris, 2007).
Laboratory and field experiences indicate that recycled glass used in this
research (Dmax equal to 9.5 mm) does not harm people in the form of skin cuts
and punctures any more than natural aggregates like crushed rock. Other
researchers including Landris (2007) mentioned that recycled glass smaller than
9.5 mm will not cause problems unless it is squeezed or compressed in an
ungloved hand. Wearing gloves during working with recycled glass eliminates
the concern for skin lacerations. Exposure to glass dust is another health
concern with recycled glass aggregate (Clean Washington Center, 1998).
Research outcomes show that glass dust contains silica which in an amorphous
structure is not considered to be a health hazard (Clean Washington Center,
1998). In any case jobsite monitoring and proper personal protective equipment
should be included in any construction site safety plan (Landris, 2007).
9. Conclusions
Results of an extensive series of geotechnical engineering tests on two
sample types of recycled crushed glass produced in Victoria, Australia
indicate their excellent workability and hydraulic conductivity which is
especially beneficial in the event of using recycled glass in geotechnical fills.
Shear strength test results suggest that recycled crushed glass exhibit shear
strength behavior similar to naturally occurring sand and gravel mixtures
with angular particles. The test results provide excellent evidence to support
substituting natural aggregates with recycled glass in a wide range of road
work applications including fill material in structural and non-structural
applications and road pavements.
To fill the knowledge gap on environmental impacts of using recycled
glass in such applications and also to address the public concern over using
recycled glass in road work applications, a range of environmental tests
including total and leachate concentration (following ASLP with two buffer
solutions) were conducted on FRG and MRG sample types. Results were
compared with EPA Victoria guidelines on fill material and solid inert
waste. The comparison indicates that both FRG and MRG are categorized as
fill material. ALSP values also fall far below the values of inert solid waste
which supports the fact that in case of passing rain water or even acid rain
through the recycled glass layers the leachate will not pose any hazard to the
surface or ground water during the service life of the material. ASLP values
of recycled glass samples were also compared with hazard waste
categorization introduced by US EPA. The comparison provides satisfactory
evidence that the environmental risks of using recycled glass in road
applications (in form of total or leachate contamination hazards) are

Fig. 3. Water flow balance chart for a layer of recycled glass in road pavement (After Hellweg et al., 2005).
M.M. Disfani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 20 (2012) 170e179 179
negligible during the service life of the project. This can ultimately lead to
landfill avoidance (Blengini and Garbarino, 2010) and an improved
sustainability (Lindsey, 2011).
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Alec Papanicolaou, Geomechanics
laboratory technician of Swinburne University of Technology for his
technical support during the experimental works.
Notations
wopt optimum water content ( % )
gd,max
maximum dry unit weight (kN/m
3
)
sn
effective normal stress applied in direct shear test ( kPa )
s0
c
effective confining pressure in CD triaxial test ( kPa )
40
Drained internal friction angle obtained in direct shear test (
degree )
4cd
Drained internal friction angle obtained in triaxial shear
test ( degree )
References
Aatheesan, T., Arulrajah, A., Bo, M.W., Vuong, B., Wilson, J., 2010. Crushed brick blends
with crushed rock for pavement systems. Proceedings of ICE (UK). Waste Resource
Manage. 163 (1), 29e35.
Austroads, 2000. Use of recycled materials and the management of roadside vegetation on low
trafficked roads Publication No. AP-R154/00, NSW, Australia.
Austroads, 2009. Guide to pavement technology part 4E: recycled materials Publication No.
AGPT04E/09, NSW, Australia.
Beyer, C., Konrad, W., Rgner, H., Bauer, S., Liedl, R., Grathwohl, P., 2009. Modelbased
prediction of long-term leaching of contaminants from secondary materials in road
constructions and noise protection dams. J. Waste Manage. 29 (2) , 839e850.
Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E., 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy): the
role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J. Cleaner Production 18
(10e11), 1021e1030.
Clay, S., Gibson, D., Ward, J., 2007. Sustainability Victoria: influencing resource use, towards
zero waste and sustainable production and consumption. J. Cleaner Production 15 (8e9),
782e786.
Clean Washington Center, 1998. A tool kit for the use of post-consumer glass as a
construction aggregate Report No. GL-97-5, Washington, USA.
Corinaldesi, V., Gnappi, G., Moriconi, G., Montenero, A., 2005. Reuse of ground waste glass
as aggregate for mortars. J. Waste Manage. 25 (5), 197e201.
Craig, R.F., 1992. Soil mechanics, sixth ed.. Taylor and Francis, London, UK.
Dalgren, K.E., Dker, A., Arwidsson, Z., Kronhelm, T.V., Hees, P.A.W.V., 2011. Recycling
of remediated soil - Evaluation of leaching tests as tools for characterization. J. Waste
Manage. 31 (2), 215e224.
Disfani, M.M., Arulrajah, A., Suthagaran, V., Bo, M.W., 2009. Shear strength behavior of
recycled glass-biosolids mixtures, Proceedings of 62nd Canadian Geotechnical
Conference, 20e24 September Halifax, Canada, 812e819.
EPA Victoria, 2005. Guidelines for hazard classification of solid prescribed industrial wastes.
Environmental Protection Agency of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. Publication No.
996.
EPA Victoria, 2007a. Classification of wastes. Environmental Protection Agency of Victoria,
Melbourne, Australia. Publication No. 448.
EPA Victoria, 2007b. Information update for EPA 996. Environmental Protection Agency of
Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. Supporting technical guidance No. 2.
EPA Victoria, 2009a. Solid industrial waste hazard categorization and management, industrial
waste resource guidelines. Environmental Protection Agency of Victoria, Melbourne,
Australia. Publication No. IWRG 631.
EPAVictoria, 2009b. Use of biosolids as geotechnical fill. Environmental Protection Agency
of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. Publication No. 1288.
EPA Victoria, 2010. Waste categorization, industrial waste resource guidelines.
Environmental Protection Agency of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. Publication No.
IWRG 600.2.
FHWA, 1998. User guidelines for waste and by-product materials in pavement construction.
Federal Highway Administration of U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,
USA. Publication No. FHWA-RD-97-148.
Graham, P., 2004. Current waste soil disposal practices in NSW. In: Proceedings of SuperSoil
2004: 3rd Australian New Zealand Soils Conference, 5e9 Dec, Sydney, Australia.
Symposium 3: Contaminant Bioavailability and Terrestrial Ecotoxicolog.
www.regional.org.au/au/asssi/supersoil2004/s3/oral/index.htm (accessed 15.04.11).
Grubb, D.G., Gallagher, P.M., Wartman, J., Liu, Y., Carnivale, M.C., 2006. Laboratory
evaluation of crushed glass-dredged material blends. J. Geotech Geoenviro Eng. 132 (5),
562e576.
Hkkinen, T., Vares, S., 2011. Environmental impacts of disposable cups with special focus
on the effect of material choices and end of life. J. Cleaner Production 18 (14),
1458e1463.
Halstead, W.J., 1993. Use of waste glass in highway construction. Virginia Transportation
Research Council, Virginia, USA.
Hellweg, S., Fischer, U., Hofstetter, T.B., Hungerbhler, K., 2005. Site-dependent fate
assessment in LCA: transport of heavy metals in soil. J. Cleaner Production 13 (4),
341e361.
Huang, Y., Bird, R.N., Heidrich, O., 2007. A review of the use of recycled solid waste materials in
asphalt pavements. J. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52 (1), 58e73.
Lambe, T.W., Whitman, R.V., 1969. Soil Mechanics. Wiley, New York, USA.
Landris, T.L., 2007. Recycled glass and dredged materials. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Engineer Research and Development Center, Mississippi, USA. Report No. ERDC TN-
DOER-T8.
Lindsey, T.C., 2011. Sustainable principles: common values for achieving sustainability. J.
Cleaner Production 19 (5), 561e565.
Malasavage, N.E., Gallagher, P.M., Grubb, D.G., Wartman, J., Carnivale, M., 2007. Modifying a
plastic clay with crushed glass: implications for constructed fills. Soils and Foundations 47
(6), 1017e1027.
Meyer, C., 2001. Recycled glass - from waste material to valuable resource. In: Proceedings of
Int. Symposium on Recycling and Reuse of Glass Cullet, 19e20 March, Dundee, Scotland,
pp. 179e189.
Meyer, C., Xi, Y., 1999. Use of recycled glass and fly ash for precast concrete. J. Mater. Civil
Eng. 11 (2), 89e90.
Ooi, P.S.K., Li, M.M.W., Sagario, M.L.Q., Song, Y., 2008. Shear strength characteristics of
recycled glass. J. Trans. Res. Board 2059, 52e62.
Quina, M.J., Bordado, C.M.J., Quinta-Ferreira, R.M., 2011. Percolation and batch leaching tests to
assess release of inorganic pollutants from municipal solid waste incinerator residues. J.
Waste Manage. 31 (2), 236e245.
Sivakugan, N., Arulrajah, A., Bo, M.W., 2011. Laboratory testing of soils, rocks and aggregates,
first ed. J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA.
Standards Australia, 1997. Wastes, sediments and contaminated soils, part 3: preparation of
leachates-bottle leaching procedure AS 4439.3e1997, Sydney,
Australia.
Su, N., Chen, J.S., 2002. Engineering properties of asphalt concrete made with recycled glass. J.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 35 (4), 259e274.
Susset, B., Grathwohl, P., 2011. Leaching standards for mineral recycling materials A harmonized
regulatory concept for the upcoming German Recycling Decree. J. Waste Manage. 31 (2),
201e214.
Sustainability Victoria, 2010. Victorian recycling industries annual report 2008e2009 ISSN
1836e9901, Melbourne, Australia.
Taha, B., Nounu, G., 2008. Properties of concrete contains mixed color waste recycled glass as
sand and cement replacement. J. Constr. Build Mater. 22 (5) , 713e720.
Tam, V.W.Y., 2009. Comparing the implementation of concrete recycling in the Australian and
Japanese construction industries. J. Cleaner Production 17 (7) , 688e702.
URS Corporation, 2003. Approaches to determining thresholds concentrations.
www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd61/waste/cap2.pdf (accessed 14.02.11).
Valls, S., Vazquez, E., 2002. Leaching properties of stabilized/solidified cementadmixtures-
sewage sludges systems. J. Waste Manage. 22 (1), 37e45.
Wartman, J., Grubb, D.G., Nasim, A.S.M., 2004. Select engineering characteristics of crushed
glass. J. Mater. Civil Eng. 16 (6), 526e539.
Younus Ali, M.M., Newman, G., Arulrajah, A., Disfani, M.M., 2011. Application of recycled
glass-crushed rock blends in road pavements. Aust. Geomechanics 46 (1), 113e122.