WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12573/394
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Article Citation - WoS: 9Citation - Scopus: 11Evaluation of Diatomite Substitute With Thermal Power Plant Waste Fly Ash in Sustainable Geopolymer Through Life Cycle Assessment(Springer, 2025-02-28) Ilkentapar, Serhan; Orklemez, Ezgi; Durak, Ugur; Gulcimen, Sedat; Bayram, Savas; Uzal, Nigmet; Atis, Cengiz DuranThis research demonstrates the potential of diatomite as a fly ash replacement to improve mechanical properties and environmental sustainability and presents it as a viable alternative for sustainable construction. Additionally, a life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted on the produced mortars to quantitatively compare their environmental impacts using a cradle-to-gate approach. In mixtures, it was used by replacing the diatomite in the ratios of 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, and 5% by weight of the fly ash. Workability, unit weight, flexural and compressive strength, abrasion resistance, elevated temperature resistance and microstructure analysis were carried out. The results indicated that replacing 1%, 2%, and 3% diatomite increased the compressive and flexural strength of mortars due to their higher specific surface area. Two percent replacement of diatomite provided the best results. FESEM results of 3% diatomite inclusion showed more intense and compact microstructure of geopolymer. Diatomite inclusion increased the abrasion resistance of geopolymer. Since 2% diatomite replacement was found to be optimum, the LCA results showed that geopolymer mortar with 2% diatomite has 25% lower impacts in terms of global warming potential and 10% lower impacts in terms of terrestrial ecotoxicity than conventional Portland cement mortar.Article Citation - WoS: 6Citation - Scopus: 6Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Retort Pouch and Aluminum Can for Ready-to Bean Packaging(Springer, 2023-09-12) Gulcimen, Sedat; Ozcan, Ozlem; Cevik, Selin Babacan; Kahraman, Kevser; Uzal, NigmetSince packaging contributes to severe environmental impacts in food production, alternatives of packaging materials that satisfy customer needs while minimizing environmental impacts in a cost-effective manner should be preferred for food product sustainability. This paper compares two different packaging materials (aluminum cans and retort pouches) with a life cycle approach to assess the environmental impacts of ready-to-eat bean packaging. The life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to define and compare the environmental performance of ready-to-eat beans in aluminum cans and retort pouches. The gate-to-gate approach was used in the LCA, with a functional unit of 1 kg of packaged ready-to-eat bean product. Inventory for packaging in retort pouch was created in collaboration with Duru Bulgur Company (Karaman, Turkey) and the data for ready-to-eat beans in the aluminum can were gathered from the literature. The findings show that ready-to-eat beans in retort pouches have lower environmental impacts than ready-to-eat beans in aluminum cans. The packaging and washing processes for both ready-to-eat beans packaged in aluminum cans and retort pouches had the greatest environmental impact. In ready-to-eat beans production, retort pouch provides 87% better environmental performance than aluminum can in terms of global warming (GW). Overall, the results demonstrated that replacing aluminum cans with retort pouches in ready-to-eat bean production can significantly reduce environmental effects in all impact categories. [Graphics] .