4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Application of leaching tests for toxicity evaluation of coal fly ash

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 409-416

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/tox.20187

关键词

fly ash; leaching; eluates; heavy metals; Vibrio fischeri; Brachionus calyciflorus; Daphnia magna

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The toxic properties of coal fly ash samples obtained from various coal combustion power plants were evaluated in this work using physicochemical analyses and bioassays. Physicochemical analyses showed that heavy metals present in solid samples included Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Zn. The results of the chemical analysis of eluates deduced by the application of standard leaching tests according to EN 12457-2 and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) methods indicated that the compounds contained in fly ashes Could potentially be transferred to the liquid phase depending upon the leaching method used. Heavy metal concentrations were higher in TCLP eluates, indicating that the initial PH value of the leaching medium significantly affected the transfer of these elements to the liquid phase. Tests conducted with the photobacterium Vibrio fischeri (Microtox test), the crustacean Daphnia magna, and the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus were used to assess toxicity of eluates obtained by both leaching tests. Daphnia magna was the most sensitive test organism. The EN 12457-2 method proved to be more reliable for toxicity evaluation of eluates. In contrast, the TCLP method showed some interference owing to acetic acid toxicity, and precipitation occurred after pH adjustment of eluates from acid to neutral range. The toxicity of both fly ashes and the corresponding solid leaching residues of EN 12457-2 and TCLP leaching tests was also measured using the Microtox Basic Solid phase Test. The results generated with this bioassay indicated that toxicity was greatly influenced by the PH status of the solid samples. (c) 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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