4.7 Article

Concentrations, profiles, and emission factors of unintentionally produced persistent organic pollutants in fly ash from coking processes

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 261, Issue -, Pages 421-426

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.07.063

Keywords

Dioxins; Polychlorinated biphenyls; Polychlorinated naphthalenes; Coking process; Fly ash

Funding

  1. National 973 Program [2009CB421606]
  2. Hong Kong Scholars Program [XJ2012055]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21107123, 21037003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The coking process has been found to be an important source of unintentionally produced persistent organic pollutants (UP-POPs). However, the concentrations, profiles, and emission factors of UP-POPs in fly ash from coke plants have not been studied. In this study, six UP-POPs (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs), hexachlorobenzene (HxCBz), and pentachlorobenzene (PeCBz)) were identified and quantified in fly ash from eight coke plants. The average concentrations of the PCDDs. PCDFs, and dioxin-like PCBs were 1.5, 2.26, and 0.26 pgTEQg(-1), respectively, and the average concentrations of the PCNs, HxCBz, and PeCBz were 256, 290, and 146 pg g(-1), respectively. The proportion each homolog contributed to the total concentration of the PCDFs, PCBs, and PCNs decreased with increasing chlorination level. The PCDFs contributed the biggest proportion of the total UP-POPs toxic equivalents (TEQs), and the average emission factors in fly ash were 10.5, 17.3, and 1.82 ngTEQt(-1) for the PCDDs, PCDFs, and dioxin-like PCBs, respectively, and 1792, 2028, and 1025 ng t(-1) for the PCNs, HxCBz, and PeCBz, respectively. These data are essential for establishing an integrated UP-POP release inventory. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available