Caso 4 Comparison of Environmental Loads of Fibers Used

sustainability
Article
Comparison of Environmental Loads of Fibers Used
in the Manufacture of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) and Stone
Mastic Asphalt (SMA) Mixes Using a Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA)
Aner Martinez-Soto 1, * , Gonzalo Valdes-Vidal 1 , Alejandra Calabi-Floody 1 , Constanza Avendaño-Vera 2
and Camila Martínez-Toledo 1
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Science, Universidad de La Frontera,

Temuco 4780000, Chile
2 Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería de Edificación, Universitat Politècnica de València,
46022 Valencia, Spain
* Correspondence: aner.martinez@ufrontera.cl; Tel.: +56-45-2325683
Abstract: Several authors have demonstrated improvements in the mechanical performance of

asphalt mixes by including the use of fibers. However, it has also been reported that environmental
assessments must address fiber use in asphalt mixes from the point of view of sustainability. In
this study, a life cycle assessment is used to compare the use of four different fibers (fiberglass,
polyester fiber, aramid fiber, and cellulose fiber) commonly used in hot mix asphalt (HMA) and stone
Citation: Martinez-Soto, A.;
Valdes-Vidal, G.; Calabi-Floody, A.;
mastic asphalt (SMA) mixes. Additionally, the use of textile fibers from end-of-life tires (FiTyre) is
Avendaño-Vera, C.;Martínez-Toledo, included in the comparison. The results show that in the five selected impact categories (climate
C. Comparison of Environmental change, terrestrial acidification, human toxicity, particulate matter emissions, and the exhaustion of
Loads of Fibers Used in the nonrenewable fossil fuels), the use of FiTyre and cellulose fibers is more advantageous than existing
Manufacture of Hot Mix Asphalt traditional fibers (fiberglass, polyester fiber, and aramid fiber).
(HMA) and Stone Mastic Asphalt
(SMA) Mixes Using a Life Cycle Keywords: life cycle assessment; asphalt mixes; textile fibers from end-of-life tires (ELTs);
Assessment (LCA). Sustainability fiber-reinforced asphalt; environmental impacts; sustainability impact categories
2022, 14, 14246. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su142114246
Academic Editors: Prasad K. D.

V. Yarlagadda, Posinasetti Nageswara 1. Introduction
Rao and Immanuel Edinbarough Five aspects are considered fundamental for the development of sustainable asphalt
Received: 23 July 2022
mixes: (i) increased durability, (ii) increased moisture damage resistance, (iii) increased
Accepted: 29 September 2022
cracking resistance at low temperatures, (iv) reduction in the use of asphalt binders and vir-
Published: 1 November 2022 gin materials, and (v) reduced energy demand and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [1–4].
Techniques that have been developed have focused on: (i) reducing the mix temperature
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
and (ii) accentuating the asphalt’s binder foaming process to improve the aggregate coating
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
using additives. To reduce the use of virgin materials, the use of recycled asphalt pavement
published maps and institutional affil-
(RAP) is the main suggestion. On the other hand, to improve the mechanical resistance
iations.
of hot asphalt mixes (HMAs) and extend their durability, the addition of various types of
fibers (e.g., polyester, aramid) [5,6] or the use of stone mastic asphalt (SMA) mixes that
have special characteristics in their mineral structure (where additives are added to allow
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. them to retain the asphalt binder in their interior) have been tested.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. In their quantification of environmental loads of hot mix asphalts (HMAs), Mazumder
This article is an open access article et al. (2016) demonstrated that the manufacturing stage of the mix is what is mainly
distributed under the terms and responsible for human toxicity (97% in water and 72% in air), exceeding the other stages
conditions of the Creative Commons (extraction of raw materials, transport, and use) by more than threefold [7]. This indicates
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// that in terms of reducing environmental loads that affect human toxicity, it is essential to
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ reduce the impacts in the manufacturing stage of asphalt mixes.
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14246. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114246 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 14246 2 of 13
With respect to the manufacturing stage of asphalt mixes, Saedi and Seref (2020)
determined that the addition of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) or Viatop Premium in
SMA mixes reduces sensitivity to high temperatures and the tendency to crack while also
increasing the load distribution capacity and fatigue life [8]. Similar results have been
reported in the work by Eskandarsefat et al. (2019), who added rubber with asphalt cements
modified with polymers or modified composite fibers to SMA mixes (with and without
RAP) [9]. However, an improvement in the mechanical behavior of asphalt mixes does
not result in reduced environmental loads. Wang et al. (2018) added polymers to asphalt
mixes and reported that they improved the mechanical performance of the pavements at
high temperatures but that they were also associated with high energy consumption and
GHG emissions [10]. From this, it is concluded that in addition to the usual mechanical
performance assessments, it is necessary to quantify the environmental loads when adding
fibers to the asphalt mixes. This is especially relevant if the mix production is being
addressed from the sustainability perspective.
Xin et al. (2019), using a bending test at low temperatures and an analysis of the strain
energy density due to bending, demonstrated that the use of a modifier of shredded rubber
and polymer fibers improves cracking resistance (2018) [11]. Sofi (2018) has shown that the
use of shredded rubber, extracted from scrap tires, improves flexural strength in other types
of mixes for infrastructure and also contributes to solving the global ecological problem of
how to eliminate end-of-life tires (ELTs) [12].
Tires are composed of rubber, metallic fibers, and textile fibers. In most studies
in which scrap tires are reused, the reuse is reported to be mainly of the rubber and
metallic fibers. Reuse of the textile fibers has scarcely been reported. Additionally, most
of the studies in which fibers or rubber are used are mainly focused on the mechanical
improvements offered by the use of fibers in asphalt mixtures [13–15]. However, it is
necessary to determine if the advantages in terms of mechanical resistance outweigh the
disadvantages in environmental terms of having to produce a new additive [16]. In this
sense, this study proposes to approach this niche, not covered to date, by comparing the
environmental loads that derive from the use of different types of fibers in asphalt mixtures.
Additionally, the environmental loads of the use of textile fibers of ELT are proposed and
reported since this sub-residue has not been tested until now.
The environmental loads generated due to the incorporation of textile fibers from
ELT (FiTyre) in HMA and SMA mixes are quantified using a life cycle assessment (LCA).
Additionally, the results of the environmental loads obtained for the FiTyre are reported and
compared with the use of other commercial fibers already reported in other studies. In the
case of conventional HMA mixes, their comparison is made with fiberglass, polyester fiber,
and aramid fiber. For SMA, the comparison is made with pelletized cellulose fiber premixed
with asphalt. The results are compared using various environmental indicators (e.g., climate
change, use of nonrenewable resources, water consumption, terrestrial acidification) for
an objective comparison of the environmental loads of the different fibers. The LCA was
done using Simapro software as it has a database in which the environmental loads of most
fibers are reported for comparison; it can also model new processes/products, such as the
use of FiTyre.
2. Materials and Methods

Using the LCA, it is possible to analyze and compare different environmental impacts
during the life cycle of the products or services that are being compared and analyzed.
The methodology used in this study to quantify the effects of the use of different fibers
in asphalt mixes on the environment is based on an LCA established in ISO 14040-14044.
According to ISO 14040-14044, an LCA must contain four main stages, which appear next
and are described in detail in the following sub-sections.
Stage 1: Definition of scope and objective: In this stage, the limits of the system to be
analyzed are identified, and the objective of the analysis is made clear. In this stage, the
functional unit to be used is also determined.
Stage 2: Inventory analysis: Here, the processes and unit resources involved in the
development of a product or service are identified. Then, incoming and outgoing flows are
constructed for each process identified.
Stage 3: Impact assessment of the life cycle: In this stage, an assessment methodol-
ogy is selected (e.g., Impact 2002+, EF Method, ReCiPe, or Eco Indicator), which enables
the conversion of the incoming–outgoing flows of each process in environmental impact
categories (e.g., climate change, terrestrial acidification, human toxicity, or exhaustion
of nonrenewable resources). According to the methodology used, these categories can
also be grouped into several characterization and weight factors (human health, renew-
able resources, and natural surroundings) that provide a more global understanding
of the impacts.
Stage 4: Interpretation of results: This last stage is proposed in ISO 14043 for the
review, analysis, and interpretation of the results obtained in Stage 3. Here, it is expected
that improvement strategies will be developed for the product or service.
2.1. Definition of Scope and Objective

The objective of this study focuses on the calculation of the environmental impacts
resulting from the use of fibers in hot mix asphalt (HMA) and stone mastic asphalt
(SMA) mixes.
For HMA, a comparison is made between the use of FiTyre fibers (HMA 1), fiberglass
(HMA 2), polyester fibers (HMA 3), and aramid fibers (HMA 4). For SMA, a comparison is
made between the use of pelletized cellulose fiber premixed with asphalt (PCF) and FiTyre
in four different proportions (SMA 1 to SMA 4). In the comparison of the fibers used in the
HMA mixture, all the fibers evaluated in the study improved the asphalt mix performance
properties [17–20]. In the comparison between the fibers used in the SMA mixture, the
focus was to replace the commercial cellulose pellet PCF with the FiTyre additive, the
function of which is to retain the binder in the mix matrix without affecting the mechanical
properties of the mixes [21].
As a functional unit for the comparison of impacts, the amount of fibers (measured in
mass) needed to produce 1 ton of asphalt mix is considered. The optimal amount of each
fiber type needed is detailed in the following sub-chapter.
In this study, it is established that the limits of the system in the incoming–outgoing
flows of each process will be delimited from the extraction of raw materials for fiber
production up to their use in the asphalt mixes. In this sense, the environmental impacts
will be quantified from the reception of the raw materials up to the production of fibers
suitable for the preparation of the asphalt mixes, including the transportation-related
environmental impacts.
2.2. Inventory Analysis

Both the incoming flows in the processes and the unit resources that are the outgoing
flows involved in the development of fiberglass, polyester fiber, and aramid fiber are
already identified in the SimaPro database [22]. Therefore, for this study, the inventory
analysis in the SimpPro database for fiberglass (Figure 1), polyester fiber, and aramid fiber
was used. The manufacture of cellulose-based pellets (PCFs) is also available in the SimaPro
database. However, it is not equivalent to the pellets used in the asphalt mixes. Therefore,
to emulate the manufacture of a unit of PCF mass, 66% cellulose fiber (extracted from pines)
and 34% bitumen were used as input raw materials, together with the existing process for
pellet manufacture [23].
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

Figure 1. Diagram of processes and raw materials involved in the manufacture of fiberglass. Ex-
tracted from SimaPro.
On the
Figure
Figure other
Diagram
1.1.Diagram hand, as there and
ofofprocesses
processes is no
rawinventory
raw materials analysis
materialsinvolved
involvedin for theFiTyre,
in a flowofchart
manufacture
the manufacture was Extracted
fiberglass. de- Ex-
of fiberglass.
tracted
veloped, from
where
from SimaPro. SimaPro.
all the raw materials and processes involved in the preparation of FiTyre
for use in asphalt mixes are identified (Figure 2). The manufacturing process of FiTyre
On
begins with Onthe the
the other
other
mixing hand,
hand, as there
as there
of disaggregated is nois inventory
no inventory
textile analysis
analysis
fibers from for FiTyre,
for FiTyre,
ELT with a flow
the a flow
chart
diluted chart
was de-
asphalt was
developed,
veloped,
emulsion at where where
a weight all
all ratio the
the raw raw materials
materials
of 1:2. Then, the and
andtextileprocesses
processes
fibers involved
involved
from the in the preparation
in ELT–asphalt
the preparation of FiTyre
of FiTyre
emulsion
mixforforuse
are useininasphalt
dried toasphalt
eliminate mixes
mixes are
are
the identified
identified
water (Figure2).2).The
to be (Figure
pelletized. The manufacturing
manufacturing
Finally, the pellets are process
process of
mixedofwith FiTyre
FiTyre
rubberbegins
beginspowder with
with atthe
the mixing
amixing
weight ofof disaggregated
disaggregated
ratio textile
of 20:1. The textile
final fibers
fibers
weight fromfrom ELT
composition ELTwithwiththe
of thethe diluted
diluted
FiTyre asphalt
asphalt
addi-
emulsion
emulsion at at
a a weight
weight ratio
ratio of of 1:2.
1:2. Then,
Then, thethe textile
textile fibers
fibers
tive is textile fibers composed of ELT 58%, asphalt binder 37%, and rubber powder 5% from
from thethe ELT–asphalt
ELT–asphalt emulsion
emulsion
mix
[20]. mix aredried
are driedtotoeliminate
eliminatethe thewater
watertotobebepelletized.
pelletized.Finally,
Finally, thethepellets
pellets aremixed
are mixedwithwith
rubber
rubber powder
powder
The inputs at a weight
andatoutputs
a weight ratio
ratio
were of 20:1. The
of 20:1.inThe
entered final weight
final weight
SimaPro to quantify composition
composition of the FiTyre
of the FiTyre
the environmental additive
addi-
loads
is textile
tive
associated with fibers
is textile composed
afibers
unit composed
of of ELT
mass (1000 58%,58%,
of g).
ELT asphalt binder
asphalt 37%, 37%,
binder and rubber powder
and rubber 5% [20].
powder 5%
[20].
The inputs and outputs were entered in SimaPro to quantify the environmental loads
associated with a unit of mass (1000 g).
Figure
Figure 2. Process
2. Process of manufacture
of manufacture of theof the pellet
fiber fiber pellet from end-of-life
from end-of-life tires (FiTyre)
tires (FiTyre) to be to be added
added to theto the
asphalt
asphalt mixes.mixes.
BasedBased on [21].
on [21].
Figure The
2. inputs
The environmental
Process of and outputs
loads
manufacture were
of of
each entered
the fiber
fiber wereinfrom
pellet SimaPro
quantified tofrom
quantify
end-of-life the environmental
the(FiTyre)
tires functional
to be unit, toloads
addedi.e., the
from associated
asphalt mixes.with
the number ofa fibers
Based unit
on ofinmass
[21]. (1000needed
weight g). to manufacture 1 ton of mix. Different
amounts of The environmental
fibers loads of each
were used according fiber
to the type were quantified
of mix (Table 1). from
For the functional
example, unit, i.e.,
in HMA
from the number of fibers in weight needed to manufacture 1 ton
1, 1007 g of FiTyre was used for every ton of asphalt mix, whereas for HMA, 553 g ofi.e.,
The environmental loads of each fiber were quantified from of
themix. Different
functional amounts
unit,
aramidof fibers
from fiber wereused
the number
was used according
ofper
fibers
ton of to
in mix.theThe
weight type of mix
needed
amount (Table
toof 1).toFor
manufacture
fibers addexample,
1toton ofintype
each HMA
mix. 1, 1007 g
Different
of mix
of FiTyre was used for every ton of asphalt mix, whereas for HMA,
amounts of fibers were used according to the type of mix (Table 1). For example, in HMA 553 g of aramid fiber
was used per ton of mix. The amount of fibers to add to each
1, 1007 g of FiTyre was used for every ton of asphalt mix, whereas for HMA, 553 g of type of mix comes from
previous
aramid studies,
fiber where
was used perit ton
has of
been
mix. demonstrated
The amountthat addingtothese
of fibers add amounts
to each typeprovides
of mix the
best mechanical performance in the mixes.
Table 1. Amount of optimal fiber to add to HMA and SMA asphalt mixes.
FiTyre Fiberglass Polyester Aramid PCF

Type of Mix
(g/ton) (g/ton) Fiber (g/ton) Fiber (g/ton) (g/ton)
HMA 1 1007 0 0 0 0
HMA 2 0 1007 0 0 0
HMA 3 0 0 2014 0
HMA 4 0 0 0 553 0
SMA 1 5000 0 0 0 0
SMA 2 3750 0 0 0 1250
SMA 3 2500 0 0 0 2500
SMA 4 0 0 0 0 5000
In a study to determine cracking resistance in HMA containing fiberglass, Ziari et al.

(2020) demonstrated that by adding fiberglass at 2.3% above the binder weight (equiva-
lent to 0.12% above the mix weight), significant improvements in cracking resistance are
obtained [17]. On the other hand, Mohammed et al. (2020) showed that adding up to 2%
more fiberglass achieved the maximum increase in stiffness of the asphalt mixes [5]. For
this reason, in this study, the addition of 2% more fiberglass in relation to the binder weight
was considered to have a similar performance to the other fibers.
With respect to polyester fibers, Hong et al. (2020) demonstrated that adding 1% of
polyester fibers (measured in relation to the binder weight) makes it possible to improve
cracking resistance at low temperatures of the asphalt mix (measured from 0 to −20 ◦ C) [18].
By contrast, Wu et al. (2008) reported that adding 6% (in relation to the binder weight)
substantially improves the fatigue strength compared to a control asphalt mixture [24].
Quian et al. (2014) tested a greater range of polyester fiber addition in asphalt mixes
(between 0% and 8.3% fiber) and determined that by adding 4% of polyester fiber, it is
possible to obtain an increase of up to 6% in resistance to tensile stress failure and around
+3 MPa in tensile strength [25]. Due to the greater scope of measurements and also the
intermediate value reported in the study by Quian et al., a 4% addition of polyester fiber is
considered optimal.
The use of aramid to improve mainly cracking resistance and abrasion has also been
reported in previous studies. For example, Gupta et al. (2021) demonstrated that the
addition of 1.1% aramid fiber with polyurethane coating in a length of 12 mm improves
the performance of pavements in terms of fracture energy [19]. Klinsky et al. (2018), on
the other hand, determined that the tensile strength values were approximately 20% more
when fibers were added to HMA at a rate of 0.5 kg per ton of mix (equivalent to 1.06% in
relation to the mass of the binder) [26]. Gupta et al. (2021) demonstrated that by adding
1.1% aramid fibers (measured in relation to the weight of the binder), it is possible to
obtain improvements in the abrasion resistance of asphalt mixes [27]. From these studies,
it is therefore shown that by adding 1.1% aramid fibers to the asphalt mixes, the benefits
of mechanical resistance are achieved in asphalt mixtures. Therefore, in this study, we
consider the same percentage of fiber (1.1% measured in relation to the mass of the binder).
Finally, in the case of pelletized cellulose fibers premixed with asphalt (PCF), the
dosage recommended in an SMA design developed by a partner company of the Fondef
project was used as a reference; it fulfills the established Chilean specifications in the
Highways Manual. In other words, 0.5% PCF was considered in relation to the weight of
the aggregate.
2.3. Stage 3, Impact Assessment of the Life Cycle

To evaluate the environmental impacts in SimaPro, the EcoInvent v3 database was
used exclusively for materials, transportation, and processes since the database contains all
the fibers compared in this study. Additionally, using the same database, it was possible
to model the PCF and FiTyre in SimaPro (Figure 3). It is also possible in SimaPro to select
an assessment methodology (e.g., Impact 2002+, EF Method, ReCiPe, or Eco Indicator),
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14246 all the fibers compared in this study. Additionally, using the same database, it was possi- 6 of 13
ble to model the PCF and FiTyre in SimaPro (Figure 3). It is also possible in SimaPro to
select an assessment methodology (e.g., Impact 2002+, EF Method, ReCiPe, or Eco Indica-
tor), which
which translates
translates the incoming–outgoing
the incoming–outgoing flows
flows of eachofprocess
each process into environmental
into environmental impact
impact categories
categories (e.g., climate
(e.g., climate change,change, terrestrial
terrestrial acidification,
acidification, humanhuman toxicity,
toxicity, or exhaus-
or exhaustion of
tion of nonrenewable
nonrenewable resources).
resources).
Figure 3. Modeling workflow for the evaluation of environmental impacts using

using SimaPro.
SimaPro.
In this study, the ReCiPe impact assessment method

method was used because it has a greater
greater
endpoint categories:
number of midpoint categories, and these can be grouped into three endpoint categories:
health, damage
damage to human health, damage to
to ecosystem
ecosystem diversity,
diversity, and
and damage
damage to
to resource
resource avail-
avail-
ability, thus
ability, thus obtaining
obtaining aa more
more global
global assessment
assessment of
of the
the environmental
environmentalimpacts.
impacts.
3. Results
3. Results
The ReCiPe
The ReCiPe methodology
methodology alsoalso enables
enables assessments considering up
assessments considering up to
to 18
18 midpoint
midpoint
impact categories.
impact categories.The
Theresults obtained
results show
obtained thatthat
show therethere
are impact categories
are impact where greater
categories where
environmental impacts are not recorded among the different fiber types. Therefore, only
greater environmental impacts are not recorded among the different fiber types. There-
the results of the impact categories that have significant environmental impacts (climate
fore, only the results of the impact categories that have significant environmental impacts
change and terrestrial acidification) and that affect human health (human toxicity and par-
(climate change and terrestrial acidification) and that affect human health (human toxicity
ticulate matter emissions) and the exhaustion of nonrenewable fossil resources are shown
and particulate matter emissions) and the exhaustion of nonrenewable fossil resources are
and analyzed.
shown and analyzed.
3.1. Results for the Use of Fibers in Hot Mix Asphalts (HMAs)
3.1. Results for the Use of Fibers in Hot Mix Asphalts (HMAs)
In the climate change category (also known as global warming), the impact of anthro-
In the
pogenic climate change
emissions categorythe
that exacerbate (also known as global
greenhouse warming),
effect is quantified,thei.e.,
impact of anthro-
the increase in
pogenic emissions that exacerbate the greenhouse effect is quantified,
the capture and retention of thermal radiation by the atmosphere, which causes an increase i.e., the increase in
the capture and retention of thermal radiation by the atmosphere, which
in the average temperature of the Earth. The main gases in the atmosphere associated with causes an in-
crease in the average
this phenomenon aretemperature
carbon dioxide of the
(COEarth. The main gases in the atmosphere associ-
2 ), methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2 O),
ated with this phenomenon
and chlorofluorocarbons are carbon
(CFCs). Thedioxide
emission (COof2),these
methane,
gaseswater vapor, nitrous
is principally due to oxide
the
(N O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The emission of these gases is principally
combustion of fossil fuels, and it is quantified in relation to carbon dioxide using the unit
2 due to
the combustion of fossil fuels, and it is quantified in relation to carbon
CO2 -eq. In this impact category, the use of aramid and polyester fibers is associated with dioxide using the
unit CO2-eq.CO
the highest In2this impact category,
-eq emission (Figure 4).theThis
use isofdue
aramid and
to the polyester
fact fibers is associated
that the production of both
with
fibersthe highest
requires CO2-eq emission
elaborate (Figure 4). processes
energy-consuming This is dueandto the
rawfact that the
material fromproduction
petroleum. of
both fibers requires
For FiTyre, the lowest elaborate
CO2 -eqenergy-consuming processes(1.61
emissions were identified andkg),
rawwhich
material arefrom petro-
associated
leum.
mainlyFor FiTyre,
with theof
the use lowest
bitumenCO2for
-eq the
emissions were identified
manufacture (1.61 kg),
of the emulsion withwhich
whicharethe
associ-
ELT
ated
fibersmainly with the use of bitumen for the manufacture of the emulsion with which the
are pelletized.
ELT fibers are pelletized.
The terrestrial acidification category is associated with soil acidity due to the deposi-
tion of sulfates, nitrates, or phosphates. The high acidification in soils prevents plant
growth, harming agriculture and food production. In Figure 5, it is noted that the smallest
environmental load is generated by FiTyre, which is up to 3.4 times smaller than the ter-
Sustainability 2022, 14,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14246 restrial
x FOR PEER REVIEW acidification caused by polyester use. 77 of
of 13
14
7
environmental load is generated 6.1
by FiTyre, which is up to 3.4 times smaller than the ter-
restrial
6 acidification caused by polyester use.
Emissions CO2 -Eq (kg/ueq)

5
4.4
4
7
6.1
3
6
Emissions CO2 -Eq (kg/ueq) 2.6
2
5
4.4 1.2
1
4
0
3
2.6
Fiberglass Polyester Aramid fiber Fityre
2
Figure
Figure 4. Climate change
4. Climate change impact
impact category
category1.2for
for HMA
HMA using
using the
the ReCiPe
ReCiPe midpoint
midpoint (H)
(H) method
method
(V1.11/Europe
1 ReCiPe H).
(V1.11/Europe ReCiPe H).
0
The terrestrial
Fiberglass acidification
Polyester category
Aramid fiber Fityreis associated with soil acidity due to the depo-
sition of sulfates, nitrates, or phosphates. The high acidification in soils prevents plant
Figure 4.harming
growth, Climate agriculture
change impact andcategory for HMA using
food production. the ReCiPe
In Figure midpoint
5, it is noted that(H)
themethod
small-
acidification SO2 eq (kg/ueq)
0.034
(V1.11/Europe
est ReCiPe
environmental H).
load is generated by FiTyre, which is up to 3.4 times smaller than the
0.030
terrestrial acidification caused by polyester use.
0.020 0.018 0.019

SO2 eq (kg/ueq)
0.034
0.030
Terrestrial acidificationTerrestrial
0.010
0.010
0.020 0.018 0.019
0.010
0.010
Figure 5. Terrestrial acidification impact category for HMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H) method
In human ecotoxicity, the concentrations of substances that can have deleterious ef-
Figure
fects on Terrestrial
5. human acidification
beings impact category
are measured. Humanforecotoxicity
HMA usingisthe ReCiPe midpoint
measured (H) method
in 1,4 dichloroben-
Figure 5. Terrestrial
(V1.11/Europe acidification
ReCiPe H). impact category for HMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H) method
zene (DB). Exposure to 1,4 dichlorobenzene generates slight discomfort, such as a burning
sensation in the eyes or an itchy nose. However, prolonged exposure to this pollutant can
In human ecotoxicity, the concentrations of substances that can have deleterious effects
causeInsevere
human damage to the the
ecotoxicity, nervous system (weakness,
concentrations of substances tremors,
that and
can numbness
have of the ex-
deleterious ef-
on human beings are measured. Human ecotoxicity is measured in 1,4 dichlorobenzene
tremities).
fects on In
human this category,
beings are major
measured.emissions
Human of 1,4 dichlorobenzene
ecotoxicity is measured are
in due
1,4 to the use of
dichloroben-
(DB). Exposure to 1,4 dichlorobenzene generates slight discomfort, such as a burning
fiberglass
zene (DB).in and aramid fibers (Figure 6). Thegenerates
Exposure use of these fibers generates, on as average, 4.8
sensation the eyestoor1,4andichlorobenzene
itchy nose. However, prolonged slight discomfort,
exposuresuch to this apollutant
burning
times more
sensation in1,4
theDB eqor
eyes than the use
antoitchy of FiTyre.
nose. However, prolonged tremors,
exposureand to this pollutant
can cause severe damage the nervous system (weakness, numbness of can
the
Fine
extremities).particulate
cause severe damage matter <10
to the nervous
In this category, (PM10),
system due
major emissions to
ofits
1,4small
(weakness, size (10
tremors,
dichlorobenzene andµm), easily
numbness
are due to enters
ofthe the
theuse
ex-
respiratory
tremities).
of fiberglass system,
Inand causing
this aramid
category, cardiorespiratory
major
fibers emissions
(Figure diseases,
of 1,4
6). The and
usedichlorobenzeneprolonged exposure
are due to
of these fibers generates, can
onthe cause
use of
average,
cancer.
4.8 timesThis
fiberglass more
and category
1,4 DB is
aramid eq measured
than(Figure
fibers in6).
the use Kg of PM10
of The use ofper
FiTyre. equivalent
these unit. Theon
fibers generates, results shown
average, 4.8
in Figure
Fine 7 indicate
particulate that
matter the greatest
<10
times more 1,4 DB eq than the use of FiTyre. PM10
(PM10), due emissions
to its smallderive
size from
(10 the
µm), use
easily of polyester
enters the
fibersFine
andparticulate
respiratory fiberglass. It
system, causing is worth
matter <10noting in this
cardiorespiratory
(PM10), case
to itsthat
duediseases, the size
and
small PM10 (10emissions
prolonged µm), for FiTyre
exposure
easily are
can cause
enters the
2.5 times
cancer. less than
Thissystem,
respiratory category that due to
is measured
causing polyester use and
in Kg of PM10
cardiorespiratory 1.5 times less
per equivalent
diseases, than
and prolonged aramid fiber.
unit. exposure
The results canshown
cause
in Figure
cancer. 7 indicate
This categorythat the greatest
is measured PM10
in Kg emissions
of PM10 derive from
per equivalent the
unit. useresults
The of polyester
shown
fibers and 7fiberglass.
in Figure It is worth
indicate that notingPM10
the greatest in thisemissions
case that the PM10
derive emissions
from the useforofFiTyre are
polyester
2.5 times less than that due to polyester use and 1.5 times less than aramid fiber.
fibers and fiberglass. It is worth noting in this case that the PM10 emissions for FiTyre are
2.5 times less than that due to polyester use and 1.5 times less than aramid fiber.
2.5
2.29
2.5
2.29
2.0
2.5
2.0 2.29
1.60 1.64
DB eq (kg/ueq)
1.5
2.0 1.60 1.64
DB eq (kg/ueq)
1.5 1.64
1.60
DB eq (kg/ueq)
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5 0.38
0.5 0.38
0.5 0.38
0.0
0.0 Fiberglass Polyester Aramid fiber Fityre

0.0
Figure 6. Human toxicity impact category for HMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H) method
Figure
Figure 6. Human
6. Human toxicity
toxicity impactimpact category for HMA
using using the ReCiPe midpoint (H) method
(V1.11/Europe
Figure ReCiPe
6. Human H).impactcategory
toxicity category for
for HMA
HMA using theReCiPe
the ReCiPe midpoint
midpoint (H) (H) method
method
(V1.11/Europe
(V1.11/Europe ReCiPe
ReCiPe
(V1.11/Europe H).H).
ReCiPe H).
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.010
0.010 0.010
0.010 0.010
0.010
0.008
(kg/ueq)
0.008
MP10 (kg/ueq)
0.008 0.007
0.007
MP10 (kg/ueq)
0.006
0.006
0.007 0.058 0.058
MP10
0.006 0.058
0.004 0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.000

Figure
Figure7.7.
7.Particulate matter
Particulate emissions
matter emissionsimpact categorycategory
impact for HMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H) midpoint
Figure Particulate matter
method (V1.11/Europe ReCiPe H). emissions impact category for for
HMAHMA using
using the the ReCiPe
ReCiPe midpoint (H)
(H)
Figure 7. method (V1.11/Europe
Particulate
method ReCiPe
matter ReCiPe
(V1.11/Europe emissions H). category for HMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H)
H).impact
method (V1.11/Europe ReCiPe H).
The exhaustion of fossil resources category is especially relevant since nonrenewable
finiteThe exhaustion
resources ofbeing
are also fossilexhausted,
resourcescausing
category is especially
supply
The exhaustion of fossil resources category is especially relevant since nonrenewable
relevant
difficulties since nonrenewable
and environmental
finite
The resources
exhaustion are also resources
of being exhausted, causing supply difficulties and environmental
pollution.
finite resources arefossil
In this category,
also being category
the greatest
exhausted, is especially
impact causing
comes from relevant
aramid
supply fibersince nonrenewable
use, followed
difficulties and by
environmental
pollution.
finitepollution.
resources In this category, the greatest impact comes from aramid fiber use, followed by
polyester Inare
and also
this being
fiberglass.
category, exhausted,
Compared to thecausing
the greatest use supply
of FiTyre,
impact comes difficulties
these
fromfibers have
aramid and environmental
environmental
fiber use, followed by
polyester
loads in
Inthisand fiberglass.
category of moreCompared
than tenfoldto (Figure
thecomes
use offrom
FiTyre, these fibersuse,
have environmental
pollution.
polyester this
andcategory, theCompared
fiberglass. greatest impact
to the use8).of FiTyre,aramid
these fiber
fibers have followed by
environmental
loads in this
polyester category of more than tenfold (Figure 8).
loadsand fiberglass.
in this categoryCompared to the
of more than use of(Figure
tenfold FiTyre,8).
these fibers have environmental
loads in this category of more than tenfold (Figure 8).
2.5
2.13
2.5
2.0
(kg oil/ueq)
2.5
2.13
2.0
1.5 2.13
oil/ueq)
depletion
2.0
Fossil depletion (kg oil/ueq)
1.0
Fossil(kg
1.5
Fossil depletion
1.5
0.5
1.0 0.28
0.19
1.0
0.02
0.0
0.28
0.5 0.19
Nonrenewable
Figure8.8.Nonrenewable
Figure 0.19
0.28
fossilfossil resources
resources impactimpact category
category
0.02 for HMAfor HMA
using using midpoint
the ReCiPe the ReCiPe
(H) midpoint
0.0
method (V1.11/Europe
(H) method (V1.11/Europe
Fiberglass
ReCiPe
Polyester
H).
ReCiPe H).0.02 Fityre
Aramid fiber
0.0
3.2. Results
Figure for the Use of
8. Nonrenewable Fibers
fossil in Stone
resources Mastic
impact Asphalts
category for(SMAs)
HMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H)
Figure 8. Nonrenewable
methodIn (V1.11/Europefossil
the climate change resources
ReCiPe H).and terrestrial acidificationusing
impact category for HMA the ReCiPe
categories midpoint
(Figure (H)same
9), the
pattern is noted: the greater the use of FiTyre, the lower the pollutants emissions. For
example, in the climate change category, when only FiTyre (SMA 1) is used, there is 4.5 kg
CO2 -eq less than the variant in which only PCF is used (SMA 4). In the case of terrestrial
3.2. Results for the Use of Fibers in Stone Mastic Asphalts (SMAs)
3.2. Results for the Use
In the climate of Fibers
change andinterrestrial
Stone Mastic Asphalts (SMAs)
acidification categories (Figure 9), the same pat-
Innoted:
tern is the climate changethe
the greater and terrestrial
use of FiTyre,acidification
the lower the categories
pollutants (Figure 9), the For
emissions. same pat-
exam-
tern is noted: the greater the use of FiTyre, the lower the pollutants emissions.
ple, in the climate change category, when only FiTyre (SMA 1) is used, there is 4.5 kg CO2- For exam-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14246 ple, in the
eq less thanclimate change
the variant incategory,
which only when
PCFonly FiTyre
is used (SMA(SMA 4). 1)
Inisthe
used,
casethere is 4.5 kg9acid-
of terrestrial CO 2-
of 13
eq less than
ification the variant
(Figure 10), thein usewhich only reduces
of FiTyre PCF is used
SO2 (SMA
emissions4). Ininto
thethecase of terrestrial
atmosphere byacid-
35%
ification (Figure
compared to PCF 10),use.
theThe
use of FiTyreenvironmental
greatest reduces SO2 emissions into the atmosphere
load contribution in both PCF by 35%
and
compared
acidification to PCF
Fityre is due (Figure use.
to the use The
10),ofthe greatest
bitumen
use of for environmental
its production.
FiTyre load
reduces SO2Based contribution
on theinto
emissions in
Simapro both PCF and
network dia-
the atmosphere by
Fityre
35% is due
gram,compared to the use of bitumen
65% of thetosoil-acidifying
PCF use. Thecomponentsfor its production.
greatest environmental Based
come from the on
load the Simapro
usecontribution
of bitumen for network
in PCF, dia-
both with
PCF
gram,
and
73% for65%
Fityre ofdue
is
FiTyre.theThe
soil-acidifying
to the components
use of bitumen
remaining for its come
environmental fromin the
production.
loads, use of
a Based
smaller bitumen
onproportion, for are
the Simapro PCF, with
network
due to
73%use
the for of
diagram, FiTyre.
65% ofThe
cellulose remaining
thefibers environmental
soil-acidifying
for the PCFcomponents loads,
comeininvolved
and the process a smaller
from the in proportion,
use of bitumen
producing arefor
the due
PCF,to
pellets
the
with use
73%
for FiTyre.of cellulose
for FiTyre. fibers
The for the
remaining PCF and the
environmental process
loads,involved
in a in
smaller producing
proportion, the pellets
are due
forthe
to FiTyre.
use of cellulose fibers for the PCF and the process involved in producing the pellets
for FiTyre.
14
12.7
14
12 12.7
12 10.3
-Eq (kg/ueq)
10
9.2 10.3
CO2(kg/ueq)
10 8.1 9.2
8
8.1
8
CO2 -Eq
SMA1 SMA 2 SMA 3 SMA 4

6
Emissions

6
Emissions
4
2
2
0
5.00 kg FiTyre 3.75 kg FiTyre 2.50 kg FiTyre 0.00 kg FiTyre
0 0.00 kg FCP 2.50 kg FCP 2.50 kg FCP 5.00 kg FCP
0.00 kg FCP 2.50 kg FCP 2.50 kg FCP 5.00 kg FCP
Figure 9. Climate change impact category for SMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H) method
Figure 9. Climate
9. Climate
(V1.11/Europe change
H). impact
change
ReCiPe impact category
category for
for SMA
SMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H) method
method
H).
0.10
0.10
Eq (kg/ueq)
0.081
Eq2(kg/ueq)
0.08
0.081
0.08
0.066
SO2 SO
0.059 0.066
0.06
acidification
0.052 0.059
0.06
acidification
0.052
0.04
0.04
Terrestrial

Terrestrial
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00 5.00 kg FiTyre 3.75 kg FiTyre 2.50 kg FiTyre 0.00 kg FiTyre

Figure 10. Terrestrial acidification impact
Terrestrial acidification impact category
category for
for SMA
SMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H) method
Figure 10. Terrestrial
(V1.11/Europe
ReCiPe acidification
H).
H). impact category for SMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H) method
In the human toxicity category, it it is
is observed
observed that using FiTyre FiTyre can
can reduce
reduce 1,4DB-eq
1,4DB-eq
In theby
emissions human
up to toxicity
threefold category,
compared
compared it isto
toobserved
the that using
the exclusive
exclusive use
use ofofFiTyre
PCF can reduce
PCF (Figure
(Figure 11). 1,4DB-eq
11). The same
emissions
pattern by up
is seen into
thethreefold comparedwhere
PM10 emissions, to theitexclusive
is recordedusethat
of PCF (Figure 11).
the emissions dueThe tosame
PCF
pattern
use are is seen
are 31%
31% in thethan
greater
greater PM10
than theemissions,
the use where
useofofFiTyre
FiTyre it is 12).
(Figure
(Figure recorded that
12).AsAsinin
the the emissions
previous
the previous due to PCF
comparison,
comparison, it is
it
use are
deduced 31%
from greater
the than
Simapro the use
network of FiTyre
diagram (Figure
that the12). As
greatestin the
impact
is deduced from the Simapro network diagram that the greatest impact in the human tox- previous
in the comparison,
human toxicity it
is deduced
category forfrom
both the Simapro
fibers is due network
mainly todiagram
the use that
of the
bitumengreatest
for
icity category for both fibers is due mainly to the use of bitumen for pelletizing. impact in
pelletizing. the human tox-
icity category for both fibers is due mainly to the use of bitumen for pelletizing.
0.0030
0.0027
0.0030
0.0025
0.0030 0.0027
0.0027
0.0025
eq (kg/ueq)
0.0020
0.0025 0.0017
(kg/ueq)
0.0020
0.0017
DB (kg/ueq)
0.0015 0.0014
0.0020
eqDB
0.0017
0.0015 0.0014
0.0010 0.0007
DB eq
0.0015 0.0014
0.0010 0.0007
0.0005
0.0010 SMA1 SMA 2 SMA 3 SMA 4
0.0007
0.0005
0.0005 2.50 0.00SMA
kg FiTyre
5.00 kg FiTyre
SMA1 3.75 kg FiTyre
SMA 2 SMAkg FiTyre
3 4
0.0000 0.00 kg FCP 2.50 kg FCP 2.50 kg FCP 5.00 kg FCP
0.0000
Figure 11. Human
0.00 kg FCPtoxicity
5.00 kg FiTyre impact
2.50 kg FCP
3.75 kg FiTyre category
2.50 kg
2.50 kg FiTyre 0.00 kgfor
FCP 5.00 kg FCP SMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H) method
FiTyre
Figure 11. Human toxicity impact category for SMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H) method
Figure 11. Human
Human
(V1.11/Europe ReCiPe toxicity
H). impact
toxicity impact category
category for for SMASMA using
using the
the ReCiPe
ReCiPe midpoint (H) method
(V1.11/Europe ReCiPe H). H).
0.035
0.035 0.031
0.030
0.035
0.025 0.031
0.030
0.025
(kg/ueq)
0.022 0.031
0.030
0.025
0.025 0.017
0.020
(kg/ueq)
0.022 0.025
0.025
MP10
(kg/ueq)
0.017 0.022
0.020
0.015
0.017
MP10
0.020
0.015
MP10
0.010
0.015
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
Figure 12. Particulate
0.00 kg FCP
5.00 kg FiTyre
matter
2.50 kg FCPemissions
3.75 kg FiTyre
2.50 kg FCP impact category for SMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H)
5.00 kg FCP
2.50 kg FiTyre 0.00 kg FiTyre
method
Figure 12.(V1.11/Europe
12. Particulate ReCiPe H).
Figure Particulatematter matteremissions
emissionsimpact impact category forfor
category SMA using
SMA the the
using ReCiPe midpoint
ReCiPe (H)
midpoint
Figure
method 12. Particulate matter
(V1.11/Europe ReCiPe emissions
H). impact category for SMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H)
(H) method (V1.11/Europe ReCiPe H).
method In (V1.11/Europe
Figure 13, as ReCiPein the previous
H). figures of this sub-chapter, a slight linear difference
is noted
In between
In Figure
Figure 13,the
13, asin
as use
in the
the ofprevious
FiTyre and
previous PCF.ofThis
figures
figures ofthis issub-chapter,
this due, in principle,
sub-chapter, tolinear
a slight
a slight the linear
linear dosages
difference
difference is
used Infor
is noted
noted Figure
SMA
between
between 13,
1 to
the as
the in
SMA
useusethe4 previous
(Table
ofofFiTyre 1).
FiTyreand figures
In
andPCF. the of this
particular
PCF.This sub-chapter,
Thisisisdue, case of the a slight
impacts
due,ininprinciple,
principle,totothelinear difference
recorded
thelinear in the
linear dosages
dosages
is noted
used forbetween
exhaustion
used for SMA
SMAof fossil
1 to the
to use of
resources
SMA
SMA FiTyre
44 (Table
(Table and
category,
1).
1). InPCF.
In the
the This is due,
the particular
difference
particular in principle,
between
case
case the
of the
of the to of
use
impacts
impactsthePCF
linear
and
recorded
recordeddosages
FiTyre
in the
in the
used
(26%) foris SMA
due to1 to
the SMA 4 (Table
manufacturing
exhaustion of fossil resources category,
exhaustion 1). In the
process
category, the particular
for the
the difference case
pellets
difference between of the
and impacts
the raw recorded
material
between the use of PCF and FiTyre in the
for the
FiTyre
exhaustion
fibers is
(26%)
(26%) is due
dueofto
(cellulosefossil
to the
the resources
fibers and tire
manufacturing
manufacturingcategory,
fibers). the
process
process difference
In theforcase
for theof
the between
pellets
pellets andthe
PCF, and theuse
bitumen
the rawof material
raw PCF
provides and FiTyre
85%for
material of the
for the
the
(26%)
fibers is due toloads
environmental
fibers (cellulose
(cellulose the
fibers manufacturing
inand
thistire
and category.
tire process
fibers).
fibers). In theforcase
theofpellets
PCF, and
PCF, bitumenthe raw
bitumen material
provides
provides 85%for
85% of the
of the
the
fibers (cellulose
environmental fibers
loads in and
this
environmental loads in this category. tire fibers).
category. In the case of PCF, bitumen provides 85% of the
environmental loads in this category.
0.16
0.14
0.16
0.14
0.16
(kg/ueq)
0.12 0.14
0.12
0.14
0.11 0.14
0.14
(kg/ueq)
0.10 0.12
0.12
0.10
depletion
0.11
(kg/ueq)
0.12
0.12 0.10 0.11
0.08
0.10
depletion
0.10
0.10
depletion
Fossil
0.08
0.06
0.08
Fossil
0.06
0.04
Fossil
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.02
0.02 2.50 kg FCP 2.50 kg FCP 5.00 kg FCP
0.00 0.00 kg FCP

Figure 13. Nonrenewable
0.00 kg FCP
5.00 kg FiTyre fossil2.50
2.50 kg FCP
3.75 kg FiTyre resources
2.50
kg FiTyre 0.00impact
kg FCP 5.00 kg FCP
kg FiTyre category for SMA using the ReCiPe midpoint
(H) method (V1.11/Europe ReCiPe H).
Figure 13. Nonrenewable fossil resources impact category for SMA using the ReCiPe midpoint (H)
4. Discussion
Generally, the results show that in all the categories considered for the comparison,
the environmental loads are much smaller when FiTyre is used. This is especially evident
4. Discussion
in SMA mixes, where there is a linear difference in direct proportion to the use of PCF
Generally, the results show that in all the categories considered for the comparison,
and/or FiTyre. These results were foreseeable mainly because, in all the fibers (except
the environmental loads are much smaller when FiTyre is used. This is especially evident in
FiTyre), virgin raw materials are used, and these are associated with manufacturing pro-
SMA mixes, where there is a linear difference in direct proportion to the use of PCF and/or
cesses in which there are emissions of pollutants into the environment. By contrast, in
FiTyre. These results were foreseeable mainly because, in all the fibers (except FiTyre),
FiTyre, an unused waste material is now being reused. In the modeling of FiTyre in
virgin raw materials are used, and these are associated with manufacturing processes in
Simapro, there are greater environmental loads from bitumen use to produce the pellet
which there are emissions of pollutants into the environment. By contrast, in FiTyre, an
where the fiber is integrated to improve the distribution of fibers in the asphalt mix.
unused waste material is now being reused. In the modeling of FiTyre in Simapro, there
To date, there have been no comparative studies of the environmental loads of a
are greater environmental loads from bitumen use to produce the pellet where the fiber is
group of possible
integrated to improve fibers thethat can be added
distribution to asphalt
of fibers in the mixtures,
asphalt mix. as has been shown in this
work.To date, there have been no comparative studies of the environmental loads of a group
Other fibers
of possible studies thathave
can reported
be added primarily environmental
to asphalt mixtures, as has burdens
been shown related
in thisto work.
global
warming. For example, Joshi et al. (2004) showed that for the manufacture
Other studies have reported primarily environmental burdens related to global warm- of 1 kg of pol-
yester fibers, 2.04 kg of carbon dioxide is emitted [28]. Kalliala and
ing. For example, Joshi et al. (2004) showed that for the manufacture of 1 kg of polyester Nousiainen (1999) cal-
culated that for the production of 1 kg of polyester, 2.31 kg of carbon
fibers, 2.04 kg of carbon dioxide is emitted [28]. Kalliala and Nousiainen (1999) calculated dioxide is emitted
[29]. This
that for thediffers by 5% of
production and 16%,
1 kg of respectively,
polyester, 2.31from kg of what is reported
carbon dioxide in this study,
is emitted which
[29]. This
gives indications of certainty in the results shown.
differs by 5% and 16%, respectively, from what is reported in this study, which gives
An important
indications of certaintyaspectin to
theconsider in the purchase of the different fibers for use in as-
results shown.
phaltAnmixtures is economics. In this study,
important aspect to consider in the purchase information has
of the been collected
different fibers foron the
use inprice of
asphalt
amixtures
unit of mass (1 kg) ofIn
is economics. the fibers
this study,oninformation
the Chileanhas market
beenin 2021 (Figure
collected on the14). Here,
price of a aunit
high
of
similarity
mass (1 kg) is of
observed
the fibers foron thethe
prices of fiberglass
Chilean market in (92021
USD), polyester,
(Figure and PCF
14). Here, (USD
a high 8). The
similarity
highest pricefor
is observed pertheunit massofisfiberglass
prices aramid fiber (USD polyester,
(9 USD), 12), and the andlowest
PCF amount
(USD 8).ofThe fiber is for
highest
FiTyre (USD
price per unit5).
massHowever,
is aramid whenfiberthe
(USDoptimal weight
12), and of the fiber
the lowest amountto be
of added
fiber is to
forasphalt
FiTyre
mixtures is considered
(USD 5). However, when (Table 1), it is weight
the optimal found thatof thepolyester
fiber to befibers have
added to the highest
asphalt cost. In
mixtures is
that same sense,
considered (Tablethe 1), cost of aramid
it is found that fibers is reduced
polyester fibers haveby half
the because the most
highest cost. In thatoptimal
same
thing
sense,isthe
to use
cost0.55 kg.
of aramid fibers is reduced by half because the most optimal thing is to
use 0.55 kg.
18
Price for 1 Kg
16 Price optimal weight
14
12
Price (USD)
10
0
Fiberglass Polyester Aramid fiber Fityre PCF
Figure 14. Comparison of prices of the fibers related to 1 kg and the optimal weight of fibers to add
Figure 14. Comparison of prices of the fibers related to 1 kg and the optimal weight of fibers to add
to HMA
to HMA and
and SMA
SMA asphalt
asphalt mixes.
mixes.
In the LCA, it is suggested to consider the period of useful life [30–32]. This is done
In the LCA, it is suggested to consider the period of useful life [30–32]. This is done
to standardize the performance of the products based on their useful life. A product
to standardize the performance of the products based on their useful life. A product that
that performs well in the production stage does not mean that it will do so throughout
performs well in the production stage does not mean that it will do so throughout its life
its life cycle, with its environmental load varying if its possibility of use varies over an
cycle, with its environmental load varying if its possibility of use varies over an extensive
extensive period of time [33]. In this study, the focus on the period of useful life of the
period of time [33]. In this study, the focus on the period of useful life of the fibers in the
fibers in the mixes is not addressed. This is because it is not feasible to perform a serious
mixes is not addressed. This is because it is not feasible to perform a serious theoretical
theoretical durability analysis of the pavements due to the large number of factors that
intervene in their durability (traffic, climate, loads). However, the laboratory performance
tests show that for the use of FiTyre, better or equivalent mechanical performances are
obtained in comparison with other additives [20]. This presumes that, in terms of useful
life, similar or longer periods are obtained, which would even lead to an improvement
in its environmental performance if the entire life cycle is considered. This is especially
relevant for the HMA, where better mechanical performances were always observed in the
mixes where FiTyre was used.
5. Conclusions
In this study, the environmental loads resulting from the use of fibers for the manu-
facture of HMA and SMA mixes are compared and analyzed. They included fiberglass,
polyester fiber, and aramid fiber for the HMA and pelletized cellulose fiber for the SMA.
In each of these types of mixes (HMA and SMA), the environmental performance of an
additive produced from ELT textile fiber (FiTyre) was also tested. The comparisons were
made using five impact categories (climate change, terrestrial acidification, human toxicity,
particulate matter emissions, and the exhaustion of nonrenewable fossil resources).
In all the impact categories, lower environmental loads were observed in the use of
FiTyre than with the other fibers. The comparisons of HMA mixes in the climate change
category show that with the use of FiTyre 3, there are up to 3.8 times less CO2 -eq emissions
(1.6 kg) than with aramid fiber (6.1 kg CO2 -eq), which is the fiber with the highest emissions
per equivalent unit. The same difference is noted in the terrestrial acidification category:
if FiTyre is used (0.010 kg SO2 -eq), the impact is reduced 3.4 times compared to polyester
fiber use (0.034 kg SO2 -eq). Generally, in each of the categories where the fibers have been
compared, the lowest environmental impacts result from the use of FiTyre.
When different SMA mixes are compared with their various proportions, either of
FiTyre or pelletized cellulose fiber premixed with asphalt (PCF), it is observed linearly that
the lightest environmental loads are obtained using the greatest proportion of FiTyre. For
example, in the exhaustion of fossil resources category, the sole use of FiTyre generates
40 g less of oil-eq than the variant in which only PCF is used. On the other hand, in
the human toxicity category, it is observed that the sole use of FiTyre generates 1.8 times
less 1,4DB-eq (1,9) emissions than the exclusive use of PCF (1,4DB-eq 3,4). From this,
it is concluded that from the point of view of environmental sustainability, the use of
FiTyre is more advantageous than existing traditional fibers (fiberglass, polyester fiber, and
aramid fiber).
Author Contributions: A.M.-S.: methodology, validation, formal analysis, research, writing—original

draft. G.V.-V.: conceptualization, review. A.C.-F., C.A.-V. and C.M.-T.: review and editing. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This paper is the result of the research supported by National Research and Develop-
ment Agency of Chile (ANID) conducted within the framework of the FONDEF IDEA Project
Nº ID20I10160.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Plati, C. Sustainability Factors in Pavement Materials, Design, and Preservation Strategies: A Literature Review. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2019, 211, 539–555. [CrossRef]
2. Bocci, E. Sustainable Pavement Engineering and Road Materials. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2166. [CrossRef]
3. Liu, Z.; Balieu, R.; Kringos, N. Integrating Sustainability into Pavement Maintenance Effectiveness Evaluation: A Systematic
Review. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2022, 104, 103187. [CrossRef]
4. Zhao, Y.; Goulias, D.; Peterson, D. Recycled Asphalt Pavement Materials in Transport Pavement Infrastructure: Sustainability
Analysis & Metrics. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8071. [CrossRef]
5. Mohammed, M.; Parry, T.; Thom, N.; Grenfell, J. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Fibre Reinforced Asphalt Mixtures.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 240, 117932. [CrossRef]
6. Dehghan, Z.; Modarres, A. Evaluating the Fatigue Properties of Hot Mix Asphalt Reinforced by Recycled PET Fibers Using
4-Point Bending Test. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 139, 384–393. [CrossRef]
7. Mazumder, M.; Sriraman, V.; Kim, H.H.; Lee, S.J. Quantifying the Environmental Burdens of the Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
Pavements and the Production of Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA). Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2016, 9, 190–201. [CrossRef]
8. Saedi, S.; Oruc, S. The Influence of SBS, Viatop Premium and FRP on the Improvement of Stone Mastic Asphalt Performance.
Fibers 2020, 8, 20. [CrossRef]
9. Eskandarsefat, S.; Dondi, G.; Sangiorgi, C. Recycled and Rubberized SMA Modified Mixtures: A Comparison between Polymer
Modified Bitumen and Modified Fibres. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 202, 681–691. [CrossRef]
10. Wang, J.; Yuan, J.; Xiao, F.; Li, Z.; Wang, J.; Xu, Z. Performance Investigation and Sustainability Evaluation of Multiple-Polymer
Asphalt Mixtures in Airfield Pavement. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 67–77. [CrossRef]
11. Xin, J.; Pei, J.; Akiyama, M.; Li, R.; Zhang, J.; Shao, L. A Study on the Design Method for the Material Composition of Small
Particle-Size Asphalt Mixture for Controlling Cracks in Asphalt Pavement. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1988. [CrossRef]
12. Sofi, A. Effect of Waste Tyre Rubber on Mechanical and Durability Properties of Concrete—A Review. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2018, 9,
2691–2700. [CrossRef]
13. Anjaly, M. Coir Fiber as a Sustainable Material in Pavement Construction. Sustain. Agri. Food Environ. Res. 2021, 10, 1–10.
[CrossRef]
14. Losa, M.; Leandri, P.; Cerchiai, M. Improvement of Pavement Sustainability by the Use of Crumb Rubber Modified Asphalt
Concrete for Wearing Courses. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2012, 5, 395–404.
15. Cheng, Y.; Chai, C.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Zhu, B. A New Eco-Friendly Porous Asphalt Mixture Modified by Crumb Rubber and
Basalt Fiber. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5754. [CrossRef]
16. Lizasoain-Arteaga, E.; Castro-Fresno, D.; Flintsch, G.W. Effect of Durability on Fiber-Reinforced Asphalt Mixtures Sustainability.
In Pavement, Roadway, and Bridge Life Cycle Assessment 2020; CRC Press: London, UK, 2020; pp. 442–449. [CrossRef]
17. Ziari, H.; Aliha, M.R.M.; Moniri, A.; Saghafi, Y. Crack Resistance of Hot Mix Asphalt Containing Different Percentages of
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement and Glass Fiber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 230, 117015. [CrossRef]
18. Hong, R.-B.; Wu, J.-R.; Cai, H.-B. Low-Temperature Crack Resistance of Coal Gangue Powder and Polyester Fibre Asphalt Mixture.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 238, 117678. [CrossRef]
19. Gupta, A.; Lastra-Gonzalez, P.; Castro-Fresno, D.; Rodriguez-Hernandez, J. Laboratory Characterization of Porous Asphalt
Mixtures with Aramid Fibers. Materials 2021, 14, 1935. [CrossRef]
20. Valdés-Vidal, G.; Calabi-Floody, A.; Duarte-Nass, C.; Mignolet, C. Development of a New Additive Based on Textile Fibers
of End-of-Life Tires (ELT) for Sustainable Asphalt Mixtures with Improved Mechanical Properties. Polymers 2022, 14, 3250.
[CrossRef]
21. Valdés-Vidal, G. FiTyre® un Desarrollo Para Contribuir a la Durabilidad de las Mezclas Asfálticas a Partir de las FtNFU; Universidad
Nacional: La Plata, Argentina, 2022.
22. Pré Consultants SimaPro Database Manual Methods Library. Available online: https://simapro.com/wp-content/uploads/2020
/10/DatabaseManualMethods.pdf. (accessed on 16 July 2022).
23. JRS. VIATOP 66 Pellets für Fasermodifizierte Asphaltbauweisen. Available online: https://www.jrs-es.com/jrsAssets/docs/
strassenbau/produktflyer/en/viatop-66-productflyer.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2022).
24. Wu, S.; Ye, Q.; Li, N. Investigation of Rheological and Fatigue Properties of Asphalt Mixtures Containing Polyester Fibers. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 2111–2115. [CrossRef]
25. Qian, S.; Ma, H.; Feng, J.; Yang, R.; Huang, X. Fiber Reinforcing Effect on Asphalt Binder under Low Temperature. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2014, 61, 120–124. [CrossRef]
26. Klinsky, L.M.G.; Kaloush, K.E.; Faria, V.C.; Bardini, V.S.S. Performance Characteristics of Fiber Modified Hot Mix Asphalt. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2018, 176, 747–752. [CrossRef]
27. Gupta, A.; Castro-Fresno, D.; Lastra-Gonzalez, P.; Rodriguez-Hernandez, J. Selection of Fibers to Improve Porous Asphalt
Mixtures Using Multi-Criteria Analysis. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 266, 121198. [CrossRef]
28. Joshi, S.V.; Drzal, L.T.; Mohanty, A.K.; Arora, S. Are Natural Fiber Composites Environmentally Superior to Glass Fiber Reinforced
Composites? Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2004, 35, 371–376. [CrossRef]
29. Kalliala, E.M.; Nousiainen, P. Environmental Profile of Cotton and Polyester-Cotton Fabrics. Autex Res. J. 1999, 1, 8–20.
30. Mukherjee, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Asphalt Mixtures in Support of an Environmental Product Declaration; National Asphalt
Pavement Association: Lanham, MD, USA, 2016.
31. Rodríguez-Alloza, A.M.; Malik, A.; Lenzen, M.; Gallego, J. Hybrid Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment of Warm Mix Asphalt
Mixtures. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 90, 171–182. [CrossRef]
32. Lvel, J.; Watson, R.; Abbassi, B.; Abu-Hamatteh, Z.S. Life Cycle Analysis of Concrete and Asphalt Used in Road Pavements.
Environ. Eng. Res. 2020, 25, 52–61. [CrossRef]
33. Oreto, C.; Russo, F.; Veropalumbo, R.; Viscione, N.; Biancardo, S.A.; Dell’acqua, G. Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Asphalt
Pavement Solutions Involving Recycled Aggregates and Polymers. Materials 2021, 14, 3867. [CrossRef]

Caso 4 Comparison of Environmental Loads of Fibers Used

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caso 4 Comparison of Environmental Loads of Fibers Used

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Science, Universidad de La Frontera,

Abstract: Several authors have demonstrated improvements in the mechanical performance of

Academic Editors: Prasad K. D.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 14246. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114246 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Definition of Scope and Objective

2.2. Inventory Analysis

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

FiTyre Fiberglass Polyester Aramid PCF

In a study to determine cracking resistance in HMA containing fiberglass, Ziari et al.

2.3. Stage 3, Impact Assessment of the Life Cycle

Figure 3. Modeling workflow for the evaluation of environmental impacts using

In this study, the ReCiPe impact assessment method

Emissions CO2 -Eq (kg/ueq)

0.020 0.018 0.019

0.020 0.018 0.019

Fiberglass Polyester Aramid fiber Fityre

0.0 Fiberglass Polyester Aramid fiber Fityre

Fiberglass Polyester Aramid fiber Fityre

SMA1 SMA 2 SMA 3 SMA 4

SMA1 SMA 2 SMA 3 SMA 4

SMA1 SMA 2 SMA 3 SMA 4

0.00 5.00 kg FiTyre 3.75 kg FiTyre 2.50 kg FiTyre 0.00 kg FiTyre

0.00 5.00 kg FiTyre 3.75 kg FiTyre 2.50 kg FiTyre 0.00 kg FiTyre

Author Contributions: A.M.-S.: methodology, validation, formal analysis, research, writing—original

You might also like