Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Evaluating life cycle environmental impacts of coal fly ash utilization in

embankment versus sand and landfilling
Sarah Curpen a, b, Nadya Teutsch b, Konstantin Kovler a, Sabrina Spatari a, *
a
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa, 3200003, Israel
b
Geological Survey of Israel, 32 Yesha’ayahu Leibowitz St., Jerusalem, 9692100, Israel

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Zhen Leng Coal fly ash (CFA) disposal is controversial because constituents of potential concern such as heavy metals in the
ash can be released to the ground and reach aquifers, which poses risks to communities and the environment.
Keywords: Whereas thoughtful utilization of CFA may result in economic and environmental benefits. Geotechnical use of
Coal fly ash CFA as fill material in embankments could be economically competitive while reducing environmental impact.
Life cycle assessment
However, CFA must compete with low-cost alternatives like sand, which do not need to adhere to stringent
Embankments
environmental regulations and have not been evaluated against CFA previously in life cycle assessment (LCA)
Landfilling
Leaching studies. Therefore, this work aims to evaluate the environmental effects of using CFA versus sand through LCA.
Leaching experiments were carried out to create mass balance emission profiles of heavy metals from the
embankment. Those emissions were integrated into a complete life cycle inventory for use of the material. Re­
sults show a net reduction in the impact categories for CFA re-used in embankments compared to landfilled. The
effects of sand impacts were mostly attributed to the sand mining process. The ultimate environmental impacts
from utilizing CFA as fill material in an embankment were a result of truck emissions from transporting CFA from
power stations to point of utilization, diesel production and its consumption during truck transport, and leachate
emissions. The breakeven distance for transporting CFA as opposed to sand was evaluated as 115 km.

Statement of “environmental Implication”
Coal fly ash, produced in massive quantity worldwide, is potentially
hazardous when heavy metals naturally present in the ash leach into the
environment. Coal fly ash can be utilized in embankment construction.
However, stringent environmental regulations and competition with
low-cost materials such as sand, hinder its utilization in embankment
works. This work aims at evaluating the utilization of coal fly ash and
comparing its impacts to those of sand which is a typical construction
material with life cycle assessment.
1. Introduction
Currently, coal combustion remains globally the largest single source
of electricity, and is still set to produce 22% of worldwide electricity by
2040 (World Coal Association). China is the largest producer and con­
sumer of coal, comprising more than half of global consumption since
2011, with this share growing each year, reaching 56% in 2020. India,
the second largest coal consumer has also the largest coal demand
(World Coal Association). Coal demand within India and in other
emerging Asian economies (e.g., Indonesia, Vietnam and others) is ex­
pected to increase, as these economies continue to industrialize (BP
Energy Outlook, 2018, 2018).
Coal combustion in power plants produces by-products including fly
ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, flue-gas desulfurization residues, and flu­
idized bed combustion ash (Hower, 2017). Coal fly ash (CFA) accounts
for over 70% of those byproducts (Bhatt et al., 2019; Gollakota et al.,
2019). China and India, the top CFA producers, use less than 50% of
residues produced, while the CFA utilization rate is about 65% in the US
and approximately 95% in the EU, in which some countries utilize 100%
(e.g., The Netherlands) (Gollakota et al., 2019). This would indicate that
there is potential for increased CFA utilization, especially by the world’s
largest CFA producers.
Coal fly ash is often stored in ponds along with bottom ash. Storing
CFA has already proven to be catastrophic, when recalling the 2008 dike
rupture in Tennessee, where coal ash spilled and swamped houses and
polluted the Emory river (Gottlieb et al., 2010; Ruhl et al., 2009; Ramsey
et al., 2019). Zierold et al. have shown that stored CFA gives rise to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ssabrina@technion.ac.il (S. Spatari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135402
Received 14 June 2022; Received in revised form 6 October 2022; Accepted 26 November 2022
Available online 20 December 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Curpen et al.
fugitive dust emissions and leaching of metal(loid)s into groundwater
throughout nearby communities, which increase their potential for poor
health due to increased exposure to CFA (Zierold et al., 2021). This
could lead to greater rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
respiratory problems, and behavioural conditions (Tang et al., 2008;
Sears and Zierold, 2017). Moreover, unused CFA must be disposed in
specially designed landfills, which have to adhere to increasingly
stringent environmental regulations, all of which raise the cost of
disposal (Haynes, 2009).
Two classes of CFA are defined: class C (low silicate, high calcium
content) and class F (high silicate, low calcium content) (ASTM). There
has been increasing effort to utilize CFA of both classes in various ap­
plications. Coal fly ash is routinely used in cement and concrete pro­
duction worldwide (Ghazali et al., 2019). Class C CFA is generally
preferred for cement replacement in concrete mixes since it improves
products’ strength to a greater extent than class F CFA (Wardhono,
2018). The known geotechnical applications of CFA include soil stabi­
lization for roadways (Heyns, 2016); backfill for excavations, mine fill,
trenches, and retaining walls (Li et al., 2020); and landfill liners or
covers (Nhan et al., 1996). Soil stabilization for roadways and structural
fill for embankments are of particular interest as they provide a pathway
for bulk usage of all classes of CFA (Openshaw, 1992). In general, any
CFA can be utilized in embankments, including ponded ash that has
been reclaimed from an ash lagoon since it has comparable strength and
compressibility to most soil fill materials, while possessing lower dry
unit weight (Kim et al., 2005). However, the main concern with CFA
utilization in infrastructure works, as in other CFA applications, is the
possible release of constituents of potential concern (COPCs) naturally
present in high concentration in CFA such as mercury (Hg), cadmium
(Cd), arsenic (As), and others (Zhao et al., 2020). The COPCs may leach
into the ground upon contact with water and finally reach underground
water reserves, causing contamination (Verma et al., 2016). Heavy
metals (HMs) in high concentrations pose a serious risk due to their
potential toxicity (Gottlieb et al., 2010). Several leaching studies have
been carried out to evaluate potential release of contaminants from CFA
(Zhao et al., 2020; da Silva et al., 2018; Jankowski et al., 2006; Neupane
and Donahoe, 2013; Izquierdo and Querol, 2012; Kosson et al., 1996).
For example, Kadir et al. reported 20% cement substitution with CFA in
concrete to be safe (Kadir et al., 2016). Minimal risk of COPCs leaching
was reported for CFA used in concrete (Heyns, 2016; Kosson et al., 2014)
and controllable risk of leaching was evaluated for CFA as a backfill
material (Li et al., 2020). Kosson et al. reported similar release of COPCs
from concrete mixes with and without CFA replacement of up to 45%
(Kosson et al., 2014).
Coal fly ash utilization in fill applications competes with other
inexpensive bulk materials, such as sand and gravel; therefore, its reuse
is only economical when transportation and handling costs can be kept
low, which is not always feasible due to the large quantities in which
CFA is produced (Panesar et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2018).
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a systematic method that enables
quantifying potential environmental impacts associated with products,
processes and activities across the life cycle using “cradle-to-grave”
concepts (Curran, 2015). Increasingly, LCA is used to evaluate the
environmental impacts associated with waste and its management and
potential reuse (Laurent et al., 2014; Henriksen et al., 2017; Allegrini
et al., 2015). In civil and geotechnical engineering applications, LCA is
used to assess relative environmental impacts of alternative materials
selection in multiple applications, including when environmental risk is
a factor in selecting material (Gallagher et al., 2013). Recent studies
have applied LCA to evaluate alternative uses of waste material in
infrastructure works (Panesar et al., 2019; Pushkar, 2019; Chowdhury
et al., 2010). Those studies take complete inventories of environmental
impact contributions from material and energy inputs and emissions to
the environment across the product life cycle. For CFA reuse, the life
cycle inventory considers all materials expended during waste collec­
tion, compaction and transportation of materials including fuel
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402
consumption, and outputs such as leaching of COPCs from the material
of interest (e.g., CFA) and emissions related to fuel consumption
(Nguyen et al., 2018; Pushkar, 2019; Chowdhury et al., 2010; Teixeira
et al., 2016). Furthermore, the LCA provides an estimation of impacts on
humans health and environmental factors (Heijungs et al., 1992).
Prior studies regarding CFA utilization as a cement replacement have
focused on evaluating the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction
potential (Nguyen et al., 2018; Tosti et al., 2020; Teixeira et al., 2016),
while bulk utilization such as in embankments has not been extensively
studied. Various previous LCA studies compared utilization of CFA in
agriculture, for soil improvement, in road construction and in concrete
(Pushkar, 2019; Chowdhury et al., 2010; Teixeira et al., 2016; Gau­
dreault et al., 2020; Huang and Chuieh, 2015). Nguyen et al. concluded
that CFA re-use as a substitute for cement binder resulted in a net
reduction in global warming impacts (Pushkar, 2019). Replacing a part
of ordinary Portland cement with CFA can reduce the energy demand in
production and processing stages, thus leading to lower greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG). Furthermore, Chowdhury et al. reported that when
sand was replaced by CFA as a road construction material, CO2 emis­
sions decreased (Chowdhury et al., 2010). In this study, transport of
sand was considered over relatively long distances which led to greater
extent of fossil fuel usage. They also concluded that the travel distance of
CFA should be three times as much as that of sand to reach a breakpoint
where the global warming potential and acidification potential of CFA
would exceed that of sand. Only one LCA study evaluated the risks
involved in COPCs leaching and found that while CFA is reused in
concrete mixes, leaching of contaminants did not significantly increase
the impact categories (Tosti et al., 2020). To the best of our knowledge,
no LCA study has evaluated the environmental impacts of CFA compared
to typical construction materials. Typical construction materials such as
sand must be extracted, and such activities are known to have detri­
mental impacts on the environment (Garel et al., 2019). Therefore, in­
clusion of COPCs leaching to the environment must be integrated into
any environmental life cycle impact evaluation of CFA bulk use in em­
bankments when compared with traditional materials used in embank­
ment construction.
The overall goal of this study is to compare the potential impacts
associated with two different waste management practices for CFA,
which include landfilling and reuse in embankment. Furthermore, the
potential impacts of the CFA embankment are compared to those of
sand, a more traditional material for embankment. In addition, the
contribution of HMs to the respective potential impacts is estimated.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Goal and scope definition
Attributional LCA (Finkbeiner et al., 2006) was used to compare the
environmental impacts of two waste management options for CFA,
namely landfilling or re-use in embankment, both of which were
compared to using sand as embankment material, which is the most
common market alternative, and it is considered the baseline alternative
in this study. Coal fly ash disposal in landfills and its re-use in em­
bankments will leach COPCs; thus, COPCs leaching must be considered
within the life cycle emissions of CFA management. The functional unit
used in the LCA was defined as 1 ton of material (CFA and sand) and the
model evaluated 1 ton of disposed CFA, 1 ton of re-used CFA in
embankment, and 1 ton of sand used in embankment, considering five
life cycle impact categories. These include climate change, freshwater
ecotoxicity, human toxicity, land use and terrestrial ecotoxicity, all of
which were evaluated using the Recipe 2016 v1.1 (Rosenbaum et al.,
2008; van Zelm et al., 2013) midpoint hierarchical life cycle impact
assessment (LCIA) method. Israel has a scarcity of available fresh water
sources, which are primarily underground water sources. Therefore,
freshwater ecotoxicity is deemed a critical metric for the region under
study. Also, the country has a large agricultural economic sector and a
S. Curpen et al.
growing population, which renders terrestrial ecotoxicity a critical de­
cision metric for soil quality. Human toxicity was included as toxics
(COPCs) movement over short distances in environmental media may
expose human populations may be significant. Land use was also chosen
as a metric because Israel is a small country with limited available land.
It has a fast growing population in which finite agricultural land is
critical for food production and the economy. Finally, climate change
Fig. 1. System boundary diagrams for three scenarios studied. a: Landfilling CFA, b:CFA embankment and c: sand embankment.
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402
was chosen as it is a critical metric for decision making and widely
studied in prior CFA reuse LCA literature. A temporal horizon of 100
years was used with Israel as the geographic reference. The unit for the
toxicity impact categories (freshwater ecotoxicity, human toxicity can­
cer and non cancer and terrestrial ecotoxicity) are expressed using the
reference unit, kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalent (1,4-DB).1,4-dichlo­
robenzene (1,4-DCB) is an environmentally hazardous substance which
S. Curpen et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402

is used as raw material for production of insecticides, deodorants, pig­ Table 1

ments and solvents in industry. 1,4-DCB is one of the reference sub­ Scenarios description for each CFA and sand.
stances used in the Life Cycle Assessment methodology (LCA) in the part Scenarios Evaluated
called Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). Impact on land use comes
Landfill CerD CFA (LC) Base Scenario tested for two CFA
from the assessment of the environmental impacts on biodiversity Landfill DrMs CFA (LD)
through land use and land transformation and is expressed in terms of CerD CFA Embankment Alternative Scenario for CFAs utilization
the equivalent annual crop yield year (eq. annual crop yield*y). (EC)
Midpoint results have been also evaluated, representing the impact DrMs CFA Embankment
(ED)
earlier in the cause-effect chain. Sand Embankment (SE) Alternative material to CFA for embankment
The boundary diagram (Fig. 1) consisted of three specific scenarios: construction
(a) landfilling of CFA, (b) sand in an embankment, and (c) CFA used as
structural fill in an embankment sand in an embankment. An important
part was the choice of the two CFAs to be studied. From previous data, it
Table 2
is known that the Colombian CFAs contain high concentration of con­ Data, assumptions, and modules used to model the CFA landfilling scenario.
taminants and therefore are the most suitable ones for ‘worst case’
Item Amount Unit Source and Assumptions
environmental scenario (i.e., most contaminated with respect to COPCs
release). Three Colombian CFAs were sampled and two of them were Diesel 32 L/100 Vehicle fuel economy taken from Li et al.
km (2014) (Li et al., 2014)
chosen based on chemical and pozzolanic activity tests. As a large
Transport 100 km 17.3-ton payload truck
amount of CFA was necessary for this project, three containers of ca. 30 Landfill 40,000 sqm
kg each were sampled by an NCAB worker who was in charge of CFA
sampling for many years. The content of the three containers were
mixed and split several times in order to achieve homogenization which Layer 30 m Landfill soil layer and infiltration rate taken
was tested by triplicate chemical analyses of each CFA (i.e., elemental from Tosti et al. (2020) (Tosti et al., 2020)

chemistry and trace elemental composition of leaching). The results

confirmed good homogenization of all three CFAs. Leachate 300 mm/y
Five CFA types of CFA of class F produced from coals of different production
origin at the “Rutenberg” power plant (Ashkelon, Israel) were sampled
in 2019. Three types of Columbian origin were chosen for the next stage
according to a ‘worst case’ environmental scenario (i.e., most contami­ CFA density 700 kg/m3

nated with respect to COPCs release). Among these three, two types of
CGA, CerD and DrMs, were finally selected for the current study. The L/S 2.14 L/kg L/S ratio calculated following Kosson et al.,
main difference between these two was the CaO content. The DrMs CFA 2002 (Kosson et al., 2002)
has an initial higher lime content (2%), while CerD has an initial lime Leachate US EPA 1314 test results performed in this
content of about 1%. Therefore, these two types of CFA, one with higher study (Tables B-1 and B-2

initial lime content (DrMs) and one with lower initial lime content
(CerD), represented upper and lower bounds of leaching potential,
respectively. Table 3
The selected CFAs were stored in dry laboratory conditions. The CFA Data, Assumptions and modules used to model the CFA embankment scenario.
samples were thoroughly mixed for homogenization, tested by triplicate Item Amount Unit Source and Assumptions
composition assessments. Diesel for 32 L/100 Vehicle fuel economy taken from Li et al.
The inventory list identifies cradle-to-gate material or energy inputs transport km (2014) (Li et al., 2014)
to the models and corresponds with the inputs shown in the system Transport 100 km 17.3-ton payload truck
boundary diagrams (Fig. 1). Models were created using GaBi software
and professional life cycle inventory (LCI) database for computing mass
Compaction Caterpillar Smooth Wheel roller
balances of “cradle-to-gate” resource inputs and emissions to air, water
Machinery
and land. These data are coupled with ReCiPe 2016 LCIA characteriza­
tion factors to compute the midpoint LCIA results shown. For example,
the existing module in GaBi for truck was used while an original module Compaction 1400 kJ/m3 Determined by weight of machine and
was created for the leaching process in the landfill and embankment Energy
3
number of passes
Diesel for 63 L/m - Taken from manufacturer’s specifications
scenarios. The leaching data was collected by the authors based on US
compaction CFA of diesel consumption per hour
EPA leaching methods (US EPA Method 1315, 2017; US EPA, 2012; US
EPA, 2017). Therefore, a combination of existing GaBi modules (landfill
process, truck for material transport, compaction equipment, and diesel Water 200 kg
supply) and original modules (leaching process and compaction process)
were used. Inputs such as diesel consumption for the compaction process
Layer 3 m Typical embankment height taken from
and transportation of material was taken from the literature as well as
Leonards & Bailey. (1982) (Leonards and
water consumption and leachate rate production. Bailey, 1982)

2.2. Life cycle inventory

Infiltration rate 250 mm/y Infiltration rate of embankment covered
by sandy loam taken from Kosson et al.
Cradle-to-grave life cycle inventory (LCI) models were developed for
(2002) (Kosson et al., 2002)
sand and the two CFAs, CerD with lower initial lime content (1.7 wt%) Leachate US EPA 1315 test results performed by
and DrMs with higher lime content (2.6 wt%). Data and assumptions authors
about parameters used in the LCI along with data sources for each sce­
nario considered are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. To estimate the
potential release of contaminants during the proposed management

4
S. Curpen et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402

Table 4 used in the GaBi module (Li et al., 2014). The landfill was assumed to
Data, Assumptions and modules used to model the Sand embankment scenario. have a height of 30 m (Tosti et al., 2020) and to remain open. A typical
Diesel for 32 L/ Vehicle fuel economy taken from Li modern landfill is examined with single high density polyethylene liner
transport 100 et al. (2014) (Li et al., 2014) (Meegoda et al., 2016) (Fig. 2). The leachate solution production from
km the landfill was taken as 300 mm/yr (Tosti et al., 2020). The sealing
Transport 100 km 17.3-ton payload truck efficiency of the landfill module is 70% as described in the landfill
module from GaBi. The US EPA 1314 test, percolation through column,
was used to quantify the release of COPCs leaching in the landfill. To
Compaction Caterpillar Smooth Wheel roller
estimate the release of COPCs from granular CFA material, the liquid to
Machinery
solid (L/S) ratio must be evaluated. The expected L/S ratio was esti­
mated following the approach proposed by Kosson et al. (2002) reported
Compaction 950 kJ/m3 Determined by weight of machine and in the Supplementary Material (i.e., Section B). The measured release of
Energy number of passes COPCs from the leaching tests was then used to calculate their con­
Diesel for 63 L/ Taken from manufacturer’s centration in the leachate from landfilling of 1 ton CFA. As no readily
compaction m3 specifications of diesel consumption per
sand hour
available process in GaBi exists for leachate generation, an original
process was created, which takes as input rainwater and 1 ton CFA, and
outputs the amount of COPCs released per ton CFA as calculated above.
Water 100 kg The COPCs partitioning between soil and water were determined based
on a landfilling LCI process in the GaBi (van Zelm et al., 2013; Rose­
nbaum et al., 2008) database.
Layer 3 m Typical embankment height taken from
Leonards & Bailey. (1982) (Leonards
and Bailey, 1982) 2.2.2. Utilization of coal fly ash in embankment
In this scenario, CFA is also collected directly from the precipitators
and transported to the compaction site. The same type of truck and
Infiltration rate 250 mm/y Infiltration rate of embankment covered amount of diesel as in the landfill scenario are used since the truck
by sandy loam taken from Kosson et al.
covers the same distance, 100 km from power plant to compaction site.
(2002) (Kosson et al., 2002)
Sand Extraction 1 ton Gabi module (Table A-3) The application scenario was defined as 3 m thick structural fill of CFA
and production compacted in place to a dry density of 1100 kg-dry/m3 that is used as a
permeable construction fill (Leonards and Bailey, 1982). The construc­
tion fill was covered by a layer of clean sandy loam with a natural pH of
scenarios, results from the standardized US EPA leaching tests 1314 and 6.0 and a permeability that allows infiltrating water to percolate
1315 were used as input to the LCI model to estimate the impacts in each through to the fill material at a rate of 25 cm per year (Kosson et al.,
scenario (US EPA Method 1315, 2017; US EPA, 2012; US EPA, 2017). 2002). The compaction energy was determined from the number of
Complete leaching data set can be found in the supplementary materials. passes and the weight of the compaction machine. Typically, compac­
Leaching emissions from the service life of CFA in embankment and in tion of an embankment is executed in fifteen layers. The typical
landfills were quantified as emissions to freshwater and to agricultural compaction equipment chosen was a smooth wheel roller with 14.5-ton
land and integrated into the LCI, which was built using modules operating weight. However, the database did not include an exact match
describing landfill operations from the GaBi Professional database, for this construction equipment. Therefore, the GaBi agricultural
described by Spatari et al. (Spatari et al., 2001; Sphera. GaBi 9, 2020). equipment of similar weight (17.4 t) and diesel consumption was used
The GaBi database includes ions with various charges such that both Cr instead. The diesel, its production and combustion were included as
(III) and Cr(IV) were included. well. An original compaction process was created, which takes as input
the diesel and the equipment and outputs the combustion emissions. The
2.2.1. Landfilling US EPA 1315 test method was applied on compacted CFA one-year aged
Many electric coal combustion plants construct and operate captive monoliths to characterise the leaching process of the CFA in an
landfills dedicated to the disposal of ash products. Disposal of CFA in embankment. The release of COPCs from the monolith was expressed
landfills is not practiced in Israel; however, in many countries landfilling per exposed surface area (m2). To evaluate the cumulative mass released
remains the preferred waste management approach for CFA (Huang and per ton CFA, the cumulative mass released from tables C-1 and C-2
Chuieh, 2015). Therefore, a theoretical Israeli landfill was considered in (supplementary materials) was divided by the amount of CFA com­
which CFA is collected as soon as it falls from the precipitators directly pacted per m2 of embankment.
into trucks and transported to the landfill site (Table 2). Since there are
no CFA landfills in Israel, data for leachate production and landfill di­ 2.2.3. Sand in embankment
mensions were taken from Tosti et al. (2020) who considered an in­ Unlike the previous two cases, sand as the traditional material for
dustrial waste landfill situated in the Netherlands which has been embankment must be extracted, usually from riverbeds or offshore;
opened for 30 years (Tosti et al., 2020). Leachate production is directly however, in Israel, it is mined in quarries. The Rotem quarry located in a
dependent on the amount of rain in contact with the surface material. desert region of the southeast Negev (southern Israel), was chosen for
While the Netherlands annual mean rainfall is nearly twice that of Israel, the LCA. From there, sand is carried in diesel fueled trucks to the con­
similar leachate production was assumed to be conservative and to allow struction site (Sanchez de Juan and Loro, 2018), 100 km away from the
for the highest leaching potential. The transportation mode chosen is a extraction point. Similar truck modules and diesel quantity used in the
20–26 ton gross weight truck with 17.3-ton payload capacity, reflective previous scenarios were applied in this scenario. The sand extraction
of common trucks. We used a long-haul transport vehicle module from process included in the GaBi database was used. It includes energy de­
the GaBi LCA database representative of vehicles used in the global mand and raw material supply to the finished product at the factory
marketplace. The truck runs on diesel and accounts for cradle-to-gate gate. The preparation of sand begins with washing the raw mineral, i.e.,
production of the fuel and its combustion to operate the vehicle. Data the stone grains extracted from the repository. In the embankment, the
on diesel supply in Germany was assumed to represent supply in Israel sandy fill should be covered by the same type of sandy loam as in sce­
and applied in the LCI. Consumed amount of diesel was evaluated from nario 2 (section 2.2.2). Then the sand is compacted on site by smooth
Li et al. (2014) who considered trucks of the same payload as the one wheel roller equipment with ten layers of compaction (Steiakakis et al.,

5
S. Curpen et al.
Fig. 2. Cross section of A. Landfill for CFA disposal and B. cross section of embankment for CFA re-use and sand.
2012) (Table 4). Leaching emissions of COPCs from sand during its
service life were neglected assuming they are negligible compared to
CFA (Moshe, 2014).
2.3. Scenario and sensitivity analysis
Both the landfilling and embankment scenarios are highly sensitive
to the CFA type. Therefore, by considering two types of CFA one with
higher initial lime content (DrMs) and one with lower initial lime con­
tent (CerD), an upper bound of leaching potential (CerD) and lower
bound of leaching potential (DrMs) are evaluated.
The scenario analysis was based on the breakeven distance in the
embankment scenarios of DrMs CFA and sand.
3. Results and discussion
Fig. 3 summarizes the contribution of individual inputs and pro­
cesses to the LCIA metrics: human toxicity cancer, human toxicity non-
cancer, freshwater ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, climate change
and land use. The five cases examined (Fig. 3) include: Landfilling CerD
CFA (LC); Embankment CerD CFA (EC); Landfilling DrMs CFA (LD);
Embankment DrMs CFA (ED); Sand Embankment (SE). The contribution
to potential impacts have been aggregated into four groups: transport of
material, diesel production, leachate generation of each CFA and sand
extraction. In view of the geographic location of the study, the domi­
nating impact parameter would be the freshwater ecotoxicity as water
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402
can be scarce in the region and sources require stringent protection
regulations against contamination. Terrestrial toxicity, as an impact
category, limits distance to agricultural lands, which is necessary to
consider during the design phase of an embankment. Importantly, land
used for landfilling is not available for other purposes for at least 100
years of its service life and even after that, it would be decades or even
centuries for its natural regeneration (Haynes, 2009). As long as land is
used for an embankment, it serves its purpose for its design period. From
our results, it can be inferred that on a larger temporal scale, an
embankment further reduces land use impact. That is the embankment is
in use while the landfill area would have to undergo restoration before
use. The contributions to potential impacts were grouped into three
categories: transport (fuel consumption), diesel fuel production and
leachate. The analysis of mid-point contributions focused on the DrMs
embankment scenario because this scenario demonstrated a net reduc­
tion in LCIA metrics with respect to other scenarios (landfilling) and
CerD embankment. The sensitivity analysis focusses on the comparison
between the two CFAs’ effects on impact categories (see Fig. 3).
3.1. Contribution analysis
3.1.1. Human toxicity cancer and non cancer
The impact on human toxicity cancer and non cancer is almost
entirely due to the leachate generation from CFA in the landfill and
embankment scenarios. In the sand embankment scenario, the contri­
bution derives mainly from the diesel production. Diesel production
S. Curpen et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402

Fig. 3. Contribution of processes to the potential impacts calculated by Recipe (2016) v1.1 results. Processes include diesel fuel production (diesel), diesel con­
sumption (transport), leaching emission (leachate) and sand extraction. A) Contributions of processes to climate change impact. B) Contribution of processes for
freshwater ecotoxicity. C) Contribution of processes for human toxicity (cancer). D) Contribution of processes for human toxicity (Non cancer) e) Contribution of
processes for terrestrial ecotoxicity. F) Contribution of processes for land use. Cases include: LC: Landfilling CerD CFA; EC: Embankment CerD CFA; LD: Landfilling
DrMs CFA; ED: Embankment DrMs CFA; SE: Sand Embankment. Numerical Results presented in SI Table S2.

originates from refining crude oil at pertroleum industries which pro­
duce sulfur dioxide (BP Energy Outlook, 2018, 2018). In this category,
landfilling CFA produced the maximum effect for both CFAs studied.
The DrMs CFA in embankment produced almost no effect, compared to
the other scenarios. This resulted from human toxicity being linked to
leachate emission from CFA, in which the main contributor can be
traced to As (Fig. 5a). The CerD CFA presented higher available con­
centrations of As compared to DrMs. Low initial lime content of CerD
caused limited pozzolanic activity which prevented solidification into a
monolith, which would trap COPCs and reduce their leaching. When
compared to sand in embankment, DrMs in embankment has relatively
the same impact on human toxicity cancer and non cancer.

7
S. Curpen et al.
Fig. 4. Breakthrough distance evaluation for DrMs CFA versus sand. Climate
change trends for each material as the transport distance increases.
Fig. 5. Decomposition of impacts by HMs calculated for DrMs embankment. A. Human toxicity non cancer. B.Freshwater ecotoxicity. Each chart shows the relative
influence of each heavy metal for the respective impact category.
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402
3.1.2. Freshwater ecotoxicity
Landfilling CFA cases (CerD and DrMs) have the highest overall
impact compared to other scenarios, with the maximum impact on
freshwater ecotoxicity (Fig. 3). Rainwater percolates in the landfill,
making contact with CFA such that leaching is mainly controlled by the
natural pH of the CFA. Therefore, transport of HMs is characterised by
CFA chemical properties and HMs availability. The main HMs contrib­
uting to freshwater ecotoxicity were Cr, As, Cu and Zn (Fig. 5). In both
the landfilling and embankment scenarios, the major contribution was
attained through leachate generation, though, in sand embankment, the
sand mining process and diesel consumption contributed primarily to
freshwater ecotoxicity (Fig. 3). The low lime CerD CFA did not result in a
significant reduction as DrMs. Previous research by Panesar et al. sug­
gested that ecotoxicity and human toxicity are mainly a result of CFA
transportation (Panesar et al., 2019). However, leaching was not
considered in this LCA study which focused primarily on the trans­
portation of CFA. In comparison, results of the current study suggest that
leachate generation from CFA contributes up to 70% of freshwater
S. Curpen et al.
ecotoxicity impact and therefore cannot be neglected. Tosti et al., 2019
investigated the reuse of biomass fly ash and found that over 50% of the
effect on freshwater eco-toxicity originated from the leachate emissions
of fly ash, which they attributed to the release of Cr (Tosti et al., 2020).
This demonstrates the necessity for CFA leaching characterization in
future studies as the leaching potential of different CFAs can lead to
varied emissions. They also noted that the transport of material had
almost negligible effect on impact categories.
3.1.3. Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Sand mining produced higher terrestrial ecotoxicity than diesel
consumption (Fig. 3). The impact on terrestrial ecotoxicity comes from
the emissions of COPCs and HMs to air during the sand mining process
(Garel et al., 2019). Mining involves machine activities fueled by diesel
which during combustion releases particulate matter into the air, which
eventually settles on ground and accumulates. The partitioning of con­
taminants emitted during the leaching process in both CFA embankment
and landfilling scenarios has a natural tendency to accumulate in the
liquid phase, while only a fraction remains in the landfill soil as
demonstrated with the low impact of leaching processes on terrestrial
ecotoxicity. Diesel fuel production has the highest contribution to
impact category for CFAs landfilling and embankment scenarios.
3.1.4. Climate change
Results in Fig. 3 show that for all scenarios considered, transport of
material (Sand or CFAs) contributes almost entirely to the impact on
global warming. Emission of CO2 is the main contributor to the impact
category climate change. The emission of CO2 is directly related to the
distance CFA is hauled to its destination as was also shown by Panesar
et al. (2019). The sand embankment scenario had a slightly higher
impact as a result of energy consumption during sand mining. Sand
mining is energy intensive as the machinery consumes diesel and emits
green house gases. The CFA in embankment has also slightly higher
impact on climate change than landfilling CFA due to the additional
process of compaction reuqired for the construction of the embankment.
The transport distance is therefore dominant over the compaction pro­
cess, which is also energy intensive and emits green house gases.
3.1.5. Land use
In the landfill scenario, diesel fuel production and leachate
contribute in almost equal amounts to land use. The leachate generation
has further effect on land use as it restricts the use of land due to long
lasting contamination. The L/S of 2.14 which describes the ‘first flush’ of
contaminants from CFA in the landfill can take up to 100 years (Kosson
et al., 1996). Regeneration and revegetation of contaminated sites can
take several decades. In the embankment scenarios, diesel fuel produc­
tion contributes primarily to the impact category. In the sand embank­
ment scenario, the highest contributor is the truck emissions while less
than 5% of the impact is due to diesel fuel production.
3.2. Comparison of scenarios
Attributional LCA of applying CFA in embankment versus landfill
was evaluated as well as applying CFA in embankment versus the base
case of sand use in embankment.
When compared to landfilling, for both CFAs, a net reduction is
observed in Human Toxicity (Non cancer & Cancer) freshwater eco­
toxicity and land use when CFAs are utilized in the embankment. In the
toxicity categories, the effect of leachate emissions was identified as the
main contributor. Therefore, results suggest lower leaching emission
potential for the embankment than leaching emission potential of
landfill. The only impact category for which the embankment has higher
effect than landfill, is the terrestrial ecotoxicity. This results from the
compaction process required for embankment construction, which does
not occur for landfill, and therefore, more diesel is consumed in the
embankment scenarios. The impact on climate change from CFA
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402
landfills and CFA embankment are relatively similar. The slight differ­
ence arising from the extra compaction process involved in embankment
construction. When comparing the CFA landfills, the higher lime content
CFA (DrMs) shows net reduction on all impact categories. This is due to
the higher leaching potential of CerD. Therefore, the choice of land­
filling CFA would depend on the type of CFA, more specifically on its
initial lime content, which determines the leaching potential.
When CFAs embankments are compared to sand embankment, the
importance of CFA characterization is emphasized. The higher lime
content CFA (DrMs) demonstrates a net reduction in all impact cate­
gories compared to sand whereas the lower initial lime content CFA
(CerD), has higher impact in all categories except climate change. The
difference between the two CFAs can be linked to their initial lime
contents and the consequent pozzolanic reactions, which create hydra­
tion products (Shiyuan, 1981). The ability to retain HMs relies on the
densification of the material and the material pH within its surrounding.
As the CFA hydrates in contact with compaction water, hydration
crystals are formed (pozzolanic reaction) which trap COPCs and occupy
pore space. As a result, less water can penetrate the structure and
therefore leaching is effectively reduced. Results suggest DrMs
embankment has an appreciable capacity of immobilizing COPCs such
as Ni, Co, Mn and others. While CerD embankment presents some net
reduction in all LCIA categories compared to landfilling, with the
exception of the terrestrial ecotoxicity category, it does not perform
better than sand in embankment due to its high leaching potential. For
climate change, there are benefits from avoiding sand use which has a
big positive emission. Although sand usage in infrastructure works does
not have to adhere to stringent environmental regulations, its extraction
can increase air, water and land pollution and cause environmental
damage to local fauna and flora (Dan Gavriletea, 2017) such as the
displacement of some species, ultimately resulting in an unbalanced
ecosystem. Therefore, while sand and DrMs CFA have relatively similar
effect on impact categories, sand requires the extraction of a natural
resources which in turn depends on creation of infrastructure for
extraction while CFA is readily available but must be transported to
construction sites. The discussion on long term effects of CFA in landfill
which is geographically limited and the effects on a long banded area
influenced by HMs in an embankment is not included as it is beyond the
scope of this work. This discussion could be further expanded in another
project with more focus on the leaching tests used and the leaching ef­
fects (long term and short term).
3.2.1. Parametric sensitivity analysis
When the transport distance is the same for DrMs CFA and sand,
DrMs CFA has relatively lower impact on one category which is climate
change Fig. 3). Studies have shown the importance in evaluating the
‘breakeven distance’, which is the distance over which the transport of
CFA has higher impact on climate change and is not recommended for
transport. The breakeven distance at which the use of sand is preferable
over DrMs CFA is approximately 115 km (Fig. 4). Over this distance, the
hauling of material is much more significant than the compaction pro­
cess. Sand compaction is less energy intensive compared to the energy
demand for compacting DrMs CFA. This is due to the particle size and
optimum moisture content properties intrinsic to the materials. Thus, it
reinforces the need not only for leaching characterization prior to choice
application, but also to mechanical properties of the materials, which
have been shown to ultimately have an effect on impact categories.
3.3. Midpoint results analysis
Table 5 presents the midpoint LCIA results for DrMs CFA in an
embankment. The main contributor to climate change is transport of
CFA from origin to destination due to CO2 emissions (Fig. 3). All three
toxicity categories (i.e., Freshwater, Human Cancer and Non Cancer) are
dominated by leachate generation (Fig. 3). Human toxicity is dominated
by emissions of As from leaching (Fig. 5a); the same trend is observed for
S. Curpen et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402

Table 5 embankment construction not only depends on leaching potential but

Midpoint results for DrMs embankment. also on the mechanical properties of the material which will ultimately
DrMs Embankment define the compaction energy demand. Climate change and land use
impacts were not found to be significant in landfilling and sand
Metrics Transport (Fuel Fuel Leachate Units
Consumption) Production embankment scenarios. The sand quarry was assumed to be sourced
locally; however, it is known that local sand availability can fluctuate
Climate change 7.26 1.28 N/A kg CO2 eq.
Freshwater 2.4E-10 0.00065 0.0015 kg 1,4-DB
and sand import, which is routinely done, was not considered which
Ecotoxicity eq. could significantly increase the effect on impact categories. In conclu­
Human toxicity 6.0E-06 0.0021 0.012 kg 1,4-DB sion, it is better to utilize CFA which is readily available, in infrastruc­
eq. ture works rather than landfill it and it is beneficial to use higher lime
Human toxicity 2.4E-10 5.2E-09 5.1E-02 kg 1,4 DB
content CFA in embankment rather than mine sand.
Non cancer eq.
Terrestrial 6.0E-07 0.034 6.5E-16 kg 1,4 DB
eq. CRediT authorship contribution statement
Land Use N/A 0.46 N/A Annual
crop eq.⋅y
Sarah Curpen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – re­
human toxicity (cancer) and therefore only the non-cancer human view & editing, Visualization. Nadya Teutsch: Conceptualization,
toxicity LCIA metric is presented. In the case of freshwater ecotoxicity, Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing –
Cr was found to be the largest contributor (Fig. 5b). Chromium is a review & editing. Konstantin Kovler: Conceptualization, Investigation,
contaminant that can persist for a long time and poses a serious threat to Resources, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition,
flora and fauna and occurs mostly as Cr(III) and Cr(IV), the latter being Writing – review & editing. Sabrina Spatari: Conceptualization,
more soluble, mobile, bioavailable and toxic (Choppala et al., 2013). In Methodology, Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Project adminis­
DrMs CFA, both species of Cr were considered, and the leaching ability tration, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Visualization.
was linked to pH which is the main parameter driving the leaching
potential. However, because the embankment pH remains high even
after one year, Cr leaching was limited as it typically leaches under Declaration of competing interest
extreme acidic conditions (Özkök et al., 2013).
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
4. Conclusions interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Methodologically, the importance of CFA characterization (leaching
and mechanical) incorporation in LCA has been highlighted and the Data availability
potential of beneficial use of CFA instead of a primary resource (sand)
has been demonstrated. For the two types of studied CFAs, the use of the Supporting data are provided in appendix tables in the Supporting
higher initial lime content CFA was beneficial versus using sand, which Information file.
is the typical construction material. Good immobilizing potential for
HMs such that all impact categories yielded a net reduction has been Acknowledgements
demonstrated. The ability to retain HMs is linked to the natural pH and
initial lime content of the CFA, which are necessary for pozzolanic ac­ The financial support for the project “Environmental assessment of
tivities. That is, when the natural pH is in the alkaline range, pozzolanic coal fly ash and beneficial use in infrastructure applications” by the
reactions are favoured such that hydration products are formed and National Coal Supply Corporation is greatly appreciated. The authors
therefore decrease pore space. This in turn reduces the physical ability of are thankful to Ms. Olga Berlin from the Geological Survey of Israel, Mr.
the HMs to leach. Hence, incorporation of CFA leaching characterization Pavel Larianovsky from the National Building Research Institute of the
of COPCs is important when using LCA, especially for toxic HMs such as Technion, and Dr. Yan Goretsky from “System” Advanced Laboratories
As. Furthermore, the breakeven distance of sand versus CFA in for their help in characterization, testing and analyzing coal fly ash
embankment was estimated at 115 km. The choice of material for samples.

Appendix D. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135402.

Appendix A. Inventory List and LCA results

Table A-1
Inventory list for CFA landfill scenario

Diesel 32 L/100 km Li et al. (2014)

Transport 100 km GLO: Truck, Euro 4, 20 - 26t gross weight/17.3 ton payload capacity
Landfill 40,000 sqm EU-28 (Commercial waste (AT, DE, IT, LU, NL, SE, CH) on landfill)*

Layer 30 m Tosti et al. (2020)

Infiltration 300 mm/y Tosti et al. (2020)

(continued on next page)

10
S. Curpen et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402

Table A-1 (continued )

Diesel 32 L/100 km Li et al. (2014)

FA density 700 kg/m3

L/S 2.14 L/kg Kosson et al. (2002)

Leachate US EPA 1314 test results performed by authors

Table A-2
Inventory List for CFA embankment

Diesel for transport 32 L/100 Li et al. (2014)

km

Transport 100 km GLO: Truck, Euro 4, 20 - 26t gross weight/17.3t payload capacity

Compaction Caterpillar Smooth Wheel roller, CB16/14.5t Operating weight* https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/compactors/

Machinery tandem-vibratory-rollers/15970052.html

Compaction Energy 1400 kJ/m3 https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/compactors/tandem-vibratory-rollers/15970052.html

Diesel for 63 L/m3- https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/compactors/tandem-vibratory-rollers/15970052.html
compaction CFA

Water 200 kg

Layer 3 m Leonards & Bailey (1982)

Infiltration rate 250 mm/y Kosson et al. (2002)

Leachate US EPA 1315 test results performed by authors

Table A-3
Inventory List for Sand embankment

Diesel for transport 32 L/100 Li et al. (2014)

km

Transport 100 km GLO: Truck, Euro 4, 20 - 26t gross weight/17.3t payload capacity

Compaction Machinery Caterpillar Smooth Wheel roller, CB16/14.5t Operating weight*

Compaction Energy 1400 kJ/m3 https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/compactors/tandem-vibratory-rollers/15970052.html and

Steiakakis et al. (2012)
Diesel for compaction 63 L/m3 https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/equipment/compactors/tandem-vibratory-rollers/15970052.html
sand

Water 200 kg

Layer 3 m Leonards & Bailey (1982)

Infiltration rate 250 mm/y Kosson et al. (2002)

Sand Extraction and 1 ton EU-28 Sand 0/2
production

11
S. Curpen et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402

Table A-4
Raw LCA results for landfilling, sand embankment and CerD and DrMs embankment scenarios

CerD FA

Metrics Landfilling FA Embankment Sand Embankment Units

Human Toxicity Cancer 0.61 0.37 0.18 kg 1,4-DB eq.

Human Toxicity Non Cancer 414 191 50.9 kg 1,4-DB eq.
Freshwater Ecotoxicity 0.17 0.17 0.0016 kg 1,4 DB eq.
Climate change 7.93 8.05 8.34 kg CO2 eq.
Land Use 1.15 0.46 0.50 Annual crop eq.⋅y
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity 0.33 0.34 2.06 kg 1,4-DB eq.
DrMs FA

Metrics Landfilling FA Embankment Sand Embankment Units

Human Toxicity Cancer 1.94 0.012 0.18 kg 1,4-DB eq.

Human Toxicity Non Cancer 811 0.050 50.9 kg 1,4-DB eq.
Freshwater Ecotoxicity 0.19 0.0129 0.002 kg 1,4 DB eq.
Climate change 7.93 8.05 8.34 kg CO2 eq.
Land Use 1.15 0.46 0.50 Annual crop eq.⋅y
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity 0.33 4.2E-12 2.06 kg 1,4-DB eq.

Table A-5
Heavy metal influence in Human toxicity, non-cancer category

Human toxicity, non-cancer kg 1,4-DB eq.

Fly Ash Emabankment DrMs <LC>

Arsenic 4.39E-02
Chromium 1.89E-04
Molybdenum 4.66E-07
Mercury 7.98E-06
Lead 9.68E-07
Zinc 3.97E-03
Barium 1.98E-03

Table A-6
Heavy metal influence in Human toxicity, non-cancer category

Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4 DB eq.

Fly Ash Emabankment DrMs <LC>

Arsenic 0.0010
Chromium 0.0112
Copper 0.0006
Molybdenum <0.00001
Selenium <0.00001
Vanadium <0.00001
Zinc 0.0002

Table A-7
Emissions from processes influence on climate change category

Climate change, incl biogenic carbon kg CO2 eq.

Fly Ash Emabankment DrMs <LC>

Carbon dioxide 8.47

Carbon dioxide (aviation) <0.00001
Carbon dioxide (biotic) 0.427
Nitrogentriflouride <0.00001
Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) 0.0211
Methane 0.0580
Methane (biotic) 0.00192

12
S. Curpen et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402

Appendix B. Leaching Data Landfilling Scenario

To estimate the mass of material released (mg/kg material) in the landfill scenario, the approach proposed by (Kosson et al., 2002) was applied:
M = LSsite ∗ S (1)

where M is the cumulative mass release per unit mass of material (mg/kg), LSsite is the anticipated site-specific LS ratio (equation (2)), and S is the
constituent solubility (mg/L)
LSsite was evaluated using equation (2):
tyear
LSsite = 10 ∗ inf ∗ (2)
ρ ∗ Hfill

where:
Inf is the infiltration per year (cm/year)
tyear is the anticipated time (year)
ρ is the material density (kg/m3)
Hfill is the landfill height.

Table B-1
Landfilling Leaching data from 1314 percolation
through column test for cumulative liquid to solid
ratio of 2.14 of DrMs CFA

Major and minor elements mg/L

Al 1.9
B 3.6
Ba 0.1
Ca 615
Cl 280
Cr 2.4
Fe 0
K 5.7
Mg 6.5
Mn 0.51
Na <0.001
S 1400
Si 0.43
Sr 6.2
Trace elements μg/L
Ag 0.03
As 130
Be 0.01
Cd 0.52
Co 43
Cu 265
Li 4.2
Mo 490
Ni 52.3
Pb 1.1
Sb 114
Se 1600
Sn 0.16
Th 7.8
Tl 0.37
U 3.0
V 130
Zn 1.1

Table B-2
Landfilling leaching data from 1314 percolation
through column test for cumulative liquid to solid
ratio of 2.14 of CerD CFA

Majors and Minor elements mg/L

Al 1.7
B 9.2
Ba 0.42
Ca 460
Cr 0.28
(continued on next page)

13
S. Curpen et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402

Table B-2 (continued )

Majors and Minor elements mg/L

Fe 0.01
K 10.6
Mg 0.22
Mn 0.33
Na 23
S 830
Si 4.7
Sr 10.5
Trace elements μg/L
Ag 0.02
As 310
Be 0.01
Cd 0.39
Co 10.5
Cu 80
Li 10.5
Mo 820
Ni 63
Pb 2.3
Sb 11.4
Se 275
Sn 1.6
Th 840
Tl 11.4
U 275
V 10
Zn 1.6

Appendix C. Leaching Data Embankment Scenario

To estimate the mass released during each leaching interval, the following approach was employed as described by:
Vi
M t i = Ci ⋅ (3)
A

Where Mt i is the mass released during leaching interval I (mg/m2)

Ci is the constituent concentration in eluate leaching interval i (mg/L)
Vi is the eluate volume in interval I (L)
A is the specimen external geometric surface area exposed to eluent (m2)
To evaluate the cumulative mass released per ton CFA, the cumulative mass released from table C-2 was divided by the amount of CFA contained in
1 m2 of the embankment. One m2 of embankment contains 8.97 ton as shown in Table C-3.

Table C-1
Embankment leaching data from 1315
mass transport cumulative release of
DrMs CFA.

Constituent mg/m2

Ag 560
Al 475
As 1.4
B 86
Ba 1.2
Be 52
Ca 68
Cd 0.022
Co 33.5
Cr 2.6
Cu 0.53
Fe 200
K 170
Li 35
Mg 165
Mn 0.29
Mo 2.0
Na 95250
Ni 870
Pb 1.9
S 275
Sb 1050
(continued on next page)

14
S. Curpen et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402

Table C-1 (continued )

Constituent mg/m2

Se 1400
Si 15.8
Sn 250
Sr 8750
Th 1.6
Ti 1550
Tl 0.001
U 1.4
V 0.12
Zn 1.4

Table C-2
Embankment leaching data from 1315
mass transport cumulative release, CerD
CFA (mg/m2)

Constituent mg/m2

Ag 0.45
Al 1040
As 19.3
B 2500
Ba 48
Be 0.014
Ca 38500
Cd 1.3
Co 0.13
Cr 44
Cu 1.3
Fe 14.5
K 9200
Li 125
Mg 2450
Mn 1.8
Mo 1200
Na 77700
Ni 0.14
Pb 0.083
S 275
Sb 7.2
Se 330
Si 540
Sn 0.023
Sr 660
Th 0.014
Ti 1.5
Tl 0.32
U 0.44
V 49
Zn 5.2

Table C-3
Embankment Volume Calculation

Parameter value unit

2
Amount of FA in embankment per m 8.97 ton
Embankment height 3 m
Embankment width 2 m
Embankment length 1 m
Embankment volume 6 m3
Compacted CFA density 1100 kg/m3
Surface area 22 m2

15
S. Curpen et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402

References Kosson, D.S., Garrabrants, A.C., DeLapp, R., van der Sloot, H.A., 2014. PH-dependent
leaching of constituents of potential concern from concrete materials containing coal
combustion fly ash. Chemosphere 103, 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Allegrini, E., Butera, S., Kosson, D.S., Zomeren, A.M., Van der sloot, H., Astrup, T.F.,
chemosphere.2013.11.049.
2015. Life cycle assessment and residue leaching: the importance of parameter,
Laurent, A., Bakas, I., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Hauschild, M.Z.,
scenario and leaching data selection. Waste Manag. 38, 474–485. https://doi.org/
Christenen, T.H., 2014. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems –
10.1016/j.wasman.2014.12.018.
Part I: lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Manag. 34, 573–588. https://doi.org/
ASTM. Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for
10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.045.
Use in Concrete.
Leonards, G.A., Bailey, B., 1982. Pulverized coal ash as structural fill. Proc. Am. Soc. Civ.
Bhatt, A., Priyadarshini, S., Mohanakrishnan, A.A., Abri, A., Sattler, M.,
Eng. 108, 517–531.
Techapaphawit, S., 2019. Physical, chemical, and geotechnical properties of coal fly
Li, C., SuPing, C., Gong, X.Z., Meng, X.C., Bo Xue, S., Liu, Y., 2014. Life cycle assessment
ash: a global review. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 11, e00263 https://doi.org/10.1016/
of heavy-duty truck for highway transport in China. Mater. Sci. Forum 787 117–122.
j.cscm.2019.e00263.
Li, J., Zhang, S., Wang, Q., Ni, W., Li, K., Fu, P., Hu, H., Li, Z., 2020. Feasibility of using
BP Energy Outlook 2018. 2018 BP Energy Outlook 2018 BP Energy Outlook, 2018,
fly ash–slag-based binder for mine backfilling and its associated leaching risks.
p. 125. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012091.
J. Hazard Mater. 400, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123191.
Choppala, G., Bolan, N., Park, J.H., 2013. In: Sparks, D.L.B.T.-A. (Ed.), Chapter Two -
Meegoda, J., Hettiarachchi, H., Hettiaratchi, J., 2016. Landfill design and operation.
Chromium Contamination and its Risk Management in Complex Environmental
Sustainable Solid Waste Management 577–604. https://doi.org/10.1061/
Settings, vol. 120. Academic Press, pp. 129–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
9780784414101.ch18.
12-407686-0.00002-6. A.
Moshe, A., 2014. Leaching and Phytoavailability of Trace Elements in Soils Amended
Chowdhury, R., Apul, D., Fry, T., 2010. A life cycle based environmental impacts
with Coal- Combustion Fly Ash and Fly Ash Treated Biosolids. Hebrew University
assessment of construction materials used in road construction. Resour. Conserv.
Jerusalem.
Recycl. 54, 250–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.08.007.
Neupane, G., Donahoe, R.J., 2013. Leachability of elements in alkaline and acidic coal fly
Curran, M.A., 2015. Life cycle assessment: a systems approach to environmental
ash samples during batch and column leaching tests. Fuel 104, 758–770. https://doi.
management and sustainability. Chem. Eng. Prog. 111, 26–35. WOS:
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.06.013.
000362800900015.
Nguyen, L., Moseson, A.J., Farnam, Y., Spatari, S., 2018. Effects of composition and
da Silva, E.B., Li, S., De Oliveira, L., Gress, J., 2018. Metal leachability from coal
transportation logistics on environmental, energy and cost metrics for the production
combustion residuals under different pHs and liquid/solid ratios. J. Hazard Mater.
of alternative cementitious binders. J. Clean. Prod. 185, 628–645. https://doi.org/
341, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.07.010.
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.247.
Dan Gavriletea, M., 2017. Environmental impacts of sand exploitation. Analysis of sand
Nhan, C.T., Graydon, J.W., Kirk, D.W., 1996. Utilizing coal fly ash as a landfill barrier
market. Sustainability 9 (7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071118.
material. Waste Manag. 16, 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-053X(96)
Finkbeiner, M., Inaba, A., Tan, R.B.H., Christiansen, K., Klüppel, H.J., 2006. The new
00108-0.
international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int. J.
Openshaw, S.C., 1992. Utilization of Coal Fly Ash.
Life Cycle Assess. 11, 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.02.002.
Özkök, E., Davis, A.P., Aydilek, A.H., 2013. Leaching of as, Cr, and Cu from high-carbon
Gallagher, P.M., Spatari, S., Cucura, J., 2013. Hybrid life cycle assessment comparison of
fly ash–soil mixtures. J. Environ. Eng. 139, 1397–1408.
colloidal silica and cement grouted soil barrier remediation technologies. J. Hazard
Panesar, D.K., Kanraj, D., Abualrous, Y., 2019. Effect of transportation of fly ash: life
Mater. 250–251, 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.01.065.
cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 99,
Garel, E., Bonne, W., Collins, M.B., Peffer, C., Offshore sand and gravel mining, 2019.
214–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.03.019.
Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
Pushkar, S., 2019. Life-cycle assessment of the substitution of sand with coal bottom ash
409548-9.11392-2
in concrete: two concrete design methods. Appl. Sci. 9 https://doi.org/10.3390/
Gaudreault, C., Lama, I., Sain, D., 2020. Is the beneficial use of wood ash
app9173620.
environmentally beneficial? A screening-level life cycle assessment and uncertainty
Ramsey, A.B., Faiia, A.M., Szynkiewicz, A., 2019. Eight years after the coal ash spill – fate
analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 24, 1300–1309. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13019.
of trace metals in the contaminated river sediments near Kingston, eastern
Ghazali, N., Muthusamy, K., Wan Ahmad, S., 2019. Utilization of fly ash in construction.
Tennessee. Appl. Geochem. 104, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 601 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/601/1/
apgeochem.2019.03.008.
012023.
Rosenbaum, R.K., Bachman, T.M., Gold, S.L., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Jolliet, O., Juraske, R.,
Gollakota, A.R.K., Volli, V., Shu, C.-M., 2019. Progressive utilisation prospects of coal fly
Koehler, A., Larsen, H., Macleoad, M., Margini, M., Mckone, T.E., Payet, J.,
ash: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 672, 951–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Schumacher, M., Dik van der Meent, Hauschild, M.Z., 2008. USEtox - the UNEP-
scitotenv.2019.03.337.
SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and
Gottlieb, B., Gilbert, S.G., Evans, L.G., 2010. Coal Ash: the toxic threat to our health and
freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13,
environment. Physicians Soc. Responsib. Earthjustice 38.
532–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0038-4.
Haynes, R.J., 2009. Reclamation and revegetation of fly ash disposal sites - challenges
Ruhl, L., Vengosh, A., Dwyer, G.S., Hsu-Kim, H., Deonarine, A., Bergin, M.,
and research needs. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Kravcheno, J., 2009. Survey of the potential environmental and health impacts in the
jenvman.2008.07.003.
immediate aftermath of the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee. Environ. Sci.
Heijungs, R., Guinee, J.B., Lankreijer, R.M., 1992. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
Technol. 43, 6326–6333. https://doi.org/10.1021/es900714p.
Backgrounds - October 1992 TM *. October.
Sanchez de Juan, M., Loro, F., 2018. Expert Mission: Resource Efficiency of Construction
Henriksen, A., Astrup, A.F., Damgaard, A., 2017. Linking data choice and context
and Concrete Materials.
specificity in life cycle assessment of waste treatment technologies : a landfill case
Sears, C.G., Zierold, K.M., 2017. Health of children living near coal ash. Glob. Pediatr.
study. J. Ind. Ecol. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12709.
Heal. 4 https://doi.org/10.1177/2333794X17720330.
Heyns, M.W., 2016. Fly Ash as an Alternative Stabiliser for Road Pavement Materials: a
Shiyuan, H., 1981. Hydration of Fly Ash Cement and Microstructure of Fly Ash Cement
Case Study in South Africa.
Pastes.
Hower Henke, K.R., Dai, S., Ward, C.R., French, D., Liu, S., Graham, U.M., J.C.,
Spatari, S., Betz, M., Florin, H., Baitz, M., Faltenbacher, M., 2001. Using GaBi 3 to
Generation and nature of coal fly ash and bottom ash, 2017. Coal Combustion
perform life cycle assessment and life cycle engineering. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 6,
Products (CCPs): Characteristics, Utilization and Beneficiation. Elsevier Ltd. https://
81–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02977842.
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100945-1.00002-2.
Sphera. GaBi 9, 2020. The Software System for Life Cycle Assessment.
Huang, T.Y., Chuieh, P.T., 2015. Life cycle assessment of reusing fly ash from municipal
Steiakakis, E., Gamvroudis, C., Komodromos, A., Repouskou, E., 2012. Hydraulic
solid waste incineration. Procedia Eng. 118, 984–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conductivity of compacted kaolin–sand specimens under high hydraulic gradients.
proeng.2015.08.539.
Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 17.
Izquierdo, M., Querol, X., 2012. Leaching behaviour of elements from coal combustion
Tang, D., Li, T., Liu, J., Zhou, Z., Yuan, T., Chen, Y., Rauh, V., Xie, J., Perera, F., 2008.
fly ash: an overview. Int. J. Coal Geol. 94, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Effects of prenatal exposure to coal-burning pollutants on children’s development in
coal.2011.10.006.
China. Environ. Health Perspect. 116, 674–679. https://doi.org/10.1289/
Jankowski, J., Ward, C.R., French, D., Groves, S., 2006. Mobility of trace elements from
ehp.10471.
selected Australian fly ashes and its potential impact on aquatic ecosystems. Fuel 85,
Teixeira, E.R., Mateus, R., Camões, A.F., Bragança, L., Branco, F.G., 2016. Comparative
243–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2005.05.028.
environmental life-cycle analysis of concretes using biomass and coal fly ashes as
Kadir, A.A., Hassan, M.I.H., Abdullah, M.M.A.B., 2016. Investigation on leaching
partial cement replacement material. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2221–2230. https://doi.
behaviour of fly ash and bottom ash replacement in self-compacting concrete. IOP
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.124.
Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 133 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/133/1/012036.
Tosti, L., van Zomeren, A., Pels, J.R., Damgaard, A., Comans, R.N.J., 2020. Life cycle
Kim, B., Prezzi, M., Salgado, R., 2005. Geotechnical properties of fly and bottom ash
assessment of the reuse of fly ash from biomass combustion as secondary
mixtures for use in highway embankments. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131,
cementitious material in cement products. J. Clean. Prod. 245 https://doi.org/
914–924. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:7(914).
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118937.
Kosson, D.S., Van der Sloot, H.A., Eighmy, T.T., 1996. An approach for estimation of
US EPA, 2012. In: Constituents in Solid Materials Using an Up-Flow Percolation Column,
contaminant release during utilization and disposal of municipal waste combustion
vol. 14405, pp. 1–28.
residues. J. Hard Mater. 47, 43–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3894(95)00109-
US EPA, 2017. Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) How-To Guide
3.
Understanding the LEAF Approach and How and when to Use it Leaching
Kosson, D.S., Van Der Sloot, H.A., Sanchez, F., Garrabrants, A.C., 2002. An integrated
Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) How-To Guide Notice/Disclaimer &
framework for evaluating leaching in waste management and utilization of
Acknowledgements Ii.
secondary materials. Environ. Eng. Sci. 19, 159–204. https://doi.org/10.1089/
109287502760079188.

16
S. Curpen et al.
US EPA Method 1315, 2017. Mass Transfer Rates of Constituents in Monolithic or
Compacted Granular Materials Using a Semi Dynamic Tank Leaching Procedure, vol.
53. US EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency.
van Zelm, R., Stam, G., Huijbregts, M.A.J., van de Meent, D., 2013. Making fate and
exposure models for freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle assessment suitable for
organic acids and bases. Chemosphere 90, 312–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2012.07.014.
Verma, C., Madan, S., Hussain, A., 2016. Heavy metal contamination of groundwater due
to fly ash disposal of coal-fired thermal power plant, Parichha, Jhansi, India. Cogent
Eng 3, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1179243.
17
Journal of Cleaner Production 385 (2023) 135402
Wardhono, A., 2018. Comparison study of class F and class C fly ashes as cement
replacement material on strength development of non-cement mortar. IOP Conf. Ser.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 288, 12019 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/288/1/012019.
World Coal Association. https://www.worldcoal.org/coal-facts/coal-electricity/.
Zhao, L., Shifeng, Z., Finkelman, R., French, D., Graham, I., Yongcham, Y., Li, J.,
Yang, P., 2020. Leaching behavior of trace elements from fly ashes of five Chinese
coal power plants. Int. J. Coal Geol. 219, 103381 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
coal.2019.103381.
Zierold, K.M., Myers, J., Brock, G., Sears, C., Sears, L., Zhang, C., 2021. Nail samples of
children living near coal ash storage facilities suggest fly ash exposure and elevated
concentrations of metal(loid)s. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 9074–9086. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01541.