Article

Fabrication and Experimental Analysis of Bricks Using

Recycled Plastics and Bitumen
Naveen Kumar Koppula *, Jens Schuster and Yousuf Pasha Shaik

Institute for Polymer Technology West-Palatinate, University of Applied Sciences Kaiserslautern,

66953 Pirmasens, Germany
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Plastic is being used increasingly in daily life. Most of it is not recyclable, and the remaining
plastic cannot be used or decomposed. This causes increased plastic waste, contributing to global
warming due to thermal recycling. The major objective of this research was to utilise the maximum
plastic waste possible to manufacture bricks that compete with the properties of conventional bricks
without affecting the environment and the ecological balance. A balanced mixture of high-density
polyethylene (HDPE), quartz sand, and some additive materials, such as bitumen, was used to
produce these bricks. Various tests were performed to assess the bricks’ quality, such as compression,
water absorption, and efflorescence tests. These bricks had a compression strength of 37.5 MPa, which
is exceptionally strong compared to conventional bricks. The efflorescence and water absorption tests
showed that the bricks were nearly devoid of alkalis and absorbed almost no water. The obtained
bricks were light in weight and cost-effective compared to conventional bricks.

Keywords: HDPE; quartz sand; bitumen; compression testing; water absorption test; efflorescence
test

1. Introduction
Plastic, a synthetic material made from various organic compounds with a high
Citation: Koppula, N.K.; Schuster, J.; molecular mass, was first introduced in 1907 by Leo Baekeland [1]. Since then, it has
Shaik, Y.P. Fabrication and changed numerous industries. During World War II, there was rapid growth in the plastic
Experimental Analysis of Bricks industry, as manufacturers could use plastic to replace products previously manufactured
Using Recycled Plastics and Bitumen. using natural resources. The best example was nylon, which replaced silk and was used
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 111. https://
for parachutes, helmets, and body armour; another was plexiglass, used as a substitute for
doi.org/10.3390/jcs7030111
glass in aircraft [2].
Academic Editors: G. Beulah Over time, plastics replaced the use of traditional materials. It has become one of
Gnana Ananthi and Krishanu Roy the essential materials in day-to-day life. Properties such as high strength, corrosion
resistance, easily mouldability, waterproofness, and its ductile nature make it fit a wide
Received: 13 February 2023
range of applications. It is used in almost every sector, such as in electrical and electronic
Revised: 5 March 2023
applications, packaging, logistics, and industrial machinery. More than 50% of plastic was
Accepted: 8 March 2023
Published: 10 March 2023
produced after the year 2000. Most plastic is used for packaging [3].
Its production involves the polymerisation or polycondensation of natural materials,
such as cellulose, coal, natural gas, salt, crude oil, minerals, and plants. It can be moulded
into various shapes, sizes, and forms. It also possesses remarkable properties, such as light-
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. ness, durability, flexibility, and affordability, and is thus a popular choice over traditional
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. materials, such as wood, natural fibres, rubber, and paper [4].
This article is an open access article Despite having advantages, such as cheaper cost and ease of production, it affects the
distributed under the terms and environment if not utilised properly. According to EEA, plastics have many other effects,
conditions of the Creative Commons including contributions to climatic change, and the report says that there is no control
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
over the production and consumption of plastics [5]. There is a great need to develop
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
a circular trend by inventing various recycling techniques. However, according to the
4.0/).

J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs7030111 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jcs

J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 111 2 of 17

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, only 14% of the plastic produced is recycled [6]. Every year,
countries worldwide discard millions of tons of plastic waste. Less than 20% of waste
plastic is recycled to make new plastics, while the remaining plastics are either disposed of
in landfills or burnt or dumped [7]. The only way to minimise its impact is to stop using
it; however, in the modern world, this is impossible due to excessive reliance on plastic
items. Thus, one of the valuable solutions is to convert the available waste plastic into raw
material for various new plastic goods, speeding up the recycling process.
Technically, all polymers are recyclable and can be used once or more to create an
identical product [8]. However, it must be carried out in controlled conditions and requires
high-end machinery and technology. This is not a feasible solution, because it harms
the environment and makes industries unprofitable. Therefore, it is best to sort waste
plastic according to its categorisation and qualities to extract recyclable plastic and use
it to produce plastic products in the future. Because of the process-induced breakdown
of the polymer chain, the properties of such recycled materials may differ from those of
the original. These properties can be regained by adding the appropriate additives and
strength-enhancing materials [9].
Researchers conducted experiments to investigate the optimal combination of raw
materials, plastic, and sand to achieve maximum brick strength. These experiments in-
volved varying proportions of the raw materials. One specific experiment conducted by
Wahid et al. [10] utilised a mixture of sand, sand dust, and cement in a ratio of [9:9:4].
The mixture was then mixed with plastic waste in weights of 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15%. The
highest compression strength observed was 12.4 N/mm2 when 0% plastic was used, and
the strength decreased as the percentage of plastic increased. The reduction in strength was
attributed to poor adhesion between the plastic waste and cement. Additionally, a longer
curing time was required due to the significant volume of cement and sand. These findings
suggest that plastic waste in brick production may not necessarily improve the strength of
bricks, and further research is needed to optimise the proportions of the raw materials and
curing process.
In an extension of the research of Wahid et al. [10], another researcher, Agyeman
et al. [11], mixed plastic: quarry dust: sand ratios of 1:1:2 and 2:1:2 by weight. The resulting
samples were then cured for seven days by being sprinkled with water. The bricks produced
from these mixtures were tested for their compressive strengths and water absorption rates.
It was found that the bricks produced from the 1:1:2 mixture had a compressive strength of
6.07 N/mm2 and a water absorption rate of 4.9%, while the bricks produced from the 2:1:2
mixture had a higher compressive strength of 8.53 N/mm2 and a lower water absorption
rate of 0.5%.
As per Circular Action Hub (CAH) [12], mixing recyclable plastics with sawdust, con-
crete, mud, or sand can replace conventional building materials. High-density polyethylene
is one of those recyclable plastics. Typically, HDPE produces storage containers for milk,
shampoo, oil, and chemicals. It is comparatively more stable and emits fewer hazardous
gases, and is thus acceptable for recycling under certain controlled circumstances. Globally,
about 40 million tonnes of HDPE waste are generated [13].
High mechanical strength, transparency, non-toxicity, no effect on taste, and perme-
ability that may be disregarded for carbon dioxide are all characteristics of HDPE plastic. In
addition to being transparent, processable, colourable, and thermally stable, HDPE plastic
is chemically resistant, tensile, and impact-resistant [14].
The polyethylene grade with the most stiffness and least flexibility is HDPE. It works
well for various uses, such as garbage cans and everyday home items, including miniature
bottles and clothespins. This non-toxic, lightweight material can replace less eco-friendly
materials because it is readily recyclable [15].
An analysis conducted by Sahani et al. [16] found that recycling plastic waste in
manufacturing bricks and tiles is an effective way to reduce waste. The study suggested
that when plastic and sand are combined in the proper ratio, the resulting bricks have a
higher compression strength than traditional clay bricks. The highest compression strength
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 111 3 of 17

was achieved with a plastic-to-sand ratio of 1:4, valued at 12.28 N/mm2 . However, as the
amount of plastic in the mixture decreased, the compression strength also decreased.
The research of Kulkarni et al. [17] shows that HDPE plastics have a higher compres-
sion strength of 14.6% than conventional bricks, with a brick wall’s ultimate load-carrying
capacity being 197.5 KN. This means they can be used to build structures supporting higher
loads. According to Maneeth et al. [18], bitumen acts as a binder and enhances the strength
of the bricks because of its stability and density. However, as the bitumen percentage
increases, the compression strength declines from 10 N/mm2 to 2.04 N/mm2 , with the
ideal bitumen percentage being 2%. According to Benny T.K. et al. [19], bitumen-added
bricks have a hydrophobic property that prevents water from infiltrating them. They also
have a higher compression strength than standard bricks, with a compression loading of
120 KN. In this way, large amounts of waste can be used without affecting the environment
and reducing the cost of construction.
This publication aims to manufacture plastic sand bricks using bitumen and find the
optimum percentages of plastic and sand for producing bricks with higher compression
strength and a lower water absorption rate than conventional bricks.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials Used
2.1.1. HDPE Plastics
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is usually derived from petroleum. HDPE is a low-
cost thermoplastic material that performs well for low- and medium-technical applications.
It is used to produce various products, such as pipelines, milk jars, cutting boards, and
plastic bottles. HDPE does not crack under stress due to its very ductile behaviour. Table 1
shows the properties of HDPE.

Table 1. Properties of HDPE [20].

Property Units HDPE

Yield stress MPa 18
Youngs modulus MPa 960–1000
Density Kg/m3 941–967
Melting point ◦C 130–133
Coefficient of thermal elongation % 20–100
Impact resistance J/m 27–160

2.1.2. Sand
High-quality, naturally occurring quartz stone that has been carefully chosen and finely
processed is used to make the high-purity quartz sand (SiO2 ≥ 99.5–99.9%, Fe2 O3 ≤ 0.001%).
High-purity quartz sand produces glass, refractories, ferrosilicon flux, ceramics, grinding
materials, and casting-moulding quartz sand. It has significant anti-acid medium-erosion
properties for making concrete that is resistant to acid [21].
The particle size range of 0.1–0.3 mm was selected for the experiment. Quartz sand
chemically resistant, and because it has a higher melting temperature than metals, it is used
as a foundry sand and can be used for manufacturing bricks. Table 2 shows the properties
of quartz sand. Quartz sand was purchased from OBI Markt, Kaiserslautern, Germany.

Table 2. Properties of quartz sand [22].

Property Units Value

Specific gravity - 2.45
Water absorption % 1.9
Fineness modulus - 2.2
 Bitumen is mainly used for construction because of its higher binding char
it is less costly compared to other binding materials. Bituminous materials hav
properties, are soluble in carbon disulphide, and are mostly made of high-m
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 111 weight hydrocarbons produced by distilling petroleum or asphalt 4[23]. of 17 Bitum
known for its binding properties. In this experiment, different percentages o
(1%, 2%, and 3%) were considered. Table 3 shows the properties of bitumen. Bit
2.1.3. Bitumen
purchased from BAUHAUS, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Bitumen is mainly used for construction because of its higher binding characteristics;
it is less costly compared to other binding materials. Bituminous materials have adhesive
Table 3. Properties
properties, of bitumen
are soluble [24].
in carbon disulphide, and are mostly made of high-molecular-weight
hydrocarbons produced by distilling petroleum or asphalt [23]. Bitumen is also known for
Property
its binding properties. In this experiment, different Units
percentages of bitumen (1%, 2%, andValue
Specific
3%) weregravity
considered. Table 3 shows the properties of- bitumen. Bitumen was purchased22.4
from BAUHAUS, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Softening point °C 35–70
Ductility
Table 3. Properties of bitumen [24]. m 0.0264
Property Units Value
2.2. Methodology
Specific gravity - 22.4
Softening point ◦C 35–70
2.2.1.Ductility
Mould Design m 0.0264
A rectangular aluminium mould with (230 × 120 × 150) mm dimensions w
2.2. Methodology
factured. There were four side plates, a base plate, and a top plate on the bri
2.2.1. Mould Design
Figure 1 illustrates the cutting of four plates with a thickness of 10 mm and dim
A rectangular aluminium mould with (230 × 120 × 150) mm dimensions was man-
230 ufactured.
mm × 150 mm.
There Since
were four it was
side positioned
plates, onand
a base plate, a flat
a top surface, thebrick
plate on the basemould.
plate’s thic
reduced
Figure to 5 mm, the
1 illustrates significantly
cutting of fourreducing
plates with the possibility
a thickness of 10 mmofand
deflection.
dimensionsIn of order
230 mm × 150 mm. Since it was positioned on a flat surface, the base
simple to apply pressure to the molten mixture and facilitate the easy removal o plate’s thickness was
reduced to 5 mm, significantly reducing the possibility of deflection. In order to make it
the simple
top plate was
to apply fastened
pressure with amixture
to the molten knob-shaped
and facilitatecomponent.
the easy removal Anof Allen key of
the brick,
usedthetotop
assemble
plate was the plates
fastened withafter they were
a knob-shaped drilled with
component. 8 mm
An Allen key ofholes.
8 mm was
used to assemble the plates after they were drilled with 8 mm holes.

Figure 1. Mould
Figure 1. Mould design.
design.
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 111 5 of 17

2.2.2. Plastics Collection

Initially, used HDPE containers/bottles were collected and cleaned with warm water.
Next, the HDPE waste was dried to enable further processing without any moisture
content. These plastics were then broken down into smaller pieces using a shredding
machine containing a series of rotating blades that cut the plastic containers/bottles into
small pieces. The sizes of these pieces ranges from 1 mm to 5 mm. To produce the desired
brick, these plastics were then melted with sand.

2.2.3. Quartz Sand and Bitumen

A small quantity of bitumen was added as a binding agent to increase the strength
of the brick, induce better bonding of granules and cover any voids. Different amounts
of bitumen were added to the sample to determine the maximum strength (0%, 1%, 2%,
and 3%). The mixing ratios of plastic and sand were varied (3:1, 3:2, 1:1, 2:3, and 1:3). The
mixture was then heated using a kneader to firmly bond the plastic and sand.

2.2.4. Shredding and Mixing

The mixture was heated in the kneader until the plastic melted and firmly bonded
with the sand. The kneader was operated at a temperature of 180 ◦ C and a rotational speed
of 40 rpm. The resulting lump immediately solidified and hardened, making melting in
a hot press difficult. These lumps were subsequently granulated into tiny particles using
a grinder. The mixture was then poured into a mould of the appropriate size and set in
the hot press. It was left for about an hour at a temperature of 300 ◦ C, which was higher
than the melting point of the plastic. As the plastic granules began to melt, pressure was
applied (about 15 bar) to the top plate of the brick to obtain the desired shape and thickness.
The specimens were subjected to a compressed force of 1 kN to make the material more
compact and reduce the number of voids. The pressure was applied during the cooling
down of the press tool to ambient temperature. As a result of the rapid cooling, the bending
of the brick could be observed after demoulding.

2.3. Test Equipment and Test Parameters

2.3.1. Compression Tests
The compression strength of the plastic bricks was tested using the DIN EN ISO 604.
Twenty bricks were tested in total. Because of their ductile nature, the bricks were cut
into 10 mm × 10 mm × 10 mm pieces and tested on a compression machine. The load
was applied until the brick broke or showed deformation. The test was performed on
a Universal Testing Machine with a maximum force of 100 kN at a speed of 1 mm/min.
The ultimate stress at which the brick deformed or broke was noted, and the compressive
strength was calculated using the formula shown in Equation (1).

P
Compression strength = (1)
A
with
P as the maximum load [kN] and
A representing the area of the specimen [mm2 ].

2.3.2. Water Absorption Tests

The test was used to determine the amount of water absorbed by the brick. The quality
of the brick was determined by its water absorption rate, with a lower water absorption
rate considered the best. The bricks were heated to remove any moisture content. The
weight of the dry brick was noted as W1 . The brick was then fully immersed in water
and undisturbed for 24 h. After 24 h, the brick was removed from the water and gently
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 111 6 of 17

wiped with a cloth. The weight of the wet brick was noted as W2 . The percentage of water
absorbed was calculated using the formula shown in Equation (2).

W − W1
Water absorption = ∗ 100% , (2)
W1

with
W being the weight of the dry brick [kg]
W1 being the weight of the wet brick [kg]

2.3.3. Efflorescence Test

The test was used to determine the presence of hazardous alkalis in bricks. A circular
vessel was used, and enough water was added for testing. The immersion depth was
25 mm. The bricks were then soaked in distilled water for 24 h. After 24 h, the bricks were
removed from the vessel and dried for the same period. A high-quality brick should not
possess any alkalis on the bricks and should be free of soluble salts. If alkalis were present
on the bricks, efflorescence might occur, resulting in a layer forming. Table 4 shows the
percentage of alkali presence.

Table 4. Percentage of alkali presence after efflorescence test.

Efflorescence Test Extent of Deposits

Nil 0%
Low ≤10%
Medium 10% to 50%
Heavy More than 50% without powdered flakes
Serious More than 50% with powdered flakes

2.3.4. Test to Determine the Relative Rise in Temperature

The test aimed to determine how much the temperature would increase on one side of
a brick when the other side was in direct contact with a heat source. A simple setup was
created, with the brick as a dividing wall. An electric induction plate was used and heated
to a temperature of 410 ◦ C. One side of the brick was placed next to the plate, while the
other was exposed to room temperature. The brick was heated for three minutes, resulting
in an increase in the temperature. After three minutes, the temperature on both sides of the
brick was measured, and the relative rise in temperature was calculated.

3. Results
3.1. Compression Test
The test was carried out at a speed of 1 mm/min using a Universal Testing Machine
(UTM). A total of five brick samples were taken, consisting of 20 bricks in total. The
following results were obtained. The stress values were recorded when the strain value
was 0.2, which is acceptable in most applications.

3.1.1. Brick Sample 1 (Plastic:Sand—3:1)

Figure 2a shows that the bricks with more plastic (i.e., a plastic-to-sand ratio of 3:1) had
higher compression strengths. When 0% bitumen was added, the strength of the brick was
22.08 MPa; when bitumen was added, the values varied between 26.6 MPa and 33.46 MPa,
with 2% (9 g bitumen) being the optimal amount; and as bitumen was removed, the value
fell to 31.8 MPa. The highest strength was attained at an optimal bitumen percentage of 2%
(i.e., 9 g bitumen).
J. J.Compos.
Compos.Sci.
Sci.2023,
2023,7,7,x 111
FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of1717
7 of

Plastic : sand 3:1

40
33.46
35 31.8
30 26.6

Stress [MPa]
25 22.08
20
15
10
5
0
0 4.5 9 13.5
Bitumen [g]
(a)

30 30
25 25
Stress [MPa]

Stress [MPa]
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Strain Strain
(b) (c)
60
60
50
50
Stress [MPa]

40
40
Stress [MPa]

30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Strain Strain
(d) (e)
Figure
Figure2.2.Results
Resultsof of
brick sample
brick 1. (a)
sample 1. Compression
(a) Compressionstrength values
strength of brick
values plastic
of brick to sand
plastic 3:1. (b)
to sand 3:1.
Stress–strain curve with 0 g bitumen. (c) Stress–strain curve with 4.5 g bitumen. (d) Stress–strain
(b) Stress-strain curve with 0 g bitumen. (c) Stress-strain curve with 4.5 g bitumen. (d) Stress-strain
curve with 9 g bitumen. (e) Stress–strain curve with 13.5 g bitumen.
curve with 9 g bitumen. (e) Stress-strain curve with 13.5 g bitumen.

3.1.2.
3.1.2.Brick
BrickSample
Sample2 2(Plastic:Sand—3:2)
(Plastic:Sand—3:2)
The
Thebricks
brickswith
witha aplastic-to-sand
plastic-to-sandratioratioofof3:2
3:2produced
producedthe thebest
bestresults
resultsamong
amongall allother
other
bricks,
bricks,with
witheach
eachbrick
brickhaving
havinga acompression
compressionstrength
strengththat
thatwas
wasalmost
almosthigher
higherthan
thanthat
thatofof
otherbricks,
other bricks,as
asseen
seenin
in Figure
Figure 3a. The value of of the
the compression
compressionstrength
strengthwas
was22.7
22.7MPa
MPa if if
no
bitumen
no bitumen waswasapplied,
applied,and it grew
and further
it grew furtherwhenwhenbitumen waswas
bitumen deposited, rising
deposited, to 28.7
rising MPa
to 28.7
and and
MPa reaching a maximum
reaching a maximumof 37.5 ofMPa, beforebefore
37.5 MPa, decreasing to 33.9 to
decreasing MPa asMPa
33.9 additional bitumen
as additional
was added, with the optimum being 2% (i.e., 9 g bitumen).
bitumen was added, with the optimum being 2% (i.e., 9 g bitumen).
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 111 8 of 17

Plastic : sand 3:2

40
37.5 33.9
35
28.7
30

Stress [MPa]
25 22.7
20
15
10
5
0
0 4.5 9 13.5
Bitumen [g]
(a)
40 60
50
30

Stress [MPa]
40
Stress [MPa]

20 30
20
10
10
0 0
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Strain Strain
(b) (c)
80 60
50
60
stress(MPa)
Stress [MPa]

40
40 30
20
20
10
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Strain Strain
(d) (e)
Figure
Figure3. Results of brick
3. Results sample
of brick 2. (a)2.Compression
sample strength
(a) Compression valuesvalues
strength of brick
of plastic to sandto3:2.
brick plastic (b)
sand
Stress–strain curve with 0 g bitumen. (c) Stress–strain curve with 4.5 g bitumen. (d) Stress–strain
3:2. (b) Stress-strain curve with 0 g bitumen. (c) Stress-strain curve with 4.5 g bitumen. (d) Stress-
curve with 9 g bitumen. (e) Stress–strain curve with 13.5 g bitumen.
strain curve with 9 g bitumen. (e) Stress-strain curve with 13.5 g bitumen.

3.1.3. Brick
3.1.3. Sample
Brick Sample 3 (Plastic:Sand—1:1)
3 (Plastic:Sand—1:1)
TheThe brickswith
bricks withthe
thesame
samepercentage
percentageofofplastics
plastics and
and sand
sand showed
showed average results
results
compared
compared toto thosewith
those withmore
moreplastics.
plastics.Figure
Figure4a
4aindicates
indicatesthat
that the
the brick
brick without bitumen
bitumen
hadhad a compression
a compression strength
strength of of 19.39
19.39 MPa.
MPa. Adding
Adding bitumen
bitumen by by
4.5 4.5 g and
g and 9 g 9increased
g increased
the
value to 24.28 MPa and 29.18 MPa. The strength again dropped to 27.82 MPa MPa
the value to 24.28 MPa and 29.18 MPa. The strength again dropped to 27.82 as theasbitu-
the
menbitumen
contentcontent was increased
was increased to 13.5tog.
13.5 g.
 J. Compos.
J. Compos. Sci. Sci.
2023, 7, x7,FOR
2023, 111 PEER REVIEW 99 of
of 17
17

35
Plastic : sand 1:1
29.18
30 27.82
24.28
25

Stress [MPa]
19.39
20

15

10

0
0 4.5 9 13.5
Bitumen [g]
(a)
30 40
25
30
Stress [MPa]

Stress [MPa]
20
15 20
10
10
5
0 0
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Strain Strain
(b) (c)
50 40
40 30
Stress [MPa]
Stress [MPa]

30
20
20
10
10
0 0
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Strain Strain

(d) (e)
Figure 4. Results
Figure 4. Resultsof brick sample
of brick 3. (a)
sample 3. Compression
(a) Compressionstrength values
strength of brick
values plastic
of brick to sand
plastic 1:1. 1:1.
to sand (b)
Stress–strain curve with 0 g bitumen. (c) Stress–strain curve with 4.5 g bitumen. (d) Stress–strain
(b) Stress-strain curve with 0 g bitumen. (c) Stress-strain curve with 4.5 g bitumen. (d) Stress-strain
curve with
curve 9 g9 bitumen.
with g bitumen. (e)(e)
Stress–strain
Stress-straincurve
curvewith
with 13.5
13.5 gg bitumen.
bitumen.

3.1.4.
3.1.4. Brick
Brick Sample
Sample 4 (Plastic:Sand—2:3)
4 (Plastic:Sand—2:3)
FromFrom Figure
Figure 5a,5a,the
theresults
resultsofofthe
thebricks
brickswith
withaalower
lowerplastic
plastic percentage
percentage (i.e., plastic:
sand—2:3) showed less strength compared to the bricks with an equal
sand—2:3) showed less strength compared to the bricks with an equal plastic–sand plastic–sand ratio
ratio
and the bricks with more plastic, with the highest strength being
and the bricks with more plastic, with the highest strength being 26.49 MPa 26.49 MPa for for
9 g 9bitumen
g bitu-
andand
men decreased to 25.6
decreased MPaMPa
to 25.6 when the bitumen
when was was
the bitumen increased againagain
increased to 13.5
tog.13.5 g.
 J. Compos.
J. Compos. Sci.Sci. 7, x7,FOR
2023,
2023, 111 PEER REVIEW 10 of
10 of 17
17

30
Plastic : sand 2:3
26.9
25.6
25 22.48

20 17.25

Stress [MPa]
15

10

0
0 4.5 9 13.5
Bitumen [g]
(a)
30 35

25 30

20 25

Stress [MPa]
Stress [MPa]

20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Strain Strain
(b) (c)
40 45

35 40

30 35
Stress [MPa]

30
25
Stress [MPa]

25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5 5
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Strain Strain
(d) (e)
Figure
Figure5. 5.
Results
Results of of
brick sample
brick sample4. (a) Compression
4. (a) Compressionstrength
strengthvalues of brick
values plastic-to-sand
of brick 2:3.2:3.
plastic-to-sand (b)
Stress–strain curve with 0 g bitumen. (c) Stress–strain curve with 4.5 g bitumen. (d) Stress–strain
(b) Stress-strain curve with 0 g bitumen. (c) Stress-strain curve with 4.5 g bitumen. (d) Stress-strain
curve
curvewith
with9 9g gbitumen.
bitumen.(e) (e)Stress–strain
Stress-strain curve
curve with 13.5 gg bitumen.
with 13.5 bitumen.

3.1.5.Brick
3.1.5. BrickSample
Sample5 5(Plastic:
(Plastic:Sand—1:3)
Sand—1:3)
Out Outofofall
allthe
thebricks,
bricks, the
the bricks
bricks with
withthe
thelowest
lowestpercentage of of
percentage plastic (i.e.,
plastic 25%)
(i.e., exhibited
25%) exhib-
very low compression strength even when bitumen was added, which
ited very low compression strength even when bitumen was added, which had a strengthhad a strength of
of 25.36 MPa for 9 g bitumen and the lowest being 16.8 MPa with no bitumen, as seenin
25.36 MPa for 9 g bitumen and the lowest being 16.8 MPa with no bitumen, as seen in
Figure6a.
Figure 6a.Even
Evenininthis
thiscase,
case,the
thestrength
strengthdeclined
declined as
as bitumen
bitumen content
content increased.
increased.
 J. Compos.
J. Compos. Sci.
Sci. 7, 7,
2023,
2023, 111 PEER REVIEW
x FOR 11 11
of of
1717

30
Plastic : sand 1:3
25.36
25 21.8 22.3

20 16.8

Stress [MPa]
15

10

0
0 4.5 9 13.5
Bitumen [g]
(a)
30 35

25 30

25

Stress [MPa]
20
Stress [MPa]

20
15
15
10
10
5
5

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Strain Strain

(b) (c)
50 40
45 35
40
30
35
30 25
Stress [MPa]

25 20
stress(MPa)

20 15
15
10
10
5 5

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Strain Strain
(d) (e)
Figure
Figure6. 6.
Results of brick
Results sample
of brick 5. (a)
sample 5. Compression strength
(a) Compression values
strength of brick
values plastic-to-sand
of brick 1:3. (b)1:3.
plastic-to-sand
Stress–strain curve with 0 g bitumen. (c) Stress–strain curve with 4.5 g bitumen. (d) Stress–strain
(b) Stress-strain curve with 0 g bitumen. (c) Stress-strain curve with 4.5 g bitumen. (d) Stress-strain
curve with 9 g bitumen. (e) Stress–strain curve with 13.5 g bitumen.
curve with 9 g bitumen. (e) Stress-strain curve with 13.5 g bitumen.

Compression
Compression strength
strengthwaswasfound to be
found to greater in samples
be greater in sampleswithwith
60 percent plastic,
60 percent so
plastic,
the mean stress of these samples was calculated. The bricks were initially tested
so the mean stress of these samples was calculated. The bricks were initially tested for for com-
pression, and five
compression, andobservations were recorded.
five observations The stress
were recorded. Thevalues were added
stress values were and
added divided
and di-
byvided
the number of observations
by the number to determine
of observations the mean
to determine thestress.
mean The standard
stress. deviation
The standard was
deviation
also
wascalculated to understand
also calculated the range
to understand and distribution
the range of compression
and distribution stress stress
of compression values.values.
Ta-
ble 5 shows
Table the the
5 shows meanmeanvalue of compression
value of compressionstress. Figure
stress. 7 shows
Figure 7 shows thethe
standard
standard deviation
deviation
values.
values.

Table 5. Mean value of compression stress.

Plastic% Units 0 g Bitumen 4.5 g Bitumen 9 g Bitumen 13.5 g Bitumen

60 MPa 19.644 24.772 30.48 28.284
 Table 5.Table
Mean 5. Mean
value value of compression
of compression stress. stress.

Plastic%
Plastic% Units Units 0 g Bitumen 4.5 g Bitumen
0 g Bitumen 9 g Bitumen 9 g Bitumen
4.5 g Bitumen 13.5 g Bitumen13.5
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 111 12 of 17
60 60 MPa MPa 19.644 19.644 24.772 24.772 30.48 30.48 28.284

5.00 4.45
4.50 5.00 4.45
Standard deviation 4.00 4.50
3.50 4.00

Standard deviation
3.00 3.50
2.41 2.57
2.50 3.00 2.57 2.11
2.00
2.41
2.50 2.11
1.50
2.00
1.00
1.50
0.50
0.00 1.00
0.500 4.5 9 13.5
0.00 Bitumen [g]
0 4.5 9 13.5
Figure 7. Standard deviation value of compression stress.
Bitumen [g]
3.2. Water Absorption
Figure
Figure 7. StandardTest
7. Standard deviation
deviation value of compression
value of compression stress. stress.
The
3.2.test
Waterwas carried Test
Absorption out by the weighing of all 20 bricks in their dry state. The weights
were measured,
3.2.The
Water and the bricks
Absorption
test was were
carried outTest
by the submerged
weighing of allin20water
bricksfor 24 h,dry
in their asstate.
shown Thein Figure 8a.
weights
The weights of all 20 bricks
were measured, were were
noted after 24 h, as shownfor 24in Figure 8b.
in The water ab-
The testand wasthecarried
bricks
out submerged in water
by the weighing of allh,20asbricks
shown
inFigure
their 8a.
dry state
sorptionThewas calculated
weights of all 20using
bricks Formula
were noted (2). It was
after 24 h, evident
as shownfrom in Figurethe graph
8b. Thethat waterplastic
were measured,
bricks absorption
had a lower was and using
calculated
water-absorption
the bricks
Formula were
(2). Itsubmerged
rate. Bricks was evident
with
in water
from
more plastics the(i.e.,for
graph 24 plastic
that
a ratio
h, as shown
of 3:1 plas-
The weights
bricks
tic to sand) had
tenda lower ofwater-absorption
to absorball less
20 bricks were
waterrate.
than noted
Bricks
brickswith after
more
with 24 h,
plastics
fewer as shown
(i.e.,
plastics (i.e.,ofain
a ratio Figure
3:1ratio
plastic 8b. T
of 1:3).
to sand)
sorption tend to absorb less water than bricks with fewer plastics (i.e., a ratio of 1:3). When
When the plastic was contentcalculated
was higher using
in theFormula (2). It
bricks; there waswas lessevident
chance of fromwaterthe graph
mole-
the plastic content was higher in the bricks; there was less chance of water molecules filling
bricks
cules filling
the the
voids had a plastic–sand
invoids
the lower
in thewater-absorption
plastic–sand
mixture. All mixture.rate.
plastic AllBricks
bricks plastic
had an with
bricks
overall more
had
waterplastics
anabsorption
overall(i.e., a rat
water
tic of
absorption
rate torate
sand)
less than tend
of less
1%. thanto 1%.
Figure absorb less
Figure
9 shows water
the 9water
shows than bricks
the water
absorption with
absorption
rate on different fewerrateplastics
composition of (i.e., a
on different
composition
plastic ofthe
Whenbricks. plastic bricks.
plastic content was higher in the bricks; there was less chance of
cules filling the voids in the plastic–sand mixture. All plastic bricks had an
absorption rate of less than 1%. Figure 9 shows the water absorption rate
composition of plastic bricks.

(a) (b)
Figure Figure
8. Performing the water
8. Performing absorption
the water test.
absorption test.(a)
(a)Bricks immersedinin
Bricks immersed water.
water. (b) (b) Weight
Weight checkcheck
after after
24 h. 24 h.

(a) (b)
Figure 8. Performing the water absorption test. (a) Bricks immersed in water. (b) Wei
24 h.
J.J.Compos.
Compos.Sci. 2023,7,7,111
Sci.2023, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17
13 17

WATER ABSORPTION TEST

1.00
0.90
0.80

Water absorption rate

0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
3:1 3:2 1:1 2:3 1:3
Plastic
1% BITUMEN 2% BITUMEN 3% BITUMEN

Figure9.9.Water
Figure Waterabsorption
absorptionrate
rateon
ondifferent
differentcomposition
compositionofofplastic
plasticbricks.
bricks.

3.3.
3.3. Efflorescence
EfflorescenceTest
Test
The
The efflorescencetest
efflorescence testshowed
showedimpressive
impressiveresults
resultson
onplastic
plasticbricks
brickswith
withzero
zeropresence
presence
of
of alkalis on almost all of the bricks. Bricks with a lower percentage of plasticshad
alkalis on almost all of the bricks. Bricks with a lower percentage of plastics hadfewer
fewer
alkalis,
alkalis,whereas
whereasbricks
brickswith a higher
with percentage
a higher had had
percentage no significant alkalis.
no significant For bricks
alkalis. For made
bricks
of 1:3 plastic
made and sand,
of 1:3 plastic and all of the
sand, bricks
all of exhibited
the bricks a small
exhibited number
a small of alkalis.
number However,
of alkalis. How-
bricks made made
ever, bricks of 3:1 and 3:2and
of 3:1 plastic showed
3:2 plastic excellent
showed results,results,
excellent with nowith
alkalis or other
no alkalis orwhite
other
particles. Table 6 shows the severity of the alkali presence on the bricks.
white particles. Table 6 shows the severity of the alkali presence on the bricks.

Table6.6.Efflorescence
Table Efflorescencetest
teston
ondifferent
differentcomposition
compositionofofplastic
plasticbricks.
bricks.

Bitumen Bitumen
Plastic: Sand Plastic: Sand
0g 0 g4.5 g 4.5 g 9g 9g 13.5 g g
13.5
3:1 Nil3:1 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil NilNil
3:2 Nil3:2 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil NilNil
1:1 Nil1:1 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil NilNil
2:3 Slight Slight Nil Nil
2:3 Slight Slight Nil Nil
1:3 Slight Slight Slight Slight
1:3 Slight Slight Slight Slight
3.4. Test to Determine the Relative Rise in Temperature
3.4. Test to Determine the Relative Rise in Temperature
This test was used to determine the relative rise in temperature by placing the bricks on
This test was used to determine the relative rise in temperature by placing the bricks
a heat source. The temperature differential between the two faces of the bricks with different
on a heat source. The temperature differential between the two faces of the bricks with
plastic compositions was depicted in the table. The temperature difference increased as
different plastic compositions was depicted in the table. The temperature difference in-
the amount of plastic increased, indicating that heat conduction decreased. This was a
creased as the amount of plastic increased, indicating that heat conduction decreased. This
result of plastics having a lower heat conductivity than sand. The study involved testing
was a result of plastics having a lower heat conductivity than sand. The study involved
samples that did not contain bitumen to measure the temperature that rose on one side of
testing samples that did not contain bitumen to measure the temperature that rose on one
the brick when the other side was exposed to heat. This test aimed to evaluate the thermal
side of the brick
conductivity when
of the brickthe other side
material. Thewas exposed
bitumen to heat.sand
in plastic Thisbricks
test aimed to evaluate
can make the
them soft
thermal conductivity of the brick material. The bitumen in plastic sand
and malleable at elevated temperatures. However, this was not a factor in this test, since bricks can make
them
the soft and
samples malleable
being at elevated
tested did not containtemperatures. However, this
bitumen. Additionally, thewas not aused
bitumen factorinin this
these
test, since the samples being tested did not contain bitumen. Additionally,
plastic sand bricks was typically relatively small (i.e., 1%, 2%, 3%) and did not significantly the bitumen
used in these
contribute plastic sandrise.
to temperature bricks
The was
testtypically relatively
was conducted oversmall (i.e., 1%,short
a relatively 2%, 3%) and(i.e.,
period did
not significantly contribute to temperature rise. The test was conducted
3 min). As a result, the temperature difference observed between the various samples over a relatively
short
was period (i.e., 3small.
comparatively min). If
Asthe
a result,
testing the
timetemperature
is prolonged, difference
the brickobserved between
will eventually the
melt,
various samples was comparatively small. If the testing time is prolonged,
leading to an uneven surface area at the source. This can result in inaccurate temperature the brick will
eventually melt,
measurements onleading to side
the other an uneven surface area at the source. This can result in inaccu-
of the brick.
rate temperature measurements on the other side of the brick.
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 111 14 of 17

4. Discussion
The idea of using HDPE bricks instead of standard bricks was to turn waste plastic
into a usable product. Using a novel manufacturing process, the primary goal of the study
was to determine the ideal plastic-to-sand ratio. Brick samples can be prepared by varying
the proportion of plastic in the mixture. The proportions considered were 75%, 60%, 50%,
40%, and 25% by weight. In samples where 75% plastic was used, bitumen was added in
proportions of 1%, 2%, and 3% by weight. It was observed that the compression stress of
the bricks increased gradually as the amount of bitumen was increased until it reached
a maximum stress of 33.46 MPa. However, if the amount of bitumen added exceeded
2%, the bricks became softer. This can be observed in Figure 2a, where the stress value is
decreased to 31.8 MPa. Due to its good adhesive property, bitumen was used to increase
the strength of the bricks, even though the plastic in the mixture was sufficient to bind the
sand. However, excessive amounts of bitumen had a negative impact on the quality of the
bricks.
It was observed that the strength of bricks could be improved by varying the propor-
tion of plastic used in the mixture. Specifically, when the amount of plastic was reduced by
15%, the stress values increased from 21.2 MPa to 22.6 MPa. The stress values decreased
to 16.25 MPa when the amount of plastic was further reduced to 25%. Moreover, when 9
g of bitumen was added to a sample containing 60% plastic, the stress values reached a
maximum of 37.5 MPa.
The increase in stress values with a reduction in the amount of plastic or the addition
of bitumen was likely due to the changes in the physical properties of the brick. With a
reduction in the amount of plastic or adding bitumen, the interlocking of the sand particles
can be improved, leading to increased strength and stress values. However, adding too
much bitumen may have adverse effects, as it can make the bricks softer and weaker. The
mixture of 60% plastic and 9 g bitumen in sand produced the strongest results. The average
stress of all the samples was found to be 25 MPa, and it was noted that the majority of
stress readings deviated by an average of 2.54 MPa from the average stress. In order to find
the average compression stress, a set of five observations of compression stress values were
taken and mean stress was calculated. Additionally, the standard deviation was calculated
to find the spread or variation in the compression values. This helped in the assessment of
risk and of how much the stress values differed from the mean stress.
Bricks should absorb the least amount of water possible. As seen in Figure 9, the
water absorption test demonstrated that no bricks absorbed more water than 1% after
being soaked for 24 h. This is especially helpful in the construction sector, because when
bricks absorb more water, damage to the building arose. This test is also valuable in areas
where water leakage is a primary concern. The bricks with the highest water absorption
percentage were 0.9%. The decrease in plastic content in bricks increased their water
absorption rate, with most bricks having a water absorption rate of around 0.2%. However,
as plastic content decreased, the water absorption rate increased, potentially reaching a
rate of 0.9%. The permissible range was 1% to 2%, while zero was the best value for a brick.
The 0.9% water content was caused by the tiny gaps between the granules and the quick
cooling of the bricks in the hot press.
The efflorescence test (Table 6) demonstrated that there were no soluble salts or alkalis
present on the bricks with higher plastic–sand ratio (i.e., 3:1, 3:2, and 1:1), but the bricks
with less plastic (i.e., 2:3) showed a slight alkali presence. When bitumen percentage
increased, the alkalis were reduced, and for the ratio of 1:3, all bricks showed alkalis,
which demonstrated that with more plastics, the presence of alkalis decreased. The relative
temperature rise shown in Table 7 demonstrated that the temperature difference was
greatest for bricks that contained the most plastic and bitumen. As a result, the temperature
transfer from one side of the brick to the other took longer, which could be advantageous
in a fire accident. The results showed that the initial temperatures of the bricks were all
around 19.2 ◦ C. When the samples were placed on a heat source maintained at 400 ◦ C, the
temperatures at the left and right faces of the bricks after 3 min ranged from 325 ◦ C to
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 111 15 of 17

338 ◦ C and 42 ◦ C to 62 ◦ C, respectively. It was observed that the temperature difference

increased as the amount of plastic in the bricks increased, indicating that heat conduction
was decreasing.

Table 7. Temperature difference of different bricks.

Initial Temperature After 3 min, Temperature After 3 min, Temperature Temperature

Plastic %
[◦ C] at Left Face [◦ C] at Right Face [◦ C] Difference [◦ C]
75 19.2 325 42 283
60 19.2 328 48 280
50 19.2 327 51 276
40 19.2 330 56 274
25 19.2 338 62 276

As in Kulkarni’s [17] study, bitumen was added after the HDPE and quartz sand were
ground into granules. This caused the bitumen to be distributed equally, which strength-
ened bonds. It was discovered through several tests, including the efflorescence, water
absorption, and compression tests, that HDPE bricks performed better than conventional
bricks. The combination of high-density polyethylene, sand, and bitumen in this study in-
creased the strength of the brick. The bricks’ compression strength gradually improved for
the plastic sand ratio, rising from 22.08 MPa with 0% bitumen to a peak of 33.46 Mpa with
2% bitumen and falling just short of 32 MPa for 3% bitumen. These results suggested that
bitumen aided in fusing sand and plastic, increasing the strength of the brick. During the
initial point of the compression test, no stress was observed, indicating that the specimen
may have been able to undergo further compression and that a more compact specimen
could be made with less thickness.

5. Conclusions
This research work inferred that recycling plastic waste for building projects was the
way of the future, as it would help reduce plastic waste and the price of bricks in the
construction industry. HDPE, quartz sand, and bitumen were used in this research work to
make bricks, and it was found that this combination led to an improvement in the strength
of the bricks while reducing their weight. Additionally, the cost of these bricks was almost
50% less than conventional bricks. The cost of one conventional brick is around 0.20 to
0.50 euros. However, the cost of one plastic sand brick is around 0.092 euros, including
the raw materials cost (i.e., for 1 kg of plastics, it costs 0.33 euros; for 1 kg of quartz sand,
it costs 0.248 euros; and for 2% bitumen by weight (9 g), it costs 0.057 euros). HDPE and
bitumen made the bricks more water-resistant by reducing their permeability, and quartz
sand improved the binding between the plastics due to its strong binding properties.
This research indicates that adding bitumen to bricks can significantly enhance their
tensile strength, with a maximum value of 37.5 MPa observed. However, it is important
to note that an increase in the proportion of bitumen led to a decrease in the strength of
the bricks. Therefore, it is recommended to use bitumen in moderation (i.e., around 9 g to
13.5 g) to achieve optimal results. Additionally, the combination of HDPE and quartz sand
ensured that the bricks were void-free and free of alkalis, making them a suitable choice for
the construction industry.
Overall, bricks with a bitumen content of 2% (i.e., 9 g of bitumen) and a plastic–sand
ratio of 3:2 showed better properties than other bricks. Every brick had a compression
strength that was better than typical clay bricks. For use in building, homes, and pallets,
bricks with a higher percentage of plastics were preferable to those with a lower percentage
of plastic (i.e., 2:3 and 1:3) since the bricks with fewer plastics possessed a significantly
lower compression strength and a higher presence of alkalis. Plastic bricks are the best
option for construction, parking chairs, and pathway pallets since they are very light, have a
good load bearing capacity, have less water absorption, are inexpensive, and can gradually
reduce plastic waste.
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 111 16 of 17

Although this is a useful method for recycling used plastic, plastic has the potential
to emit greenhouse gases when used in excessively high temperatures. Conducting this
experiment in a vacuum is always advised so that the carbon atoms released during heating
cannot produce carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, which affects the environment.
Further, this formula can be developed into high-strength tiles and hallow interlocking
bricks that could replace the current materials without compromising strength. It was also
found that the surfaces of the bricks were smoother. Hence, this process can be used to
manufacture parts that need surface lubrication to reduce friction.

Author Contributions: N.K.K. contributed with the original manuscript draft writing, data synthesis,
and data gathering. J.S. aided with the report’s review and research progress. The methodology was
devised by Y.P.S. and N.K.K. Reviewing the report was aided by the supervision of Y.P.S. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The APC was sponsored by Hochschule Kaiserslautern, whereas no external funding was
provided for this research.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: I thank Hochschule Kaiserslautern Pirmasens campus for financially supporting
this research. I would also like to thank Hochschule Kaiserslautern, Kammgarn campus, for providing
me with the resources for testing my bricks.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Gottlieb, H.M. Filling the Gaps in the Global Governance of Marine Plastic Pollution. Nat. Resour. Environ. 2021, 35, 1–5.
2. Nayeema, M. Prospects of Biodegradable Polymer (Polyhydroxyalkanoate) Production with Wastewater. Ph.D. Thesis, Brac
University, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019.
3. Plastic Soup Foundation. Available online: https://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/en/plastic-facts-andfigures/#:~:text=The%
20amount%20of%20plastic%20that,production%20is%20a%20lot%20higher (accessed on 6 February 2023).
4. Andrady, A.L. Plastics and Environmental Sustainability; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015.
5. European Environment Agency. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/plastics-environmental-concern
(accessed on 6 February 2023).
6. Ellen Macarthur Foundation. Available online: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/the-new-plastics-economy-catalysing-
action (accessed on 6 February 2023).
7. Future Planet BBC. Available online: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210510-how-to-recycle-any-plastic (accessed on 6
February 2023).
8. Alliance to End Plastic Waste. Available online: https://endplasticwaste.org/en/our-stories/all-plastics-are-technically-
recyclable-so-whats-holding-us-back (accessed on 6 February 2023).
9. Sulyman, M.; Haponiuk, J.; Formela, K. Utilization of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in engineering materials: A
review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2016, 7, 100. [CrossRef]
10. Wahid, S.A.; Rawi, S.M.; Desa, N.M. Utilization of plastic bottle waste in sand bricks. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Res. 2015, 5, 35–44.
11. Agyeman, S.; Obeng-Ahenkora, N.K.; Assiamah, S.; Twumasi, G. Exploiting recycled plastic waste as an alternative binder for
paving blocks production. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2019, 11, e00246. [CrossRef]
12. Circular Action Hub. Available online: https://www.circularactionhub.org/plastics-could-help-build-a-sustainable-future-
heres-how/?lang=id (accessed on 5 January 2023).
13. Plastic Waste. Our World in Data. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/plastic-waste-polymer (accessed on 6
February 2023).
14. Silviyati, I.; Zubaidah, N.; Amin, J.M.; Supraptiah, E.; Utami, R.D.; Ramadhan, I. The Effect of Addition of High-Density
Polyethylene (HDPE) as Binder on Hebel Light Brick (celcon). J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1500, 012083. [CrossRef]
15. Wani, T.; Pasha, S.A.Q.; Poddar, S.; Balaji, H.V. A Review on the use of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) in Concrete Mixture.
Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2022, 9, 861–864.
16. Sahani, K.; Joshi, B.R.; Khatri, K.; Magar, A.T.; Chapagain, S.; Karmacharya, N. Mechanical Properties of Plastic Sand Brick
Containing Plastic Waste. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2022, 2022, 8305670. [CrossRef]
17. Kulkarni, P.; Ravekar, V.; Rao, P.R.; Waigokar, S.; Hingankar, S. Recycling of waste HDPE and PP plastic in preparation of plastic
brick and its mechanical properties. Clean. Mater. 2022, 5, 100113. [CrossRef]
18. Maneeth, P.D.; Pramod, K.; Kumar, K.; Shetty, S. Utilization of waste plastic in manufacturing of plastic-soil bricks. Int. J. Eng. Res.
Technol. 2014, 3, 530–536.
J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 111 17 of 17

19. Benny, T.K.; Wilson, A.J.; Krishn, B.D.; Nair, A.M.; Rasheed, J.K.J. Asphalt Plasto A Brick from Waste Plastic. Int. J. Eng. Res.
Technol. (IJERT) 2019, 8, 222–227.
20. Favaro, S.L.; Pereira, A.G.B.; Fernandes, J.R.; Baron, O.; da Silva, C.T.P.; Moisés, M.P.; Radovanovic, E. Outstanding impact
resistance of post-consumer HDPE/Multilayer packaging composites. Mater. Sci. Appl. 2016, 8, 15–25. [CrossRef]
21. Beidoou. Available online: https://www.beidoou.com/materials/what-is-quartz-sand.html (accessed on 6 February 2023).
22. Soumya, G.; Karthiga, S. Study on mechanical properties of concrete using silica fume and quartz sand as replacements. Int. J.
Pure Appl. Math. 2018, 119, 151–157.
23. Civil Work Study. Available online: https://www.civilworkstudy.com/2020/05/bitumen-properties-and-its-detail-why.html
(accessed on 6 February 2023).
24. Sarkar, D.; Pal, M. A laboratory study involving use of brick aggregate along with plastic modified bitumen in preparation of
bituminous concrete for the roads of Tripura. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2016, 11, 570–576.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.