4.7 Article

Effect of water-washing on the co-removal of chlorine and heavy metals in air pollution control residue from MSW incineration

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 68, 期 -, 页码 221-231

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.039

关键词

APC residue; Water washing; Chloride; Heavy metal; Kinetic study

资金

  1. National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars [51522401]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51472007]
  3. Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Committee [ZDSYS201602261932201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study systemically investigated the effect of a water-washing process on the removal of harmful chlorides, sulfates, and heavy metals in the air pollution control (APC) residue from municipal solid wastes incineration (MSWI), for sake of a better reuse and disposal of this kind of waste. In addition, the kinetic study was conducted to reveal the releasing mechanism of relevant element in the residue. The results show that, over 70 wt.% of chlorides and nearly 25 wt.% of sulfates in the residue could be removed by water washing. Based on an economical consideration, the optimal operation conditions for water washing of APC residue was at liquid/solid (L/S) ratio of 3 mL:1 g and extracting time of 5 min. As expected, the concentrations of Co, Cr, Fe, Ni, V and Cu in the washing effluent increased with time during the washing process. However, the extracting regime differs among different heavy metals. The concentrations of Ba and Mn increased firstly but declined afterwards, and concentrations of Pb and Zn gradually declined while Cd and As kept constant with the increase of extracting time. It is worth mentioning that the bubbling of CO2 into the washing effluent is promisingly effective for a further removal of Pb, Cu and Zn. Furthermore, kinetic study of the water washing process reveals that the extracting of heavy metals during water washing follows a second-order model. (C) 2017 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