4.5 Article

Undifferentiated Inorganics in Coal Fly Ash and Bottom Ash: Calcispheres, Magnesiacalcispheres, and Magnesiaspheres

期刊

MINERALS
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/min8040140

关键词

fly ash; bottom ash; petrography classification; magnesioferrite; periclase

资金

  1. Project RAREASH (Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia, IP, Portugal) [ERA-MIN/0006/2014, ERA-MIN/0005/2015]
  2. Project CHARPHITE (Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia, IP, Portugal) [ERA-MIN/0006/2014, ERA-MIN/0005/2015]
  3. Institute of Earth Sciences (ICT) [FCT UID/GEO/04683/2013]
  4. COMPETE [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007690]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During a study aiming to recover strategic elements and minerals from coal fly ash and bottom ash (RAREASH and CHARPHITE projects funded, respectively, by the 2nd ERA-MIN and 3rd ERA-MIN Programs of the European Union Commission), it was found that in coal fly ash and bottom ash from Romania and Poland, several morphotypes did not fit into the general fly ash classifications, unless grouped together as undifferentiated inorganics. However, the combination of reflected light optical microscopy under oil immersion, scanning electron microscopy, and X-ray microanalysis (SEM/EDS) showed that many of these morphotypes not only have distinctive petrographic patterns but are also characterized by a chemical assemblage dominated by Ca, Mg, and P. In this paper, a survey of the literature is presented together with several detailed studies of samples from the RAREASH and CHARPHITE projects from which the following nomenclature are proposed: calcispheres for spongy Ca-rich morphotypes, calcimagnesiaspheres for (Ca + Mg)-rich morphotypes with visible MgO nodules and/or periclase (MgO) exsolved from Ca aluminate-silicate glass, and magnesiaspheres divided into magnesiaferrospheres for (Mg + Fe)-rich morphotypes with magnesioferrite, and magnesiaoxyspheres for magnesiaspheres mainly composed of (Mg + Fe)-rich amorphous material with visible MgO nodules and/or periclase.

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

4.5
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