Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 20, pp 19808–19817 | Cite as

Leachate phytotoxicity of flue gas desulfurization residues from coal-fired power plant

  • Khamphe Phoungthong
  • Pin-Jing He
  • Li-Ming Shao
  • Hua Zhang
Research Article
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Flue gas desulfurization residues (FGDR) are the main solid wastes produced in coal-fired power plants that can be reused as alternative materials for civil and agricultural applications. However, the pollutants contained in the FGDR might contaminate the local environment, hindering their material reuse. In this study, the physical-chemical characteristics, leaching, and phytotoxicity (Triticum aestivum) of the material were investigated. The FGDR samples were obtained from three pulverized coal-fired power plants in China. Multivariate statistical analyses were used to consider the contributions of the leaching components to the germination index of wheat seeds in the FGDR leachates. The FGDR contained a high percentage of amorphous mass. The ranges of selected metals and micronutrients in the FGDR are As (31.5–63.0 mg/kg), B (574–3090 mg/kg), Ba (2799–3073 mg/kg), Cr (up to 4.73 mg/kg), Cu (0.29–1.38 mg/kg), Mn (136–370 mg/kg), Ni (9.93–22.9 mg/kg), Pb (1.29–7.29 mg/kg), Sr (886–1706 mg/kg), and Zn (335–458 mg/kg). The leaching toxicity of the FGDR leachates was lower than the regulatory limit of the identification standards for hazardous waste, indicating that the FGDR are non-hazardous materials. Metals, especially Ba, Cu, Fe, and Pb, as well as As and B, in the leachate had inhibitory effects on seed germination than the other constituents. The results in this study showed that the leachate phytotoxicity resulting from FGDR could be evaluated before the utilization of FGDR, giving crucial information for the adaptation of these alternative materials.

Keywords

Flue gas desulfurization residues Phytotoxicity Triticum aestivum Multivariate analysis 

Notes

Funding information

This research received financial supports from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (21577102), the major Science and Technology Program for Water Pollution Control and Treatment (2017ZX07202005), the National Social Science Fund of China (No.12&ZD236), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

Supplementary material

11356_2018_2207_MOESM1_ESM.doc (266 kb)
Supplementary material (Tables S1–S9) associated with this article can be found in the supplementary material. (DOC 266 kb)

References

  1. An YJ (2006) Assessment of comparative toxicities of lead and copper using plant assay. Chemosphere 62:1359–1365.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.07.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chang EE, Chiang PC, Lu PH, Ko YW (2001) Comparisons of metal leachability for various wastes by extraction and leaching methods. Chemosphere 45:91–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00002-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen Z, Wua S, Li F, Chen J, Qin Z, Pang L (2014) Recycling of flue gas desulfurization residues in gneiss based hot mix asphalt: materials characterization and performances evaluation. Constr Build Mater 73:137–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng CM, Tu W, Zand B, Butalia T, Wolfe W, Walker H (2007) Beneficial reuse of FGD material in the construction of low permeability liners: impacts on inorganic water quality constituents. J Environ Eng 133:523–531.  https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCE0733-93722007133:5523 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng CM, Taerakul P, Tu W, Zand B, Butalia T, Wolfe W, Walker H (2008) Surface runoff from full-scale coal combustion product pavements during accelerated loading. J Environ Eng 134:591–599.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2008)134:8(591) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiang KY, Tsai CC, Wang KS (2009) Comparison of leaching characteristics of heavy metals in APC residue from an MSW incinerator using various extraction methods. Waste Manag 29:277–284.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark RB, Ritchey KD, Baligar VC (2001) Benefits and constraints for use of FGD products on agricultural land. Fuel 80(6):821–828.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361(00)00162-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Córdoba P (2015) Review article: status of flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) systems from coal-fired power plants: overview of the physic-chemical control processes of wet limestone FGDs. Fuel 144:274–286.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.12.065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Çoruh S (2012) Leaching behavior and immobilization of copper flotation waste using fly ash. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 31(2):269–276.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ernst WHO (1998) Effects of heavy metals in plants at the cellular and organismic level ecotoxicology. In: Gerrit S, Bernd M (eds) III. Bioaccumulation and biological effects of chemicals. Wiley and Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, New York, pp 587–620Google Scholar
  11. European standard EN 1097-7 (2000) Tests for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates. Determination of the particle density of filler. Pycnometer method, European committee for standardizationGoogle Scholar
  12. Fan HJ, Shu HY, Yang HS, Chen WC (2006) Characteristics of landfill leachates in central Taiwan. Sci Total Environ 361:25–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.09.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. François D, Criado C (2007) Monitoring of leachate at a test road using treated fly ash from municipal solid waste incinerator. J Hazard Mater B139:543–549.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.02.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenway SL, Moore MT, Famis JL, Rhoton FE (2011) Effects of fluidized gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum on non-target freshwater and sediment dwelling organisms. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 86:480–483.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-011-0246-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoekstra NJ, Bosker T, Lantinga EA (2002) Effects of cattle dung from farms with different feeding strategies on germination and initial root growth of cress (Lepidium sativum L.). Agric Ecosyst Environ 93:189–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00348-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hou J, Liu GN, Xue W, Fu WJ, Liang BC, Liu XH (2014) Seed germination, root elongation, root-tip mitosis, and micronucleus induction of five crop plants exposed to chromium in fluvo-aquatic soil. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:671–676.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hua M, Wang B, Chen L, Wang Y, Quynh VM, He B, Li X (2010) Verification of lime and water glass stabilized FGD gypsum as road sub-base. Fuel 89:1812–1817.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2009.11.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jankowski J, Ward CR, French D, Groves S (2006) Mobility of trace elements from selected Australian fly ashes and its potential impact on aquatic ecosystems. Fuel 85:243–256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2005.05.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalai T, Khamassi K, Teixeira da Silva JA, Gouia H, Ben-Kaab LB (2014) Cadmium and copper stress affect seedling growth and enzymatic activities in germinating barley seeds. Arch Agron Soil Sci 60:765–783.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2013.838001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Komonweeraket K, Cetin B, Aydilek AH, Benson CH, Edil TB (2015) Effects of pH on the leaching mechanisms of elements from fly ash mixed soils. Fuel 140:788–802.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.09.068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis S, Donkin ME, Depledge MH (2001) Hsp70 expression in Enteromorpha intestinalis (Chlorophyta) exposed to environmental stressors. Aquat Toxicol 51:277–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-445X(00)00119-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li XG, Lv Y, Ma BG, Chen QB, Yin XB, Jian SW (2012) Utilization of municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash in blended cement. J Clean Prod 32:96–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li J, Zhuang X, Leiva C, Comejo A, Font O, Querol X, Moeno N, Arenas C, Fernández-Pereira C (2015) Potential utilization of FGD gypsum and fly ash from a Chinese power plant for manufacturing fire-resistant panels. Constr Build Mater 95:910–921.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Limbachiya MC, Marrocchino E, Koulouris A (2007) Chemical-mineralogical characterisation of coarse recycled concrete aggregate. Waste Manag 27:201–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liyanage M, Jayaranjan D, Annachhatre AP (2013) Precipitation of heavy metals from coal ash leachate using biogenic hydrogen sulfide generated from FGD gypsum. Water Sci Technol 67(2):311–318.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.546 Google Scholar
  26. Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (MEP) (2007) Identification standards for hazardous wastes—identification for extraction toxicity. GB 5085.3-2007. Beijing, China (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  27. Neupane G, Donahoe RJ (2013) Leachability of elements in alkaline and acidic coal fly ash samples during batch and column leaching tests. Fuel 104:758–770.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.06.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Phoungthong K, He PJ, Shao LM, Zhang H (2016a) Phytotoxicity and groundwater impacts of leaching from thermal treatment residues in roadways. J Environ Sci In press.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2016.11.009
  29. Phoungthong K, Zhang H, Shao LM, He PJ (2016b) Variation of the phytotoxicity of municipal solid waste incinerator bottom ash on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seed germination with leaching conditions. Chemosphere 146:547–554.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.12.063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seshadri B, Bolan NS, Naidu R, Brodie K (2010) The role of coal combustion products in managing the bioavailability of nutrients and heavy metals in soils. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 10(3):378–398.  https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162010000100011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shim YS, Rhee SW, Lee WK (2005) Comparison of leaching characteristics of heavy metals from bottom and fly ashes in Korea and Japan. Waste Manag 25:473–480.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stumm W (1992) Chemistry of the solid-water interface. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (1996) Ecological effects test guidelines, Seed germination/root elongation toxicity test, Publication No. 96-154. Washington, DC. USAGoogle Scholar
  34. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2003) RCRA training modules. Introduction to hazardous waste identification. Washington, DC. USAGoogle Scholar
  35. Visioli G, Conti FD, Gardi C, Menta C (2014) Germination and root elongation bioassays in six different plant species for testing Ni contamination in soil. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 92:490–496.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-013-1166-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang J, Bai Z, Yang P (2013) Effect of byproducts of flue gas desulfurization on the soluble salts composition and chemical properties of sodic soils. PLoS One 8(8):e71011.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang SJ, Chen Q, Li Y, Zhou YQ, Xu LZ (2017) Research on saline-alkali soil amelioration with FGD gypsum. Resour Conserv Recycl 121:82–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Xie X, Zhou Q, He Z, Bao Y (2010) Physiological and potential genetic toxicity of chlortetracycline as an emerging pollutant in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Environ Toxicol Chem 29:922–928.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Khamphe Phoungthong
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Pin-Jing He
    • 1
    • 4
  • Li-Ming Shao
    • 1
    • 4
  • Hua Zhang
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of Waste Treatment and ReclamationTongji UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Environmental Assessment and Technology for Hazardous Waste Management Research Center, Faculty of Environmental ManagementPrince of Songkla UniversitySongkhlaThailand
  3. 3.Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM)BangkokThailand
  4. 4.Centre for the Technology Research and Training on Household Waste in Small Towns & Rural AreaMinistry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of PR China (MOHURDShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  5. 5.State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control & Resource ReuseTongji UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations