Coal fly ash as a resource for rare earth elements
- 7k Downloads
- 44 Citations
Abstract
Rare earth elements (REE) have been recognised as critical raw materials, crucial for many clean technologies. As the gap between their global demand and supply increases, the search for their alternative resources becomes more and more important, especially for the countries which depend highly on their import. Coal fly ash (CFA), which when not utilised is considered waste, has been regarded as the possible source of many elements, including REE. Due to the increase in the energy demand, CFA production is expected to grow, making research into the use of this material a necessity. As Poland is the second biggest coal consumer in the European Union, the authors have studied different coal fly ashes from ten Polish power plants for their rare earth element content. All the fly ashes have a broadly similar distribution of rear earth elements, with light REE being dominant. Most of the samples have REE content relatively high and according to Seredin and Dai (Int J Coal Geol 94: 67–93, 2012) classification can be considered promising REE raw materials.
Keywords
Rare earth elements Coal fly ash utilisationIntroduction
Despite growing importance of renewable energy sources (i.e., geothermal, wind and solar) (Bertani 2010; Lund et al. 2011; Tomaszewska and Pająk 2012; Tomaszewska and Szczepański 2014; Dinçer 2011), coal’s share of the global energy mix continues to rise and by 2017 will come close to surpassing oil as the world’s biggest energy source (IEA 2012). With the global energy demand growing, coal is seen as a reliable and secure energy source and many countries are increasing its consumption (IEA 2014). Consequently, the global coal fly ash production increases and there is a pressing need of its recycling and utilisation (Yao et al. 2015; Mattigod 2003). Although, there is a number of possible fly ash applications, on average, only 25 % is utilised, the rest is considered a pollutant and disposed of as waste (Blissett and Rowson 2012; Sommerville et al. 2013). It is thought that coal combustion represent a large-scale mobilisation of all naturally occurring elements in a magnitude that is comparable to the rates of mobilisation and transport that occur as part of natural geochemical cycling of elements (Bertine and Goldberg 1971; Hendrick 1995). Hence, the recent research onto coal fly ash (CFA) has been focused on its novel applications (Blissett et al. 2014). Although there are many publications in regard to fly ash utilisation, there are only very few looking into its potential as a resource of REE, and even fewer investigate coal-biomass fly ashes for this purpose (Heebnik 2011; Blissett et al. 2014). In addition, most of investigated fly ashes come from exploratory coal samples that have been laboratory ashed for analytical investigations, not from coal fly ash stockpiles (Blissett et al. 2014). Because the use of biomass as a co-firing fuel in power plant is increasing, there is an increase in a production of ‘new kind’ of fly ashes, which have different properties from coal fly ash and consequently often are not suitable for many common applications (e.g., in cement and concrete). Hence, it is important to investigate alternative application of both coal and coal–biomass fly ashes. This work aims to study both types of fly ash as a potential source of REE, by investigating samples from ten coal-fired power plants in Poland. Rare earth elements are a group of 17 elements (15 lanthanides plus yttrium and scandium), which are particularly used in many new technologies such as fuel cells, green energy devices, hi-capacity batteries, magnets for wind power generation, to name but a few (Chen 2011; Całus-Moszko and Bialecka 2013; Hoenderdal et al. 2013).
In natural environment, REE are a group of elements with a high potential as process indicators in the system rock or soil as well as water (Grawunder et al. 2014). They can be classified (geochemically) into the following: light earth elements (LREE — La, Ce, Pr, Nd and Sm), medium (MREE — Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy and Y) and heavy (HREE — Ho, Er, Tm, Yb and Lu) (Blissett et al. 2014). However, Seredin and Dai (2012) devised a new REE classification which takes into account current market trends and is related to the likely supply and demand forecast over next few years. This classification divides REE into three groups: critical (Nd, Eu, Tb, Dy, Y and Er), uncritical (La, Pr, Sm and Gd) and excessive (Ce, Ho, Tm, Yb and Lu). Naturally, this classification makes an evaluation of the REE distribution more relevant to the industry (Blissett et al. 2014). It needs to be noted that the commercial importance of REE is not reflected in the amount in which they are used, but in the fact that they are crucial in a wide range of applications including key technologies for the clean and sustainable energy (Alonso et al. 2012; Du and Greadel 2013; Seredin et al. 2013). REE resources are not that rare (deposits have been identified in 34 countries—according to Chen (2011)), but because their mining and production are not cheap and can be associated with significant environmental impact (radioactivity of elements associated with them—uranium and thorium as reported by BGS-NERC 2010), they have low substitution and low recycling rates, most of world’s economies/countries including the European Union (EU) depend highly on the import (Massari and Rubeti 2013). In recent years, majority of countries which produce and export REE, have reduced their export to the EU in order to protect their national downstream industries. For example China, which is world’s main producer and exporter of REE (c.a. 97–98 %) has progressively increased export taxes on them and restricted their export rates (a decrease of about 40 % between 2009 and 2010) (Alonso et al. 2012; Massari and Ruberti 2013). As there is a gap between REE’s growing demand and decreasing supply, it is extremely important to look for the alternative resources.
Kertis and Yudowich (2009) estimated that CFAs contain 445 ppm of rare earth elements (REE) on an average global basis. and as Seredin and Dai (2012) noted, ‘if the average REE content in coal ashes, based on analyses of numerous samples, is comparable to some conventional ores, the wastes of coal combustion could and should be considered as possible source of these materials.’
Among all REE, lanthanum, europium, erbium and neodymium are considered the most important for the new technologies (Całus-Moszko and Białecka 2013). For example, lanthanum, which is the second most common element among all REE and in the natural environment is present in greater amount than silver and lead, is essential component in hybrid cars, while europium has been used in ultraviolet LED devices, erbium in lasers used for medical operations, neodymium—in magnets. Additionally, REE have been used in fertilisers (Pang et al. 2002).
As most of investigations into coal fly ash were concentrating on their use in the concrete/cement industry or for the production of synthetic zeolites (Querol et al. 2002; Franus et al. 2014; Wdowin et al. 2014), the investigation into CFA as a potential source of REE is considered a new research area. However, it seems to attract more and more attention and investment. REE extraction process from fly ash is considered to be far less intensive than that of mining a raw product. In addition, CFAs contain a full range of REE, whereas most mines have only a few varieties of these elements. Due to these reasons, many companies are exploring methods to extract REE from coal fly ash and investigating whether coal fly ash processing can become an economical and environmentally friendly alternative to traditional mining (Mayfield and Lewis 2013). For example, Neumann Systems reported that their process has successfully extracted more than 60 % of the available metals (including 14 rare earth and strategic metals) from fly ash samples supplied by a Colorado Springs Utilities power plant. The company estimates that it can extract about $600 worth of rare elements from every ton of coal ash and that the waste from Martin Drake plant alone can produce c.a. $49 million worth of minerals a year. Moreover, to dissolve REE out of fly ash, the extraction process uses by-products of scrubbing emissions (sulphuric and nitric acids) which is considered an additional benefit (Currie 2012).
For the complete evaluation of the coal fly ash as a raw source of REE, a number of parameters should be taken into account, including the possibility of beneficiation and simplicity and cost of hydrometallurgical recovery and various environmental issues. However, for the initial evaluation, data on REE individual contents within the investigated coal fly ash may be adequate (Seredin and Dai 2012).
Materials and methods
Sample list
| No. of sample | Combustion type |
|---|---|
| Fly ashes from bituminous coal combustion | |
| 1 | Pulverised coal combustion |
| 2a | Pulverised coal combustion |
| 3a | Pulverised coal combustion |
| 4 | Pulverised coal combustion |
| 5 | Pulverised coal combustion |
| 6 | Pulverised coal combustion |
| 7 | Pulverised coal combustion |
| 8 | Pulverised coal combustion |
| 9 | Fluidised bed combustion |
| Fly ashes from lignite coal combustion | |
| 10 | Fluidised bed combustion |
| 11 | Pulverised coal combustion |
| 12 | Pulverised coal combustion |
Morphological and mineralogical analyses were performed by the means of SEM-EDS and XRD, respectively. Chemical analyses were performed by the means of ICP-MS and ICP-EA and LOI. Although the study of rear earth elements is the primary objective of this work, trace and other elements (including the hazardous elements) of fly ashes have been investigated to see if there is a possible correlation between them and REE.
Results and discussion
Mineralogical and morphological characteristics
SEM microphotographs of fly ashes from bituminous coal combustion
SEM microphotographs of fly ashes from lignite coal combustion
Examples of XRD diffraction patterns of fly ashes from bituminous coal combustion
For the samples from bituminous coal combustion, where desulphurisation process (lime added to the boiler) took place (samples 9, 10, 11 and 12), sulphur group minerals such as anhydrite (in the form of rosette aggregates) and gypsum (needle-like forms) with calcite were observed (Fig. 1). The aggregates of small amount of illite group minerals were noted in the samples obtained from fluidise combustion processes.
XRD diffraction patterns of fly ashes from lignite coal combustion
It was also observed that the samples from coal/biomass blend (samples 2 and 3) and those from the fluidised combustion (samples 9 and 10) were more amorphous than the rest fly ash samples.
Chemical analyses
Quantitative content of main fly ash compounds (expressed as oxides) (in wt%)
| No of sample | SiO2 (%) | Al2O3 (%) | Fe2O3 (%) | MgO (%) | CaO (%) | Na2O (%) | K2O (%) | TiO2 (%) | P2O5 (%) | MnO (%) | Cr2O3 (%) | LOI (%) | TOT/C (%) | TOT/S (%) | SUM (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 53.25 | 26.67 | 5.98 | 2.29 | 2.88 | 0.74 | 2.82 | 1.15 | 0.47 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 3.40 | 2.55 | 0.26 | 99.76 |
| 2 | 53.24 | 26.14 | 6.08 | 2.35 | 3.05 | 0.79 | 2.87 | 1.05 | 0.54 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 3.60 | 3.36 | 0.18 | 99.82 |
| 3 | 50.84 | 25.65 | 6.07 | 2.49 | 4.03 | 0.83 | 2.58 | 1.12 | 0.45 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 5.60 | 3.67 | 0.28 | 99.79 |
| 4 | 52.18 | 23.02 | 8.88 | 3.66 | 5.10 | 0.82 | 2.73 | 1.02 | 0.31 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 1.90 | 1.82 | 0.49 | 99.80 |
| 5 | 52.32 | 26.26 | 6.19 | 2.42 | 2.88 | 1.05 | 3.00 | 1.06 | 0.45 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 3.90 | 3.89 | 0.24 | 99.66 |
| 6 | 52.12 | 32.19 | 5.17 | 1.29 | 1.16 | 0.49 | 2.87 | 1.38 | 0.43 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 2.60 | 1.42 | 0.19 | 99.78 |
| 7 | 49.74 | 27.62 | 5.43 | 2.85 | 3.80 | 1.29 | 3.34 | 1.13 | 0.91 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 3.50 | 3.06 | 0.17 | 99.72 |
| 8 | 46.51 | 20.86 | 7.62 | 3.29 | 4.56 | 0.99 | 2.28 | 0.88 | 0.37 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 12.30 | 8.58 | 0.36 | 99.81 |
| 9 | 32.21 | 16.88 | 7.53 | 3.29 | 7.58 | 1.13 | 1.82 | 0.76 | 0.42 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 28.00 | 25.54 | 2.57 | 99.74 |
| 10 | 35.70 | 26.57 | 4.52 | 1.72 | 23.44 | 1.46 | 1.10 | 2.22 | 0.18 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 2.90 | 0.69 | 2.99 | 99.88 |
| 11 | 42.63 | 17.74 | 4.61 | 1.17 | 29.45 | 0.16 | 0.19 | 1.20 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 2.40 | 1.30 | 1.63 | 99.72 |
| 12 | 51.35 | 3.97 | 6.30 | 5.94 | 29.90 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.61 | 0.18 | 0.34 | 0.01 | 0.50 | 0.14 | 2.83 | 99.47 |
As far as the class of ashes is concerned, materials from bituminous coal combustion (except samples 8 and 9) can be classified as Class F (SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O2 > 70 %) according to The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (Blissett and Rowson 2012). Sample 9 has a very high content of unburned coal (>25 %) and LOI (28 %), while sample 8 slightly too high LOI (>12 %), which exclude these materials from this category. Very high unburned carbon in sample 9 is most likely due to the coal burning conditions, which evaluation is beyond scope of this paper. Based on the same classification (by ASTM), ashes from lignite coals (samples 10–12) are Class C (SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O2 in the range of 50–70 %).
According to a new classification proposed by Vassilev and Vassileva (2007), which groups the main bulk oxides together into four tier classification system, samples 1–8 can be classified as Sialic (SiO2 + Al2O3 + K2O + TiO2 + P2O5 > 77 %; CaO + MgO + SO3 + Na2O + MnO < 11.5 %; Fe2O3 < 11.5 %), whereas samples 9–12 are classified as Calsialic (SiO2 + Al2O3 + K2O + TiO2 + P2O5 < 89 %; CaO + MgO + SO3 + Na2O + MnO > 11.5 %; Fe2O3 < 11.5 %).
Trace elements (ppm)
| No of sample | Element | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mo (ppm) | Cu (ppm) | Pb (ppm) | Zn (ppm) | Ni (ppm) | As (ppm) | Cd (ppm) | Sb (ppm) | Bi (ppm) | Au (ppm) | Hg (ppm) | Tl (ppm) | Se (ppm) | |
| 1 | 7.6 | 30.8 | 11.8 | 39.0 | 29.1 | 34.0 | 0.1 | 5.4 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 0.66 | 0.5 | 3.4 |
| 2 | 7.4 | 30.0 | 21.7 | 51.0 | 33.0 | 23.3 | 0.2 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.65 | 0.5 | 4.3 |
| 3 | 10.1 | 50.9 | 38.1 | 101.0 | 50.1 | 33.4 | 0.6 | 4.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.38 | 0.8 | 4.5 |
| 4 | 4.4 | 53.1 | 54.5 | 210.0 | 35.2 | 28.6 | 1.4 | 2.9 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 0.23 | 0.9 | 1.5 |
| 5 | 8.8 | 48.6 | 47.1 | 81.0 | 35.1 | 29.3 | 0.3 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 0.36 | 1.2 | 2.8 |
| 6 | 18.4 | 52.5 | 33.3 | 48.0 | 47.4 | 40.8 | 0.3 | 4.7 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 4.2 |
| 7 | 9.0 | 55.4 | 37.8 | 63.0 | 35.4 | 19.8 | 0.3 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 0.53 | 1 | 3.8 |
| 8 | 4.7 | 53.9 | 47.5 | 92.0 | 37.8 | 13.4 | 0.4 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.49 | 0.4 | 4.4 |
| 9 | 4.1 | 73.2 | 101.0 | 162.0 | 72.1 | 10.2 | 0.9 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 1.05 | 0.7 | 7.6 |
| 10 | 5.1 | 46.7 | 29.0 | 52.0 | 62.6 | 50.5 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.8 | 0.10 | 1.0 | 2.2 |
| 11 | 7.1 | 44.2 | 24.9 | 85.0 | 45.7 | 16.6 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 3.0 | 0.71 | 0.2 | 10.5 |
| 12 | 1.9 | 12.7 | 3.4 | 11.0 | 19.9 | 10.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 0.02 | 0.1 | 0.8 |
The most hazardous trace elements in tested fly ash
Although other authors (Vamvuka and Kakaras 2011) observed that biomass fly ashes are enriched in micro-nutrients, such as Zn, Cu and Mn, no significant difference between composition of fly ash from coal and biomass co-firing (samples 2 and 3) and coal firing was detected.
REE contents and discussion
Total and classified (critical, uncritical, excessive) REE contents
| Sample no. | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Element | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| La | 59.60 | 59.50 | 62.30 | 54.50 | 62.20 | 81.70 | 64.70 | 48.80 | 41.80 | 74.60 | 76.40 | 15.50 |
| Ce | 123.20 | 121.40 | 127.6 | 110.30 | 125.70 | 172.50 | 133.3 | 100.00 | 83.70 | 137.30 | 142.20 | 30.70 |
| Pr | 13.74 | 13.88 | 14.65 | 12.49 | 14.12 | 20.51 | 15.34 | 11.17 | 9.50 | 15.83 | 17.67 | 3.30 |
| Nd | 53.50 | 54.50 | 57.40 | 49.30 | 54.10 | 81.30 | 59.40 | 44.6 | 35.90 | 57.00 | 69.20 | 12.7 |
| Sm | 11.10 | 10.50 | 11.50 | 10.30 | 11.50 | 17.00 | 12.60 | 9.60 | 8.00 | 11.00 | 12.90 | 2.80 |
| Eu | 2.40 | 2.46 | 2.69 | 2.02 | 2.62 | 3.81 | 2.85 | 1.98 | 1.81 | 2.46 | 2.69 | 0.56 |
| Gd | 8.93 | 9.06 | 9.68 | 8.21 | 9.58 | 14.65 | 10.75 | 7.58 | 6.57 | 8.58 | 11.36 | 2.85 |
| Tb | 1.50 | 1.61 | 1.78 | 1.39 | 1.58 | 2.40 | 1.76 | 1.29 | 1.22 | 1.59 | 1.86 | 0.45 |
| Dy | 8.34 | 8.48 | 8.82 | 8.16 | 9.17 | 12.18 | 9.66 | 6.98 | 6.46 | 7.16 | 9.77 | 2.61 |
| Ho | 1.77 | 1.64 | 1.77 | 1.59 | 1.68 | 2.58 | 1.93 | 1.47 | 1.23 | 1.33 | 1.90 | 0.59 |
| Er | 4.53 | 4.80 | 5.28 | 4.50 | 4.98 | 7.41 | 5.47 | 4.02 | 3.60 | 3.50 | 5.36 | 1.79 |
| Tm | 0.75 | 0.77 | 0.78 | 0.62 | 0.79 | 1.07 | 0.86 | 0.62 | 0.53 | 0.55 | 0.86 | 0.27 |
| Yb | 4.55 | 4.81 | 5.02 | 4.19 | 4.47 | 6.74 | 5.09 | 3.82 | 3.35 | 3.28 | 5.09 | 1.80 |
| Lu | 0.68 | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.68 | 0.71 | 1.03 | 0.80 | 0.62 | 0.53 | 0.48 | 0.76 | 0.30 |
| Y | 48.50 | 49.0 | 53.60 | 46.90 | 49.80 | 73.20 | 57.20 | 42.10 | 39.60 | 39.10 | 63.30 | 17.9 |
| Sc | 30.00 | 2.00 | 31.00 | 25.00 | 27.00 | 45.00 | 32.00 | 23.00 | 21.00 | 20.00 | 22.00 | 7.00 |
| Critical | 118.77 | 121.75 | 129.57 | 112.27 | 122.25 | 180.30 | 136.34 | 100.97 | 88.59 | 110.81 | 152.18 | 36.01 |
| Uncritical | 93.37 | 92.94 | 98.13 | 85.50 | 97.40 | 133.86 | 103.39 | 77.15 | 65.87 | 110.01 | 118.33 | 24.45 |
| Excessive | 130.95 | 129.36 | 135.89 | 117.38 | 133.35 | 183.92 | 141.98 | 106.53 | 89.34 | 142.94 | 150.81 | 33.66 |
| Outlook | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.78 | 1.01 | 1.07 |
| Critical (%) | 34.62 | 35.39 | 35.64 | 35.62 | 34.63 | 36.20 | 35.72 | 35.47 | 36.34 | 30.46 | 36.12 | 38.26 |
| Sum | 373.09 | 373.05 | 394.59 | 340.15 | 380.00 | 543.08 | 413.71 | 307.65 | 264.8 | 383.76 | 443.32 | 101.12 |
REE content in tested fly ashes
Critical REE in tested fly ashes
Many investigations into different coals as potential source of REE focused only on the presence of rare elements in coal itself, but not in its fly ash. In general, it is believed that these elements are associated with clay-like minerals and the presence of small grains of phosphorous, sulphur and carbonate minerals (Całus-Moszko and Białecka 2013). In addition, correlations between REE presence and coal organic matter have been reported (Dai et al. 2008, 2011, 2012; Eskenazy 1987; Finkelman 1994; Seredin 1996). Moorea and Esmaeilia (2012) showed an association between occurrence of REE in coal and the presence of following chemical elements: Si, Al, Na, P, Mn, Cu, Co and Zn, while no relation with Ca and Mg was observed. Therefore, presence of REE can be associated with kaolinite, hornblende, biotite and muscovite. This was also confirmed by the work of Querol et al. (1994). The same relationships were investigated in the presented work between REE and fly ash from bituminous and lignite coal combustion. The data suggests a correlation between REE and presence of aluminium and silicon oxides (Tables 2 and 4). The similar finding was reported by Querol et al. (1995) for the coal and its combustion products, i.e., fly ashes and slags in which REE were present only in glassy aluminosilicate areas of the samples.
Comparison of the main results in tested fly ashes, soils and chondrites analysed by other authors
| LREE [ppm] | MREE [ppm] | HREE [ppm] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample 1 | 261.10 | 69.67 | 12.28 |
| Sample 2 | 259.80 | 71.51 | 12.76 |
| Sample 3 | 273.50 | 76.57 | 13.57 |
| Sample 4 | 236.90 | 66.68 | 11.58 |
| Sample 5 | 267.60 | 72.75 | 12.63 |
| Sample 6 | 373.00 | 106.2 | 18.83 |
| Sample 7 | 285.30 | 82.22 | 14.15 |
| Sample 8 | 214.20 | 59.93 | 10.55 |
| Sample 9 | 178.90 | 55.66 | 9.24 |
| Sample 10 | 295.70 | 58.89 | 9.14 |
| Sample 11 | 318.40 | 88.98 | 13.97 |
| Sample 12 | 65.00 | 24.37 | 4.75 |
| Bituminous coal fly asha | 240.10 | 0.00 | 68.31 |
| Bituminous coal fly ashb | 256.40 | 76.90 | 24.90 |
| Anthracite fly ashb | 359.10 | 92.70 | 28.8 |
| Bitominous-biomass fly ashb | 212.40 | 61.60 | 19.70 |
| Soil (minimum REE content )c | 6.00 | 1.75 | 8.82 |
| Soil (maximum REE content)c | 154.00 | 13.50 | 44.45 |
| Chondritesd | 1.37 | 1.96 | 0.70 |
As the mineral fraction in coal is subjected to many transformations during and after combustion (e.g., decomposition, volatilisation, fusion, agglomeration or condensation), there may be a significant variation of element concentration within fly ash particles (Izquierdo and Querol 2012; Jones 1995; Kukier et al. 2003). Hence, the future work should include an extensive investigation of the CFA stockpiles homogeneity (in terms of REE and other elements contents). Choosing a suitable REE recovery method will have to be tailored to the specific characteristic of each coal fly ash. As there is very limited information available regarding REE, other strategic as well as potentially hazardous element contents in the existing fly ash stock piles in Poland (and in the world), it is impossible to predict accurately which recovery process will be the most effective and what future waste streams will be generated. Those fly ash deposits which will be identified as being potentially economically viable will undergo a full chemical characterisation in order to establish which contaminants may require specialised waste handling measures. Although REE extraction and separation methods are still under development, there is already a number of techniques available (Mayfield and Lewis 2013; Meawad et al. 2010). Their efficiencies vary considerably (50–90 %) and depend on many factors including concentration of different elements in the fly ash (Arroyo et al. 2009). Hence, the full evaluation of fly ash properties and their chemical characterisation are needed in order to choose the most suitable process for each individual fly ash deposit. Furthermore, full assessment of the public health and environmental risks of pollutants generated during the process must be undertaken.
Conclusions
With the growing energy demand and consequent increase in the use of coal (IEA 2014), the problem of coal fly ash disposal is expected to worsen (Izquierdo and Querol 2012). On the other hand, prices of strategic minerals and rare earth elements, which are essential to many advanced technologies (e.g., wind turbines, electric vehicles, permanent magnets and mobile phones), have been rising significantly due to the increasing global demands and supply shortages (Mayfield and Lewis 2013). Therefore, in addition to new mining ventures and electronic recycling schemes (Binnemans et al. 2013), many companies search for new mineral sources, among which CFA is considered a promising one (Mayfield and Lewis 2013). As extraction of REE from coal fly ash is still developing and have yet to be commercialised, there is a limited knowledge of their contents in the existing coal fly ash deposits. Hence, identification and full characterisation of current coal fly ash deposits, which are economically viable for REE (and other strategic metals) recovery is necessary.
While this initial investigation onto coal and coal-biomass fly ashes showed the variation in the total REE content between different samples, all tested materials had over 30 % of the critical REE content and an outlook coefficient >0.7, which suggests that at least the three samples (6, 7 and 11) with a total REE content close to the average global basis (445 ppm) should be considered for the further examination. Future work will include investigation of the CFA stockpiles homogeneity in terms of REE contents and an extensive chemical characterisation to determine the resources with minimal concentration of hazardous substances that require treatment and disposal. Additionally, possible extraction processes and their economic feasibility will be studied.
Notes
Acknowledgments
The study was supported by statutory funds no. S12/II/B/2014.
References
- Alonso E, Sherman A, Wallington T, Everson M, Field F, Roth R, Kirchain R (2012) Evaluating rare earth element availability: a case with revolutionary demand from clean technologies. Environ Sci Technol 46(6):3406–3414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Anders E, Grevesse N (1989) Abundances of the elements: meteoritic and solar. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 53:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Arroyo F, Font O, Fernandez-Pereira C, Querol X, Chimenos JP, Zeegers H (2009) Germanium and gallium extraction from gasification fly ash: optimisation for up-scaling a recovery process. World of Coal Ash Conference. Avaible at: http://www.flyash.info/
- Bertani R (2010) Geothermal power generation in the world 2005–2010 update report. In: Proceedings of the world geothermal congress, Bali (Indonesia), April 25–29, 2010. Paper No. 008 (CD)Google Scholar
- Bertine KK, Goldberg ED (1971) Fossil fuel combustion and major sedimentary cycle. Science 173:223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- BGS-NERC 2010. Rare earth elements. https://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/highlights/2010/rare_earth_elements.html
- Biennemans K, Jones PT, Blanpain B, Gerven TV, Yand Y, Walton A, Buchert M (2013) Recycling of rare earths: a critical review. J Clean Prod 51:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blissett RS, Rowson NA (2012) A review of the multi-component utilisation of coal fly ash. Fuel 97:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blissett RS, Smalley N, Rowson NA (2014) An investigation into six coal fly ashes from the United Kingdom and Poland to evaluate rare earth element content. Fuel 119:236–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Całus-Moszko J, Białecka B (2013) Analiza możliwości pozyskania pierwiastków ziem rzadkich z węgli kamiennych i popiołów lotnych z elektrowni. Gosp Sur Miner Miner Res Manag 29/1:67–80Google Scholar
- Chen Z (2011) Global rare earth resources and scenarios of future rare earth industry. J Rare Earths 29(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Currie A (2012) Rare earth from fly ash: a method explored. Available at http://rareearthinvestingnews.com/7284-rare-earth-from-fly-ash-a-method-explored.html
- Dai S, Tian L, Chou C (2008) Mineralogical and compositional characteristics of Late Permian coals from an area of high lung cancer rate in Xuan Wei, Yunnan, China: occurrence and origin of quartz and chamosite. Int J Coal Geol 76(4):318–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dai S, Wang X, Zhou Y (2011) Chemical and mineralogical compositions of silicic, mafic, and alkali tonsteins in the late Permian coals from the Songzao Coalfield, Chongqing, Southwest China. Chem Geol 282(1–2):29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dai S, Ren D, Chou CL, Finkelman RB, Seredin VV, Zhou Y (2012) Geochemistry of trace elements in Chinese coals: a review of abundances, genetic types, impacts on human health, and industrial utilization. Int J Coal Geol 94:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dinçer F (2011) The analysis on photovoltaic electricity generation status, potential and policies of the leading countries in solar energy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(1):713–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Du X, Graedel TE (2013) Uncovering the end uses of the rare earth elements. Sci Total Environ 461–462:781–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- EPRI (2009) Coal ash: characteristics, management and environmental issues. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/oira_2050/2050_meeting_101609-2.pdf
- Eskenazy GM (1987) Rare earth elements and yttrium in lithotypes of Bulgarian coals. Org Geochem 11(2):83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Finkelman RB (1994) Modes of occurrence of the potentially hazardous elements in coal levels of confidence. Fuel Process Technol 39:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Franus W (2012) Characterization of X-type zeolite prepared from coal fly ash. Pol J Environ Stud 21(2):337–343Google Scholar
- Franus W, Wdowin M, Franus M (2014) Synthesis and characterization of zeolites prepared from industrial fly ash. Environ Monit Assess 186(6):5721–5729. doi: 10.1007/s10661-014-3815-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Grawunder A, Merten D, Büchel G (2014) Origin of middle rare earth element enrichment in acid mine drainage-impacted areas. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:6812–6823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hedrick JB (1995) The global rare-earth cycle. Alloys Compd 225:609–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Heebnik LV (2011) Utilization of fly ash from biomass and biomass-coal. http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5803/utilization-of-fly-ash-from-biomass-and-biomass-coal
- Hoenderdal S, Espinoza LT, Marscheider-Weidemann F, Graus W (2013) Can a dysprosium shortage threaten green energy technologies? Energy 49:344–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- IEA (2012) Medium-Term Coal Market Report, 2012Google Scholar
- IEA (2014) Medium-Term Coal Market Report, 2014Google Scholar
- Izquierdo M, Xavier Q (2012) Leaching behavior of elements from coal combustion fly ash: an overview. Int J Coal Geol 94:54–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jones DR (1995) The leaching of major and trace elements from coal ash. Environ Asp Trace Elem Coal Energy Environ 2(1995):221–262Google Scholar
- Kabata-Pendias A, Pendias H (2001) Trace elements in soil and plants. CRC Press LLC 2001, Boca Raton, 403Google Scholar
- Kashiwakura S, Kumagai Y, Kubo H, Wagatsuma K (2013) Dissolution of rare earth elements from coal fly ash particles in a dilute H2SO4 solvent. Open J Phys Chem 3:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ketris M, Yudovich Y (2009) Estimations of clarkes for carbonaceous biolithes: world averages for trace element contents in black shales and coals. Int J Coal Geol 78(2):135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kukier U, Ishak CF, Sumner ME, Miller WP (2003) Composition and element solubility of magnetic and non-magnetic fly ash fractions. Environ Pollut 123:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kutchko BG, Kim AG (2006) Fly ash characterization by SEM-EDS. Fuel 85:25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lund JW, Freeston DH, Boyd TL (2011) Direct utilization of geothermal energy 2010 worldwide review. Geothermics 40:159–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Massari S, Ruberti M (2013) Rare earth elements as critical raw materials: focus on international markets and future strategies. Resour Policy 38:36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mattigod SV (2003) Rare earth elements in fly ashes as potential indicators of anthropogenic soil contamination. In: Sajwan KS, Alva AK, Keefer RF (eds) Chemistry of trace elements in fly ash. Springer Science + Business Media, LCC, New York, p 346Google Scholar
- Mayfield DB, Lewis AS (2013) Environmental review of coal ash as a resource for rare earth and strategic elements. World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference. Available at http://www.flyash.info/
- Meawad AS, Bojinova DY, Pelovski YG (2010) An overview of metals recovery from thermal power plant solid wastes. Waste Manag 2548–2559Google Scholar
- Moore F, Esmaeili A (2012) Mineralogy and geochemistry of the coals from Karmozd and Kiasar coal mines, Mazandran Province, Iran. Int J Coal Geol 96–97:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Moreno N, Querol X, Andrés JM, Stanton K, Towler M, Nugteren H et al (2005) Physico-chemical characteristics of European pulverized coal combustion fly ashes. Fuel 84(11):1351–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pang X, Li D, Peng A (2002) Application of rare-earth elements in the agriculture of China and its environmental behavior in soil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 9(2):143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Querol X, Turiel JLF, Soler AL (1994) The behavior of mineral matter during combustion Of Spanish subbituminous and brown coals. Miner Mag 58(390):119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Querol X, Fernandez-Turiel J, Lopez-Soler A (1995) Trace elements in coal and their behavior during combustion in a large power station. Fuel 74(3):331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Querol X, Moreno N, Umana JC, Alastuey A, Hernandez E, Lopez-Soler A, Plana F (2002) Synthesis of zeolites from coal fly ash: an overview. Int J Coal Geol 50(1–4):413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Seredin VV (1996) Rare earth element-bearing coals from the Russian Far East deposits. Int J Coal Geol 30:101–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Seredin VV, Dai S (2012) Coal deposits as potential alternative sources for lanthanides and yttrium. Int J Coal Geol 94:67–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Seredin VV, Dai S, Sun Y, Chekryzhov IY (2013) Coal deposits as promising sources of rare metals for alternative power and energy-efficient technologies. Appl Geochem 31:1–11Google Scholar
- Smolka-Danielewska D (2010) Rare earth elements in fly ashes created during the coal burning process in certaincoal-fired power plants operating in Poland—Upper Silesian Industrial Region. J Environ Radioact 101:965–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sommerville R, Blissett R, Rowson N, Blackburn S (2013) Producing a synthetic zeolite from improved fly ash residue. Int J Miner Process 124:20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tomaszewska B, Pająk L (2012) Geothermal water resources management—economic aspects of their treatment. Gosp Sur Miner-Miner Res Manag 28(4):59–70Google Scholar
- Tomaszewska B, Szczepański A (2014) Possibilities for the efficient utilisation of spent geothermal waters. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:11409–11417. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-3076-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vamvuka D, Kakaras E (2011) Ash properties and environmental impact of various biomass and coal fuels and their blends. Fuel Process Technol 92:570–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vassilev SV, Vassileva CG (2007) A new approach for the classification of coal fly ashes based on their origin, composition, properties, and behavior. Fuel 86(1011):1490–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wdowin M, Franus M, Panek R, Badura L, Franus W (2014) The conversion technology of fly ash into zeolites. Clean Techn Environ Policy 16(6):1217–1223. doi: 10.1007/s10098-014-0719-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yao ZT, Ji XS, Sarker PK, Tang JH, Ge LQ, Xia MS, Xi YQ (2015) A comprehensive review on the applications of coal fly ash. Earth Sci Rev 141:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.






