Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

ISSN: 1096-2247 (Print) 2162-2906 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

Polyfunctional Plants for Industrial Waste

Disposal—Part I: Process and Equipment Design

Antonio C. Caputo & Pacifico M. Pelagagge

To cite this article: Antonio C. Caputo & Pacifico M. Pelagagge (1999) Polyfunctional Plants for
Industrial Waste Disposal—Part I: Process and Equipment Design, Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association, 49:11, 1355-1361, DOI: 10.1080/10473289.1999.10463962

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1999.10463962

Published online: 27 Dec 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 75

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
TECHNICAL PAPER
Polyfunctional Plants for Industrial Waste Disposal—Part I:
Process and Equipment Design
Antonio C. Caputo and Pacifico M. Pelagagge
Department of Energetics, Faculty of Engineering, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy
ABSTRACT
This article is the first of two papers dealing with devel-
opment of a design and costing procedure for
polyfunctional waste treatment plants. Part I reviews
equipment sizing aspects. Part II defines and validates the
cost estimation procedure. In this article, the structure of
a general purpose polyfunctional plant for liquid and solid
industrial waste treatment is discussed, highlighting the
high level of process integration obtainable and the con-
sequent benefits. The plant comprises an incineration
section, a section for chemical/physical/biological treat-
ments, and a stabilization/solidification section. Each sec-
tion is briefly described, and an overview of the sizing
procedure for main equipment is presented. Such a pro-
cedure forms the basis of a computer model for process
and equipment preliminary design to be used in economic
feasibility evaluation studies.
IMPLICATIONS
One of the most promising approaches to solving the in-
dustrial waste problem is offered by polyfunctional plants,
which show an ability to treat and dispose of wide classes
of waste, obtaining a high level of integration between
technologies and at the same time performing collection
and storage tasks.
In order to assist during the planning phase and to
investigate the main factors (i.e., process arrangement,
waste mix, and plant capacity) affecting the investment
profitability of polyfunctional plants, a flexible tool for pre-
liminary plant sizing and costing has been developed. In
this first paper, the usual plant arrangements and tech-
nologies, which form the basis of the model sizing proce-
dure, are reviewed. Design criteria for processes and
equipment are also outlined for further economic analy-
sis. In the second part of this paper (not included here)
the plant-costing procedure is reviewed in detail, and pre-
dicted costs are compared with literature and real plant
data for model verification.
The detailed level of the mathematical tool repre-
sents the technical foundation for economic feasibility
evaluation. Such criteria enable an estimation of capital
and operating costs adequately precise to carry out stud-
ies of economic convenience.
Volume 49 November 1999
ISSN 1047-3289 J. AirCaputo and Pelagagge
& Waste Manage. Assoc. 49:1355-1361
Copyright 1999 Air & Waste Management Association
INTRODUCTION
Industrial waste has become a major issue in several coun-
tries due to its high volume and the health and environ-
mental impacts of incorrect disposal. Advanced
government regulation trends concerning industrial waste
management are evolving toward the concept of ecologi-
cal products and processes intended ideally to have a
wasteless life-cycle. Recovery and recycling of resources
also seem to be an attractive aim. In the meantime, how-
ever, an environmentally sustainable disposal of indus-
trial waste must be pursued.
The industrial waste problem appears to be very dif-
ferent than the municipal waste problem, where disposal
costs are charged to the general public. Costs of indus-
trial waste disposal instead concern only waste produc-
ers. From this viewpoint, small enterprises are in a
particularly unfavorable condition since autonomous
disposal solutions are usually hampered by techno-eco-
nomic constraints.
Some international experiences suggest that one of
the most promising approaches to solving the industrial
waste problem is offered by polyfunctional plants, which
are able to treat and dispose of wide classes of waste, while
at the same time perform collection and storage tasks.
Such plants thereby allow both processing waste with dif-
ferent chemical and physical characteristics and obtain-
ing a high level of integration between technologies.
Industrial waste disposal at polyfunctional plants, rather
than at each production site, offers important advantages
arising from better environmental control, greater reuse
of waste materials and energy, and lower capital and op-
erating costs.
The main aspects that may affect investment profit-
ability of polyfunctional plants include the characteriza-
tion of process arrangements in terms of pollutant
emissions; the selection of the proper waste mix in terms
of energy balance optimization; the plant utilization rate,
which impacts operating costs; protection against injury
and property damage inside and outside the plant; con-
tinuous improvement by means of research and develop-
ment activities; and a reliable emissions management
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1355
Caputo and Pelagagge
policy in order to gain acceptance by the community.
Another major factor usually neglected in recent litera-
ture is the treatment capacity of the polyfunctional plant,
which is generally assumed to be dependent on the influ-
ence of the ordering body, which up to now has been
usually public (local county councils, districts, provinces).
Nevertheless, finding an optimal capacity planning pro-
cedure is a particularly critical task.
Bearing this in mind, a procedure for the technical/
economic feasibility analysis of a polyfunctional plant for
industrial waste disposal should be established, aimed at
highlighting both the most suitable process arrangements,
according to the type and amount of waste to be treated,
and the general identification and selection of an appro-
priate plant location. In order to pursue this goal and
enable a capacity analysis, a flexible tool for preliminary
plant sizing and costing has been developed and described.
This article is the first of two papers dealing with devel-
opment of a design and costing model for polyfunctional
waste treatment plants. In this first article, the usual plant
arrangements and technologies, which form the basis of
the model sizing procedure, are reviewed. Design criteria
for processes and equipment are also outlined for further
economic analysis. In the second part of this article, the
plant costing procedure is reviewed in detail, and predicted
costs are compared with literature and real plant data for
model verification.
POLYFUNCTIONAL PLANT PROCESS
A general plant configuration has been assumed that
would enable the treatment of solids, liquids, and slud-
ges, obtaining as end products waste suited for final dis-
posal in special waste landfills. Discussion of reuse and
recycling has been deliberately omitted, as such practices
cannot be easily generalized in the field of industrial waste,
being specific to each production process. Moreover,
the utilization of an external landfill has been hypoth-
esized. A generic polyfunctional plant (PP) comprises
separate but interconnected treatment sections, each
Figure 1. Schematic view of a polyfunctional waste treatment plant.
1356 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
one devoted to a particular subset of the whole inlet
waste flow. Typically, the following main sections are con-
sidered (Figure 1):
• incineration section, for destruction of slud-
ges and solid waste with a prevailing organic
content;
• chemical/physical /biological (CPB) treatment
section devoted to sludges and liquid waste; and
• stabilization/solidification section for treatment
of inorganic waste.
Some secondary flows are generated in the CPB sec-
tion, as sludges coming from the dewatering process are
forwarded to the stabilization/solidification section (if
inorganic) or the incineration section (if organic), and in
the incineration section in the forms of fly ash collected
from the air pollution control system, ash and unburned
residuals extracted from the incinerator, and sludges com-
ing from acid fumes washing. The outflow from the sta-
bilization/solidification section is sent to a landfill. The
high level of integration between processes is also shown
in Figure 1.
Incineration Section
This section is based on batteries of small rotating kilns
in parallel (specific capacity 50–70 tons/day) with post-
combustion units to raise fume temperatures above 1000–
1200 °C for destruction of hazardous air pollutants such
as dioxins and furans. Only when a total daily capacity
exceeding 400 tons is required, a single grid or fluidized-
bed incinerator may be considered for installation.
Non-volatile ashes and slag extracted from the furnaces
(about 20–25% of unburned waste fraction) are essen-
tially composed of metal oxides, which may be assimi-
lated with solid wastes to be disposed of in municipal
solid waste landfills.
A heat recovery section composed of steam generator,
turbogenerator, air heater for kiln combustion air, and steam
condenser may be installed upstream of the gas-cleaning
section. Flue gas is cleaned by a dry treatment with an
Volume 49 November 1999

electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or fabric filter, which sends
collected particulate to the stabilization section, and a wet-
scrubber section to remove chlorine-based compounds.
Scrubber liquor is sent to the CPB section. Figure 2 depicts
the plant scheme of the incineration section.
CPB Section
The CPB section is composed of the following subsections:
• three dewatering lines and two gravity thicken-
ing units for sludges obtained by the rest of the
CPB section as well as those coming from the
wet scrubber or from external customers;
• a chemical/physical (CP) treatment plant per-
forming coagulation, flocculation, and settling
processes aimed at the separation of suspended
solids and primarily the precipitation of heavy
metals, which are highly toxic and inhibit the
succeeding biologic treatment; and
• a biological treatment unit based on activated
sludges and enhanced with pulverized activated
coal (PAC) for removal of organic pollutants.
After a preliminary passage through storage and
equalization basins, liquid wastes coming into the PP
are sent directly to the CP subsection along with waste-
water from sludge- thickening and dewatering plants.
From the CP unit the wastewater is sent to the biologi-
cal treatment unit, from which depurated water is sent
to the sewer and sludges are returned to the thicken-
ing and dewatering unit, as they contain a high per-
centage of water (about 95% by weight). Dried sludges
are finally sent to the incineration or stabilization sec-
tion. Dehydration is performed with vacuum filters,
belt filters, or press filters. A typical schematic of the
entire CPB section, excluding the stockage and
equalization section, is depicted in Figure 3.
WASTES
UNBURNED MASS
Figure 2. Scheme of the incineration and heat recovery section.
Volume 49 November 1999
Caputo and Pelagagge
Stabilization/Solidification Section
The Stabilization/Solidification section processes sludges
from the CPB section as well as fly ash collected from the
electrostatic precipitator and waste from external custom-
ers needing no further treatment (Figure 4). In the stabili-
zation reactor, waste substances are embedded in a cement
matrix with additives, which makes them suitable to be
disposed in a landfill for special waste.
The plant structure is completed by a chemical labo-
ratory, where analysis and acceptance tests are performed
on the influent waste in order to route each specific flow
to the proper treatment section or directly to the landfill
if applicable. Finally, buffer storage areas are located in
each section to enable waste accumulation before and
during treatment in order to level flow rate peaks and
ease periodic plant maintenance.
DESIGN CRITERIA
In this section, the design criteria adopted for the consid-
ered PP are only briefly overviewed to illustrate the
methodological approach toward an overall
technoeconomic mathematical model. Design details may
be found in standard textbooks on the subject.1-5
Incineration Section
Mass and energy conservation equations for incinerator
and post-combustor may be written as
MR + MC + (MAR + MAC) = MUB + MF (1)
(1–N) [MRHR + MC + (MAR + MAC) cpA TA]
= MF cpF TF + MUB cpUB TUB (2)
neglecting the enthalpy content of air and refuse,
assuming that both air and fumes behave like perfect gases,
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1357
Caputo and Pelagagge
Figure 3. Scheme of the CPB treatment section.
HB: HOMOGENIZATION BASIN
Figure 4. Scheme of the stabilization/solidification section.
and hypothesizing that the thermal power loss through
unburned mass fraction, endothermal reactions, or ther-
mal losses through furnace walls is accounted for as a frac-
tion N of the total heat input (15% has been considered).
MR is the inlet refuse mass; MC is the fuel mass, MAR and
MAC are the combustion air mass for refuse and fuel, re-
spectively; and MF is the flue gas mass. Unburned mass is
a fraction of inlet refuse mass, MUB = X MR, (fraction X is
variable, typically in the range of 15 to 30%, and the value
20% has been considered here), and is assumed to have
an exit temperature equal to the fumes temperature TF. H
is the lower heating value (a typical value for industrial
waste is 5000–6000 kcal/kg); cp is the specific heat; and TA
is the preheated air temperature (assumed to be 120 °C).
The calculation process is iterative; at first it is hy-
pothesized that no auxiliary fuel is required (MC = MAC =
0) to obtain both complete combustion and the desired
flue gas temperature. This enables us to compute flue gas,
MF, and primary air mass, MAR, by eqs 1 and 2. The result-
ing air mass value is compared with the practical required
air mass, MAR* = At (1 +ε) MR, where At is the theoretical
1358 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
stoichiometric combustion air (kg air/kg refuse) and ε is
the excess air, which depends on refuse composition and
furnace type (100% has been assumed).
At = 11.6 C% + 34.8 (H% –O%/8) + 4.3 S% (3)
where C%, H%, O%, S% are the percentage by weight of
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and sulfur, respectively, in the
organic fraction of the refuse to be burned (typically 50,
5, 25, and 2%, respectively).
If the computed value MAR<MAR*, then the correct
value MAR* is used and the corresponding auxiliary fuel
mass and fuel combustion air needed to bring the flue
gas to the desired exit temperature are computed. An aux-
iliary fuel with 10,270 kcal/kg low heating value, with a
carbon content of 87% and hydrogen content of 12%,
requiring 10% excess air, has been considered in the
present model. In the case that MAR>MAR* instead, the
computed value should be utilized; otherwise, the prac-
tical air value would be insufficient to ensure the required
dilution. The process is repeated until convergence with
Volume 49 November 1999

continuous updating of cp values according to gas and
refuse composition.
Slag mass is assumed to be a fraction, XG, of unburned
mass, MS = XG MUB, while the remaining part, (1–XG) MUB,
is fly ash collected by the ESP. A value of XG = 0.4 has been
assumed. Fumes from the incinerator (at a temperature
of about 1000–1200 °C) may be passed through a heat
recovery steam generator section, which abates their tem-
perature to 200–250 °C and preheats combustion air, pro-
ducing electric power. Based on the required thermal
power of the furnace, PT = MR HR (kcal/hr), and its typol-
ogy, which defines the specific thermal load, R (typically
150,000 to 250,000 kcal/hr m3; in the case of rotary kilns),
the kiln volume results, V = PT/R (m3), while the volume
of the post-combustor derives from the required flue gas
mass and temperature imposing the maximum fumes
velocity (<10 m/sec) and the residence time (>2 sec). The
ESP can be sized on the basis of the actual flow rate and
the specific collection area, as computed according to stan-
dard procedures.6 Scrubber dimensions and pressure drop
may be instead evaluated on the basis of flow rate with
empirical correlations.7
CPB Section
Prior to the actual treatments, the inlet stream is passed
through an equalization section composed of a homog-
enization basin and a buffer basin, equipped with propel-
ler mixers that directly feed the CPB section. The task of
those basins is equalization of the stream’s characteristics
and the evening of daily flow rate and seasonal variation,
in order to feed the succeeding section with a possibly
fixed flow rate of nearly constant characteristics. The vol-
ume of the basins is thus computed assuming a 40% daily
excursion from the average flow rate and hypothesizing a
1.5 safety factor.
For sake of simplicity, incoming waste flow in this
section is characterized only in terms of biologic oxygen
demand content (BOD, mg/L) and suspended solid con-
centration (SS, mg/L). Heavy metals concentration (HM,
mg/L) is considered separately from SS when required.
Moreover, the following subscripts have been used, ei-
ther alone or in conjunction: S for sludge, I for influent, E
for effluent, D for discharged, SS for suspended solid, and
R for recirculated.
As recirculation flows are generated by sludge treat-
ment, an iterative procedure is repeated until mass bal-
ance at each process point (representing a single piece of
equipment) is reached.
Sludge Pretreatment (Thickening and Dewatering). Given a
generic sludge stream influent to this unit, having a mass
flow rate, MSI, (and a corresponding volumetric flow rate
computed as V SI = M SI /gs δ, g s being the sludge-specific
Volume 49 November 1999
Caputo and Pelagagge
gravity with reference to water density δ), the influent
mass of suspended solid is
M SSI = SSI M SI (4)
while the mass of suspended solid collected by a filter
with efficiency η SS and discharged is
MSSD = ηSS M SSI (5)
The corresponding mass and volume of dewatered
sludge cake extracted by the filter are
M SD = MSSD / SSD (6)
VSD = MSD / gs δ (7)
where SSD (%) is a filter characteristic. Suspended solid
mass entrained in the effluent wastewater is
M SSE = M SSI (1 – ηSS) (8)
while the effluent volume flow rate of filtered waste-
water is
VSE = VSI –VSD (9)
The total BODE (kg/day) of effluent stream is a char-
acteristic of the stream and is evaluated on the basis
of chemical analysis determining the specific BOD
(BOD S, typically around 1500 mg/L)
BODE = BODS VSE (10)
However, if experimental data is absent, it can be
assumed that
BODE = f MSSE (11)
where the factor f is around 50%.
The mass balances for sludge, BOD, SS, HM, and vol-
ume balances for each stream and for each unit in the
pretreatment section may then be easily established,
thanks to the previous relations, in order to obtain the
effluent streams directed to the CPB section.
As to the gravity thickener, a basin with circular
shape has been considered. Its surface can be estimated
to be S = MSSI /CS, where CS is the surface load (typically
20–40 kg/m2/day), while the volume derives from the
flow rate and the retention time (assumed to be 1–2 days).
Vacuum filter size is dictated by the mass flow rate to be
filtered and the filter dewatering capacity, expressed as
kg SS/m2hr of filter surface (30–50 kg SS/m2/hr have been
assumed, depending on sludge characteristics).
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1359
Caputo and Pelagagge
Chemical/Physical Treatment Section. In this section, influ-
ents are treated in two subsequent contact reactors lo-
cated in separate basins. In the first one, FeCl3 is added as
a coagulant agent, while in the second one lime Ca(OH)2
is added as flocculant agent for metal ions. An amount of
10–25% by weight of FeCl3 is added together with a small
percentage of polyelectrolyte (0.2–0.4% by weight) to
enhance the process efficiency. Required Ca(OH)2 mass is
computed on the basis of the following reaction with
metal ions:
2 Men+ + n Ca(OH)2 → 2 Me(OH)2 + n Ca2+ (12)
Each metal species is considered separately. If only the
total metals load (HM, mg/L) is known, then the same
concentration is assumed for each metal.
After introduction of the reactants, the effluent en-
ters the primary clarifier, where settling takes place. As-
suming proper process efficiency (ηSS = 90–95%) the settled
sludge mass is
MSSD = ηSS MSSI (13)
Similarly, BODSS and HMSS can be computed, assuming ηBOD
= 25–30% and ηHM = 99%.
The volume of both reactors is computed on the ba-
sis of the inlet flow rate, assuming proper values for the
residence times: 30–40 sec in the coagulation reactor and
20–50 min in the flocculation reactor. A circular settling
basin has been assumed. Its surface can be estimated as
S = VI /CSI, where VI is the influent flow rate and CSI the
surface hydraulic load (i.e., the settling velocity, 0.7–2 m/
hr), while the volume is dictated by the flow rate and the
settling time (assumed to be 2.5 hr).
Biological Treatment. The influent stream is introduced
into an aeration basin, where activated sludges oxidize
the organic compounds, creating new biomass-denomi-
nated mixed liquor suspended solid (MLSS) at the expense
of BOD. The biomass flow is then forwarded to a second-
ary clarifier (sized proportionally to the primary one) from
which a depurated stream is extracted, while the settled
sludge is partially discharged to the thickening and de-
watering unit, in order to maintain the process equilib-
rium by eliminating the excess biomass, and in part
returned to the aeration basin.
The clarified water effluent, MSS and BODE, are com-
puted on the basis of design process efficiency (typically
ηSS = ηBOD = 90–95%):
MSSE = (1–ηSS) MSSI (14)
BODE = (1 – ηBOD) BODI (15)
1360 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
The mass balance of this section is completed by evalu-
ating the mass of sludge underflow from clarifier. The sludge
underflow returned to the aeration basin (VSR) is
VSR = (MSSI + ∆X – CMLSS VSSI)/(CMLSS –CSR) (16)
where CMLSS is the concentration of MLSS in the basin (typi-
cally 5000 mg/L), CSR is the concentration of recirculated
sludge (assumed typically 10,000 mg/L), and ∆X (kg SS/
kg BOD) is the excess biomass formed daily at the ex-
pense of destroyed BOD, which needs to be extracted from
the process and discarded to maintain equilibrium.
∆X = I ηBOD BODI (17)
where I is the sludge production index (typically I =
0.6), and
VSD = (1/CSR ) [CMLSS (VSI + VSR) –MSSE–MSSR] (18)
where VSD is the corresponding discharged sludge volume
and MSSR is the recirculated suspended solid mass
MSSR = CSR VSR (19)
To enhance process efficiency, PAC may be introduced
into the basin in order to oxidize hard-to-biodegrade com-
pounds. The amount of PAC injected (mg PAC/L) is
MPAC = CMLSS (Thyd/Tm) (20)
where Thydr (hours) is the hydraulic retention time in the
basin, and Tm is the mean cell residence time. Thyd may be
evaluated as
Thyd = VB / (VSR + VSI) 24 (21)
24 being the daily operating hours and VB the basin
volume (m3)
VB = BODI / (F CMLSS) (22)
depending on the influent BOD and the plant duty factor
F (kg BOD/kg MLSS × days), which has been assumed to
be 0.05 kg/kg, while Tm (days) is computed as
Tm = CMLSS VB /∆X (23)
The volume of storage tanks for chemical reactants
may be estimated based on the daily consumption and
the required autonomy of treatment (usually 15–30 days),
considering the form in which each reactant is supplied.
For example, FeCl3, Ca(OH)2, polyelectrolite, and PAC are
Volume 49 November 1999

usually supplied as aqueous solution at 40%, 10%, 30%,
and 25% respectively, by weight. Finally, the required
oxygen amount for basin aeration (kg O2/day) is
MO = FO ηBOD BODI (24)
2
where FO is the specific oxygen demand (1.4 kg O2/kg BOD).
Stabilization/Solidification Section
The final stabilization/solidification section collects residu-
als from previous sections (e.g., dry sludge from the CPB
section, flyash from the ESP) or other sources that require
stabilization in order to be disposed of in special waste
landfills. This section is composed of a stockage area to
accumulate the materials to be treated, a treatment unit
to perform the stabilization/solidification process (essen-
tially a rotating drum sized for the daily treatment capac-
ity), and some basins devoted to final solidification of
the product before disposal (Figure 4). In this application,
only cement-based stabilization processes have been con-
sidered, this being the most widespread process and show-
ing a great compatibility with residuals containing high
percentage of heavy metals, such as the present applica-
tion.8 Cement is added in the measure of about 20–25%
by weight of refuse, as are silicates, at about 5–7%. This
leads to an increase of about 10% in refuse volume, which
assumes the form of pumpable sludge (with a density of
about 1.3 t/m3), which is then sent to the solidification
phase, which lasts about 30–40 days.
CONCLUSIONS
General criteria for the planning and preliminary design
phase of polyfunctional industrial waste treatment plants
have been presented in this work. In particular, a
mathemathical model, briefly described in the paper, has
been developed to quantitatively define the processes in-
volved. The algorithm structure is characterized by high
flexibility, allowing us to take into account different pro-
cess types and a variable mix of incoming waste stream.
An overall sizing of main equipment has been also per-
formed for the economic evaluation of each device. The
Volume 49 November 1999
Caputo and Pelagagge
model has been implemented on a personal computer in
a spreadsheet format and enables the interactive selec-
tion of waste characteristics and processes or equipment
operating parameters, calculating the plant energy and
mass balances as well as the size of main plant compo-
nents. The detailed level of the mathematical tool repre-
sents the technical foundation for economic feasibility
evaluation. Such criteria enable an estimation of capital
and operating costs adequately precise to carry out stud-
ies of economic feasibility.
REFERENCES
1. Brunner, C.A. Handbook of Incineration Systems; McGraw-Hill: New
York, 1991.
2. Conner, J.R. Chemical Fixation and Solidification of Hazardous Wastes;
Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, 1990.
3. Eckenfelder, W.W.; Patoczka, J.; Watkin, A.T. “Wastewater treatment,”
Chem. Eng. 1985, 92, 60-74.
4. Metcalf & Eddy Inc. Wastewater Engineering, Treatment, Disposal, and
Reuse; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1991.
5. Peavy, H.S.; Rowe, D.R.; Tchobanoglous, G. Environmental Engineer-
ing; McGraw-Hill; New York, 1985.
6. Turner, J.H.; Lawless, P.A.; Yamamoto, T.; Coy, D.W.; Greiner, G.P.;
McKenna, J.D.; Vatavuk, W. “Sizing and costing of electrostatic pre-
cipitators, Part I: Sizing considerations,” J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc.
1988, 38 (4), 459-471.
7. Vatavuk, W. Estimating the Cost of Air Pollution Control; Lewis Publish-
ers: Chelsea, MI, 1990.
8. Poon, C.S. A Critical Review of Evaluation Procedures for Stabiliza-
tion and Solidification Processes. Presented at the Conference on En-
vironmental Aspects of Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous and
Radioactive Wastes, Atlanta, GA,1987.
About the Authors
Dr. Pacifico M. Pelagagge is an associate professor in the
Engineering Faculty at the University of L’Aquila, 67040
Monteluco di Roio (AQ), Italy. Dr. Antonio C. Caputo is an
assistant professor in the Engineering Faculty at the same
university (e-mail: caputo@ing.univaq.it).
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1361