Comparative Study for Flue Dust Stabilization in Cement and Glass Materials: A Stability Assessment of Arsenic

Abstract

Arsenic is a poisonous element and its super mobility can pose a major threat to the environment and human beings. Disposed arsenic-bearing waste or minerals over time may release arsenic into the groundwater, soil and then the food chain. Consequently, safe landfill deposition should be carried out to minimize arsenic bleeding. Cement-based stabilization/solidification and glass vitrification are two important methods for arsenic immobilization. This work compares the stability and intrinsic leaching properties of sequestered arsenic by cement encapsulation and glass vitrification of smelter high-arsenic flue dust (60% As2O3) and confirms if they meet or exceed the requirement of landfill disposition over a range of environmentally relevant conditions. The toxicity characterization leaching procedure (TCLP, 1311), synthetic precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP, 1312) and Australian standard (Aus. 4439.3) in short-term (18 h) and mass transfer from monolithic material using a semi-dynamic leaching tank (1315) in longer-term (165 days) were employed to assess arsenic immobility characteristic in three arsenic-cement (2%, 8.4% and 14.4%) and arsenic-glass (11.7%) samples. Moreover, calcium release from different matrices has been taken into consideration as a contributor to arsenic bleeding. Based on the USEPA guidelines, samples can be acceptable for landfilling only if As release is <5 mg/L. Results obtained from short-term leaching were almost similar for both cement and glass materials. However, high calcium release was observed from the cement-encapsulated materials. The pH of leachates after the test was highly alkaline for encapsulated materials; however, in glass material it was near neutral or slightly acidic. Method 1315 tests made a huge difference between the two materials and confirmed that cement encapsulation is not the best method for landfilling arsenic waste due to the high arsenic and calcium release over time with alkaline pH. However, glass material has shown promising results, i.e., the insignificant release of arsenic over time with an acceptable change in pH value. Overall, arsenic sequestration in glass is a better option compared with the cement-based solidification process.