1 Introduction

A ceiling board is defined as a construction material or sheet panels used to enclose the upper part of the building’s internal section to improve internal aesthetics, reducing heat transmission and sound effects into rooms in a building [1]. Asbestos ceiling board, once seen as a “wonderful mineral”, is no longer in the construction industry market due to the indelible story it created in human history [2]. Its high level of durability, tensile strength, insulating, and heat resistance properties make it a unique material for numerous industrial applications and building construction materials globally [3]. However, extensive studies and scientific evidence have proven a severe health risk to humans when exposed to asbestos material, leading to the banning of the product in many countries [3, 4].

Asbestos has been a significant public health concern globally due to its association with deadly diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. Over 100,000 people die annually from asbestos-related diseases, underlining the urgent need for safer alternatives in construction materials [3,4,5]. As a result, the need for an alternative to asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) became necessary due to the global imperative for human health safety and the protection of the environment at large [6]. The immediate global awareness of the danger asbestos poses to human health [7,8,9] has prompted industries and researchers to source for alternative materials without compromising performance and safety. One of the promising areas of study to explore for the transition is the use of industrial and agricultural waste for asbestos replacement cement in various applications [10,11,12].

The impact of asbestos mining and disposal on the environment has further triggered the urgent need to source for sustainable alternatives [7]. Therefore, the use of waste materials in this case will not only mitigate human health risks but will also attach economic value to waste, leading to minimizing natural resource depletion and promoting a greener and sustainable environment [10]– [11, 13]. Nonetheless, the effective use of industrial and agricultural waste could be beneficial to the environment by reducing the carbon footprint that is connected to conventional construction materials, while providing solutions to the environmental waste management challenges [11, 13]– [14]. This study aims to develop a sustainable alternative to noxious asbestos ceiling board by utilizing agro-industrial wastes to promote a sustainable and eco-friendly environment.

1.1 Asbestos replacement from agro-waste

Research has shown that different types of industrial and agro-waste have the potential to be used as asbestos substitutes in society. Some of these include rice husk, coconut choir, and natural fiber among others [11, 14]– [15]. Ataguba [16] investigated the production of ceiling boards from the ratio of RH to waste paper, WP (100%:0% at an interval of ± 20% for both materials), using hot water starch as binder. However, the proportion of the binder was not mentioned in the study. The study’s findings include water absorption ranging between 7.5 and 14.5%, indicating an increase in the WA as the WP increases. Also, thermal conductivity and density results reported to witness reductions as the WP content increases, which is beneficial to the environment. This is a result of the material used being lighter, thereby reducing conductivity and density, while an increase in WA can be linked to the starch used as a binder, which allows easy penetration and flow of water through it.

Moreover, Ghalehno et al., [17] investigated the use of sugarcane bagasse (SB) and wood particles at mix ratios of 20:80, 30:70, and 40:60, respectively, using 9 and 11% urea formaldehyde resin as a binding agent. The study revealed that the physical and mechanical properties of the composite with 40% sugarcane bagasse and 11% resin exhibited the best particleboard among others, making it a suitable ceiling board material. However, formaldehyde resin is costly, which will influence the composite cost and the overall construction costs. Nonetheless, the use of SB and RH at 100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75, and 0:100 mix ratios was also studied for ceiling board production using a 3:2 RH and SB-to-cement ratio. The study indicated that the composite with 0:100 (RH: SB) has the highest density and the best thermal insulation properties, comparable with the available ceiling materials in the literature [16].

Natural fibers studied for asbestos replacement have been reported as suitable asbestos alternatives. This includes the use of strong coconut coir fibers (another agro-waste) that are biodegradable and resistant to saltwater, which were processed and proposed for asbestos ceiling board, mats and composite. The study proves that the material is a positive, sustainable replacement for asbestos due to its effective insulation properties [14, 18]. Also, bamboo, known for its rapid growth and renewability, was investigated as a component in composite roofing materials. The material was proven to enhance the roofing system’s structural integrity when combined with other agrowaste fibers like sisal to promote sustainable forestry practices [19]. Combinations of natural fibers (sisal, hemp and jute) were further studied for the thermal and tensile properties of asbestos alternatives [20]. The result shows a promising outcome and recommends the natural fiber composite for asbestos in construction, automotive, and other industrial applications [11, 19, 21].

From all indications, the use of agro-waste for ceiling boards has proven a promising alternative to asbestos. This will not only reduce loads on the structure due to its lightweight but will also promote public health, a greener society, and environmental sustainability.

1.2 Asbestos replacement from industrial waste

Several studies have been conducted on waste materials for ceiling boards as alternatives to asbestos from industrial wastes.

The use of industrial wastes includes polyethene terephthalate (PET) bottles, fly ash, slag etc. Studies have shown that roofing tiles made from recycled PET (polyethene terephthalate) bottles are viable alternatives for asbestos ceiling boards. The tiles offer good thermal insulation, significantly reducing the amount of plastic waste in landfills and providing economic and ecological advantages, making it a suitable material for low-cost housing projects [22]. Tetra Pak waste material was also studied in roofing tiles production for asbestos replacement. The findings support the argument of Das et al. [14] on thermal performance while promoting industrial waste recycling, which aligns with sustainability goals by reducing the depletion of natural resources [23]. Studies on ceramic tiles produced from industrial waste (fly ash or slag) recycling for roofing sheets confirmed the ceiling board’s thermal comfort and durability properties while reducing landfills and promoting environmental sustainability [24].

1.3 Asbestos transition from agricultural and industrial wastes

The need to use waste materials as an asbestos substitute has several advantages [25], including a significant reduction in human health risks emanating from asbestos exposure. Non-toxic waste materials can be used in this context to safeguard the general public from potential harm [26]. Environmental sustainability is another advantage of using waste materials as an alternative to asbestos. This will reduce landfills and greenhouse gas emissions that could be generated during the manufacturing of new materials. Eventually, this aligns with the UN Sustainable Development Goals 4 (Good Health and Well-Being), 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), targeting waste reduction and recycling promotion [9, 13, 23]. Improvement in sustainable approaches to materials production and continuous depletion of finite natural resources could be realized when the generated waste materials are used as asbestos alternatives [9, 13, 24]. Moreover, economic improvement could also be achieved when new material is developed from waste through job creation in waste management, processing, and manufacturing industries. That is, the transition can foster innovations and simulate local economies [13, 15, 25].

It can be deduced from the literature review carried out in this study that the transition to sustainable roofing solutions using industrial and agricultural waste presents a viable path forward in replacing asbestos roofs to promote the ecological system. Materials such as recycled PET, Tetra Pak waste material, ceramic tiles, fly ash, slag, coconut fiber, rice husk, bamboo, fibers have proven not only to improve the thermal and mechanical properties of the ceiling boards but also promote environmental sustainability and safety concerns for human use as against the threat to human life that asbestos posed.

Despite the potential benefits of sourcing asbestos alternatives from waste, several parameters must be studied before successful adoption can be considered [27,28,29,30]. That is, thorough research should be carried out to understand the new material’s durability, long-term performance, and safety at various points of application concerning standardization and regulatory frameworks [3, 14] to ensure minimum performance and industrial standard benchmarks. Moreover, continued research and development in this field are essential for the materials’ performance optimization to broaden their adoption in the construction industry. Therefore, limited research has been documented on the composition of polystyrene glue (PG), RH, and MD waste materials for the production of cheap coagulated and eco-friendly ceiling boards for asbestos alternatives. Hence, the reason for the current study.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Materials

The materials used for this study are Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) and waste generated from industry (polystyrene, PS) and agriculture (rice husk, RH and marble dust, MD) as shown in Fig. 1. Incorporating waste materials like rice husk and marble dust will not only promote environmental sustainability but also enhances public health by reducing the health risks posed by asbestos. The use of safer and non-toxic materials in construction, such as the MRCB ceiling board explored in this study, can mitigate the risks associated with long-term exposure to hazardous substances in the environment. Table 1 shows the properties of RH and MD materials used in this study.

Table 1 Physical properties of RH and MD
Full size table

PMS used in this study was sourced from the Optimal filling station at Federal Medical Junction, Jabi Bypass Road, Abuja-FCT. The product was kept in a tight container at room temperature in the laboratory for safety and prevention from contamination. The choice of the liquid was based on its ability to dissolve waste polystyrene and convert it to a useful binding material. The PS waste was sourced from waste scavengers (Baban Boola) in Abuja-FCT, Nigeria. The collected PS waste was cleaned, dried, and shredded into a small portion for easy insertion into PMS to produce polystyrene glue (PG). The cleaned waste PS was kept in polythene bags to prevent the material from gaining environmental moisture in the laboratory. RH was also sourced from the rice milling industry at Lambata, Niger State, Nigeria. The waste was thoroughly washed to remove debris, sun-dried for 48 h, grinded, and sieved through a 300-micron BS sieve. Finally, waste MD was sourced from Dei-Dei market, Abuja, Nigeria. The dust was also screened through a 75-micron BS sieve to obtain fine particles, which were used as filler in the composite matrix. The waste PG, RH, and MD were considered for the ceiling board composite matrix in this study to promote green and environmental sustainability, and ensure the well-being of the public aligning with several United Nations sustainable development goals (Good Health and Well-Being, Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, and Sustainable cities and communities).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Produced ceiling board composite materials, (a) RH, (b) MD, (c) PS, and (d) PMS

Full size image

After the study materials were sourced, the following methods were adopted for the production and testing of the marble dust-rice husk (MRCB) ceiling board composite in this research.

2.2 Production of polystyrene glue

Polystyrene glue shown in Fig. 2 was produced from two major materials. These materials are PMS and waste PS using a mix ratio of 1:1.25 accordingly. That is, for every 270 g of PMS, 340 g of PS by weight was used. This mix ratio was adopted for PG production in this study having produced viscous glue that can be used as a binding agent after several trial mixes. The gradual and gentle dropping of weighed PS into PMS follows. While the dropping of PS into the PMS solvent continued, PS kept dissolved and stirring took place immediately at a uniform distribution of the dissolved PS into PMS. Upon completion of PS dropping into the PMS with thorough agitation, a viscous polystyrene glue was produced which was eventually used for the production of the MRCB ceiling board. The mixing operation to produce adhesive PG took 4 ± 1 min.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Produced polystyrene glue used for this study

Full size image

2.3 MRCB mix design

Table 2 presents the mix design used for the production of the MRCB samples studied. From the Table, it can be seen that PG was kept constant at 40% while RH and MD varied, which is 2:3 PG binder-to-RH&MD following the mix design of Jesuloluwa et al. [15] where 2:3 of cement binder-to-RH&SB was adopted for ceiling board production. The RH and MD mix ratio was 50%:50% at the initial stage and later varied at ± 8% intervals as shown in Table 2 following Jesuloluwa et al., [15] method’s to observe the behaviour of the composite. Although several trial mixes were carried out to study the PG, while a promising viscosity was achieved at 40%. Four different mixes studied in this research are illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2 Produced samples mix design in percentage
Full size table

2.4 MRCB sample production

RH and MD were weighed in containers separately using a 3000 ± 0.01 g weighing balance. Also, the produced polystyrene glue (PG) was weighed in an open tray using the same weighing balance. All measurements were carried out following the mix design presented in Table 2. The RH and MD were initially mixed thoroughly for two (2) minutes to achieve a homogenous mix following the procedure of Ndububa et al., [31]. The mixed sample was gently placed in a weighed PG binder in an open tray. The three-material composite was further mixed thoroughly for another five (5) minutes, making a total of seven (7) minutes to achieve a homogeneous mixture as described by Ndububa et al., [31]. Furthermore, a homogenous mix was gently placed in a rectangular fabricated mould of 100 mm x 200 mm having a 24 mm thickness as shown in Fig. 2, which is a modification of mould used by Jesuloluwa et al., [15] for ceiling board production. The mould used was lubricated with oil to enhance the easy removal of the MRCB composite after the composite materials had been set.

Immediately after the mould was filled with the composite, a steel cover was placed on the composite in the mould, and a 30 kg load was applied to remove the void within the composite material and enhance the MRCB compact. The MRCB in the mould was loaded for 48 h at room temperature until the final setting was achieved. During the process, the PG adhesive flowed internally to fill the pores and enhance the board’s strength. Therefore, the MRCB thickness in the mould was reduced by approximately 50% (from 24 mm to 12 ± 2 mm). Moreover, the produced MRCB samples were cut to 100 mm x 100 mm recommended by Ndububa et al., [31] for further experimental studies. Fig. 3 illustrate the composite mixing in the tray and the formwork used for the study.

Fig. 3
figure 3

MRCB sample production process; (a) materials mixing; (b) the mould used for the sample production

Full size image

2.5 Testing of MRCB samples

Mechanical and physical testing, conducted on the produced MRCB sample includes nail pull-out, density, water absorption, and fire resistance. The water absorption (WA) and fire resistance (FR) tests were chosen due to the target application area (that is, the material composite response in roof linkages or fire hazards) of the construction material as recommended by ASTM E119 [32]. Below are the details of the tests conducted on the produced sample following the relevant guidelines and previous studies. Five specimens were tested for each mixed group in every experiment.

2.5.1 Density test (kg/m3)

The density test was carried out on the MRCB produced using the method described by Sanusi et al. [33]. The technique is, dividing the weight, w (kg), of the composite by its volume, v (m3). Equation 1 reported by Sanusi et al. [33] was used to compute the composite density.

$$\:Density=\frac{w}{v}\:$$
(1)

2.5.2 Nail pull-out test

The nail pull-out test was carried out following the procedure reported by Obam [10]. The method includes the use of a 0.75 kg hammer to drive a 3 mm nail into the board. Five specimens were tested for each mix group. The specimen was inspected after hitting the nail with a 0.75 kg hammer on the boards 3 times and further driven into the board, after which the specimens were observed according to ASTM D1037 [34].

2.5.3 Water absorption test (%)

A modified water absorption test was carried out on the MRCBs samples according to BS EN 1008 [35] as shown in Fig. 4. The modification was that the specimens were fully submerged in water for 5 min, 10 min, 15 min, 30 min, 45 min, 60 min, and 24 h. respectively, to study the material’s behaviour in water. The MRCB water absorption capacity (WAC) was calculated using Eq. 1 reported by Sanusi et al. [36].

$$\:WAC=\frac{{W}_{s}-{D}_{s}}{{D}_{s}}\:\text{x}\:100$$
(2)

where Ws and Ds are wet and dry weight of the specimen measured in grams.

Fig. 4
figure 4

MRCB submerged samples for water absorption analysis

Full size image

2.5.4 Fire resistance test

The safety of any building occupant is paramount. One of the incidents that can threaten the occupant’s lives is a fire attack. This makes the fire resistance test crucial for this study due to the point of application and the materials for which the composite was produced. Also, this test will guide the users on the evacuation time when the composite material is used. However, a modified fire-resistant test was carried out following the ASTM E119 [32] standard to simulate the real-life fire exposure conditions of the material. The modification in this study was the exposure of MRCBs to direct fire flame (orange-yellow fire) reported to be 1100 °C [37], ensuring that the composite was at the centre of the fire flame, having a radius of 200 ± 50 mm as shown in Fig. 5. This study examined the physical appearance and nail pull-out test after 20-, 40- and 60-minute fire exposure. Once each specimen reached its proposed time, it was removed from the fire flame, and further tested for physical appearance and nail pull-out.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Typical MRCB sample in an open flame

Full size image

2.5.5 Morphology study of MRCBs

To further understand the surface morphology of the study, SEM imaging of the MRCB samples was taken as shown in Fig. 9 using a scanning electron microscopy machine (Phenom Pharos G2 Desktop FEG-SEM) to observe the bonding characteristics of the samples following the test description reported by Sanusi et al. [36]. The image of the sample was viewed at 500X magnification at a working distance of 13 mm, coating the sample surface with carbon.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Physical examination of MRCB

The physical examination showed that the produced MRCB samples were strong with rough surfaces, making them ready to receive surface cover for aesthetic purposes, which will further improve the water absorption capacity of the MRCB composite discussed below. The odour from the produced samples was not pleasant at the initial stage after production due to the PMS solvent used for the polystyrene glue production. This was improved as it was kept in an open environment for natural airflow through it (seasoning) and eventually became odourless within seven (7) days of production.

3.2 Density of MRCB

The density of MRCB presented in Fig. 6 ranged from 729.17 to 776.50 kg/m3. These results are lower than the density of asbestos cement (1600 kg/m3), concrete ball (1200 to1440 kg/m3), and plasterboard (960 kg/m3), but higher than hardboard (640 kg/m3), plywood (530 kg/m3), fiberboard (460 kg/m3), and cork board (140 to 320 kg/m3) [38]. The low density obtained in this study compared to the recorded asbestos cement and the concrete ball is connected to the material used for the production which includes cement and aggregate (fine and coarse as the case may be) while the higher density value when compared with hardboard, plywood, plasterboard, and cork board is as a marble dust inclusion in the MRCB composite which eventually improves it weight thereby the overall density got increased. However, based on the available density of materials proposed for the ceiling board in the literature [38], it is evident that the densities of the produced MRCBs in this study are lightweight ceiling board materials that will also reduce the imposed load on the building. This will further reduce building foundation loads on the soil when the MRCB board is used to replace asbestos in the construction industry as a ceiling board. Using the material as an asbestos alternative will promote Environmental Sustainability, Cities and Communities, and Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure advocated by the United Nations on 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Fig. 6
figure 6

MRCB density result

Full size image

3.3 Nail Pull-Out

The nail pull-out test result showed no crack on the surface of the MRCB ceiling boards produced in this study when a nail of 3 mm after 3 blows was driven into the board using a 0.75 kg hammer. However, tiny cracks were observed on the MRCB board when the nail was fully driven in. With the tiny cracks on the board’s surface, the nail was firmly in position on the composite board. This is a result of MRCB composite bonding gained from the PG adhesive and the pores filled by the MD. The research observation is similar to the study of Obam [10] where the use of sawdust, paper, and starch was studied in the production of composites as an alternative to asbestos.

3.4 MRCBs water absorption

Figure 7 presents the water absorption capacity of the samples. It was observed that the water absorption (WA) capacity of the produced composite materials increased with longer immersion times, ranging from 19.89 to 33.45%. Notably, the MRCB-02 sample, comprising 40% polystyrene glue and 30% each of rice husk (RH) and maize dust (MD) exhibited the lowest WA rate at 19.89% after 60 min of immersion. This value is significantly higher than the 0.5% WA reported for asbestos cement ceiling boards and the 8.6% observed in ceiling boards made from sawdust and paper using cement and starch as binders. The increased WA in the MRCB-02 sample is attributed to the hygroscopic nature of its organic components, such as rice husk and maize dust, which tend to absorb more water compared to inorganic materials like asbestos. This characteristic could affect the performance of the materials in moisture-prone environments [10]. The lower WA values reported by Obam [10] are connected to cement, an organic material used as a binder which has improved its bonding characteristic compared to the samples studied in this research. Also. the least WA value recorded for MRCB-02 was higher than the moisture content of 16.6% and 17.07% reported by Adedayo and Julius [38] for a non-asbestos ceiling board produced from pulped cartons and sawdust using starch, cement, calcium trioxocarbonate, and kaolin as binders. It can be deduced that the samples produced in this study possessed better WA capacity than the study of Adedayo and Julius [38], considering the water content involved when conducting WA and moisture content tests on any material. Nonetheless, the 20% WA capacity reported for fiber cement corrugated sheets using coir fiber [20] is marginal to the least of 19.87% WA observed for MRCB-02 among the produced samples in this study. However, when comparing the WA capacity results of the current research with the previous studies, it can be seen that the sample MRCB-02 WA capacity is within the range of 8.6–20% reported in the literature [10, 19, 39] for the alternative composite materials proposed for the deadly asbestos roofing sheet al.ternative, while others (MRCB-01, MRCB-03, and MRCB-04) are above the stated range.

The water absorption (WA) capacity of the current studied materials ranged from 8.6–20%, which is significantly higher than the 0.5% reported for asbestos boards [10]. This variation is due to the inherent differences in composition, as asbestos is purely inorganic, whereas most proposed asbestos alternatives are composites incorporating both organic and inorganic components, often sourced from industrial or agricultural waste. The presence of organic constituents increases water absorption but contributes to the development of sustainable and eco-friendly materials. These efforts align with Goal 14 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which emphasizes the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. While the higher WA capacity may pose challenges in moisture-prone applications, ongoing research focuses on improving the water resistance of these materials without compromising their sustainability and environmental benefits. Notably, all MRCBs samples were saturated at 60 min; however, keeping the sample in water for 24 h for further examination as shown in Table 3 shows that the sample swells, leaving openings and cracks on them and exposing the bumps in white colour, which is the PG binding agent used as presented in Fig. 8. This observation suggests that when MRCB product is used as ceiling boards in building construction, continuous exposure to rainfall for 24 h could lead to significant damage

Table 3 MRCB water absorption test result
Full size table
Fig. 7
figure 7

Plastic concrete water absorption capacity

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Loosed samples after WA testing

Full size image

3.5 Fire resistance of the MRCBs

The fire resistance tests conducted on the MRCB composite ceiling boards shown in Fig. 9 (a-c) revealed that all samples sustained minimal damage after 20 min of open-flame exposure, exhibiting slight edge carbonation but maintaining their structural geometry. However, as exposure time increased, the severity of damage escalated, with significant deterioration observed at 40 min and severe structural compromise at 60 min. Notably, none of the samples passed the nail pull-out test post-exposure; pronounced cracks appeared upon driving nails into the fire-exposed samples, indicating that 20 min of direct flame contact adversely affected the bonding characteristics, rendering them incapable of securely holding nails. These findings suggest that while the materials can withstand up to 20 min of fire exposure, their integrity diminishes rapidly at 40 and 60 min. However, the entire MRCB samples could not reach the threshold of 60 min. recommended for construction materials by ASTM E119 [32]. This is a result of the presence of RH in the composite which transmits heat into the composite, thereby, scattering the interfacial adhesion and bonding, and further disintegrating the composite. This argument is supported by the SEM images presented in Fig. 10 showing the composite’s microstructure that was weakened after fire exposure. Therefore, to enhance the composite fire resistance, it is recommended to explore lamination techniques and conduct further studies focusing on fire exposure durations of 25, 30, and 35 min since the 30 min. fire exposure threshold is also recommended in ASTM E119 [32]. Implementing certified fire-resistant ceiling panels, such as those discussed in the industrial guidelines, may improve the composite performance.

Fig. 9
figure 9figure 9figure 9

a. MRCB samples response to 20 min of fire exposure. b. MRCB samples response to 40 min of fire exposure. c. MRCB samples response to 60 min of fire exposure

Full size image

3.6 SEM analysis

The scanning electron microscope (SEM) images in Fig. 10 show the morphology of the MRCB samples. The photograph showed the sample’s composite; that is, the black and white particles seen on the composite imaging are marble dust, while the yellow is the rice husk bounded together with polystyrene glue. MRCB-01 and MRCB-02 confirmed the highest and lowest marble dust and rice husk content in the mix design presented in Table 2. Additionally, the void in samples MRCB-03 and MRCB-04 is visible in the photograph, compared to MRCB-01 and MRCB-02. Moreover, the WA and FR test results confirmed the observation from the SEM images. That is, water absorption decreases when the MD content drops from 35 to 30%, but then increases again at lower MD contents which is an indication of the pore spaces between RH that was filled by the MD in the composites. Likewise, the fire exposure impacted more on the MRCB-03 and MRCB-04 as a result of higher RH content in the composites which are susceptible to burning in fire. Therefore, it is evident that for MD to be used as filler to improve the bonding characteristic of the MRCB ceiling board materials, it should be of equal ratio to the RH (30:30).

Fig. 10
figure 10

SEM imaging of MRCB samples

Full size image

3.7 Comparative analyses of asbestos and its alternative

Table 4 presents the properties of asbestos and its replacement. The range of MRCB ceiling board density confirmed the material to be lightweight material compared to the asbestos and concrete ball that are cancerous and involve public health risk. Although, the density range is high than the fiberboard and POP ceiling board. This is the result of the MD density shown in Table 2 to be 2.73. While the water absorption of the RH is responsible for the higher water absorption result obtained in the current study which is higher that the asbestos and some of its other alternatives available in the literature. Moreover, limited study exists on the fire resistant of asbestos and some of its replacements on like the current study that shows that MRCBs ceiling board can withstand fire exposure up to 20 min before severe damage could occur. This informs the occupant/user the sustainability of the material in case of fire accident.

Table 4 Properties of asbestos and its alternative replacement
Full size table

4 Conclusion

This study investigated the use of agro-industrial waste (rice husk and marble dust) bound with recycled polystyrene glue, MRCB, as a sustainable alternative to asbestos in construction materials. The study’s findings showed that MRCBs are lightweight materials (729.17–776.50 kg/m³), making them suitable alternatives to asbestos. The physical and durability properties of the composite materials demonstrated acceptable water absorption (19.89–33.45%) and fire resistance (up to 20 min), allowing time for evacuation. The nail pull-out test showed no surface cracks, although minor cracks appeared after the nail was fully driven in; however, the fire-exposed samples failed the test. The morphological analysis indicated that the samples with more marble dust had fewer voids and greater structural integrity than those with more rice husks. Therefore, this study suggests that MRCB can replace asbestos in construction, offering an eco-friendly and safe alternative. However, further study is recommended on the impact of MRCB on public health. Additionally, there is a need to improve the fire resistance and durability of MRCB. Future research on d-limonene, ethanol-based blends is also recommended to ensure that the proposed solution aligns with sustainability and public health goals. This is due to the substantial occupational, health and environmental concerns PMS raised.