4.7 Article

Characterization of heavy metals and PCDD/Fs from water-washing pretreatment and a cement kiln co-processing municipal solid waste incinerator fly ash

Journal

WASTE MANAGEMENT
Volume 76, Issue -, Pages 106-116

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.006

Keywords

Heavy metals; Dioxins; Water washing; Cement kiln co-processing; Fly ash

Funding

  1. Global Environmental Facility (GEF) project [GF/CPR/09/006]
  2. Sino-Norway Project on Environmentally Sound Management of Co-processing of Hazardous and Industrial Wastes in Cement Kilns in China (Phase II) [CHN-2150 09/059]
  3. Beijing Jinyu Liushui Environmental Science Technology Co.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A disposal method for fly ash from a municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI-FA) that involved a water washing pretreatment and co-processing in a cement kiln was tested. The mass flows of toxic heavy metals (HMs), including volatile HM (Hg), semi-volatile HMs (Pb, Cd, TI, and As), and low-volatility HMs, and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxinipolychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDD/Fs) in the input, intermediate, and output materials were characterized. The flue gas Hg concentrations from tests 0, 1, and 2, fed with 0, 3.1, and 1.7 t/h of dried-washed FA (DWFA), were 28.60, 61.95, and 35.40 mu g N m(-3), respectively. Co processing of DWFA did not significantly affect the metal concentration in clinker as most of the major input metals, with the exception of Cd, Pb, and Sb (which came from DWFA), were from raw materials and coal. Co-processing of DWFA did not influence on the release of PCDD/Fs; baseline and co processing values ranged from 0.022 to 0.039 ng-TEQ/N m(-3), and from 0.01 to 0.031 ng-TEQ/N m(3), respectively. The total destruction efficiency for PCDD/Fs in MSWI fly was 82.6%. This technology seems to be an environmentally sound option for the disposal of MSWI-FA. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. 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