4.7 Article

Impacts of pH on leaching potential of elements from MSW incineration fly ash

期刊

FUEL
卷 184, 期 -, 页码 815-825

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.07.089

关键词

Fly ash; Leaching; Geochemical modeling; pH

资金

  1. FHWA Recycled Materials Resource Center (RMRC)
  2. State of Wisconsin Solid Waste Research Program (SWRP) in the University of Wisconsin System

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, leaching behaviors of aluminum (Al), calcium (Ca), potassium (K), sodium (Na), barium (Ba), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), arsenic (As), silver (Ag), chromium (Cr), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), selenium (Se), and sulfate (SO42-) from fresh and aged municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) fly ashes under different pH conditions (pH similar to 2-14) were investigated. Results showed that majority of the elements followed a cationic leaching pattern where the leached element concentrations from fly ashes decreased with an increase in pH. Only Al, Ba, As, and Se showed different leaching patterns. Maximum concentrations of leached Al and As were measured at extreme acidic (pH similar to 2) and basic (pH similar to 12) conditions consistent with an amphoteric leaching pattern. Leached Se and Ba reached peak concentrations at very alkaline conditions (pH > 11) following an oxyanionic leaching pattern. Geochemical modeling analyses were conducted to determine controlling mechanisms of leaching of these elements. Leaching of elements, except As, Se, Ag, and Cr, were controlled by the dissolution/precipitation of their (hydr) oxides, carbonate or sulfate solids. Leaching of Cr may be controlled by BaCrO4(s), while no solid phases were found that controlled leaching of As, Se, and Ag. Sorption control leaching mechanisms should be included to determine the leaching mechanisms of these three elements. Leached element concentrations and leaching controlling mechanisms were not affected significantly by aging of the MSWI fly ash. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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