You are on page 1of 4

Fuel 85 (2006) 2676–2679

www.fuelfirst.com

Short communication

Analysis of fly ash heavy metal content and disposal in three


thermal power plants in India
Snigdha Sushil, Vidya S. Batra *

Centre for Energy and Environment, TERI School of Advanced Studies, Habitat Place, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003, India

Received 3 November 2005; received in revised form 20 April 2006; accepted 20 April 2006
Available online 12 June 2006

Abstract

The study investigates the heavy metal content of fly ash and bottom ash from three major power plants in North India, using flame
atomic absorption spectrometry. It also studies the prevalent disposal methods used at these sites. The ashes were analysed for the pres-
ence of Cr, Mn, Pb, Zn, Cu, Ni and Co and detectable levels of all were found in both fly ash and bottom ash. The concentrations of Cr
and Zn were highest while Co concentration was less. The wet disposal method is used in two of the power plants (site 1 and site 3).
Neither of the sites uses ash pond lining in the construction of the ash ponds, hence leaching of the heavy metals is possible. Site 2
has adopted 100% dry disposal system which allows better utilization but incurs additional costs. Better management practices, increased
utilization and proper disposal practices need to be undertaken to minimize the adverse environmental impact.
Ó 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Fly ash; Heavy metal; Disposal

1. Introduction and antimony, fly ash has been considered hazardous for


living organisms. Some heavy metals leach out of the ash
Indian coal used in power plants generally has high ash ponds and contaminate the soil, surface and ground water.
content (35–45%) and is of lower quality [1]. Presently These heavy metals have been known to limit the survival
about 110 million tonnes of coal-ash is generated in India and growth of plants and microbial population [7].
from more than 70 thermal power plants [2]. By the year The present study investigates select heavy metal content
2012 this is predicted to increase to 170 million tonnes of fly ash and bottom ash of three thermal power plants sit-
per annum [3]. Worldwide, China is currently the largest uated in and around the National Capital Region, Delhi,
producer of fly ash followed by Russia and USA. The India, and compares it to the data available for other fly
ECOBA (European Coal Combustion Products Associa- ashes. It also looks at the disposal/handling techniques
tion) member countries account for 90% of CCP (Coal adopted by these power plants to manage their coal ash.
Combustion Products) in Europe, producing 37.14 million
tonnes of fly ash and utilizing about 48% of it [4]. 2. Materials and methods
In India, at present, the major portion of fly ash pro-
duced goes for disposal in ash ponds and landfills and only 2.1. Sample collection
a small fraction of it is utilized [5]. The utilization rate
(13%) is far below the global utilization rate (25%) [6]. Three coal based thermal power plants were chosen for
Due to minute particle size and presence of potentially the collection of the fly ash and bottom ash samples. Site 1
toxic elements like arsenic, chromium, boron, vanadium has a capacity of 705 MW and uses coal mainly from Jha-
ria Coal Fields in Eastern India. Site 2 has a capacity of
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 11 24682100; fax: +91 11 24682144. 840 MW and uses coal from North Piparwar Mines, in
E-mail address: vidyasb@teri.res.in (V.S. Batra). Eastern India. Site 3 has a capacity of 2100 MW and uses

0016-2361/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.


doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.04.031
S. Sushil, V.S. Batra / Fuel 85 (2006) 2676–2679 2677

coal from Gevra Mines in Central India. All three sites are heavy metals was highest in site 1 fly ash, except for man-
equipped with ESPs (Electrostatic precipitators) for fly ash ganese that showed highest concentration in site 3 fly ash.
collection. In general the concentration of elements in fly ash was
In February and March 2005, fly ash and bottom ash higher than in bottom ash. In fly ash samples from sites
samples were collected from the selected sites. The fly ash 1 and 2, Cr and Zn were the most abundant elements while
samples were light grey in colour and irregularly shaped. in all bottom ash samples, Mn was the most abundant ele-
The bottom ash samples were coarser and darker grey in ment. Co was the least abundant in all the samples, present
colour due to the presence of unburned carbon. within the range of 8–20 mg/kg.
Considerable variation was found in the heavy metal
2.2. Heavy metal analysis concentration both between the three power plant samples
and between the fly ash and bottom ash samples from the
The collected samples were tested for the following ele- same power plant. Difference between the power stations
ments—chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), nickel (Ni), can mainly be attributed to the use of different types of
cobalt (Co), copper (Cu) and manganese (Mn). The coal. The difference between the fly ash and bottom ash
method used for the analysis of the heavy metals was samples from the same power plant may be due to the dif-
atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS). ference in the mass of the elements. Elements having lower
Dry sample (0.3 g) was weighed into a Teflon vessel. mass can be carried and precipitated with the fly ash (Cu,
Five millilitres of 70% conc. HNO3 and 2 ml HF were Zn) while elements having higher mass may settle rapidly
added to the vessel and kept for digestion in an autodi- after combustion and be enriched in bottom ash (Co).
gester for 20 min after attaining a temperature of 180 °C. Some elements, like Ni, however show no such preference
After digestion the sample was filtered and transferred to [8]. It has also been reported that the composition of trace
a volumetric flask, and the volume was made up to elements in fly ash even from a single coal fired power plant
50 ml. This sample was used for analysis of heavy metals may vary measurably on a daily basis [9].
by flame atomic absorption spectroscopy and final concen- The results from this study are compared with the
trations of heavy metals were determined. ranges of heavy metals reported in the literature for fly
ash from India and from other countries (Table 2). It can
3. Result and discussions be seen that the values are within the range reported for
Indian fly ash. It can be observed that some of the heavy
3.1. Heavy metal composition elements in Indian fly ash as reported in the literature
and analysed in this study are found in lower concentration
Results for the heavy metal analysis of fly ash and bot- than in other countries.
tom ash samples are presented in Table 1. Concentration of
3.2. Ash handling/disposal methods at site 1 and site 3
Table 1
Concentration of elements in fly ash and bottom ash from the three power Both sites 1 and 3 follow the wet disposal technique. The
plants (values in mg/kg)
stacks at site 1 power plant are installed with ESPs for
Sample Cr Mn Pb Zn Cu Ni Co the collection of the fly ash of different particle size from
FA1 103 62 56 124 83 63 18 the outgoing flue gas. A major portion of the fly ash is col-
FA2 90 47 20 60 56 39 13 lected as wet slurry. This slurry is transported and disposed
FA3 87 139 34 64 58 28 8
BA1 74 182 16 43 50 31 11
of in an ash pond. The discharge water from the pond is
BA2 72 118 16 44 46 32 10 collected and discharged in a river or drain.
BA3 54 84 10 29 40 26 9 The surface of the pond ash is sprinkled with the water
FA1-ESP fly ash, site 1; FA2-ESP fly ash, site 2; FA3-ESP fly ash, site 3; treatment plant sludge. This has the advantages of control-
BA1-bottom ash, site 1; BA2-bottom ash, site 2; BA3-bottom ash, site 3. ling the fugitive emissions by forming a thin film on the

Table 2
Comparison of values of heavy metal concentrations obtained in this study with those reported in literature (values in mg/kg)
Element Location
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Greece Spain UK China India (average) Orissa, India
Current study [15] [18] [19] [20] [8] [13]
Cr 103 90 87 110–160 134.2 n/r n/r 120 145.75
Co 18 13 8 n/r 29.2 n/r n/r 23.6 16.88
Cu 83 56 58 31.8–62.8 71.8 n/r n/r 100 83.63
Pb 56 20 34 123–143 52 17–176 843–847 35 54.50
Mn 62 47 139 213–330 324.6 n/r n/r 338.91 338.91
Ni 63 39 28 n/r 87.9 n/r n/r 150 56.50
Zn 124 60 64 59.6 221.3 n/r n/r n/r 69.00
2678 S. Sushil, V.S. Batra / Fuel 85 (2006) 2676–2679

surface; enhancing the fertility of ash for growth of vegeta- Co, Cr and Ni did not leach at any L/S ratio[13]. Analysis
tion and ground cover and thirdly by providing a disposal of heavy metals in groundwater near a coal ash disposal
option for the WTP (water treatment plant) sludge. site in Orissa, India showed that Zn, Cu and Pb were found
A small portion of the fly ash is collected in the dry in high concentration in tube well water located in the
form. The power plant has the facility to directly fill the vicinity of an ash pond while Cu, Mn, Pb and Zn were
fly ash into trucks, which can then be sent to the user. the major contaminants in groundwater [14]. Cr, Zn, Mn
The system has the flexibility of collecting graded dry fly and Cu in Greek fly ash have exhibited an increase in leach-
ash from different fields of ESP. As per the guidelines on ate concentration with the reduction in leachant pH from 8
utilization of fly ash, pond ash and bottom ash is supplied to 4. Pb showed maximum extractability at all pH values
free of cost to all types of users on ‘‘as is where is’’ basis. [15].
The fly ash is used for brick manufacturing and for filling Presently ash pond lining is not being followed in prac-
and embankment of roads and low-lying areas. tice in sites 1 and 3. Therefore, the possibility of leaching
of the heavy metals increases. Since soil below the
3.3. Ash handling/disposal methods at site 2 impoundments is always saturated and under considerable
hydraulic head, the inefficiently lined ponds provide a
Site 2 power plant has Asia’s first 100% dry ash extrac- great opportunity for the groundwater contaminants to
tion system with transit ash storage silos and final storage seep in. Therefore seepage from ash ponds may be more
in the form of ash mounds. Once the ash mound has compared to leaching from landfills and ash mounds
reached the prescribed height, it is sprayed with polymer [16]. In addition to this, discharge of rain water and run
layer and vegetation is grown on top of it. off from the ash mound areas into surface water bodies
Site 2 supplies dry fly ash to cement and asbestos can also be a source of water pollution. Therefore it is
industries. Since the beginning of commercial production necessary to incorporate ash pond lining while designing
in August 1992 till the end of March 2001, around 22.0% ash ponds. Planting of saplings having tolerance to warm
of fly ash generated by the unit has been utilized. Almost slurry water and heavy metals is considered to be the most
16.0% of this has gone for filling low-lying areas and ideal mitigation measure, since the biomass can also
embankments and 6.0% has gone for manufacturing bricks, adsorb toxic metals as nutrients and provide obstruction
blocks, cement, and asbestos. The unutilized 78.0% of the for wind blown particulates [17].
ash generated is dumped in the ash mound. Since site 2 Dry collection of fly ash at site 2 allows its better utiliza-
has already incurred a huge fixed cost for carrying fly ash tion. The disposal of unutilized ash in the form of ash
from the boiler to the ash mound, there is no attempt to mound not only saves the use of land and water but mini-
substantially increase the utilization of fly ash. mizes the chances of water pollution, by minimizing leach-
ing. However proper measures like lining at the bottom of
3.4. Potential for contamination from trace elements the ash mound, stabilization of ash mound and covering of
the completed mound with vegetation are required to min-
Leaching is the most likely path by which coal bottom imize environmental damage.
ash constituents would become mobile, environmental con-
taminants [10]. The quantity of elements that will be avail- 4. Conclusions
able for leaching in an aqueous media will depend on the
fixation of these elements on the ash particles and pH of Total concentration of Cr, Pb, Mn, Zn, Cu, Ni, and Co
the ash-aqueous medium [8]. In addition to this, the other was evaluated in fly ash and bottom ash samples from three
factors influencing leaching include ash source and leaching different power stations. All elements were present within
time. In general, under acidic conditions the rate and quan- detectable limits. In general the heavy metal concentration
tity of leaching is higher. Certain studies reveal that for of Indian coal ash was less compared to ash from other
most of the elements present in coal ash, a significant frac- parts of the world. Marked differences were also observed
tion, ranging from 8% in case of nickel to 17% in case of between the heavy metal concentrations of the coal ashes
chromium, is able to leach [11]. from the three power plants chosen in the study.
Leaching tests have been commonly used to predict The wet disposal technique followed in site 1 and 3,
environmental impact associated with ash disposal. Com- using ash ponds without lining, makes the surroundings
parison of groundwater contamination in the vicinity of a more prone to heavy metal contamination. The shift from
thermal power plant in Turkey with leaching tests revealed wet collection to dry collection system at site 2 is a welcome
that certain leaching tests can be used to predict contami- step, as it will increase the potential of utilization of ash in
nation from toxic elements in ash [12]. Serial batch leaching various applications. One of the disadvantages of using this
test done on some Indian fly ashes have shown that many system is the cost involved, especially in transportation of
elements like Mn, Zn, Ca, As and Mg show maximum con- fly ash.
centration in the leachate at low L/S (liquid/solid) of 4 and A combination of suitable disposal techniques and
8. Some elements like Cu and Pb were also present in the increased utilization is required to combat the environmen-
leachate but in insignificant levels, while other elements like tal problem associated with fly ash generation.
S. Sushil, V.S. Batra / Fuel 85 (2006) 2676–2679 2679

References station: inferences from magnetic susceptibility analysis. Environ


Geochem Health 1993;15(4):9–18.
[1] Mathur R, Chand S, Tezuka T. Optimal use of coal for the power [12] Baba A, Kaya A. Leaching characteristics of solid wastes from
generation in India. Energy Policy 2003;31(3):319–31. thermal power plants of western Turkey and comparison of toxicity
[2] Sarkar A, Rano R, Mishra KK, Sinha IN. Particle size distribution methodologies. J Environ Manage 2004;73(3):199–207.
profile of some Indian fly ash- a comparative study to assess their [13] Praharaj T, Powell MA, Hart BR, Tripathi S. Leachibility of elements
possible uses. Fuel Process Technol 2005;86(11):1221–38. from sub-bituminous coal fly ash from India. Environ Int 2002;
[3] Rajamane NP. Making concrete ‘green’ through use of fly ash. Green a27(8):609–15.
Business Opportun 2003;9(4):23. [14] Praharaj T, Swain SP, Powell MA, Hart BR, Tripathy S. Delineation
[4] Kalyoncu RS, Coal combustion products. Available from: <http of groundwater contamination around an ash pond geochemical and
minerals.usgs.gov minerals pubs/commodity coal 874400.pdf>; 2001 GIS approach. Environ Int 2002;27(8):631–8.
[Accessed 18.03.05]. [15] Fytianos K, Tsaniklidi B, Voudrias E. Leachability of heavy metals
[5] Bhattacharjee U, Kandpal TC. Potential of fly ash utilization in in Greek fly ash from coal combustion. Environ Int 1998;24(4):
India. Energy 2002;27(2):151–66. 477–486.
[6] Iyer RS, Scott JA. Power station fly ash a review of value-added [16] Theis TS, Westrick JD, HSU CL, Marley JJ. Field investigation of
utilization outside of the construction industry. Resour Conserv Recy trace metals in ground water from fly ash disposal. J Water Pollut
2001;31(3):217–28. Con Federat 1978:2457–69.
[7] Rai UN, Pandey K, Sinha S, Singh A, Saxena R, Gupta DK. [17] Sahu KC. Environmental impacts of ash ponds and measures
Revegetating fly ash landfills with Prosopis julifera L: impact of for pollution control. In: Raju VS, editor. Ash ponds and ash
different amendments and Rhizobium inoculation. Environ Int disposal systems. New Delhi: Narosa Publishing House; 1996.
2004;30(3):293–300. p. 300–10.
[8] Sivakumar DS, Datta M. Assessment of groundwater contamination [18] Llorens JF, Fernandez-Turiel JL, Querol X. The fate of trace
potential around ash ponds through field sampling: a review. In: Raju elements in a large coal-fired power plant. Environ Geol 2001;40(4–5):
VS, editor. Ash ponds and ash disposal systems. New Delhi: Narosa 409–16.
Publishing House; 1996. p. 311–25. [19] Wadge A, Hutton M, Peterson PJ. The concentrations and particle
[9] Egemen E, Yurteri C. Regulatory leaching tests for fly ash: a case size relationships of selected trace elements in fly ashes from UK coal-
study. Waste Manage Res 1996;14(1):43–50. fired power plants and a refuse incinerator. Sci Total Environ
[10] Minnesota Department of Transportation, USA, Managing Mn/ 1986;54:13–27.
DOT environmental liability resulting from the use of regulated solid [20] Liao HC, Jiang SJ. Determination of cadmium, mercury and lead in
wastes in Mn/DOT administered transportation sector. Fly ash coal fly ash by slurry sampling electrothermal vaporization induc-
Report. Issue Document; 1997. tively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Spectrochim Acta Part B
[11] Querol X, Pares JM, Plana F, Fernandez-Turiel JL, Lopez A. Fly ash 1999;54(8):1233–42.
content and distribution in lake sediments around a large power

You might also like