| Literature DB >> 35206488 |
Hyunsoo Kim1, Oyunbileg Purev1, Kanghee Cho2, Nagchoul Choi2, Jaewon Lee3, Seongjin Yoon4.
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of washing equipment for inorganic salts, such as NaCl, KCl, and CaClOH, to decontaminate municipal solid waste incineration fly ash (MSW-IFA). Based on the feature of hydrodynamic cavitation, the device developed in this study (referred to as a 'washing ejector') utilizes the cavitation bubbles. A washing ejector was analyzed under a range of conditions, employing as little water as possible. In hydrodynamic cavitation, the increase in fluid pressure with increasing static pressure is mainly attributed to the increase in particle-bubble collisions via the cavitation flow. The results revealed that the fluid pressure influenced the removal of inorganic salts during cavitation in water. This is because during the washing process from the collapse of cavitation bubbles, the release is achieved through the dissolution of inorganic salts weakly bound to the surface. After treatment by a washing ejector, the removal of soluble salts elements such as Cl, Na, and K was reduced by approximately 90%. Removing the inorganic salts in the IFA altered the characteristics of the Ca-related phase, and amorphous CaCO3 was formed as the cavitation flow reacted with CO2 in the ambient air. Furthermore, the washing effluent produced by washing IFA was found to be beneficial for CO2 capture. The washing effluent was enriched with dissolved Ca from the IFA, and the initial pH was the most favorable condition for the formation of CaCO3; thus, the effluent was sufficient for use as a CO2 sequestration medium and substitute for the reuse of water. Overall, the process presented herein could be effective for removing soluble salts from IFA, and this process is conducive to utilizing IFA as a resource.Entities:
Keywords: CO2 capture; cavitation bubble; fly ash; inorganic salts; washing ejector
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35206488 PMCID: PMC8872468 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042306
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
XRF (wt. %) and ICP (* mg/kg) analysis results for the IFA.
| Ca | Cl | Na | K | Si | S | Mg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31.2 | 22.9 | 7.6 | 4.3 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Pb * | Cd * | As * | Cu * | Zn * | Cr * | Fe * |
| 9313.3 | 1795.5 | 167.9 | 8213.3 | 88,609.2 | 2456.6 | 204,518.4 |
Figure 1(a) Photograph of washing ejector; (b) photograph of the cavitating device; (c) photograph of nozzle.
Figure 2Influence of (a) flow rate and (b) static pressure drop as a function of inlet pressure using a washing ejector.
Major elements of various parameters in IFA and washed IFA samples (wt. %).
| Composition | Untreated | Water-to-Solid Ratio | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFA | 1:1 | 1:1 | 1:1 | 1.5:1 | 2:1 | |
| 1 MPa | 3 MPa | 5 MPa | 5 MPa | 5 MPa | ||
| Cl | 22.9 | 5.01 | 3.47 | 3.06 | 2.72 | 1.52 |
| Na2O | 10.3 | 2.03 | 1.93 | 1.54 | 1.37 | 1.22 |
| K2O | 5.20 | 1.68 | 1.23 | 1.13 | 1.01 | 0.81 |
| CaO | 43.6 | 57.7 | 52.1 | 51.6 | 53.3 | 52.7 |
| SiO2 | 4.55 | 8.66 | 8.68 | 9.1 | 8.96 | 9.80 |
| Al2O3 | 1.79 | 4.24 | 9.85 | 9.9 | 10.5 | 10.1 |
| MgO | 1.82 | 3.91 | 3.14 | 3.0 | 3.31 | 3.18 |
| Fe2O3 | 1.34 | 2.85 | 4.62 | 5.9 | 4.45 | 6.86 |
| TiO2 | 1.31 | 3.31 | 4.37 | 4.5 | 4.39 | 4.64 |
| SO3 | 5.02 | 6.67 | 6.16 | 5.7 | 5.83 | 5.61 |
Figure 3The XRD patterns (a) and FTIR (b) of IFA before and after using a washing ejector.
Characteristics of effluent from washing ejector.
| pH | EC (S/m) | Cl (g/L) | Br (g/L) | SO4 (g/L) | Ca (g/L) | Na (g/L) | K (g/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13.8 | 3.3 | 19.84 | 0.45 | 1.29 | 5.24 | 3.10 | 2.92 |
Figure 4The TG/DTA of IFA (a,b) and washed IFA (c,d) using a washing ejector (at L/S 2 and 5 MPa).
Figure 5(a–c) Effect of the initial pH on the Ca, Na and K concentration leached from the IFA and washed IFA and (d) leachate pH at different initial pH.
Figure 6The SEM images and the corresponding EDS analysis of IFA before (a) and after (b) using the washing ejector.
Figure 7(a) Changes in pH in the effluent at various CO2 flow rates. (b) XRD patterns of the precipitates obtained under CO2 flow rates.
Figure 8(a) Diagram of the mechanism of the phase changes of IFA after using the washing ejector. (b) Particle size distribution before and after using the washing ejector.