4.7 Article

Vanadium recovery from steel converter slag utilised as an oxygen carrier in oxygen carrier aided combustion (OCAC)

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 293, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126159

关键词

Vanadium leaching; Continuous flow leaching; Oxygen carrier aided combustion (OCAC); Microwave-assisted leaching; Steel converter slags

资金

  1. Stiftelsen Lars Hiertas Minne [FO2019-0 080]
  2. Magnus Bergvalls Stiftelse [201903078]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates vanadium extraction from steel converter slag using a combustion technique called oxygen carrier aided combustion (OCAC). It found that higher extraction efficiency could be achieved using microwave-assisted leaching with optimized conditions.
This study investigates vanadium extraction from steel converter slag from the LD (Linz-Donawitz) process. This slag has been used as an active bed material in a biomass boiler in a combustion technique called oxygen carrier aided combustion (OCAC). This usage in the boiler could be compared to the roasting step in the common roasting-leaching method for vanadium extraction. Leaching of LD slag prior to use as an oxygen carrier is undesirable as the materials active in OCAC are removed. This study successfully leached the slag following use in the combustion process. Two methods of leaching were utilised to compare the OCAC slag against traditional methods of vanadium extraction; a continuous flow leaching procedure and a microwave-assisted leaching procedure. It was found that a vanadium extraction efficiency of 22.1% could be achieved from the OCAC slag using 5 M sulphuric acid as a leaching solution following 30 min water leaching followed by 30 min of continuous acid leaching. Using the microwave-assisted method and further optimising leaching conditions, a final efficiency of 49.1% was achieved with 4 M sulphuric acid and particle size within the range of 44-74 mu m. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据