2011 World Congress on Engineering and Technology (CET 2011)
5 2011 World Congress on Engineering and Technology (CET 2011) Oct. 28-Nov.2, 2011, Shanghai, China
978-1-61284-362-9
IEEE Catalog Number: CFP 1148N -PRT
ISBN:
Sponsors: - IEEE Beijing Section - IEEE Wuhan Section - Tongji University - Wuhan University - Engineering Information Institute
Proceedings
2011 World Congress on
Engineering and Technology Oct. 28-Nov.2, 2011, Shanghai, China
Proceedings
2011 World Congress on Engineering and Technology Copyright and Reprint Permission: Abstracting is permitted with credit to the source. Libraries are permitted to photocopy beyond the limit of U.S. copyright law for private use of patrons those articles in this volume that carry a code at the bottom of the first page, provided the per-copy fee indicated in the code is paid through Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. For other copying, reprint or republication permission, write to IEEE Copyrights Manager, IEEE Operations Center, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854. All rights reserved. Copyright ©2011 by IEEE.
Compliant PDF Files IEEE Catalog Number: ISBN: Conference CD-ROM Version IEEE Catalog Number: ISBN: Print Version IEEE Catalog Number: ISBN:
CFP 1148N -ART 978-1-61284-365-0 CFP 1148N-CDR 978-1-61284-363-6 CFP 1148N -PRT 978-1-61284-362-9
Publisher: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Printed in Beijing, China
2011 World Congress on Engineering and Technology
(CET 2011) http://www.engii.org/cet2011/
Oct. 28-Nov.2, 2011, Shanghai, China
Sponsors: -
IEEE Beijing Section IEEE Wuhan Section Tongji University Wuhan University Engineering Information Institute
Home
Welcome On behalf of the Organizing Committee of 2011 World Congress on Engineering and Technology (CET 2011), it is my great pleasure to present this proceedings of the conference held in Shanghai, China, Oct. 28th to Nov.2nd, 2011. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the authors and participants for their support to our conference. With the development of technology, a great variety of research results are emerging. Following the rapid development trend, CET 2011 serves as a forum for the academic professionals and researchers to exchange the most updated information and achievements in those exciting research areas. I would like to express our gratitude to our sponsors: IEEE Beijing Section, IEEE Wuhan Section, Tongji University, Wuhan University, and Engineering Information Institute. At the same time, we appreciate the contributions from our paper reviewers and the committee members. Your efforts make the conference a success. Thanks again for your attention and support to our conference. We are looking forward to seeing you again next year.
Dr. Victor Jin CET 2011 General Chair
Conference Organizing Committee Honorary General Chair Prof. Daniel N.Riahi, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign-uiuc, USA
General Chair Dr. Victor Jin, Ohio State University, USA
Technical Program Committee Chair Prof. Nickolas S. Sapidis, University of Western Macedonia, Greece
Technical Program Committee Co-Chair Prof. Weidong Zhao, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Technical Program Committee Prof. Harald Morgner, Physical Chemistry, University Leipzig, Germany Dr. Wenyuan Liao, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada Prof. Andrzej Kloczkowski, Iowa State University, USA Dr. Serge Lawrencenko, National University of Science and Technology (Moscow), Russia Dr. Ahn Jong-Hoon, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea (South) Dr. Peihua Qiu, University of Minnesota, USA Dr. Yu Zhuang, Texas Tech University, USA Dr. Zhenyu Yan, Fair ISAAC Corporation (FICO), Research Division, USA Dr. Zhen-Xing Tang, Hangzhou Wahaha Co. Ltd, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China Dr. Weiping Zhang, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China Prof. Bin Zheng, University of Pittsburgh, USA Dr. Lijuan zhang, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Prof. Ravi Janardan, University of Minnesota--Twin Cities, USA Dr. Shyh-Feng Chen, China University of Science and Technology, USA Dr. Zhuming Bi, Purdue University at IPFW Campus, USA Dr. José Reinaldo Silva, University of São Paulo, France Dr. Jianwen Fang, University of Kansas, USA Dr. Alessandro Margherita, University of Salento, Italy Prof. Petar M. Mitrasinovic, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India Prof. Inmaculada Zamora, University of the Basque Country, Spain Prof. Gianluca Elia, University of Salento, Italy Prof. Imed Kacem, University Paul Verlaine – Metz (UPV-M), France Prof. Eugene Levner, Holon Institute of Technology, Holon, Israel Prof. Irinel Dragan, University of Texas at Arlington, USA Prof. Zuo-Guang Ye, Simon Fraser University, Canada Prof. George A. Gravvanis, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Prof. Wanyang Dai, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China Dr. Chaoyi Pang, the Australian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO, Australia Prof. Hui Tang, Kunming University of Science and Technology,Yunnan, China Dr. Amal Kumar Mondal, Vidyasagar University,Midnapore, West Bengal, India Dr. Ki Young Kim, Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology, Yongin, Korea (South) Dr. Sajjad Haider, College of Engineering King Saud University, Saudi-arabia Prof. Kewen Zhao, University of Qiongzhou, China Dr. Chiranjib Chakraborty, Vellore Institute of Technology, India Dr. Raj Kumar, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences, India Prof. Abdul Q. M. Khaliq, Middle Tennessee State University, USA
Dr. Yufeng Wang, University of Texas, USA Prof. Atef Sayed Abdel-Razek, National Research Centre, Egypt, Egypt Dr. Zhongming Zhao, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, USA Prof. Shuying Qu, Yantai University, China Dr. Chiranjib Chakraborty, VIT University, India Prof. Jean-Claude Thill, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Prof. Abderrahmane BAÏRI, Université Paris Ouest, France Prof. Yu-Ran Luo, University of Science and Technology of China, China Prof. Feng-Biao Guo, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, China Prof. Celin Hin, MIT, USA Prof. Ulrich H.E. Hansmann, Michigan Technological University, USA Prof. Agassi Melikov, Institute of Cybernetics, Azerbaijan
Publication Chair Mengqi Zhou, IEEE Beijing Section, China
1049-1923809
PEOPLE ORIENTED GUIDELINES OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES’ DEVELOPMENT:PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTION IN THE CONTEXT OF CONSUMER SOCIETY Zhang Naifang,Xia Long
880
1050-1931965
OVERVIEW OF BIO-OIL FROM SLUDGE THERMOCHEMICAL LIQUEFACTION TECHNOLOGY Jing Liu, Yan Wang,Wenchao Ma, Guanyi Chen,Wenchao Ma
DIRECT
883
1051-1934951
NANO-IRON MODIFIED SLAG ON THE TREATMENT OF SIMULATED METHYL ORANGE WASTEWATER WEI Yan-fei,ZHANG Min-dong, HUANG Mei
887
1052-1954473
AIR QUALITY MODELING AT URBAN SCALE: ONGOING NO2 MODELING ACTIVITIES FOR THE MADRID CITY (SPAIN) R. Borge, J. Lumbreras, D. de la Paz, J. Pérez, J. López, A. Karanasiou, T. Moreno, E. Boldo, C. Linares, M.E.,Rodríguez
890
1053-1918491
THE THEORETIC MODEL RESEARCH OF GROUNDWATER ENVIRONMEN AND SOCIAL BENEFITS EVALUATION Fan Jianhua,Chen Jianping,Chen Hui-e,Wang Qing
ON
894
1054-1928809
STUDY ON THE COMBINED TECHNICAL PROCESS TREATING LANDFILL LEACHATE Min Liu, Lihong Qi, Liang Jin,Gaoyun Chen, Xiajun Huang, Yuanzhong Zhang
898
1055-1934457
EFFECT OF WATER ON THE NOX EMISSION IN A DIESEL ENGINE Han Rui, Li HongGang, Yang RongHai, Zhang XingLei, Wang Na, Han BingYuan,Tian Fang
902
1056-1924065
INDEX SYSTEM AND METHOD OF RIVER HEALTH ASSESSMENT Wenhhui Yang
905
1057-1934347
HEAVY METALS IN SALT CAKE FROM SECONDARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION I. TOTAL METAL CONTENT Xiao-Lan Huang, Thabet Tolaymat, and Robert Ford
910
1058-1921697
A FAST PREDICTIVE OF MEAN CELL RESIDENCE TIME IN FIVE STEP SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR USING FUZZY LOGIC CONTROL MODEL Saad Abualhail ,Xi-Wu Lu,Rusul Naseer，Ammar Ashour
914
1059-1925717
APPLICATION AND RESEARCH OF THE RESISTIVITY IMAGING METHOD IN EXPLORATION OF GOAF OF COALPIT AND KARST Xuyou Lei1, Nian Yu,Jian Li
919
1060-1925433
OPTIMIZING RZWQM2 AUTOMATIC METHODS Quanxiao Fang
AND
924
1061-1934367
STUDY ON SOIL FUNGI DIVERSITY IN GREENHOUSES IN HEBEI PROVINCE
928
PARAMETERS
19
USING
BY
MANUAL
Heavy Metals in Salt Cake from Secondary Aluminum Production I. Total Metal Content Xiao-Lan Huang
Thabet Tolaymat, and Robert Ford
Pegasus Technical Services, Inc. 46 E. Hollister Street, Cincinnati, OH 45219. U.S.A.
[email protected]
National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA Cincinnati, OH 45224, U. S. A
[email protected];
[email protected]
refining and by air oxidation of the liquid metal during melting, holding, and casting operations. Drosses from secondary smelting operations (so-called “black drosses”) typically contain a mixture of aluminum/alloy oxides and slag, and frequently show recoverable aluminum contents ranging from 12 to 18% [3, 4, 8-10]. Commercial smelting of both white and black dross is often done in a rotary salt furnace. The nonmetallic byproduct residue, which results from such dross smelting operations, is frequently termed “salt cake (salt slag)” and contains 3 to 10% residual metallic aluminum [3, 4, 8-10]. The formation of dross and the amount of dross formed depend on different factors like type and quality of input material (e.g. aluminium scraps in secondary industry), operating conditions, and type of technology and furnace applied [3, 4, 8-10].
Abstract—Salt cake is the byproduct of secondary aluminum production and is often disposed of in the United States using landfills. A systematic approach to understanding the characteristics of salt cake and the reactivity of salt cake with water was conducted by the US EPA in cooperation with the Aluminum Association and Environmental Research & Education Foundation, 39 samples from 10 facility throughout America were collected to cover a wide range of processes and sources. Digested by the EPA’s SW846 Method 3051A, total heavy metals (As, Cr, Cd, Cu, Mn, Se, Pb, and Zn) in salt cake was investigated. It was confirmed that all heavy metals in salt cake samples have a positive correlation with the amount of aluminum in the sample with a high level of variability, the general order of heavy metals content in salt cake is Mn > Cu > Zn > Cr >> Pb > As > Se >> Cd.
Traditionally, salt cake is disposed as landfill. Almost one million tons of salt cake are annually landfilled in the United States [11]. Worldwide, the aluminum industry produces nearly 5 million tons of furnace waste (salt cake, black dross) each year [12], and this number continues to grow with the increase in aluminum consumption, mainly recycled metal [13]. Since many heavy metals are constitutes of aluminum alloys, it is important to understand the fate of heavy metals in these wastes, especially the salt cake. Here we report the total heavy metals content in 39 salt cake samples from 10 facilities throughout America, the main waste from secondary aluminum production. Based on our knowledge, it is the largest number of sample collected for the characteristics in America and world.
Keywords-component; aluminum recycle; salt cake; heavy metals
I.
INTRODUCTION
Aluminum is one of the dominant non-ferrous metals in use today, and it is employed in a huge number of products, either alone or as alloys, which usually contain different amount heavy metals, including As, Cr, Cd, Cu, Mn, Se, Pb, and Zn[1]. Since recycling scrap aluminum requires only 5% of the energy used to produce aluminum from raw materials, and avoids approximately 95% of the emissions associated with producing new aluminum from ore [2-6], the recycle aluminum production play important role for aluminum production. The recycling of scrap aluminum often produces various types of wastes referred to as secondary aluminum processing (SAP) waste. How to treat and dispose the waste from aluminum production as well as the presence of byproducts of the aluminum recycling process is becoming not only a problem in the United States, but a global problem[7]. In the US, most secondary aluminum is produced through the use of rotary furnaces with the addition of salt fluxes to improve recovery and reduce oxidation of the aluminum metal[8].
II.
METHODS
A. Sample Collection and Preparation Salt cake samples were collected from 10 secondary aluminum-processing facilities, usually each facility once a month for four months with pre-cleaned sampling equipment. The facilities were identified in collaboration with the Aluminum Association and the Environmental Research and Education Foundation to cover a wide range of processes. Before collection, the salt cake was piled at the generation site. After cooling (usually 72-120 h), each pile was reduced following ASTM Method C702 -98 “Standard practice for
Aluminum dross represents a residue both from primary and secondary aluminum production, and is formed during This project is supported by the Aluminum Association and Environmental Research & Education Foundation (EREF). ___________________________________
978-1-61284-365-0/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE 910
from 6.70 up to 41.8 %, as presented in Figure 1. In previous studies, the total aluminum content in the salt cake ranged from 25.5 to 47.2% [18-21].Approximately 70% of the salt cake samples contained aluminum at concentrations between 8 to16%, and only 6 % of the salt cake samples contained aluminum at concentrations more than 24% (Figure 1).
reducing samples of aggregate to testing size” [14]. Each sample was processed by placing them into a stainless steel pan and crushing them to a size less than 9 mm, 2 mm, and 0.05 mm. B. Total Elements Analysis The salt cake samples were acid digested following EPA’s SW846 Method 3051A [15]. Because of the need for aluminum quantification, a mixture of hydrochloric and nitric acid (1 part HCl and 3 parts HNO3) was employed. Furthermore, the microwave temperature was set at 185 °C rather than the 175 °C that is specified in the method. The holding time was also extended from 10 to 30 minutes. The weight of the salt cake samples was approximately 0.1 g instead of 0.5 g. After acid digestion, major metal compositions, which included Al, Ca, Cu, Fe, K, Mn, Na, S, and Zn, were determined following EPA’s SW846 Method 6010C using a Thermo ICP-AES [16]. The heavy metals As, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Se were analyzed by a Perkin-Elmer graphite furnace AA (GFAA) separately [17]. The method detection limit (MDL) of Al, Cu, Mn, and Zn by ICP was 33, 2.0, 5.0, and 2.3 μg L-1, respectively. The MDL of As, Cd, Cr, Pb and Se by GFAA was 1.3, 0.01, 0.85, 0.40, and 0.57 μg L-1, respectively. The method reporting limit (MRL) of Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Mn, Se and Zn content in this study was 47, 1.3, 0.02, 1.3, 3.5, 0.6, 7.2, 1.0 and 3.5 mg Kg-1, respectively. Standard reference material 1633b (Coal Fly Ash) was also digested during each batch for the quality control. The average recovery of spiked Al in blank, 1633b, and salt cake samples (2452-B, 2433-C, 2502-F, 2046-H, 2512-J, 2490-L and 2613M) was 104, 103, and 93 (56-139) %, respectively.
B. Arsenic (As) Content Arsenic was detected in all 39 salt cake samples analyzed. On average, the salt cake samples contained 14 mg kg-1 arsenic, with a range of 2.8 to 41 mg kg-1 (Table I). Approximately 80% of the salt cake samples contained arsenic at concentrations less than 20 mg kg-1 (Figure 2). The total arsenic content in salt cake or aluminum dross was not reported in the literature. Arsenic content was found to be positively related to the total aluminum content in all of the studied salt cake (Table II). The coefficient of Pearson product moment and Spearman rank order was 0.719 and 0.533, respectively. Both the correlation coefficients were statistically significant (p
