Resources, Conservation & Recycling 148 (2019) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Critical examination of recycled municipal solid waste incineration ash as a T

mineral source for portland cement manufacture – A case study
Linda Monroy Sarmientoa, Kyle A. Claviera, Jerry M. Parisb, Christopher C. Ferrarob,
⁎
Timothy G. Townsenda,
a
Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, PO Box 116450, Gainesville,
FL 32611-6450, USA
b
Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment, Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida, P.O. Box 116580, Gainesville, FL
32611-6450, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) ash has the potential to be used as mineral feed for portland cement
Recycling manufacture but is not currently used in this manner in much of the world. A scoping study was performed using
Beneficial use samples and data from Florida, US, to assess the potential magnitude of material that may be recycled to create a
Cement viable clinker. Results indicate that MSWI ash possesses the elemental ingredients to serve as a partial kiln feed
Clinker
replacement. Large amounts of MSWI can be used based on mineralogy alone, but chloride and alkali content
MSW
limitations decrease allowable replacement amounts, especially for fly ash. Average allowable replacement
Incineration
Ash percentages that did not exceed standard chloride and alkali limits were 6.4%, 0.33%, and 1.17% for bottom ash,
fly ash and combined ash, respectively. MSWI bottom ash may be the preferred material stream in the absence of
pre-processing techniques such as washing. The scoping study found that available MSWI ash could supply a
large amount of the current kiln feed demand, and a feasibility and cost assessment supports that both MSWI
facility and cement kiln operators have justification to pursue this technology with more detailed evaluations.

1. Introduction
Municipal solid waste (MSW) generation in the United States has
been steadily increasing over the last 30 years based on data reported
by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), reaching over
235 million metric tons in 2015 (USEPA, 2015). MSW incineration
(MSWI) serves as an important management technology that results in a
reduction of up to 90% waste volume and provides the opportunity for
energy generation and materials recovery (Wiles, 1996). The preferred
management option of many European and Asian nations (Saikia et al.,
2007), MSWI accounts only for around 13% of the MSW managed in the
US (USEPA, 2015). The ash produced from MSWI must be properly
managed.
MSWI ash is classified into two types: bottom ash, which mostly
corresponds to unburnt material retained on the grates of the com-
bustion chamber, and fly ash, a finer material collected by the air
pollution control system. Many facilities in the US combine bottom and
fly ash at a ratio of approximately 80% bottom ash and 20% fly ash to
obtain a product known as combined ash. MSWI ash contains con-
taminants of potential concern (COPC) at higher concentrations than
originally present in the waste (Oehmig et al., 2015), and while the
characteristics of bottom ash and fly ash differ, in general MSWI ash is
composed in its majority by calcium, aluminum, iron, and silica
(Kikuchi, 2001; Lam et al., 2011; Saikia et al., 2006; Shih et al., 2003).
Trace elements such as arsenic, copper, lead and zinc are also present in
the ash, with larger concentrations often present in the fly ash
(Siddique, 2010).
Though mainly disposed of by landfilling in the US (Oehmig et al.,
2015), several studies have evaluated alternative applications for MSWI
ash such aggregate substitution in asphalt pavement or portland cement
concrete mixes, granular base in road construction, or fill material
(Ferraro et al., 2016; Olsson et al., 2006; Roessler et al., 2016, 2015;
Schafer et al., 2018; Siddique, 2010; Wiles, 1996). Another potential
MSWI ash recycling opportunity is the manufacture of portland cement
clinker (Clavier et al., 2019; Krammart and Tangtermsirikul, 2004; Lam
et al., 2011, 2010; Saikia et al., 2007). Portland cement clinker is
produced by the high temperature reaction of calcium, aluminum, iron
and silica oxides (Lam et al., 2011), creating four major mineral phases:
alite (tricalcium silicate, Ca3SiO5, commonly referred to as C3S), belite
(dicalcium silicate, Ca2SiO4 or C2S), aluminate (tricalcium aluminate,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ttown@ufl.edu (T.G. Townsend).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.002
Received 2 March 2019; Received in revised form 30 April 2019; Accepted 1 May 2019
0921-3449/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.
L.M. Sarmiento, et al.
Ca3Al2O6 or C3A), and ferrite (tetracalcium alumino ferrite,
Ca4Al2Fe2O10 or C4AF) (Taylor, 1997). The elements necessary to create
clinker are provided by mined materials such as limestone, sand, and
clay, as well as industrial wastes such as mixed coal ash, waste glass, or
steelmaking byproducts (Carvalho et al., 2017; Schneider et al., 2011;
Shi and Zheng, 2007). As waste materials are already used frequently in
cement production worldwide, the high content of calcium oxide (re-
ferred to as C in cement chemistry), aluminum oxide (A), iron oxide (F),
and silica oxides (S) in MSWI ash makes it another potentially viable
replacement or complement to traditional cement raw materials (Saikia
et al., 2007).
Full-scale application of MSWI ash for use as a cement kiln feed has
been limited, such as “eco-cement” produced in Japan (Ampadu and
Torii, 2001), or it is known to be incorporated into cement production
at select kilns, mostly in Asian countries. Several related research stu-
dies focused on using different ashes at varying replacement percen-
tages have been pursued. One such study found that up to 1.75% and
3.50% fly ash and bottom ash, respectively, is capable of creating viable
clinker (Pan et al., 2008). Other studies have demonstrated acceptable
bottom ash replacement below 3%–6% of raw materials with no sig-
nificant changes in cement composition compared to controls (Clavier
et al., 2019; Lam et al., 2011; Shih et al., 2003). Most of these studies
produced viable clinkers by pre-selecting replacement percentages most
often in the range of 1–10% (rather than attempting to use the max-
imum amount of MSWI ash possible), and though results of previous
work demonstrate that MSWI has the chemical makeup to produce a
viable clinker, several issues must be overcome.
Multiple authors have reported that MSWI bottom ash replacement
percentages as low as 3% cause a decrease in critical variables influ-
encing cement production and performance, such as lime saturation
factor (LSF), hydraulic modulus (HM) and compressive strength; in-
creased ash addition results in weak hydraulic activity for strength
development and insufficient CaO content (Krammart and
Tangtermsirikul, 2004; Shih et al., 2003). The use of MSWI fly ash in
cement production has a similar impact (Lam et al., 2011; Wu et al.,
2011). The use of MSWI ash in cement production is also associated
with increased trace metal content in clinkers and cements or stack
emissions (Saikia et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2011).
However, perhaps the most important limiting factor for cement pro-
duction using MSWI ash, especially fly ash (Guo et al., 2016; Hartmann
et al., 2015), is the presence of chlorides and alkalis; these constituents
have negative reactions in the kiln that affect the clinkerization process.
Chloride and alkali from MSWI ash incorporation into cement are
known to negatively impact clinker formation and cement behavior
(Ampadu and Torii, 2001; Lam et al., 2011; Saikia et al., 2007), and
have been cited as the limiting factor for MSWI ash incorporation into
cement (Pan et al., 2008). Furthermore, leached chloride from clinker
with high percentages of MSWI ash is elevated due to the content ori-
ginally present in the ash (Kikuchi, 2001). Multiple studies have sug-
gested that chloride should be controlled for if MSWI ash is to be used
in full scale production, such as fixation in minerals or ash pre-treat-
ment such as washing (Kikuchi, 2001; Lam et al., 2011; Saikia et al.,
2007). In the US, chloride and alkali concentrations in cement and
concrete are strictly controlled (ACI, 2014; ASTM, 2015a,b), and would
likely be the limiting factor for MSWI ash incorporation into cement.
Beyond issues associated with lower strength, insufficient mineral
phase formation, or chloride and alkali content, MSWI ash has a highly
variable composition, and though multiple studies support that MSWI
ash can be used to form a viable clinker, in practice the ash would need
to be incorporated into a mix design that accounts for the differing
chemical compositions of locally available mineral sources.
Furthermore, while technical feasibility of using MSWI ash for cement
must of course be assessed, cost and logistical feasibility must also be
considered. MSWI ash incorporation into cement is not practiced in the
US, and thus to understand how this technology might be applied in a
US context, a screening study was conducted to establish the scale to
2
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 148 (2019) 1–10
which this material may be introduced into cement kilns based on the
discussed constraints. Our objective in this scoping study was to provide
a critical examination of the potential use of MSWI ash generation for
cement production based on mineralogy and chloride and alkali con-
tent. Florida, US serves as a case study; of the 77 MSWI facilities active
in the US in 2016, 11 are located in Florida (the most in any US state)
(Michaels and Shiang, 2016) as well as six cement kilns, thus providing
a valuable opportunity to assess the feasibility of cement production
from MSWI ash. Ash samples were evaluated based on their chemical
composition and calculated clinker mineral phases without exceeding
standard chloride and alkali limits established by American Concrete
Institute (ACI) 318 (ACI, 2014) and American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) C150 (ASTM, 2015a,b). An economic and materials
flow assessment was also performed to evaluate the financial implica-
tions of implementing this practice. Our study does not purport that the
grab samples of MSWI ash used herein are sufficient to characterize
MSWI ash as a whole, but rather this research provides a means to
screen a diverse region of MSWI ash for its viability as a clinker additive
in order to justify whether further exploration of this recycling oppor-
tunity is warranted.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. MSWI ash collection
Samples of MSWI fly, bottom, and combined ash were obtained
from nine different facilities in Florida either as they were produced
(referred to as fresh samples) or from stockpiles weathered outdoors for
different periods of time (referred to as aged samples). Combining
MSWI bottom ash and fly ash (to create combined ash) is a standard
practice in the US, largely in response to US hazardous waste char-
acterization requirements. This combination is approximately 80%
bottom ash and 20% fly ash, but will vary slightly depending on the
facility operations, ash conditions, and air pollution control chemical
addition (Intrakamhaeng et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019). For the purposes
of this study, the large amount of combined ash samples (of composi-
tion reflecting normal operating conditions) from around the state
provide a means to assess the feasibility of combined ash incorporation
in cement production for a variety of combined ash compositions in the
standard form of disposal (requiring no changes in standard facility
operating procedures).
The carbonation process that ash experiences when exposed to the
atmosphere affects the mobility of different inorganic elements (Ai
et al., 2019; Roessler et al., 2016; Van Gerven et al., 2005). Due to the
ash processing practices of some facilities (metals recovery, particle size
separation) it was possible to obtain ash of different particle sizes. In
every case, the samples were placed in 19-L HDPE buckets and trans-
ported to the lab and hand-mixed on a clean, dry, impermeable surface
to obtain a homogeneous representation of the ash collected at each
facility prior to analysis.
2.2. MSWI ash characterization
The as-received moisture content of each sample was measured
upon delivery to the laboratory; for samples with moisture content
greater than 15%, air drying was necessary prior to further analysis
(high moisture content of the samples complicates particle size and x-
ray analysis). Subsequent to drying, the MSWI ash was size reduced
until 85% of the sample passed a 4.75 mm sieve. Particle size dis-
tribution for each of the samples was determined with a Horiba LA-950
Laser Particle Analyzer. Elemental oxide composition of all ashes was
determined using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF), while total en-
vironmentally available concentration of elements was determined ac-
cording to USEPA Method 3051A (USEPA, 2007) followed by analysis
by using Inductively Coupled Plasma – Atomic Emission Spectroscopy
(ICP-AES). These total concentrations were compared to Florida Soil
L.M. Sarmiento, et al.
Cleanup Target Levels (SCTL), a risk-based threshold for land applied
materials in residential or commercial/industrial applications, as a
comparative metric to screen elements of potential concern. Elements
were screened by comparison to coal ash and other MSWI ash samples.
A true risk assessment would involve evaluation of product-specific uses
and constraints, and site-specific parameters such as potential exposure,
hydrogeology, and institutional and engineering controls. Natural pH of
the ash samples was determined after mixing the ash with reagent
water at a liquid to solid ratio of 10 and rotating for 48–72 h.
2.3. Feasibility assessment
An MSWI ash-amended cement raw mix was calculated and com-
pared against a typical raw mix (no MSWI ash addition) used by a ce-
ment manufacturer in Florida, US; if the ashes in this study were to be
used for cement manufacture, that cement would be compared to a
typical cement produced in a local kiln. Theoretical clinker composi-
tions were calculated based on the chemical composition of the raw
materials, as well as quality constraints for alumina ratio (AR), silica
ratio (SR), and LSF according to typical values of portland cement from
previous studies; the mean values of the ranges typically reported were
used in this study (Lam et al., 2010, 2011). Initially, the maximum
addition of MSWI that could be introduced in the kiln was calculated
based on an expected ash-amended clinker with a mineral composition
comparable to that to portland cement clinker.
To account for solid material that gasifies in the kiln, the ash-
amended raw mixes were simulated assuming loss on ignition (LOI)
values of 5% and 12% based on the typical low and high values re-
ported for MSWI ash (Bethanis et al., 2002; Lynn et al., 2017; Meima
et al., 1999; Shim et al., 2003; Siddique, 2010). Chemical composition
of the limestone, sand, iron, and coal fly ash (used to simulate the local
cement raw mix) were provided by a local cement manufacturer.
Using Bogue’s equations, the approximate mineral phase composi-
tion of the simulated clinker (amount of C3S, C2S, C3A, and C4AF) was
calculated to determine if MSWI ash amended clinkers produce com-
parable mineral phases to those of traditional portland cement clinker
(Bogue, 1955; Bye, 1999; Lea, 1988; Taylor, 1997). To simplify the
calculations, the amount of kiln dust typically recirculated in the pro-
cess and amount of coal (used as fuel) absorbed onto the clinker were
neglected.
Mentioned previously, the presence of alkali and chloride in the
clinker can affect its quality, thus two additional constraints were
added: (i) the raw mixes would meet ASTM C150 standards for alkali
content (0.6%), and (ii) the raw mixes would meet ACI 318 standards
for chloride content in concrete (0.06% chloride). Through the appli-
cation of these variables, we are able to screen and evaluate the max-
imum amount of multiple MSWI ash samples with varying compositions
that would be incorporated into cement production. Detailed calcula-
tion results concerning the raw mixes can be found in the
Supplementary Material (SI).
The economic assessment focused on the cost of MSWI ash disposal
and the cost of raw material for the production of ordinary portland
cement and was carried out using information from the ash generators
regarding current ash generation, as well as information from local
cement manufacturers and current industry data regarding costs of raw
materials in Florida.
2.4. Statistical analysis
Statistical tests were used to assess differences between MSWI ash
types and aged conditions, as well as differences between MSWI ash
types and those materials commonly used for cement production. The
study presented here is a critical analysis of the feasibility of the cement
production of MSWI ash, and thus a measure of any statistically sig-
nificant differences between MSWI ash and typical raw materials for
cement production is critical. Trace element composition differences
3
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 148 (2019) 1–10
compared to coal ash will highlight elements of potential concern from
an environmental risk assessment perspective. Elemental oxide com-
position differences will provide insights in to how MSWI ash may be a
chemically feasible substitute from a compositional perspective.
Though MSWI ash is not meant to replace any one material for cement
production (but rather a portion of all materials necessary to create a
suitable composition), highlighting differences in elemental oxide
composition provides context for how MSWI ash might provide the
necessary elements for cement production compared to traditionally
used materials. To accomplish this, a t-test was used for normally dis-
tributed samples and a Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for non-nor-
mally distributed samples. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess the
normality of the sample distribution. Significant differences were
identified when the “P” value was less than or equal to 0.05, corre-
sponding to a confidence level of 95%.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. MSWI ash characterization
3.1.1. Elemental characterization
A description of the types of ash samples used in this study is pre-
sented in Table S1 in the SI. The samples include fly ash (identified with
a letter F at the beginning of the sample name), bottom ash (B) and
combined ash (C). The age of the ash is indicated as fresh (identified
with a letter F in the second position of the sample name) or aged (A).
For example, the first aged fly ash sample obtained was labeled as FA1.
The aging process for the ash samples involved placing indiscriminately
large windrowed stockpiles of ash in ambient outdoor conditions for a
period of up to 3 months; no other special treatments were applied.
Natural weathering or aging is commonly performed for MSWI ash in a
beneficial use scenario to control the solubility of trace elements such as
Cr, Pb, or Mo (Ai et al., 2019; Nilsson et al., 2016). Aging time was
determined based on practical constraints, but no sample was aged
fewer than 4 weeks; characteristics of aged ash from this study re-
present an ash sample that is aged to a feasible extent by a given MSWI
facility. Comments regarding particle size separation at the point of
origin prior to obtaining the sample, or any other special remark ob-
served during the sampling event, are noted in the Description column
of Table S1. A total of 23 samples from nine separate facilities were
used in this study: 13 combined ashes (six aged and seven fresh), three
fly ashes (all fresh), and seven bottom ashes (two aged and five fresh).
Often, multiple samples of the same type of ash were collected from the
same facility; for example, CA3 to CA6 all correspond to aged combined
ash from Facility 2 with the difference being the particle size of each
fraction, reflecting different ash conditions leaving the facility (and thus
variable chemical compositions for size-reduced and sieved materials).
Total environmentally available concentration of elements in the
MSWI ash samples are shown in Table S2; these values were compared
to the typical composition of coal fly and bottom ashes and to the SCTL,
provided in Table S3. Coal ash is a typical kiln feed ingredient
(Huntzinger and Eatmon, 2009), thus by comparing the MSWI ash
samples composition against that of coal ash, the possible benefits of
substituting MSWI ash as it relates to potential environmental concerns
(e.g., changes in air emissions from the cement kiln) are identified.
Further, SCTL comparisons were used to identify trace elements of
concern and screening whether concentrations higher than coal ash
merit any further evaluation.
MSWI samples generally exhibited significantly lower concentration
of V than coal fly and bottom ash; the same trend was observed for Be in
coal bottom ash and Se and Ba in coal fly ash. All MSWI samples had a
significantly higher concentration of Mo. Higher concentrations of Cu,
Pb, and Sb, were observed in the MSWI combined and bottom ash
samples (regardless of their age) than in coal fly ash and bottom ash.
This trend is also observed for As, Cu and Sb in MSWI fly ash. Cd in all
MSWI ash, except aged MSWI bottom ash, was higher than coal ash.
L.M. Sarmiento, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 148 (2019) 1–10

Table 1
Elemental oxide composition of MSWI ash samples. Data obtained using X-Ray Fluorescence technique, with the exception of Cl and SO3 (obtained according to
ASTM C114).
Sample Composition (%)

CaO SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 Cl SO3 MgO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 Cr2O3 ZnO SrO Mn2O3

CA1 38.3 18.8 5.88 4.10 3.27 5.15 1.76 3.07 1.60 1.31 1.44 0.11 1.45 0.08 0.11
CA2 36.2 20.5 5.87 5.24 1.97 3.85 1.65 3.55 1.66 1.14 1.35 0.13 1.32 0.10 0.14
CA3 30.2 23.3 9.57 6.09 3.23 1.69 2.45 3.09 1.29 1.19 1.55 0.10 1.83 0.06 0.15
CA4 32.9 21.6 8.84 3.69 4.41 4.28 2.23 2.67 1.39 1.25 1.79 0.08 1.77 0.04 0.15
CA5 26.7 31.7 8.85 7.26 3.64 3.72 1.89 3.30 1.05 1.14 1.71 0.13 1.43 0.06 0.18
CA6 25.0 33.9 8.13 8.78 3.14 1.91 1.79 4.00 1.06 0.99 1.29 0.19 1.34 0.07 0.16
CF1 35.4 24.9 6.93 4.41 2.25 3.28 1.57 3.15 1.31 1.21 1.33 0.11 1.09 0.10 0.09
CF2 28.7 27.7 8.88 6.32 3.66 3.79 2.08 3.24 1.41 1.18 1.58 0.12 1.16 0.05 0.19
CF3 30.6 29.3 7.14 5.31 3.28 4.87 1.87 2.62 1.20 1.12 1.01 0.14 1.36 0.06 0.12
CF4 24.5 34.9 7.63 8.91 1.92 2.85 2.45 4.08 1.27 0.84 0.82 0.20 1.24 0.11 0.14
CF5 27.5 31.0 5.89 6.83 3.58 3.78 2.81 4.49 1.23 0.92 0.97 0.15 1.71 0.09 0.18
CF6 31.6 31.5 5.15 3.21 3.64 4.17 1.44 3.62 1.42 0.88 1.35 0.16 1.01 0.05 0.09
CF7 24.4 27.8 9.56 10.4 7.72 4.25 2.98 4.05 1.44 0.97 0.89 0.15 1.70 0.05 0.13
FF1 37.4 7.85 2.37 2.23 17.3 8.56 2.18 3.53 2.40 0.55 0.54 0.04 3.08 0.02 0.05
FF2 54.9 3.93 1.51 0.12 8.52 5.54 0.98 3.59 2.37 0.41 0.49 0.14 1.63 0.03 0.03
FF3 34.2 15.6 3.72 1.84 10.5 13.3 5.81 4.65 2.28 0.95 1.11 0.03 2.97 0.02 0.08
BA1 29.5 39.1 8.27 3.41 0.52 1.33 1.52 2.26 0.61 1.31 1.43 0.13 0.83 0.11 0.13
BA2 23.8 43.0 7.30 7.32 0.08 2.33 1.61 3.07 0.82 0.69 0.87 0.15 0.74 0.10 0.14
BF1 27.2 38.9 7.91 7.30 0.69 1.94 1.97 2.22 0.65 1.32 1.09 0.12 0.67 0.06 0.20
BF2 23.2 39.9 11.6 7.85 0.33 2.81 2.07 3.05 0.91 1.23 2.22 0.14 0.71 0.07 0.21
BF3 16.2 50.6 8.84 11.1 0.57 0.97 1.64 5.13 0.87 0.83 1.19 0.13 0.38 0.13 0.15
BF4 23.1 46.3 6.26 4.68 0.86 3.84 1.52 3.18 0.90 1.05 1.86 0.28 0.57 0.06 0.11
BF5 37.6 33.4 5.39 2.64 – – 1.83 2.33 1.02 1.39 1.36 0.14 0.52 0.10 0.11

Care should be given to Cd and Pb, as their presence in cement clinker is
known to retard the rate of hydration of cement (Saikia et al., 2007).
Arsenic in the fresh MSWI combined ash and the MSWI bottom ash
(aged and fresh) samples was significantly lower than coal fly ash, but
significantly higher than coal bottom ash; the opposite was true for Ti in
all MSWI ash samples. Concentrations of Hg were only compared to
those in coal fly ash (the high volatility of Hg results in the accumu-
lation of this element in coal fly ash, and therefore it is typically not
detected in coal bottom ash); concentrations in MSWI combined and fly
ash were significantly higher than those typically observed in coal fly
ash. However, Hg concentrations in MSWI bottom ash were consistently
on the lower half of the reported range for coal fly ash. As Hg tends to
build up in some kiln operations, potential projects involving the ad-
dition of MSWI fly ash or combined ash would need to carefully eval-
uate the overall Hg balance of the kiln feed materials. Concentrations
for other trace elements in the MSWI ash samples can be seen in Table
S2. The comparisons with coal ash revealed elevated concentrations of
Mo, Cu, Pb, Sb, As, and Cd in some streams of MSWI ash compared to
coal fly ash.
Trace element concentrations were compared among the MSWI ash
streams, with special consideration given to those elements that were
found in higher concentrations than coal ash. MSWI fly ash samples
showed a significantly higher concentration of As, Cd, Hg, Sb, Se, and
Sn than the MSWI combined and bottom ash samples used in this study,
regardless of the age (fresh or aged ash samples); Cu was significantly
lower in the MSWI fly ash samples. The aged MSWI combined ash
samples generally had a similar trace element composition to that of
fresh combined ash samples, with the exception of Be which was higher
in the aged samples; the same trend was observed for Ba in bottom ash
samples. All combined MSWI ash samples had a significantly higher
concentration of Sb, Hg, and Cd than the fresh MSWI bottom ash; these
elements were also higher in the combined ash samples than in the aged
bottom ash samples, but only Cd in the aged combined ash and Sb in the
fresh combined ash were in significantly higher concentrations than in
the aged bottom ash. Trends observed among ash streams are consistent
with the literature (Oehmig et al., 2015) whereby issues with As, Cd
and Sb mentioned in the previous paragraph are generally associated
with the fly ash stream, while Pb concentrations should be investigated
for all streams.
Further comparison of elements of concern to risk-based screening
thresholds indicate that Ba, Cu and Sb concentrations in the MSWI ash
samples were greater than their corresponding residential SCTLs and,
furthermore, MSWI fly ash samples exceeded the commercial SCTL for
Sb. All but one MSWI ash sample exhibited As concentrations greater
than the SCTL, four of which exceeded only the residential level while
the rest exceeded the commercial level as well. Other elements like Al,
Cd, Cr, and Ni were also in concentrations exceeding their corre-
sponding SCTLs but only for some of the MSWI ash samples. As men-
tioned earlier, Hg was higher in the MSWI fly ash samples than the rest
of the samples; however, only FF1 and FF2 showed a concentration of
Hg greater than the residential SCTL for this element. Only three
samples did not exceed the SCTL for Pb, and several also exceeded the
commercial threshold. Elements found to be both higher in some of the
MSWI ash streams than coal ash, and to exceed risk-based SCTLs, in-
cluded Cu, Sb, Pb, and As. Such elevated concentrations do not indicate
that a cement product, or a resulting concrete product, will pose ad-
ditional risk when using MSWI ash. When used at the replacement
percentages previously reported in the literature, concentrations of
heavy metals will be greatly reduced in cement and concrete products,
and they should be relatively immobilized in the concrete products. A
more detailed risk assessment will be required as part of the develop-
ment of any specific project. But the screening analysis here does pro-
vide initial guidance as to the types of elements that may require ad-
ditional evaluation, and the sources of MSWI ash (e.g., MSWI fly ash)
with the greatest potential for elevated risk.
3.1.2. Major oxides
XRF results for the MSWI ash samples are shown in Table 1. CaO
content was typically highest in the MSWI fly ash samples, while SiO2
was significantly higher in MSWI bottom ash samples than any other
type. MSWI combined and bottom ash samples showed the highest
contents of Al2O3 and Fe2O3. The age of the ash was not found to affect
the content of the major oxides in the MSWI combined and bottom ash
samples; no significant difference between the aged and fresh samples
of each type of ash was observed. Though aging of ash certainly impacts
mineral phase formation and solubility of many elements in MSWI ash,

4
L.M. Sarmiento, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 148 (2019) 1–10

Table 2
Composition of typical raw materials in Portland cement manufacture including coal bottom ash (Cheriaf et al., 1999; Kula et al., 2002; Kurama et al., 2009;
Martinez-Tarazona and Spears, 1996; Menéndez et al., 2014), coal fly ash (Acar and Atalay, 2013; Chand et al., 2009; Lam et al., 2010; Rafieizonooz et al., 2016;
Sumer, 2012; Żyrkowski et al., 2016), limestone (Chen and Juenger, 2009; Lea, 1988; Pan et al., 2008; Puertas et al., 2008; Siddique, 2010; Tsakiridis et al., 2008),
sand (Chen and Juenger, 2009; Lea, 1988; Pan et al., 2008; Puertas et al., 2008; Siddique, 2010; Tsakiridis et al., 2008), clay (Pan et al., 2008; Puertas et al., 2008;
Tsakiridis et al., 2008), and bauxite (Tsakiridis et al., 2008; Dalton et al., 2004).
Composition (%) Sample

Coal Bottom Ash Coal Fly Ash Limestone Sand Clay Bauxite

CaO 0.8 – 8.28 1.10 – 10.7 49.02 – 55.06 0.37 – 2.06 4.01 – 8.97 4.65 – 7.64
SiO2 49.97 – 56 45.0 – 64.4 0.25 – 5.95 67.76 – 95.00 52.00 – 60.53 3.11 – 7.00
Al2O3 14.96 – 26.95 10.4 – 33.6 0.08 – 1.69 1.40 – 8.34 12.80 – 15.10 44.44 – 52.35
Fe2O3 5.8 – 15.0 3.76 – 26.1 0.06 – 2.70 0.61 – 14.52 4.20 – 6.02 19.87 – 22.64
Cl 0.02 0 – 0.0545 0.40 0.00 – 0.02
SO3 0.11 – 1.30 0.2 – 0.759 0.00 – 0.77 0.00 0.48 – 2.60 0.54
MgO 0.6 – 4.26 0.343 – 7.06 0.12 – 1.75 0.03 – 1.10 0.80 – 4.95 0.09 – 0.34
Na2O 0.14 – 0.69 0.2 – 4.53 0.00 – 0.07 0.00 – 0.14 0.58 – 1.40 0.09 – 0.15
K2O 0.78 – 3.05 0.8 – 4.23 0.02 – 0.29 1.63 – 2.42 0.78 – 4.55 0.00 – 0.76
TiO2 0.94 – 2.25 0.91 – 2.92 0.04 – 0.07 0.04 – 0.33 0.47 – 0.73 1.31 – 1.35
P2O5 0.19 – 0.95 0.562 – 1.4 0.08 – 0.10 0.03 – 0.48 0.15 0.04
Cr2O3 0.05 0.211 – – – 0.00
ZnO 0.01 0.0324 – 0.0648 – – – 0.00
SrO 0.29 0.0378 – 0.0591 0.07 – – 0.00
MnO3 – – – – – –

the lack of difference between aged and fresh samples is expected, as
XRF results report all elements as an oxide, regardless of what mineral
phase is actually present in the sample. Carbonation only adds an ele-
ment (carbon) that would not be picked up by XRF. However, if samples
were exposed to sufficient liquid (such as rainwater) during aging, we
may expect that concentrations of soluble salts and surface available
elements may decrease; this is not due to carbonation, but rather gen-
eral weathering. The results for SiO2 and Fe2O3 in bottom ash are si-
milar to those observed in other studies; greater Fe2O3 is expected in
the bottom ash based on the low volatility of Fe2O3 in the boiler (Lam
et al., 2010; Siddique, 2010). Comparison against the common com-
position of coal ash, presented in Table 2, shows that CaO in all MSWI
ash samples was in a higher percentage than coal fly ash and bottom
ash, while SiO2 and Al2O3 were in a lower amount.
Table 2 also includes the composition other typical cement raw
materials, as it is important to understand how MSWI ash composition
may compare to traditional kiln feed materials already in use. Lime-
stone is commonly used as the CaO source in the kiln mix (Taylor, 1997;
Huntzinger and Eatmon, 2009). When compared against limestone, the
MSWI ash samples had a significantly lower concentration of CaO than
what is typically observed in limestone; however, CaO content in the
MSWI ash samples was greater than sand, clay, and bauxite. SiO2 in
MSWI combined and bottom ash samples was greater than in limestone
and bauxite while in MSWI fly ash samples the content was comparable;
in all cases, the content of this oxide in MSWI ash samples was lower
than in sand and clay. Al2O3 content in MSWI ash samples was lower
than in clay and bauxite, higher than in limestone, and there was no
observed difference between any type of MSWI ash and sand. Fe2O3
content in MSWI combined and bottom ash samples was greater than
the typical content in limestone but lower than in bauxite and could be
attributed to inefficient metals recovery processes; however there was
no significant difference against the content of this oxide in the other
raw material analyzed. ZnO composition of all MSWI ash samples was
significantly higher than the typical content of coal fly ash, while TiO2
showed the opposite trend. Overall, MSWI ash is not the dominant
source of any one element when added to a cement mix, rather it
contains a variable composition of all of the necessary elements for
clinker formation and would likely replace a percentage of each of the
traditional raw materials in a cement mix, dependent on the variable
composition of the raw materials.
3.1.3. Alkalis
K2O content was typically highest in the MSWI fly ash samples.
There was no significant difference between the Na2O contents among
the MSWI ash samples. Comparison against the common composition of
coal ash (Table 2) shows that Na2O in all MSWI ash samples was in a
higher percentage than in coal ash (fly and bottom). When determining
the possibility of using MSWI ash in the manufacture of portland ce-
ment, the high content of Na2O is a limiting factor as the alkali content
in cement is restricted (ASTM, 2015a,b) to prevent enhancement to the
rate of hydration of the cement by increasing the heat of hydration
(Lam et al., 2011; Saikia et al., 2007). Na2O in cement can enter the
C3A, increasing its reactivity which may affect setting (Lea, 1988).
Additionally, higher Na2O content can increase the potential for alkali-
silica reaction; a reaction in which the amorphous silica content of
some concrete aggregates and the alkali species of cement form an
expansive gel resulting in cracking of the concrete due to the swelling
(Schafer et al., 2018). When considering total alkalis in the raw mate-
rials, MSWI ash-amended cement presents a greater concern in regard
to the alkali-induced issues above.
3.1.4. Chlorides
The presence of chloride typically affects the cement manufacture
process by causing operational problems with stack emissions and by
affecting the durability of steel-reinforced concrete products. As
chlorides are introduced to the kiln and volatilize, they can combine
with alkalis and sulfates creating low melting point mixtures that lead
to blockages at the stack. Additionally, high content of chloride in the
cement leads to steel reinforcement corrosion in concrete (Lea, 1988).
In an effort to protect bridge and pavement structures from experien-
cing deterioration due to corrosion, construction specifications typi-
cally limit the maximum chloride content in concrete placed; in many
places, chloride content is directly limited in cement itself. Some spe-
cifications use a single value while others limit the chlorides on a
percentage (of typically 0.06 – 0.30%) per weight of cement or max-
imum allowable chloride content per cubic yard of concrete in the mix
(typically 0.4 -0.7 lbs/yd3 or 0.2 -0.4 kg/m3) (ACI, 2014; FDOT, 2019).
MSWI fly ash had significantly higher amount of chloride than all other
MSWI ash samples, and higher than both types of coal ashes. MSWI
bottom ash samples had significantly lower amount of chloride than
MSWI combined and fly ash samples. No significant difference was
observed between aged and fresh MSWI combined and bottom ash
samples. Although limited data were available for the typical raw

5
L.M. Sarmiento, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 148 (2019) 1–10

materials, the chloride content in all MSWI ash samples was higher than MSWI ash that could be introduced in the kiln. However, using a wide
the values reported and will likely limit allowable MSWI-ash content in variety of ashes with variable composition provides an idea of a typical
the clinker, especially if MSWI fly ash is considered. Issues with alkalis viable replacement percentage for any one ash stream. The potential
and chlorides support why a considerable amount of research has been composition of the ash-amended clinker was calculated to provide the
conducted about washing MSWI ash to produce a better product for same mineral phases as those of portland cement clinker. This calcu-
reuse (Chiang and Hu, 2010; Lin et al., 2011; Van der Bruggen et al., lation is provided in order to first prove that MSWI ash-amended ce-
1998) ment mixes (using Bogue’s equations and the chemical composition of
each MSWI ash and the traditional raw materials) can provide an ac-
3.1.5. Sulfur trioxide ceptable clinker composition within the given constraints for ordinary
The content of SO3 in the MSWI ash samples was compared among portland cement. This calculation only accounts for the mineralogy of
the three types of ash, and against coal fly ash and coal bottom ash. the cement, without any standard chloride or alkali limitations. Tables
Sulfate is used to control hydration rate and rate of setting for cements S5 and S6 show the elemental composition of the clinker (constrained
(Taylor, 1997). Sulfate imbalances can cause flash set or false set, which by mineralogy only) considering an LOI value for the MSWI ash of 5%
negatively impacts cement performance. Additionally, for mass con- and 12%, respectively.
crete elements, an imbalance of sulfate with aluminum can result in Based on the AR, SR and LSF used as constraints to determine the
delayed ettringite formation, an internal sulfate attack where sulfate in ash-amended raw mixes, the HM was calculated to be 2.18. As shown in
solution reforms (after concrete is hardened) into ettringite crystals Table S4, the maximum amount of MSWI ash that can be included in
which increase internal pressures and eventually lead to failure of the raw mix ranges from 8.96% to 81.7%, with average replacements of
concrete structures (Taylor et al., 2001). In general, MSWI fly ash 24.6% combined ash, 67.8% fly ash, and 12.8% bottom ash. Clearly
samples had a significantly higher SO3 content than MSWI combined some of the replacement percentages are much higher than have ever
and bottom ash samples. Fly ash samples had SO3 compositions as high been reported or likely feasibly, but results for clinker compositions
as 13.34%, with combined ash samples having SO3 compositions over constrained only by mineralogy support that MSWI ash does contain a
5%. In comparison, the highest SO3 concentration observed for bottom large amount of the basic materials needed for cement manufacture.
ash samples was 3.84%. Composition data indicate that a considerable However, these values result in ash-amended clinker that have
portion of SO3 content is contributed by the fly ash stream, an im- elevated alkali and chloride contents. As seen in Table S5 and S6, only
portant consideration for this streams use in cement production. The two of the simulated ash-amended raw mixes resulted in a clinker with
age of the ash did not influence the content of SO3 in the MSWI com- chloride content less than 0.06%, and only one mix met the ASTM
bined and bottom ash samples. MSWI ash samples had a significantly standard of 0.6% alkali content. When limiting the alkali content of the
higher amount of SO3 than coal combustion ashes and conventional raw ash-amended clinker, the potential amount of MSWI that could be in-
materials used in cement manufacture, and though analysis of SO3 in troduced to the kiln was noticeably reduced to a range of
final cement product is outside of the scope of our study, care should be 3.33%–10.10% ash replacement in the mix, averaging 5.4% replace-
taken to avoid excess SO3 content in an MSWI ash-amended cement ment with combined, 3.72% with fly, and 7.61% with bottom ash
product. (Table S7). In this second scenario, only three ash-amended raw mixes
met the ACI standards for chloride content.
By optimizing the ash-amended raw mixes to meet mineral com-
3.2. Calculation of cement raw mix
position, alkali content and chloride content restrictions, the amount of
MSWI ash that was included in the mixes ranged from 0.21% to 10.1%,
MSWI ash amended clinker was simulated assuming that MSWI ash
as shown in Table 4. Table S8 shows the estimated mineral phase
was included in a raw mix containing limestone, sand, iron oxide and
composition of the ash-amended clinkers for the LOI range, while Ta-
coal ash. The chemical compositions of the raw materials (other than
bles S9 and S10 show the elemental composition of the clinker con-
MSWI ash) used to simulate the ash amended clinker are shown in
sidering an LOI value for the MSWI ash of 5% and 12%, respectively.
Table 3. Calcium is primarily supplied by limestone, silica is primarily
The average MSWI ash replacement for mineralogy, chloride, and
supplied by sand, iron supplies the iron and silica, and coal ash supplies
alkali limited mixes is 1.17% for combined ash samples, 0.33% for fly
silica and aluminum.
ash, and 6.36% for bottom ash samples. MSWI fly ash samples resulted
The composition of the ash-amended raw mixes that create accep-
in the lowest raw mix replacement, with a maximum of 0.43%; this can
table clinker compositions based on mineralogy alone are presented in
be explained by the higher chloride content in these samples when
Table S4. Ash-amended raw mixes presented here show the potential of
compared to the other MSWI ash samples (Table 1 shows one fly as
using Florida MSWI ash in cement manufacture and may vary in
sample above 17%). In a past study of MSWI ash incorporation into
practice as the raw mix is dependent on the composition of all raw
cement production, limitations placed on chlorides by kiln operators
materials; a different mix of materials would change in the amount of
limited fly ash percentages in clinker to a similarly low value of 1.75%
(Pan et al., 2008). MSWI bottom ash samples allowed for a higher raw
Table 3
Composition of other raw materials used for simulated cement raw mixes in this
mix replacement, with one sample (BF2) allowing for an inclusion of
study. 10.1% in the mix without the need to add coal ash.
An overall comparison of MSWI ash-replacement potential for three
Component Limestone Sand Iron Coal ash
scenarios is provided in Fig. 1. Raw mix 1 estimates the maximum ash
CaO 50.36 0.07 2.44 3.98 replacement considering only the potential mineral composition of the
SiO2 6.86 98.09 31.83 55.73 ash amended clinker. Raw mix 2 restricts the alkali content according to
Al2O3 1.64 0.78 2.92 21.37 ASTM C150. Raw mix 3 restricts the alkali and chloride contents ac-
Fe2O3 0.75 0.53 56.58 6.31
cording to ASTM C150 and ACI 318 correspondingly. Fig. 1 illustrates
Cl 0.0013 0 0 0.01
SO3 0.07 0.03 1.31 0.7 that MSWI fly ash has a mineral composition capable of creating a vi-
MgO 0.35 0.02 1.02 1.26 able clinker with a large amount of MSWI ash (average of 67.8% re-
Na2O 0 0.06 0.28 0.62 placement), but constraints placed on chlorides and alkalis result in a
K2O 0.02 0 0.8 1.8 considerable drop in viable replacement percentage (3.72% when
TiO2 0.11 0.26 0.287 1.18
constrained by alkalis, 0.33% when constrained by chlorides and al-
P2O5 0.35 0.01 0.127 1.03
LOI 39.96 0.16 0 5.36 kalis). Although bottom ash that is unconstrained by chloride and alkali
limits can create a viable clinker with a much lower replacement

6
L.M. Sarmiento, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 148 (2019) 1–10

Table 4 (usually from gypsum) is added to the clinker in small percentages

Optimized ash-amended cement raw mixes with acceptable mineralogy that (1–5% (Lea, 1988), thus having a small effect on the CaO and SO3
also account for limitations placed on chlorides or alkalis per ACI 318 and content of the cement, estimated clinker compositions for all ash sam-
ASTM C150. ples were compared against the ASTM requirements. Gypsum is added
Sample Content in Raw Mix (%) to the clinker to regulate the setting of the cement, and the quantity
added is determined by the SO3 content of the clinker and the target
Limestone Sand Iron MSWI Ash Coal Ash SO3; ASTM sets a maximum SO3 content dependent on the type of ce-
CA1 85.32 2.58 1.74 1.13 9.24
ment produced. The estimated Al2O3, Fe2O3 and MgO contents of the
CA2 84.82 2.55 1.67 1.89 9.07 ash-amended clinkers (constrained by mineralogy, chloride content,
CA3 85.48 2.64 1.71 1.15 9.02 and alkali content) was below the maximum requirements of ASTM for
CA4 85.61 2.61 1.77 0.84 9.17 the different types of cement. Regarding the mineral composition, the
CA5 85.65 2.53 1.70 1.02 9.11
estimated C3A contents of the ash-amended clinkers were below the
CA6 85.60 2.48 1.65 1.18 9.09
CF1 85.07 2.51 1.72 1.65 9.04 limits for cement Types III and IIIA; while slightly above the limit for
CF2 85.60 2.57 1.71 1.01 9.11 type II and IIA cement, this percentage is expected to drop slightly
CF3 85.63 2.51 1.73 0.90 9.23 when the clinker is finished into cement. SO3 limits established by
CF4 85.26 2.36 1.55 1.93 8.89
ASTM are dependent on the C3A content (ASTM, 2015a,b), and in this
CF5 85.58 2.45 1.69 1.04 9.25
CF6 85.52 2.42 1.75 1.02 9.29
case the limits would be for C3A content greater than 8%. The ash
CF7 85.93 2.59 1.72 0.48 9.29 amended clinkers simulated had a SO3 content below the maximum
FF1 85.96 2.59 1.77 0.21 9.46 applicable level for all ASTM C150 cement types. MSWI ash-amended
FF2 85.70 2.60 1.78 0.43 9.48 clinkers that are within standard chloride and alkali limits create a
FF3 85.87 2.57 1.78 0.35 9.43
cement that is also within standard composition requirements outlined
BA1 82.57 1.41 1.69 7.24 7.09
BA2 83.49 1.20 1.21 6.45 7.65 by ASTM C150.
BF1 81.73 1.10 0.95 9.73 6.49
BF2 85.27 2.77 1.86 10.1 0.00 3.3. Economic and material flow analysis
BF3 85.17 1.65 1.20 3.91 8.07
BF4 84.31 1.33 1.58 4.35 8.43
BF5 84.43 2.11 1.75 2.72 9.00
The beneficial use of any waste material should also have a benefit
Control 86.16 2.58 1.78 0.00 9.48 for the user (financial, performance, or otherwise). For example, coal
ash or silica fume used in concrete manufacture incur larger costs re-
lative to ordinary portland cement, but the benefit gained from their
incorporation offsets these costs. Costs associated with the disposal of
ash such as transport and landfill tipping fees can be reduced by in-
corporating ash into cement kiln feed. The financial incentive for ce-
ment manufacturers lies in the offsetting of costs associated with the
acquisition of raw materials which may not be locally available or have
a higher cost than MSWI ash; in many cases MSWI facility operators
may be willing to supply their ash to cement manufacturers to reduce
costs associated with disposal.
Life-cycle assessment data for cement manufacture suggest that
approximately 1.60 tons of raw mix are required to produce 0.95 tons of
clinker (Huntzinger and Eatmon, 2009; Marceau et al., 2006). Based on
the throughput capacity (tpd) of the incineration facilities from this
study, and assuming a mass reduction of 70% during the incineration
process (Michaels and Shiang, 2016), it was possible to determine the
mass of ash generated per year and the maximum amount of ash-
amended clinker potentially produced were estimated. Each cement
Fig. 1. Potential MSWI ash replacement in cement raw mix based on three raw manufacturer in the state of Florida, US was assumed to produce 1
mix scenarios. Height of bars correspond to average replacement for each ash in million tons of ash amended clinker per year. Florida provides a valu-
each scenario. Error bars correspond to minimum and maximum replacement able test case for the feasibility of MSWI-ash incorporation into cement,
for each scenario. as Florida has a disproportionate amount of both wastes managed by
MSWI (and thus MSWI ash generated) and cement production (often in
percentage (average of 12.8% replacement), the lower concentrations kilns in close proximity to multiple MSWI facilities). The mass of raw
of chlorides and alkalis in the bottom ash stream means that when materials for each viable ash-amended raw mix (controlled for miner-
considering these variables the allowable amount of bottom ash is still alogy, alkali, and chloride content) was calculated and was used to
higher than that of fly or combined ash. Other studies have reported perform a cost analysis.
that using MSWI fly ash at any considerable replacement percentage Assuming that MSWI operators will provide their ash to cement
would require washing or other processing technique to control for manufactures at no charge, the costs associated with MSWI ash use for
chlorides and alkalis (Kikuchi, 2001; Lam et al., 2011; Pan et al., 2008; MSWI facility operators is limited to transportation. The cost to trans-
Saikia et al., 2007). As expected, the allowable replacement of com- port the ash to the cement plant will depend on the mode of trans-
bined ash (a mixture of bottom and fly ash) is in between that of bottom portation, the distance to the kiln, and the amount of material. In ce-
and fly ash. ment manufacture, post-industrial raw materials (such as the MSWI ash
proposed in this study) are usually transported by road (Marceau et al.,
2006). The diesel consumption factor of combination trucks is
3.2.1. Comparison against industry standards 0.0272 L/ton-km (0.011 gal/ton-mile) (Combs, 2012). Distance to the
ASTM C150 provides the standard composition requirements for cement plants was calculated for the closest kiln to the MSW in-
different types of cement (ASTM, 2015a,b). Although in this study only cineration facility generating each ash sample. An average diesel fuel
the composition of clinker was estimated, given that calcium sulfate cost of $0.82 per liter ($3.12 per gallon) was used to calculate fuel costs

7
L.M. Sarmiento, et al.
for transportation to the landfill or to the cement kiln in Florida (AAA,
2018). Cost for all other raw materials (limestone, iron ore, sand, and
coal ash) were obtained from a local cement manufacturer. Limestone
costs were assumed to be zero as the material is obtained from the
quarry on site (conservative due to cost of labor, quarrying, and
transporting from the mine to facility). Table S11 in the SI presents the
estimated cost of raw materials required for the manufacture of 1
million tons of ash-amended clinker in a year for all MSWI ashes used in
this study. Of the 23 ash samples analyzed in this study, only 1 of the
ash-amended raw mixes had costs exceeding that of the traditional mix
(approximately $6.96 M USD for FF2 compared to $6.93 M USD for
control per 1 M tons). One raw max with sample BF2 required no coal
ash to achieve an appropriate mineralogy and cost less than half of the
control mix ($2.8 M USD per 1 M tons). A wide range of ash composi-
tions, dependent on facility location, create cost effective raw mixes for
cement manufacturers, oftentimes at a considerable cost savings.
The benefits realized by MSWI generators by the use of MSWI ash
would mean availability of more air space at their landfills, reduced
costs of transportation to the landfill, and reduced operation costs to
manage the ash in a landfill. The USEPA Waste Reduction Model
(WARM) (USEPA, 2015) estimates that for collection vehicles, 3.4 L and
2.6 L of diesel, respectively, are required to transport to and manage
1 ton of waste at the landfill. Savings related to these fuel uses are
presented in Table S12. This example ignores landfill tipping fees. Ash
generators may save as much as $1.8 USD per ton of ash-amended
clinker. The smallest amount of savings for generators was approxi-
mately $0.04 USD per ton of ash-amended clinker, but use of all 23 ash
samples for cement production resulted in a cost savings for the ash
generator. The only non-cost-effective sample for cement manu-
facturers, FF2, resulted in a cost savings for generators of $0.08 USD per
ton of ash-amended clinker, meaning that the approximately $30,000
USD discrepancy between control and ash-amended mixes for FF2 may
be offset for cement manufacturers if generators paid manufacturers
$30,000 USD per 1 million tons of clinker; the generators would still
save approximately $50,000 USD per 1 million tons of clinker in this
scenario.
The distribution of MSWI facilities and cement kilns in Florida is
shown in Fig. 2. Six cement kilns and 11 MSWI facilities are operational
in the state. Approximately 1.2 million and 740,000 metric tons of
MSWI ash is available for cement raw mix replacement in south Florida
Fig. 2. Distribution of MSWI facilities and cement kilns in Florida. As of 2018,
there are 11 MSWI facilities (star markers) and 6 cement kilns (building mar-
kers) operational in Florida. Two regions are identified based on the proximity
of MSWI facilities to the kilns: South and Central regions, each comprised of 5
MSWI facilities and 2 cement kilns.
8
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 148 (2019) 1–10
and central Florida respectively. Approximately 2 million metric tons of
MSWI ash are generated in Florida annually, compared to 9 million
metric tons generated in the US; these estimates are based on 2016
throughput data for all MSWI facilities in the US, and assuming a mass
reduction of 70% (Michaels and Shiang, 2016). Clinker capacity in the
US is reported to exceed 100 million metric tons per year, with 9 mil-
lion metric tons being manufactured in Florida (PCA, 2017).
Assuming the previously stated raw mix:clinker ratio, cement kilns
operating at full capacity, and that this MSWI ash generated can be used
as cement kiln feed not only from a cement chemistry perspective but
also accounting for any financial factors (e.g., appropriate mineral
composition, any required ash-pretreatment to improve the quality of
the ash is performed, MSWI facilities in close proximity to cement
kilns), an assumed 5% MSWI ash replacement (a feasible value based on
this study) of the 9 million tons of clinker generated would act as a
disposal sink for approximately 37.5% of the MSWI ash generated in
Florida (around 750,000 metric tons of ash per year); for the entire US
ash generation and clinker capacity, a 5% replacement of clinker with
MSWI ash would consume about 93% of US ash production (approxi-
mately 8.4 million metric tons of ash). Assuming ash composition is
correct and the chlorides and alkalis can be controlled to allow such
replacement percentages, it would be possible to replace approximately
13% of the cement raw mix prepared in Florida with MSWI ash if all
MSWI ash was diverted to cement production, or approximately 5% of
the cement raw mix prepared in the US, based on current clinker ca-
pacities and estimated ratio of raw mix:clinker (Huntzinger and
Eatmon, 2009; PCA, 2017). The results of our study indicate MSWI ash
incorporation into cement production has sufficient potential value to
be a worthwhile venture for ash generators and cement manufacturers
to explore this approach further.
4. Conclusions
A scoping study was conducted to assess the feasibility of using
MSWI ash as raw material replacement in portland cement manu-
facture. Combined and bottom ash samples had the highest Al2O3 and
Fe2O3 content of all MSWI ash samples, and the bottom ash also ex-
hibited the highest SiO2 content. CaO content in all MSWI ash was
higher than in coal combustion ashes, but SiO2 and Al2O3 content was
lower. MSWI ash samples had a lower CaO content than sand, clay, and
bauxite, while Al2O3 content was lower than limestone. Higher con-
centrations of trace elements present in MSWI fly ash samples exceeded
typical values for coal ash, an important consideration for the use of
MSWI fly ash for cement production. Elevated content of Na2O, K2O,
and chloride in MSWI fly ash samples could affect the performance and
durability of ash-amended concrete.
All ashes were able to form a viable clinker, but samples that create
a viable clinker are severely limited by their alkali content and even
more so their chloride content. When controlling for mineralogy, total
alkalis, and chloride content, cement raw mixes could incorporate
MSWI ash contents of up to 10% by mass; fly ash samples were the most
limited by chlorides and alkalis. Average allowable fly ash incorpora-
tion dropped from 67% to 0.33% when limited by chlorides and alkalis.
Though bottom ash amended clinker constrained by mineralogy alone
had lower allowable replacement percentages than fly ash (average of
nearly 12.8% compared to 67.8%), the lower alkali and chloride con-
tent means that when constrained by these variables, allowable bottom
ash incorporation surpassed that of fly ash (6.36% compared to 0.33%
for fly ash). Expectedly, combined ash samples, which are a mix of
bottom and fly ash, had values in between those of bottom and fly ash
mixes.
Raw materials cost for ordinary portland cement clinker could be
nearly 2.5 times higher than MSWI ash-amended clinker. An ash re-
placement in cement raw mix of at least 5% results in the beneficial use
of approximately 37.5% of all MSWI ash generated annually in Florida.
If a pre-processing technique such as ash washing controls for chloride
L.M. Sarmiento, et al.
and alkali, ash reuse potential is even higher. As mentioned before,
many studies have examined washing technology for MSWI ash, and
although the capital costs to build industrial-scale ash washing infra-
structure may be high, these costs may be justified if sufficient raw
materials savings and disposal offsets are realized. Future work should
include detailed cost-benefit analysis of this approach.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Hinkley Center for Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management. The authors thank the regional cement
companies that offered support and information for this study. We also
thank the MSWI facilities for supplying materials.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.
002.
References
Acar, I., Atalay, M.U., 2013. Characterization of sintered class F fly ashes. Fuel 106,
195–203.
Ai, H., Clavier, K.A., Watts, B.E., Gale, S.A., Townsend, T.G., 2019. The efficacy of pH-
dependent leaching tests to provide a reasonable estimate of post-carbonation
leaching. J. Hazard. Mater. 373, 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.
03.089.
American Automobile Association (AAA), 2018. Gas Prices - Florida average Gas Prices.
https://gasprices.aaa.com/.
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014. Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14).
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2015a. C150/C150M - 15 Standard
Specification for Portland Cement.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2015b. Standard Test Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cement. pp. C114–C115.
Ampadu, K.O., Torii, K., 2001. Characterization of ecocement pastes and mortars pro-
duced from incinerated ashes. Cement Concrete Res. 31 (3), 431–436.
Bethanis, S., Cheeseman, C.R., Sollars, C.J., 2002. Properties and microstructure of sin-
tered incinerator bottom ash. Ceram. Int. 28, 881–886.
Bogue, R.H., 1955. The chemistry of Portland cement. J. Phys. Chem. 79 (4), 322 LWW.
Bye, G.C., 1999. Portland Cement: Composition, Production and Properties, second ed.
Thomas Telford Publishing, London.
Carvalho, S.Z., Vernilli, F., Almeida, B., Demarco, M., Silva, S.N., 2017. The recycling
effect of BOF slag in portland cement properties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127,
216–220.
Chand, P., Kumar, A., Gaur, A., Mahna, S.K., 2009. Elemental analysis of ash using X-Ray
Fluorescence technique. Asian J. Chem. 21, S220–224.
Chen, I.A., Juenger, M.C.G., 2009. Incorporation of waste materials into Portland cement
clinker synthesized from natural raw materials. J. Mater. Sci. 44, 2617–2627.
Cheriaf, M., Rocha, J.C., Péra, J., 1999. Pozzolanic properties of pulverized coal com-
bustion bottom ash. Cement Concrete Res. 29, 1387–1391.
Chiang, K.Y., Hu, Y.H., 2010. Water washing effects on metals emission reduction during
municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) fly ash melting process. Waste Manage. 30
(5), 831–838.
Clavier, K.A., Watts, B., Liu, Y., Ferraro, C.C., Townsend, T.G., 2019. Risk and perfor-
mance assessment of cement made using municipal solid waste incinerator bottom
ash as a cement kiln feed. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 146, 270–279. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.047.
Combs, A.R., 2012. Life Cycle Analysis of Recycling Facilities in a Carbon Constrained
World.
Dalton, J.L., Gardner, K.H., Seager, T.P., Weimer, M.L., Spear, J.C.M., Magee, B.J., 2004.
Properties of Portland cement made from contaminated sediments. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 41, 227–241.
Ferraro, C.C., Power, J.P., Roessler, J., Paris, J., Townsend, T.G., 2016. From trash to
treasure. Concr. Int. 38.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), 2019. Standard Specifications for Road
and Bridge Construction.
Guo, X., Shi, H., Wu, K., Ju, Z., Dick, W., 2016. Performance and risk assessment of alinite
cement-based materials from municipal solid waste incineration fly ash (MSWIFA).
Mater. Struct. 49 (6), 2383–2391.
Hartmann, S., Koval’, L., Škrobánková, H., Matýsek, D., Winter, F., Purgar, A., 2015.
Possibilities of municipal solid waste incinerator fly ash utilization. Waste Manag.
Res. 33 (8), 740–747.
Huntzinger, D.N., Eatmon, T.D., 2009. A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement man-
ufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. J. Clean.
Prod. 17, 668–675.
Intrakamhaeng, V., Clavier, K.A., Roessler, J.G., Townsend, T.G., 2019. Limitations of the
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure for providing a conservative estimate of
9
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 148 (2019) 1–10
landfilled municipal solid waste incineration ash leaching. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc.
69 (5), 623–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2019.1569172.
Kikuchi, Ryunosuke, 2001. Recycling of municipal solid waste for cement production:
pilot-scale test for transforming incineration ash of solid waste into cement clinker.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 31 (2), 137–147.
Krammart, P., Tangtermsirikul, S., 2004. Properties of cement made by partially replacing
cement raw materials with municipal solid waste ashes and calcium carbide waste.
Constr. Build. Mater. 18, 579–583.
Kula, I., Olgun, A., Sevinc, V., Erdogan, Y., 2002. An investigation on the use of tincal ore
waste, fly ash, and coal bottom ash as Portland cement replacement materials.
Cement Concrete Res. 32, 227–232.
Kurama, H., Topçu, İB., Karakurt, C., 2009. Properties of the autoclaved aerated concrete
produced from coal bottom ash. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209, 767–773.
Lam, C.H.K., Barford, J.P., McKay, G., 2010. Utilization of incineration waste ash residue
in Portland cement clinker. Chem. Eng. Trans. 21, 757–762.
Lam, C.H.K., Barford, J.P., McKay, G., 2011. Utilization of municipal solid waste in-
cineration ash in Portland cement clinker. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 13,
607–615.
Lea, Frederick, 1988. Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, fourth ed. Elsevier Ltd.
Lin, Y.C., Panchangam, S.C., Wu, C.H., Kong, P.K.A., Lin, C.F., 2011. Effects of water
washing on removing organic residues in bottom ashes of municipal solid waste in-
cinerators. Chemosphere 82, 502–506.
Liu, Y., Clavier, K.A., Spreadbury, C., Townsend, T.G., 2019. Limitations of the TCLP fluid
determination step for hazardous waste characterization of US municipal waste in-
cineration ash. Waste Manage. 87, 590–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2019.02.045.
Lynn, C.J., Ghataora, G.S., Dhir OBE, R.K., 2017. Municipal incinerated bottom ash
(MIBA) characteristics and potential for use in road pavements. Int. J. Pavement Res.
Technol. 10, 185–201.
Marceau, M.L., Nisbet, M.A., VanGeem, M.G., 2006. Life Cycle Inventory of Portland
Cement Manufacture. SN2095D.
Martinez-Tarazona, M.R., Spears, D.A., 1996. The fate of trace elements and bulk mi-
nerals in pulverized coal combustion in a power station. Fuel Process. Technol. 47,
79–92.
Meima, J.A., Van Zomeren, A., Comans, R.N.J., 1999. Complexation of Cu with Dissolved
Organic Carbon in Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Bottom Ash Leachates. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 33, 1424–1429.
Menéndez, E., Álvaro, A.M., Hernández, M.T., Parra, J.L., 2014. New methodology for
assessing the environmental burden of cement mortars with partial replacement of
coal bottom ash and fly ash. J. Environ. Manag. 133, 275–283.
Michaels, T., Shiang, I., 2016. 2016 ERC Directory of Waste-To-Energy Facilities.
Nilsson, M., Andreas, L., Lagerkvist, A., 2016. Effect of accelerated carbonation and zero
valent iron on metal leaching from bottom ash. Waste Manage. 51, 97–105.
Oehmig, W.N., Roessler, J.G., Blaisi, N.I., Townsend, T.G., 2015. Contemporary practices
and findings essential to the development of effective MSWI ash reuse policy in the
United States. Environ. Sci. Policy 51, 304–312.
Olsson, S., Kärrman, E., Gustafsson, J.P., 2006. Environmental systems analysis of the use
of bottom ash from incineration of municipal waste for road construction. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 48 (1), 26–40.
Pan, J.R., Huang, C., Kuo, J.J., Lin, S.H., 2008. Recycling MSWI bottom and fly ash as raw
materials for Portland cement. Waste Manage. 28, 1113–1118.
Portland Cement Association (PCA), 2017. State and Regional Data - Florida cement
Industry. https://www.cement.org/docs/default-source/market-economics-pdfs/
cement-industry-by-state/fla-statefacsht-17-d2.pdf?sfvrsn=c77fe6bf_2.
Puertas, F., García-Díaz, I., Barba, A., Gazulla, M.F., Palacios, M., Gómez, M.P., Martínez-
Ramírez, S., 2008. Ceramic wastes as alternative raw materials for Portland cement
clinker production. Cement Concrete Comp. 30 (9), 798–805.
Rafieizonooz, M., Mirza, J., Salim, M.R., Hussin, M.W., Khankhaje, E., 2016. Investigation
of coal bottom ash and fly ash in concrete as replacement for sand and cement.
Constr. Build. Mater. 116, 15–24.
Roessler, J.G., Townsend, T.G., Ferraro, C.C., 2015. Use of leaching tests to quantify trace
element release from waste to energy bottom ash amended pavements. J. Hazard.
Mater. 300, 830–837.
Roessler, J., Paris, J., Ferraro, C.C., Watts, B., Townsend, T., 2016. Use of waste to energy
bottom ash as an aggregate in Portland cement concrete: impacts of size fractionation
and carbonation. Waste Biomass Valorization 7, 1521–1530.
Saikia, N., Kato, S., Kojima, T., 2007. Production of cement clinkers from municipal solid
waste incineration (MSWI) fly ash. Waste Manage. 27, 1178–1189.
Schafer, M.L., Clavier, K.A., Townsend, T.G., Ferraro, C.C., Paris, J.M., Watts, B.E., 2018.
Use of coal fly ash or glass pozzolan addition as a mitigation tool for alkali-silica
reactivity in cement mortars amended with recycled municipal solid waste in-
cinerator bottom ash. Waste Biomass Valorization 2018.
Schneider, M., Romer, M., Tschudin, M., Bolio, H., 2011. Sustainable cement production –
present and future. Cement Concrete Res. 41 (7), 642–650.
Shi, C., Zheng, K., 2007. A review on the use of waste glasses in the production of cement
and concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52 (2), 234–247.
Shih, P.H., Chang, J.E., Chiang, L.C., 2003. Replacement of raw mix in cement production
by municipal solid waste incineration ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 33, 1831–1836.
Shim, Y.S., Kim, Y.K., Kong, S.H., Rhee, S.W., Lee, W.K., 2003. The adsorption char-
acteristics of heavy metals by various particle sizes of MSWI bottom ash. Waste
Manage. 23, 851–857.
Siddique, Rafat., 2010. Utilization of municipal solid waste (MSW) ash in cement and
mortar. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 1037–1047.
Sumer, M., 2012. Compressive strength and sulfate resistance properties of concretes
containing Class F and Class C fly ashes. Constr. Build. Mater. 34, 531–536.
Taylor, H.F.W., 1997. Cement Chemistry, second ed. Thomas Telford Publishing, London.
L.M. Sarmiento, et al.
Taylor, H.F.W., Famy, C., Scrivener, K.L., 2001. Delayed ettringite formation. Cement
Concrete Res. 31 (5), 683–693.
Tsakiridis, P.E., Papadimitriou, G.D., Tsivilis, S., Koroneos, C., 2008. Utilization of steel
slag for Portland cement clinker production. J. Hazard. Mater. 152, 805–811.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2007. Method 3051A -
Microwave Assisted Acid Digestion of Sediments, Sludges, and Oils, Solid Waste:
Physical/Chemical Methods Compendium. pp. SW–S846.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2015. Documentation for
Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model
(WARM) - Version 13.
Van der Bruggen, B., Vogels, G., Van Herck, P., Vandecasteele, C., 1998. Simulation of
acid washing of municipal solid waste incineration fly ashes in order to remove heavy
metals. J. Hazard. Mater. 57 (1-3), 127–144.
10
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 148 (2019) 1–10
Van Gerven, T., Van Keer, E., Arickx, S., Jaspers, M., Wauters, G., Vandecasteele, C.,
2005. Carbonation of MSWI-bottom ash to decrease heavy metal leaching, in view of
recycling. Waste Manage. 25, 291–300.
Wang, L., Jin, Y., Nie, Y., Li, R., 2010. Recycling of municipal solid waste incineration fly
ash for ordinary portland cement production: a real-scale test. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 54 (12), 1428–1435.
Wiles, C.C., 1996. Municipal solid waste combustion ash: state-of-the-knowledge. J.
Hazard. Mater. 47 (1996), 325–344.
Wu, K., Shi, H., Guo, X., 2011. Utilization of municipal solid waste incineration fly ash for
sulfoaluminate cement clinker production. Waste Manage. 31 (9-10), 2001–2008.
Żyrkowski, M., Neto, R.C., Santos, L.F., Witkowski, K., 2016. Characterization of fly-ash
cenospheres from coal-fired power plant unit. Fuel 174, 49–53.