What question did this study set out to answer?

This study evaluates the climate impacts of using mineral incineration bottom ash in road construction. It explores how different project settings affect these impacts.

April 25, 2026Open Access

Climate impacts of using mineral incineration bottom ash in Swedish road construction: Assessing the influence of different project settings

Key Points

This study evaluates the climate impacts of using mineral incineration bottom ash in road construction. It explores how different project settings affect these impacts.
Two case studies conducted in Sweden using mineral incineration bottom ash (MIBA) in road subbase construction.
Scenario-based life cycle assessment (LCA) with 1 km of road as the functional unit.
Sensitivity analysis includes 81 exploratory scenarios based on project factors such as transport fuels and aggregate types.
MIBA utilization generally shows climate benefits, with Case 1 ranging from −675 to −29 t CO2 eq. and Case 2 from −454 to +72 t CO2 eq.
Identified critical project settings that maximize climate benefits and reduce variability in outcomes.
Found that secondary aggregates and decarbonized transport decrease overall climate benefits.

Abstract

• Two cases of MIBA use in road subbase in Sweden show climate benefits. • Sensitivity analysis captures effects of different exploratory project settings. • Aggregate type, transport fuel, MIBA processing, and landfilling drive wide variability. • Secondary aggregates and decarbonized transport reduce climate benefits. Sweden has begun using mineral incineration bottom ash (MIBA) as a subbase material in road construction. Two regulatory-compliant projects feature contrasting transport distances between MIBA handling options, such as landfills and road construction sites, providing valuable case studies for exploring the climate impacts of different project settings for MIBA utilization. This study evaluates the climate impacts of MIBA utilization in road subbase construction, exploring on key factors influencing these impacts in Sweden. These factors include: (i) transport fuels from fossil- to bio-based, (ii) aggregate materials from primary to secondary sources, (iii) MIBA handling from use as landfill cover to landfilling, and (iv) MIBA processing from no treatment to high-intensity treatment. The two cases are assessed using scenario-based life cycle assessment (LCA), with 1 km of road as the functional unit and limited to climate change impact category. Using the basket-of-products approach, the reference cases are assessed followed by the sensitivity analysis conducted by defining three alternatives for each factor, generating 81 exploratory scenarios (3 4 ) per case. Results show that MIBA utilization is generally climate-beneficial, although the magnitude of benefits varies substantially, ranging from −675 to −29 t CO 2 eq. in Case 1 and from −454 to +72 t CO 2 eq. in Case 2. The analysis identifies critical project settings required to ensure climate benefits and synthesizes findings into guiding principles for future project development. Further research demands material characterization including geotechnical and leaching tests, to better account for functional comparability and enable a comprehensive LCA that extends beyond climate impacts.

Read Full Paperexternally

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Esguerra et al. (Thu,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69ec5aa788ba6daa22dac2c4 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2026.115549

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

Bookmark

View Full Paper