| Literature DB >> 35890585 |
Yibran Perera-Mercado1, Ahmadreza Hedayat1, Lori Tunstall1, Cara Clements1, Julia Hylton1, Linda Figueroa1, Nan Zhang1, Héctor Gelber Bolaños Sosa2, Néstor Tupa2, Isaac Yanqui Morales2, Reynaldo Sabino Canahua Loza2.
Abstract
Beneficiation of industrial wastes, such as mine tailings (MTs), through development of alternative eco-friendly geopolymer binders for construction composites offers a twofold environmental benefit, as it reduces the demand for cement and it increases the sustainability of industrial processes by creating a value-added product from an industrial byproduct. While MTs have the requisite composition for use as a geopolymer precursor, they are often low-reactive. This study explored the effect of Class C Fly Ash (FAc) on the geopolymerization of low-reactive gold MTs. A 10 M sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution was used as the alkaline activator with four different concentrations of FAc (5, 10, 15 and 20 wt.%). The results indicated that the combination of FAc with the low-reactive gold MTs improved the physicochemical stability of the final geopolymerized samples, with a 95-120% increase in compressive strength, compared to the geopolymer samples of only low-reactive gold MTs. Although some of the strength improvement could be attributed to geopolymerization of the FAc itself, the presence of the FAc also improved the reactivity of the MTs, increasing the geopolymer production of the MTs. This study documents the positive effects of the FAc on gold MTs with low-calcium content and their conversion into sustainable inorganic composite geopolymers for the construction field.Entities:
Keywords: Rietveld method; class C fly ash; geopolymers; mine tailings
Year: 2022 PMID: 35890585 PMCID: PMC9317708 DOI: 10.3390/polym14142809
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1Particle size distribution of the raw MTs.
Figure 2Geopolymer samples production process. Reprinted from Ref. [19].
XRD phases identified and their associated PDF codes.
| Phase | Chemical Formula | PDF Code |
|---|---|---|
| Albite | Na(AlSi3O8) | 04-017-1022 |
| Anhydrite | (CaSO4) | 01-074-2421 |
| C-A-S-H | Ca3Al(Al3SiO10)(OH)2 | 00-001-1079 |
| Gehlenite | Ca2Al2SiO7 | 01-089-6887 |
| Grossular | Ca₃Al₂(SiO₄)₃ | 04-013-2106 |
| Magnetite | Fe2O3 | 01-075-0449 |
| Muscovite | KAl2(FOH)2 or (KF)2(Al2O3)3(-SiO2)6 | 00-001-1098 |
| N-A-S-H | Na17.6(Al16Si56O144)(H2O)38.4 | 04-017-1022 |
| Quartz | SiO2 | 01-077-8621 |
| Synthetic Diamond | C | 01-079-6061 |
Figure 3SEM and EDS semiquantitative chemical analyses of the precursor materials (wt.%). (a) raw FAc, (b) raw MTs.
Figure 4XRD patterns. (a) Raw MTs. (b) Raw FAc. (c) Synthetic diamond used in QXRD analysis.
Figure 5FTIR spectra of the raw FAc and the raw MTs used in this research.
Figure 6FTIR spectra of the original GP.-MTs, and the supplemented geopolymers with FAc.
QXRD analyses of the raw materials (MTs and FAc), their own geopolymers, and the co-geopolymers of the MTs with different FAc content. Only phases contributing ≥ 0.5 wt.% of the sample are reported.
| Phase | Raw MTs Wt.% | Original | Raw FAc | FAc-GP. | GP. + 5% FAc | GP. + 10% FAc | GP. + 15% FAc | GP. + 20% FAc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muscovite | 9.3 | 6.5 | - | - | 4.8 | 2.4 | 6.0 | 5.1 |
| Quartz | 51.1 | 38.9 | 5.4 | 1.6 | 29.3 | 25.4 | 27.6 | 24.6 |
| Gehlenite | - | - | 13.1 | 1.3 | - | - | - | - |
| Albite | 12.5 | 9.2 | - | - | 5.2 | 6.6 | 5.7 | 5.4 |
| Grossular | - | - | 9.6 | 1.7 | - | - | - | - |
| Anhydrite | - | - | 0.8 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Magnetite | 0.7 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Zeolite | - | 1.2 | - | - | - | 0.7 | - | 0.7 |
| Calcium Aluminum Silicate Hydrate (C-A-S-H) | 0.8 | 0.7 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.5 |
| Sodium Aluminum Silicate Hydrate (N-A-S-H) | 1.9 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| % of Amorphous | 23.2 | 43.1 | 70.9 | 95.3 | 59.6 | 63.9 | 58.6 | 62.9 |
Figure 7Percentage of amorphous phases calculated QXRD analysis. (a) Amorphous content in the raw precursors (raw MTs, raw FAc) and in their individual geopolymer systems. (b) content in the original GP.-MTs, and contribution of amorphous content from each precursor in the co-geopolymerized samples.
Figure 8Comparative compressive strength of the original GP.-MTs with the co-geopolymerized systems at four different concentrations of FAc.