SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Revolutionary 'green' types of bricks and construction materials could be made from recycled PVC, waste plant fibers or sand with the help of a remarkable new kind of rubber polymer discovered by Australian scientists.
The rubber polymer, itself made from sulfur and canola oil, can be compressed and heated with fillers to create construction materials of the future, says a new paper unveiling a promising new technique just published in Chemistry—A European Journal.
"This method could produce materials that may one day replace non-recyclable construction materials, bricks and even concrete replacement," says organic chemistry researcher Flinders University Associate Professor Justin Chalker.
[...] "This new recycling method and new composites are an important step forward in making sustainable construction materials, and the rubber material can be repeatedly ground up and recycled," says lead author Flinders Ph.D. Nic Lundquist. "The rubber particles also can be first used to purify water and then repurposed into a rubber mat or tubing."
"This is also important because there are currently few methods to recycle PVC or carbon fiber," he says, with collaborators from Flinders, Deakin University and University of WA.
[...] The new manufacturing and recycling technique, called reactive compression molding, applies to rubber material that can be compressed and stretched, but one that doesn't melt. The unique chemical structure of the sulfur backbone in the novel rubber allows for multiple pieces of the rubber to bond together.
More information: Nicholas Lundquist et al. Reactive compression molding post‐inverse vulcanization: A method to assemble, recycle, and repurpose sulfur polymers and composites, Chemistry – A European Journal (2020). DOI: 10.1002/chem.202001841
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @09:57AM
How about solving the main problems with application of plastics?
It was invented because it was durable and could withstand prolonged use.
So it should not be applied when the prolonged use is out of question. Like in one-time packaging material, devices which last until manufacturer shuts them down or disposable utensils.
There was no problem when government phased out the asbestos which, when not tampered with, is safer than most of these modern replacements, releasing weapon-grade toxic gases in high temperatures (in 1990s there were lots of papers about this issue and it seems to be unaddressed).
There was no problem when they forced to shut down the production of cheap chlorine-fluoride compounds for fire extinguishers so the fire losses became much bigger as there is literally no replacement for these substances even today. Chlorine-fluoride compounds do not leave traces on the burning material like water, foam or carbon-dioxid does.
So what's the problem with phasing out usage of plastics in temporary packaging which is more solid than product which is held in?
The funny thing about the last example: There is a replacement which you can use as a fire extinguishing substance, but until some critical temperature is reached - if it goes above, the fire extinguishing compound breaks into... propane gas. So in many cases you have no idea will the device you have will work as extinguisher or a flamethrower.