Characterization of solid residues from municipal solid waste incinerator

Min Li*, Jun Xiang, Song Hu, Lu-Shi Sun, Sheng Su, Pei-Sheng Li, Xue-Xin Sun
State Key Laboratory of Coal Combustion, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Power Engineering, 430074 Wuhan, Hubei, China
Received 28 December 2002; revised 29 September 2003; accepted 4 January 2004; available online 23 January 2004

Abstract
In China, the generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration solid residues is expected to increase significantly in the future.
Because of ever-increasing generation rates and the concentrations of potentially hazardous heavy metals, which may endanger the ambient
environment, these solid residues are of particular concern. Thus, such issues have necessitated the study of the characterization of these solid
residues. A detailed characterization of five samples of different type of ashes, collected from two types of MSW incinerators located in
Shenzhen (southern China), was carried out in terms of chemical composition, morphology, mineralogy and leaching behavior. Results of
chemical analysis and leaching tests suggest that the MSW incineration fly ash must be classified as hazardous waste and should be properly
managed. Therefore, the results of this characterization would contribute to the development of adequate waste management strategies.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Solid residues; Municipal solid waste; Chemical composition; Morphology; Mineralogy; Leaching test

1. Introduction addition, these methods have been technically proven as an

In China, municipal population growth, economic
development and living-standard improvement have
brought about a soaring increment of about 8 –10% in
municipal solid waste (MSW) year after year. The ever-
growing MSW load has a great impact on the ambient
environment and people’s health, such as malodors from
MSW landfill sites, explosion resulting from combustible
gases of MSW, and contamination of groundwater and soil
by hazardous organics and heavy metals in MSW [1 – 3].
Consequently, disposal of these MSW has become a serious
problem with which China is currently confronted.
Landfill accounts for more than 80% of the MSW in
China, and compost ranks the second. Enhancement of
people’s environmental awareness, continuing increments
of landfill costs, sharp scarcity of landfill sites and slowness
of compost process have led China to take alternative
disposal methods into account.
Incineration of MSW has many advantages such as
significant volume reduction (about 90%) and mass
reduction (about 70%), complete disinfection and energy
recovery [4 – 7]. Thus, incineration meets the requirements
of detoxification, decrement and resource recovery. In
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ 86-27-87545526.
E-mail address: limin_hust@hotmail.com (M. Li).
0016-2361/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2004.01.005
effective waste treatment approach [8]. Therefore, many
big- and medium-size cities in China have constructed, or
are constructing and/or plan to install MSW incineration
devices. For instance, Shenzhen, Beijing and Shanghai have
constructed mass-burning incinerators and/or pyrolytic
incinerators, while Wuhan, Guangzhou and Shenyang plan
to construct incineration devices. The Japanese-built MSW
incinerator in Shenzhen is the first MSW incineration device
in China.
Incineration of MSW not only produces significant
pollutant flue gases, but also gives rise to considerable
amount of solid residues (bottom ash, grate siftings, heat
recovery ash, fly ash and air pollution control (APC)
residues) that are generated at different points in the process
of MSW incineration. With improvements in APC systems,
modern MSW incineration plants emit practically no
pollutants into the atmosphere, which results in the World
Health Organization’s statement that it no longer considers
the emissions from modern, well operated and maintained
MSW incinerators to be a hazard to human health or the
environment [9]. However, the hazardous fractions in MSW
are concentrated in the solid residues. Indeed, pollutant
elements such as As, Cd, Cu, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb and Zn have
been described in such residues [10,11]. Release of such
elements during storage will have a potentially negative
1398

impact on environmental quality, human health and

groundwater as well as surface-water resources [5,12].
With the incineration method being widely adopted to
cope with MSW, the generation of MSW incineration solid
residues is expected to increase in the future in China. The
large quantity coupled with the potential leachability of high
metal concentrations in the residues has necessitated the
study of the chemical, morphological, mineralogical and
leaching properties of these solid residues. Moreover,
determining safe management alternatives for these types
of solid residues requires extensive characterization. Many
studies have shown the presence of such toxic metals as Cd,
Pb, Cr, Zn and Hg, and have investigated the morphology
and mineralogy, and also have studied the leaching behavior
of these types of solid residues [5,11,13 –17]. Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of incinerator A.
This paper describes a comprehensive study of five
samples of MSW incineration solid residues generated by and the waste heat boiler ashes for incinerator B (designed
two different types of MSW incineration facilities in China, as d), respectively.
with the intention of elucidating their chemical, morpho- All five kinds of MSW incineration solid residues were
logical and mineralogical properties as a tool for the sampled in December 2000, and the collected solid residues
prevention of their impact on the environment and on site were stored in the sealed bags for analysis. Before
evaluation of utilization possibilities. In addition, a leaching analyzing, the solid residues were dried at 55 8C for 24 h,
test to shed light on their potential toxicity is also presented. plastic bags, metal wares and big pieces of unburned matter
were removed by hand sorting. Each kind of the dried and
sorted solid residues was ground, and passed through
80 mesh sieve (180 mm) for analyses.
2. Methods
2.2. Bulk chemical analysis
2.1. Sampling
The major elements of solid residues were determined
The solid residues used in this study came from two with a Siemens SRS303 X-ray fluorescence (XRF)
different types of MSW incinerators in Shenzhen, southern spectrometer with Rh Ka radiation. The accelerating
China, which are designated as incinerator A and B, voltage was 50 kV, and the current was 50 mA. Results
respectively. For both incinerators, no attempt is made in were expressed in terms of weight percent of oxide
the pre-treatment of MSW before incineration. Incinerator because solid residues were formed under oxidizing
A handles 1:5 £ 105 kg/day MSW, and incinerator B has a conditions.
capacity of 1:0 £ 105 kg/day. In incinerator A, the feed Loss on ignition (LOI) was done by drying solid residues
MSW is combusted in the grates of the primary combustion overnight at 60 8C, recording initial mass, heating them at
chamber at about 800 8C, then the flue gases produced are 600 8C in a muffle furnace for 6 h, and then recording mass
re-combusted in the second combustion chamber at upon removal from oven.
1100 8C. The flue gases are cooled through heat exchangers,
semi-dry scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators (ESP).
Incinerator B adopts the incineration method of controlled
air oxidation (CAO), i.e. MSW is pyrolyzed to combustible
gases in the primary combustion chamber at 600 8C with
controlled air, and then at high temperature (about 1000 8C)
the pyrolyzed combustible gases are incinerated, thus,
thermal energy is recovered to electricity by waste heat
boilers. In incinerator B, no APC system was installed. The
schematic diagrams of incinerator A and incinerator B are
illustrated as Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. The grate siftings
are the ashes that pass down through the grates of
incinerator A (designed as a), the bottom ashes are the
slags on the grates of these two incinerators (designed as c
and e, respectively, for incinerator A and incinerator B), the
fly ashes are the ESP ashes for incinerator A (designed as b) Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of incinerator B.
 To analyze the trace elements, the solid residues were
digested using an HF/HClO4/HNO3 mixture in an open
Teflon crucible with the method of wet digestion.
Quantification of these heavy metals was done using
inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy
(ICP-AES) on a Thermo Jarrell-Ash Trace Scan Advantage
ICP-AES spectrometer. However, the volatility of Hg
required that a different extraction protocol be followed
for its total determination, using HNO3/H2SO4/H2O2
mixture in a closed tube with a Teflon screw-on cap.
Quantification of Hg was done using cold vapor/atomic
absorption spectrometer (AAS). A similar procedure has
been reported by Alba et al. [12].
2.3. Scanning electron microscope
The morphology of solid residues was observed using a
HITACHI X-650 scanning electron microanalyzer (SEM)
operated with the typical accelerating voltage of 20 kV. The
Ka peak for Cu was used to correct for drift.
ICP-AES and AAS systems were applied for trace element
determinations.
3. Results and discussion
It is reported in many literature sources [19 – 22] that the
physical and chemical characteristics of solid residues
depend on many factors, such as the composition of feed
MSW, the type of incinerator, the air pollution control
devices (APCDs), the operating conditions and so on.
Furthermore, as has been described in the International Ash
Working Group’s (IAWG) book ‘Municipal Solid Waste
Incinerator (MSWI) Residues’, the quality of the solid
residues from waste-to-energy conversion is very diverse
[9]. Therefore, it is necessary to make a detailed analysis for
better management, control and utilization of solid residues
from these two types of MSW incinerators.
3.1. Chemistry

2.4. X-ray diffraction
The crystalline minerals present in the solid residues
were identified using X-ray powder diffraction (XRD)
measurements in a D/max-IIIC diffractometer from Rigaku
Co. with Co Ka radiation and a position sensitive detector.
The accelerating voltage was 32.5 kV, and the current was
30 mA. A divergence slit of 18, a scattering slit of 18, a
receiving slit (crystal) of 0.88 and a receiving slit
(monochromator) of 0.68 were used to produce the best
peak definition and the lowest background. Scans were
conducted from 15.00 to 105.008 at a rate of 0.018 2u/min.
Data were recorded digitally, and peak position and
intensity were determined either on screen or using the
peakfinder feature in the software. Identification of
compounds was made by a manual search of the JCPDS
database as a source of reference data.
2.5. Leaching test
Table 1 shows the ash composition and LOI of solid
residues. Compared with coal ash, the content of SO3, Cl,
P2O5, CaO, Na2O, K2O is significantly higher except for
SiO2 and Al2O3. Among all these solid residues, SiO2 and
CaO are the main constituents. In the fly ashes of these two
incinerators, the components of SO3, Cl, Na2O and K2O also
account for a large percent as can be seen for sample b, and
in the case of SO3 for sample d. The increment of these
compositions is contributed to the factors described above
[19 –22], which will be discussed below.
The results show that the less volatile elements with high
boiling temperature remain in the bottom ashes and grate
siftings, while more volatile elements with low boiling
temperature are captured as residues in the APCDs, such as
the ESP ashes (incinerator A), and the waste heat boiler ashes
(incinerator B). For example, the elements of Si and Fe enrich
Table 1
Ash composition and LOI of solid residues

Component (wt%) Sample

The leaching test was conducted according to the Chinese
national standard of ‘Test method standard for leaching a b c d e
toxicity of solid wastes—Horizontal vibration extraction
SiO2 32.83 8.57 28.29 13.35 40.03
procedure’ (GB5086.1-1997) [18]. The distilled water, with a
Al2O3 4.37 3.90 1.70 7.10 8.40
liquid-to-solid ratio (L/S) of 10, was used as leaching solution. Fe2O3 3.39 2.58 4.09 3.68 5.83
It is noted that the pH of the distilled water should keep in the CaO 27.93 13.90 33.52 14.37 14.86
range of 5.8 and 6.3, which can be adjusted by adding NaOH or MgO 5.40 3.16 6.35 3.95 2.24
HCl. Close contact between the solid residue particles and the Na2O 3.18 14.00 1.39 4.27 0.96
K2 O 2.42 8.77 1.38 4.44 1.47
distilled water in a PVC plastic bottle was ensured by a shaker
TiO2 0.78 0.76 0.59 1.24 1.13
with its frequency of 120 run/min and swing amplitude of P2O5 5.03 2.81 7.96 1.28 1.14
40 mm. After being swung for 8 h, the mixture was quiet for MnO 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.17
16 h. Then the mixture was filtered through a f0.45 mm SO3 5.97 15.36 3.95 22.50 2.52
membrane filter. Thus, the resulting leachate was obtained. Cl 2.80 12.47 1.54 1.39 0.44
LOIa 6.22 3.12 11.17 3.60 15.53
The resulting leachate was analyzed for pH and eight
a
trace elements (Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, Pb, As, Hg). The same LOI, loss on ignition.
1400
in the bottom ashes and grate siftings as regarding the
elements of less volatility. Especially, Si accounts for
approximately 30% in the bottom ashes and grate siftings
of incinerator A, and 40% in the bottom ashes of incinerator
B, while in the fly ashes of incinerator A, the content is only
8.57%. Moreover, in the fly ashes of incinerator B, the
content is higher, but only 13.35%. Other less volatile
elements such as Fe, Mg and Al all have the same tendency.
However, Na and K, which belong to volatile elements, show
enrichment in the fly ashes. The contents of these two
elements in the fly ashes are four times higher than those of
bottom ashes and grate siftings. In addition, for incinerator A,
lime is added into the MSW in the process of the storage to
reduce pollution, resulting in the higher Ca content of the
bottom ashes and grate siftings. Forestier and Libourel [17]
also considered that the Ca content of MSW incineration
solid residues varies with the treatment process. The contents
of Cl and SO3 in the fly ashes also correlate with the lime
added into the semi-dry scrubber. The higher contents of Cl
(12.47%) and SO3 (15.36%) suggest that there is a higher
efficiency for adding lime to neutralize the acid gases such as
HCl and SO2 of flue gases. Similar conclusions have been
drawn by Forestier [17]. Typically, Cl contents as high as
11,000 and 156,000 mg/kg were found in MSW incineration
bottom ash and fly ash, respectively [23]. The high Cl content
can be considered as a major characteristic of MSW
incineration solid residues, 40– 50% of Cl originating from
the plastic fraction, mainly from PVC [17]. Unlike
incinerator A, no measure is made in the process of storage
and flue gas scrubbing for incinerator B. Thus, there is equal
distribution of the Ca content between bottom ashes and fly
ashes. Because of the high volatility of S and Cl, their higher
contents in the fly ashes than those of bottom ashes are
observed.
Compared with the bottom ashes, the grate siftings
combust more completely, contributing to the low LOI.
Because these two incinerators both adopt grate incinera-
tion, the feed-in MSWs mix uniformly mainly by the push
of the grates and the agitation of the primary air down from
the grates, causing the poor incineration efficiency, which
can be seen from the visible combustibles such as cloth and
plastic bags in the bottom ashes. The LOIs of the bottom
ashes are higher, both above 10%. Incinerator B adopts the
method of first pyrolysis then combustion, resulting in
higher LOI of the bottom ash, even to 15.53%. The LOIs of
the fly ashes are relatively low, about 3% for these two
incinerators, suggesting complete combustion.
Table 2 shows the concentration of heavy metals in solid
residues. For the heavy metals, a similar phenomenon as
the ash composition variation occurs. Cd, Pb, Hg and As are
the higher volatile heavy metals, resulting in the enrichment
in the fly ashes. Ni, a less volatile heavy metal, is more
concentrated in the bottom ashes and grate siftings than on
the fly ashes. The elements of Zn, Cu and Cr have a moderate
volatility, which results in average distribution between the
fly ashes, the bottom ashes and the grate siftings, meaning
Table 2
The concentration of heavy metals in solid residues
Sample Heavy metal (mg/kg)
Cd Zn Cu Cr Ni Pb Hg As
a 23.29 2809 858.2 366.6 178.2 660.6 0.012 38.15
b 289.7 5622 1286 366.2 74.85 4451 0.435 130.7
c 24.80 3378 804.6 189.6 90.04 647 0.046 28.97
d 1596 7118 2641 1657 554.9 6793 0.123 295.1
e 48.87 3979 2123 1564 718.1 2223 0.004 39.79
there is no enrichment. For example, in view of the low
boiling temperatures of Cd and Hg such as 767 and 357 8C,
respectively, they are concentrated in the fly ash. The
database presented by the IAWG was used to compare with
the analytical results obtained [9]. In that database, the
concentration of Pb varies from 5300 to 26,000 mg/kg, and in
our study, the concentration of Pb ranged between 650 and
6800 mg/kg, somewhat lower than the data in the database.
Moreover, the concentrations of some toxic heavy metals in
the fly ashes are very high, such as Cd (1596 mg/kg), Pb
(6793 mg/kg), Hg (0.435 mg/kg) and As (295.1 mg/kg). If
these ashes are handled improperly, the heavy metals in them
will immerge into the environment, and pollute the soil and
groundwater, which makes a serious impact on the people’s
health. In that case, before these MSW incineration solid
residues (especially the fly ashes) are directly landfilled and
utilized, a pre-treatment is required in order to decrease their
hazardous nature.
As described previously, the MSW incineration process
has an important effect on the participation of the elements
in the incineration solid residues. The phenomenon of
relative enrichment is probably due to the high combustion
temperature and excellent burnout at the MSW incinerator
[11]. In detail, when MSW is incinerated, less volatile
elements are retained in the bottom ashes and grate siftings,
while volatile elements of low boiling temperature are easy
to volatilize at high temperature, and come into the gas
phase, then enter the rear flue with the flue gases. During the
above process, with a decrease in the flue gas temperature,
the volatile elements condense onto the fly ashes. The fly
ashes, containing condensed volatile elements, are captured
by the filter (ESP or fabric filter), which causes the
enrichment of volatile elements. Meanwhile, some minerals
(such as lime, the Ca-containing compound) are added into
the flue gas scrubber to remove the acid gases of the flue
gases, for instance, HCl and SO2. That is the reason why the
concentration of the corresponding elements (such as Ca, Cl
and S) in the fly ashes increases significantly.
According to the Chinese standard of ‘Coal ash utilized in
the cement and the concrete’ (GB1596-91) and ‘Coal ash
utilized in the silicate construction products’ (JC409-91), it is
clear that the LOIs of the bottom ashes in both two
incinerators are too high to be utilized directly in cement.
However, although they may be utilized in cement
and silicate construction products, their grade is also low.
In general, the SO3 content in the solid residues is so high that
they are unfit for any possible utilization, especially for these
two fly ashes. Furthermore, the Cl content in the solid
residues is a more serious issue. Whereas ordinary Portland
cement (OPC) specifies that the Cl content in MSW
incineration solid residues should be less than 200 mg/kg.
This implies that the high Cl content in the solid residues has
to be removed prior to their recovery and reutilization [24]. In
conclusion, if the MSW incineration solid residues are not
pre-treated to remove some hazardous materials, they will
not be directly used. This is a disadvantage for the integrated
utilization of the MSW incineration solid residues.
3.2. Morphology
It is clear that the ash particle properties are linked to its
leaching behavior. For example, the presence of non-porous
continuous outer surface and dense particle interior may
prevent heavy metal leachability from the ash [25]. In this
regard, the study of the morphology of the MSW
incineration solid residues and its influence on the
leachability of heavy metals is of practical importance.
Fig. 3a –e illustrates SEM photography of the solid
residues of these two incinerators. From Fig. 3, it can be seen
Fig. 3. SEM photographs of solid residues ( £ 50).
that there are many ash granules in the grate siftings of
incinerator A (Fig. 3a). In the fly ashes of incinerator A
(Fig. 3b), many agglomerates are present, which are high
temperature sintering products. There are some elongated
materials in the bottom ashes of these two incinerators.
Energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) analysis shows the
elongated materials contain a high quantity of carbon, such
conclusions confirm that they are unburned combustibles. In
addition, in incinerator B (Fig. 3e), the amount of the
elongated materials is more than that of incinerator A
(Fig. 3c). This examination correlates to the LOI content in
Table 1. Further, the particle size distributions of the fly ashes
in both incinerators are more uniform than that of the bottom
ashes [26]. The bottom ashes of these two incinerators are
obviously heterogeneous matrices because of the different
nature of MSW burn in the incineration system, as previously
described by Chang et al. [27].
Fig. 4a – e illustrates a more vivid SEM photograph of the
solid residues from these two incinerators. In Fig. 4, the
irregular shapes and concave surfaces of the fly ashes suggest
that the crystals of the fly ashes are generally better than those
of the bottom ashes. This is probably because the particles of
fly ashes usually experience higher temperatures over the
pathway in the flue gas stream [26]. One can also observe that
1402
Fig. 4. SEM photographs of solid residues ( £ 10,000).
the MSW incineration fly ashes have various forms, unlike
coal fly ash that is composed of spherical particles. Some
MSW incineration fly ash particles are spherical (Fig. 4d),
elongated (Fig. 4b) and needled (Fig. 4b) particles. Remond
et al. [28] and Forestier [17] also observed the similar forms
in the investigation of MSW incineration fly ash and flue gas
residues, respectively. Forestier and Libourel [17] con-
sidered that spherical particles, partially or completely
glassy, with or without bubbles, indicate that melting and
degassing occur in the combustion chamber.
3.3. Mineralogy
Mineralogy is the main way to understand the coalescent
status of elements in the ashes. Toxicity of MSW
incineration solid residues is dependent not only on the
polluting elements concentration, but also on the speciation
of the pollutant elements and nature of the host phases [17].
Therefore, a detailed knowledge of the mineralogy of these
solid residues is required.
Fig. 5 is the XRD analyses of the MSW incineration
solid residues. As shown in Fig. 5, the mineralogy of solid
residues is very complex. This complex mineralogy of solid
residues results from several processes, including vaporiza-
tion, melting, crystallization, vitrification, condensation and
precipitation, which occur during combustion and treatment
of the flue gas [29].
The abundance of the different compounds identified by
XRD is estimated from the height of the corresponding
peaks in the XRD diagrams (Fig. 5) [28]. Table 3 shows the
main crystalline compounds and their relative importance.
The symbol ‘X’ indicates the relative quantity. It can be
seen that, the fly ashes of incinerator A are characterized by
a large quantity of NaCl and KCl. Also in them, a small
amount of cristobalite and CaCO3 is present. In the
investigation of the mineralogy of MSW incineration ESP
ashes by Forestier and Libourel [17] and the mineralogy of
MSW fly ashes by Mangialardi and Paolini [30], the
presence of CaCO3, CaSO4, NaCl, KCl and SiO2 was
observed. The mineralogy of the grate ashes in incinerator A
and that of the bottom ashes in these two incinerators is
certainly alike, they are composed of a great number of
hexahedral crystals, a-SiO2. However, some CaSO4 is
observed in the bottom ashes of incinerator A. The CaSO4
content of the fly ashes of incinerator B is especially high,
and a small amount of hexahedral crystalline a-SiO2 and
CaS is also obtained.
Determined compounds by XRD are in good agreement
with chemical analysis results [31]. In this regard, the SiO2
content of the grate ashes and bottom ashes in incinerator A,
 Fig. 5. XRD diagrams of solid residues.

as well as the bottom ashes in incinerator B, is very high in It should be noted that the change of the formation of
Table 1. Then the XRD diagram shows the peak of a-SiO2 is SiO2. The grate ashes and bottom ashes of incinerator A,
also very high, much higher than other compounds. All and the fly ashes and bottom ashes of incinerator B, show
kinds of solid residues from incinerator A have high CaO hexahedral crystal a-SiO2, which is a fuel component, while
contents, resulting from the added lime in the process of in the fly ashes of incinerator A, only cristobalite is present,
storage and flue gas treatment, thus the presence of CaCO3
is found. In addition, large fractions of Na2O, K2O and Cl Table 3
are present in the fly ashes of incinerator A, correspond- Main compounds and the relative quantities in the solid residues detected
by XRD
ingly, a large amount of NaCl and KCl is found in the XRD
diagram. In our results, the chlorides are mainly presented in Compound Sample
the forms of NaCl and KCl. However, it is possible that their
a b c d e
presence is in the form of CaCl2 (calcium chloride) in small
quantities. It is a known fact that below a mass percentage of
a-SiO2 XXXXX – XXXXX XXX XXXXX
5%, compounds are difficult to be detected by XRD [28], CaCO3 XXX X XXX – XXX
and because of this, the heavy metals of concern and CaSO4 – – XXX XXXXX –
dangerous to the environment are not shown in the XRD CaS – – – X –
diagram. The high SO3 content of the fly ashes of KCl – XXXXX – – –
NaCl – XXXXX – – –
incinerator B (Table 1) is in accordance with the large
Cristobalite – X – – –
quantity of CaSO4 observed in Fig. 5d.
1404

probably formed as high-temperature condensation product described previously, there are great amounts of CaO in the
[32]. Thipse and Schoenitz [32] also found the largest solid residues of incinerator A (Table 1). CaO dissolves in
fraction of MSW incineration fly ash showed only quartz the leachate when the solid residues are in contact with
while the finer fractions showed cristobalite, this fact further water, causing the pH to increase and the resulting leachate
confirms the above conclusion. Moreover, as far as the fly is highly alkaline, especially for the bottom ash of
ashes of both incinerators are concerned, different forms of incinerator A. For incinerator B, the leachates of the bottom
SiO2 are observed, i.e. hexahedral crystal a-SiO2 in ashes and fly ashes are both moderately alkaline.
incinerator B and cristobalite in incinerator A, respectively. According to the standard of GB 5085.3-1996, the
Compared with incinerator B, it is found that the flue gas concentration of Pb and Cd in the leachates of the fly ashes
temperature of incinerator A is about 1100 8C, and although of these two incinerators is much higher than the standard.
the designed flue gas temperature of incinerator B is Furthermore, the concentration of Cr in the leachate of the
1000 8C, but in practical operation, the flue gas temperature fly ash of incinerator B is a little higher than the standard.
is maintained at about 900 8C. This implies that temperature Ibanez et al. [34] investigated the leaching behavior of solid
is an important factor to affect the formation of SiO2 in the residues of MSW incineration and hospital solid waste
incineration system [26]. incineration, and found that Pb, Cd, Cr and Zn were present
in concentrations higher than the hazardous range. This
result confirms the results observed in our tests. As a result,
3.4. Leaching test
the fly ashes of these two incinerators are both considered as
hazardous wastes, which means that proper treatment must
The solid residues from MSW incinerators are subject
be done prior to landfill and disposal. For the grate sifting
to weathering and other natural processes during storage,
and bottom ashes of these two incinerators, they will be safe,
disposal or utilization. Contaminants can be leached from
and can be directly landfilled, as the concentrations of heavy
the solid residues and may be released to groundwater and
metals in their leachates are much lower than the standard.
surface waters [13]. Different leaching tests, therefore,
have been developed to determine the interaction of
residues with the surrounding environment. For instance,
4. Conclusions
leaching tests can provide a good insight into the mobility
of heavy metals [33]. In addition, leaching tests play a
Detailed characteristics of the solid residues from two
major role to assess the possibility of use and treatment MSW incinerators located in the city of Shenzhen (southern
within regulatory limits [34]. China) were performed in this paper. Our conclusions are
In our study, a Chinese national standard of GB5086.1- that the physical and chemical characterization of solid
1997 (described before) was used as the method for leaching residues depends on facts such as the composition of feed
tests. The leaching results of the solid residues obtained with MSW, the type of incinerator, the APCDs, the operating
such methods are listed in Table 4 along with the Chinese conditions and so on. Chemical analysis showed that in the
national standard of ‘Identification standard for hazardous solid residues, less volatile elements with high boiling
wastes—Identification for extraction procedure toxicity’ temperatures remained in the bottom ashes and grate
(GB5085.3-1996) [35]. During the leaching process, the pH siftings, while more volatile elements with low boiling
of the leachate increases as basic metal salts dissolve. temperature were captured by the fly ashes. Especially, the
Moreover, the equilibrium pH is determined by the amount concentrations of some toxic heavy metals in the fly ashes
of CaCO3, CaO and Al2O3 in the solid residues, and the were significantly high, which caused potential hazards.
dissolution of CO2 in water [36,37]. As the same reason Moreover, some hazardous materials in the solid residues
Table 4 made them unfit for direct utilization, unless these materials
Leaching tests of solid residues and the identification standard were removed. This was a disadvantage for the integrated
utilization of the MSW incineration solid residues. The
Sample Standard
morphology observations found that the crystals of the fly
a b c d e ashes were generally better than that of the bottom ashes.
Meanwhile, the bottom ashes of these two incinerators were
pH 11.2 9.7 12.1 8.4 8.9 – obviously heterogeneous matrices because of the different
Cd 0.012 1.106 0.013 5.465 0.027 0.3 nature of MSW burned in the incineration system. XRD
Cr 0.274 2.622 0.151 10.97 0.968 10
analyses suggested that the mineralogy of solid residues was
Cu 0.331 3.721 0.283 6.634 0.654 50
Ni 0.059 0.177 0.032 0.969 0.182 10 very complex, and the compounds identified by XRD were
Pb 0.287 16.04 0.259 22.79 0.863 3.0 in good agreement with chemical analysis results. The
Zn 0.719 10.11 0.681 11.61 0.923 50 leaching tests performed on the solid residues further
As 0.024 0.685 0.019 1.368 0.023 1.5 validated that the fly ashes of these two incinerators should
Hg ,0.001 0.002 ,0.001 ,0.001 ,0.001 0.05
be classified as hazardous wastes because of their high
Note: The concentration of heavy metals in the leachate is in mg/l. leachability of heavy metals. Therefore, they should be
treated prior to landfill. The concentrations of heavy metals [18] Chinese Environment Protection Association, Test method standard
in the leachates of the grate siftings and the bottom ashes for leaching toxicity of solid wastes—horizontal vibration extraction
procedure (GB5086.1-1997). Beijing: Chinese National Standard
were much lower than the standard, which meant they can
Press; 1997. p. 1 (in Chinese).
be directly landfilled. [19] Sawell E, Chandler AJ, Eighmy TT. Biomass Bioenergy 1995;
9(1–5):377–86.
[20] Van der Sloot HA, Kosson DS, Hjelmar O. Waste Mgmt 2001;21:
References 753–65.
[21] Kamon M, Katsumi T. J Hazard Mater 2000;76:263– 83.
[22] Rebeiz KS, Mielich KL. J Energy Engng 1995;121(1):2– 13.
[1] Wang KS, Chiang KY. Chemosphere 1999;38(7):1571–82.
[2] Liu K, Pan W-P, Riley JT. Fuel 2000;79:1115 –24. [23] Toshihisa M, Kazumasa S. J Jpn Waste Mgmt Assoc 1998;57(227):
[3] Eusden JD, Eighmy TT. Appl Geochem 1999;14:1073 –91. 557–61.
[4] Wey MY, Ou WY. J Hazardous Mater 2001;B82:247–62. [24] Wang KS, Chiang KY. Hydrometallurgy 2001;62:73–81.
[5] Stegemann JA, Schneider J. Waste Mgmt Res 1995;13:149–65. [25] Ramesh A, Kozinski JA. Environ Pollut 2001;111:255–62.
[6] Kirby CS, Rimstidt JD. Environ Sci Technol 1993;27(4):652– 60. [26] Chang NB, Wang HP, Huang WL. Resour Conserv Recycl 1999;25:
[7] Hjelmar O. J Hazard Mater 1996;47:345– 68. 255–70.
[8] Vassilev SV, Laurent Ph. Fuel 1999;78:1131–45. [27] Chang EE, Chiang PC, Lu PH, Ko YW. Chemosphere 2001;45:91 –9.
[9] Chandler AJ. Municipal solid waste incinerator residues. Amster- [28] Remond S, Pimienta P, Bentz DP. Cement Concrete Res 2002;32:
dam: The International Ash Working Group/Elsevier Science; 1997. 303–11.
p. 974. [29] Jakob A, Stucki S. Environ Sci Technol 1996;30(12):3275–83.
[10] Stuart BJ, Kosson DS. Combust Sci Technol 1994;101:527–48. [30] Mangialardi T, Paolini AE. J Hazard Mater 1999;B70:53–70.
[11] Eighmy TT. Environ Sci Technol 1995;29(3):629–46. [31] Klika Z, Bartonova L, Spears DA. Fuel 2001;80:907– 17.
[12] Alba N, Gasso S, Lacorte T, Baldasano JM. J Air Waste Mgmt Assoc [32] Thipse SS, Schoenitz M. Fuel Process Technol 2002;75:173–84.
1997;47(11):1170–9. [33] Armesto L, Merino JL. Fuel 1999;78:613–8.
[13] Lopes H, Trindade T, Gulyurtlu I, Cabrita I. Fuel 2001;80:785– 93. [34] Ibanez R, Andres A, Viguri JR. J Hazard Mater 2000;A79:215–27.
[14] Gavasci R, Mangialardi T, Sinini P. J Resour Mgmt Technol 1991; [35] Chinese Environment Protection Association, The collection of
19(3):120–32. Chinese national standard. Beijing: Chinese National Standard
[15] Kirby CS, Rimstidt JD. Environ Sci Technol 1994;28(3):443– 51. Press; 1996. p. 548 (in Chinese).
[16] Wiles CC. J Hazard Mater 1996;47:325 –44. [36] Van Herck P, Van der Bruggen B, Vogels G. Waste Mgmt 2000;20:
[17] Forestier LL, Libourel G. Environ Sci Technol 1998;32(15): 203–10.
2250–6. [37] Andac M, Glasser FP. Cement Concrete Res 1999;29:179– 86.