4.8 Article

Coexistence of Cu, Fe, Pb, and Zn Oxides and Chlorides as a Determinant of Chlorinated Aromatics Generation in Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Fly Ash

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 85-92

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es403585h

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of the Environment [K1632]
  2. JSPS [17681008]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25289171, 17681008] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated chemical determinants of the generation of chlorinated aromatic compounds (aromatic-Cls), such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and chlorobenzenes (CBzs), in fly ash from municipal solid waste incineration. The influences of the following on aromatic-Cls formation in model fly ash (MFA) were systematically examined quantitatively and statistically: (i) inorganic chlorides (KCl, NaCl, CaCl2), (ii) base materials (SiO2, Al2O3, CaCO3), (iii) metal oxides (CuO, Fe2O3, PbO, ZnO), (iv) metal chlorides (CuCl2, FeCl3, PbCl2, ZnCl2), and (v) coexisting multi-models. On the basis of aromatic-Cls concentrations, the Sigma CBzs/Sigma PCBs ratio, and the similarity between distribution patterns, MFAs were categorized into six groups. The results and analysis indicated that the formation of aromatic-Cls depended strongly on the coexistence condition, namely multimodels composed of not only metal chlorides, but also of metal oxides. The precise replication of metal chloride to oxide ratios, such as the precise ratios of Cu-, Fe-, Pb-, and Zn-chlorides and oxides, may be an essential factor in changing the thermochemical formation patterns of aromatic-Cls. Although CuCl2 acted as a promoter of aromatic-Cls generation, statistical analyses implied that FeCl3 also largely influenced the generation of aromatic-Cls under mixture conditions. Various additional components of fly ash were also comprehensively analyzed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available