Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pavement Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Presenters outline pavement preservation options and tout titanium dioxide testing for emissions and durability
Summary
Technical presenters described multi‑asphalt rejuvenators and a photo‑catalytic titanium dioxide treatment that research partners (Texas A&M, Purdue and others) have tested; presenters cited lab and field data on friction, longevity (Greenville: ~88% retention after five years), and claimed reductions in tailpipe emissions in some studies but emphasized ambient testing is difficult and further lab verification is ongoing.
A visiting presenter, who identified himself as Ken Holton, gave a technical briefing on pavement‑preservation products including multi‑based asphalt rejuvenators, joint bond stabilization and a titanium dioxide (TiO2) photo‑catalytic treatment designed to oxidize pollutants.
Ken Holton described the rejuvenator and joint bond approach as preventive maintenance that restores oils and resins the pavement loses over time. He contrasted lifecycle costs — citing $40–$50 per square yard for full‑depth reclamation versus roughly $4–$5 for mid‑level microsurface treatments — and argued correctly timed preventive treatments can extend pavement life and reduce long‑term cost.
On titanium dioxide, Holton said his firm is working with research partners (Texas A&M, Purdue and ongoing work with Duke) to quantify environmental co‑benefits. He reported laboratory and limited field results indicating reduced tailpipe emission markers (mid‑30s to 40s percent reductions reported in some tests, up to 50% in specific measures), improvements in solar reflective index in treated neighborhoods and long‑term retention (Greenville: ~88% TiO2 retained after five years in pavement cores). He also said Durham water‑quality sampling showed no negative impacts in that study and that core testing has been a preferred verification approach because ambient conditions are difficult to control.
Holton acknowledged safety questions. He said the rejuvenator emulsion is colored (pink) for quality control, is applied with light aggregate that is swept the next morning to restore friction, and that friction testing shows values return to safe ranges after aggregate application. He cautioned against using rejuvenators on pavement that is already at the bottom of the deterioration curve and stressed correct candidate selection (right road, right treatment) is essential to avoid premature failure.
Costs and longevity: Holton estimated the TiO2 additive increases material cost by roughly $1 per square yard above a base rejuvenator price; he cited Greenville retention data showing substantial retention after five years and said a peer‑reviewed paper on TiO2 CO2 effects in concrete pavements was in final review at Purdue. He emphasized further controlled lab and core testing will be needed to validate ambient air and water benefits before widespread adoption.
Statements of note: Holton asserted TiO2 can oxidize PFAS in controlled tests and said microplastic fragments show oxidative degradation under lab conditions; these are presented as preliminary research findings and the presenter recommended continued testing and academic verification. The committee discussed whether carbon‑reduction grant funds (LAPS) might be applied to pilot state routes and the presenters offered to provide friction and lab reports to county staff for review.
What happens next: County staff and committee members indicated interest in small pilot projects on candidate roads and said they will pursue permitting and potential grant funding to test treatments on selected corridors.
