IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v27y2025i6d10.1007_s10668-024-04469-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability evaluation of the artificial stone prepared by metal-contaminated sediment and travertine waste: comparative analysis across TOPSIS and AECIEI

Author

Listed:
  • Aydin Shishegaran

    (IU International University of Applied Sciences
    Bauhaus Universität Weimar)

  • Mohsen Saeedi

    (University Canada West)

  • Sajjad Mirvalad

    (Iran University of Science and Technology)

  • Asghar Habibnejad Korayem

    (Iran University of Science and Technology)

Abstract

Finding alternative stone, like artificial stone, instead of travertine stone, a raw material, can prepare the building industry's requirements and improve environmental issues. Previous studies evaluated travertine stone's mechanical and durability performances, the filled travertine stone with epoxy resin, and ten mixed proportions of artificial stones under the same test setup. To find an alternative between recycled artificial stones and improved natural stones, a sustainability evaluation was conducted in this study. For this purpose, 12 indicators, including some new environmental, social, and economic indicators, are defined and determined for the first time, although the sustainability evaluation to select the option between sones for flooring and facades is conducted for the first time. Four environmental indicators, including CO2 emission, reuse of waste, reuse of hazardous waste, and energy consumption, are calculated and determined, and four technical indicators, including compressive strength, resistance against salt attack, UV radiation, freezing–thawing cycles, and thermal-shock cycles, are considered as social indicators because their effect on the life quality of the users. Capital cost and benefit for avoiding stabilization and solidification of hazardous waste are calculated as economic indicators. Two multi-criteria decision analyses, including the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and the applied effect of changing intensity in each indicator (AECIEI), were used to sort the stones and select the best and worst options. The results of AECIEI were more accurate than TOPSIS because this method applies the effect of varying intensities of sustainability evaluation. Results illustrated that using the filled and polished travertine could be the worst option, and the recycled stone prepared by 312.5 kg/m3 of hazardous sediment and 312.5 kg/m3 of travertine sludge is the best option. Because of using 312.5 kg/m3 of hazardous waste, 195.40 $/m3 is saved due to avoiding the solidification and stabilization process with cement. This stone's mechanical and durability performance is acceptable and stronger than the natural travertine stone. Graphical abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Aydin Shishegaran & Mohsen Saeedi & Sajjad Mirvalad & Asghar Habibnejad Korayem, 2025. "Sustainability evaluation of the artificial stone prepared by metal-contaminated sediment and travertine waste: comparative analysis across TOPSIS and AECIEI," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 12677-12702, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:27:y:2025:i:6:d:10.1007_s10668-024-04469-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-024-04469-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-024-04469-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-024-04469-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:27:y:2025:i:6:d:10.1007_s10668-024-04469-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.