4.7 Article

Separation of alumina and silica from metakaolinite by reduction roasting-alkaline leaching process: Effect of CaSO4 and CaO

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S1003-6326(22)65849

关键词

circulating fluidized bed slag; metakaolinite; Ca-bearing minerals; reduction roasting; alkaline leaching

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [52004194, 51874219]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2019M662733]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effect of adding limestone to coal gangue during roasting in a circulating fluidized bed boiler. The results showed that the addition of CaSO4 and CaO significantly decreased the separation efficiency of alumina and silica from metakaolinite.
Limestone (CaCO3), which could promote sulfur fixation, was added to coal gangue during roasting in a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler. CaO and CaSO4 were the main Ca-bearing minerals while metakaolinite was the major Al-bearing mineral in CFB slag. The effect of CaSO4 and CaO on the separation of alumina and silica from metakaolinite by reduction roasting-alkaline leaching process was studied. Results showed that metakaolinite was completely converted into hercynite and silica solid solutions (i.e., quartz and cristobalite solid solutions) by reduction roasting with hematite. More than 95% of silica in the reduced specimen was removed by alkaline leaching. The addition of CaSO4 and CaO remarkably decreased the separation efficiency of alumina and silica in metakaolinite, which could be attributed to the formation of Si-bearing minerals: (1) Fayalite and anorthite were formed during the reduction roasting process; (2) Fayalite was stable while anorthite was converted into sodalite and wollastonite during the alkaline leaching process. This study demonstrates that sulfur in coal gangue should be fixed by treating the exhaust gas instead of controlling the combustion process of CFB to achieve the comprehensive recovery of silica and alumina from the CFB slag.

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