ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Carbon Storage in Coal Fly Ash by Reaction with Oxalic Acid
My Activity
  • Open Access
Article

Carbon Storage in Coal Fly Ash by Reaction with Oxalic Acid
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

ACS ES&T Engineering

Cite this: ACS EST Engg. 2023, 3, 9, 1227–1235
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.3c00063
Published May 23, 2023

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Coal combustion is one of the leading sources of CO2 emissions, and it is predicted to remain so for the foreseeable future. The environmental effects of coal burning can be partially offset by utilizing fly ash, which is a combustion byproduct, to mineralize and store carbon. Our study tests a novel method for carbon storage through the reaction of fly ash with oxalic acid (H2C2O4), creating durable solid oxalate phases. Our results show that whewellite (CaC2O4·H2O) and weddellite (CaC2O4·(2 + x)H2O, x ≤ 0.5) are formed when fly ash reacts with H2C2O4 at ambient temperature and pressure. We examined 2 types of ash and found that the reaction occurs relatively rapidly, reaching completion within 4 days. Moreover, the reacted material comprised ∼18% Ca oxalate. During the reaction, portlandite, the primary calcium-bearing mineral in the ash, was dissolved entirely, although mass balance calculations indicate that amorphous phases also serve as an important source of Ca for the oxalate minerals. Reaction modeling suggests that Ca is released by two phases that dissolve at different rates, with the rapidly dissolving phase releasing Ca at a rate 40 times faster than that of the slow phase. Based on our calculations, 1 tonne of reacted coal fly ash could store over 34 kg of carbon, and the method has the potential to store more than 35 Mt of carbon per year on a global scale. Thus, our findings indicate that reacting fly ash with oxalic acid could reduce the environmental impact of coal burning, and adapting the technique for use with other alkaline solid wastes may represent a critical green technology.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Coal combustion currently generates 35% of electricity worldwide (1) and is expected to remain an essential component of the global energy market for the foreseeable future. (2,3) However, coal is also one of the leading sources of CO2 emissions, and reducing its carbon footprint is critical to mitigating its environmental impact. (1,3,4) Coal combustion produces a waste product called coal fly ash (CFA), which is a combination of crystalline and amorphous phases. (5−7) Although the precise composition varies with the type of coal being burned and the combustion conditions, (8,9) 1 tonne of coal typically generates 50–250 kg of ash, (10,11) and more than 1 Gt of coal ash are produced globally every year. (12) By 2032, this value is predicted to reach 2.1 billion tonnes. (13)
CFA often has high CaO and MgO contents, making it chemically reactive. (14,15) Mineralization of these elements can stabilize fly ash, (16) allowing it to be re-utilized as a substitute for clinker or in concrete aggregate, thereby reducing CO2 emissions from cement production. (17−19) Moreover, the mineralization of fly ash has been recognized as a promising technology to help achieve global environmental targets and solve waste disposal issues. (19)
Several methods have been proposed to convert Ca in CFA into CaCO3, (19−24) and the effect of various physical parameters, such as temperature, liquid-to-solid ratio, bicarbonate concentration, and CO2 pressure have been explored in a number of studies. (21,25,26) However, the direct conversion of the Ca in fly ash to calcium carbonate requires high temperatures and/or high CO2 pressures due to the low solubility of CO2 and slow reaction kinetics at ambient conditions. (21,25,26) Although regenerable solvents have been proposed as a way to convert Ca into carbonates at standard pressure and temperatures below 80 °C, (27,28) these methods have yet to be adopted at scale.
In this study, we tested an alternative method that reacts CFA directly with oxalic acid (H2C2O4) at ambient temperature and pressure to store carbon through mineralization. Crucially, oxalic acid can be synthesized from CO2 by electrochemical reduction or biological process, (29−34) and it can react with calcium-bearing phases to create stable Ca oxalate minerals called whewellite (CaC2O4·H2O) and weddellite (CaC2O4·(2 + x)H2O, x < 0.5). (35) Notably, the C/Ca ratio in Ca oxalate minerals is twice that of calcium carbonate, (29,35) so that fly ash containing oxalate phases could store more carbon than fly ash containing carbonates.
The reaction between fly ash and oxalic acid can be represented schematically as:
CaO(s)lime+H2C2O4(aq)oxalicacidCaC2O4·H2O(s)whewellite
(1)
Recently, a similar reaction between olivine and oxalic acid at ambient temperature and pressure was found to form stable Mg and Fe oxalates in a matter of days, and it was suggested that this could be a relatively rapid pathway to mineralizing carbon. (36) However, the feasibility of utilizing fly ash in a similar way has yet to be tested.
In our study, we use a combination of experimental methods to determine the efficacy of storing carbon in CFA by reaction with oxalic acid. We characterize the products of the reaction between two kinds of CFA, and we propose a model to describe the reaction rate. Furthermore, we discuss the potential of the reaction for reducing global carbon emissions.

2. Materials and Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

2.1. CFA Samples and Experimental Protocol

CFA was obtained from the sample repository at the Israel Geological Survey, which contains ash from the Hadera Power Station and Rutenberg Power Plant, operated by the Israel Electricity Company. The coal used at the plant is purchased from three primary suppliers (Russia, South Africa, and Colombia), and the CFA is a product of mixing between these sources. Two different types of fly ash, referred to as KLP and Zibulo, were used in the study. These fly ash samples have an average particle size in the range of 13.1–20.2 μm and a BET surface area of 1.6–2.4 m2 g–1. (37)
In the experiments, 1 g of dried CFA was reacted in a 250 mL solution with 0.1 mol/L oxalic acid (99.8%; SD Fine Chem Limited) and agitated continuously at room temperature and pressure. The effect of exposure time was tested by terminating the reaction after 0.5 h, 1 h, 2 h, 4 h, 8 h, 16 h, 1 d, 2 d, 4 d, 8 d, and 16 d. After termination, the fluid was filtered with 0.22 μm filters in a vacuum filter system. The solid filtrate was rinsed with 250 mL of deionized water to remove residual oxalic acid, dried at 40 °C, and then weighed.

2.2. Mineralogical and Chemical Characterization

The solid phase was characterized using a combination of methods. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM; Extra-High-Resolution Scanning Electron Microscope Magellan 400 L analyzer) provided high-resolution images of the samples and facilitated the identification of oxalate phases. To characterize the crystalline phases, both before and after the reaction, samples were also analyzed using X-ray powder diffraction (XRD; X-Ray Powder Diffractometer D8 Advance, Bruker AXS) with a CuKα source (λ = 1.5406 Å) at room temperature. Diffraction measurements were collected in the range of 5–80°. Measurements showed that the primary minerals in the unreacted fly ash are mullite (Al(Al0.83Si1.08O4.85)) and quartz (SiO2) (Table S1). Together they comprise 95% and 93% of the crystalline phases in KLP and Zibulo, respectively. Additional minerals, primarily hematite (Fe2O3) and portlandite (Ca(OH)2), make up the remaining mineral phases. CFA often contains a high proportion of amorphous phases, sometimes exceeding 60%, (38) so that the XRD analyses represent only a partial characterization of the solid phases.
X-ray fluorescence (XRF; Micro X-ray Fluorescence spectrometer M4 Tornado, Bruke) was applied to the unreacted and reacted fly ash samples to determine the overall chemical composition of the major elements. Before measurement with XRF, the powdered CFA samples were pressed into pellets. Based on the CaO content of the KLP and Zibulo samples (6.0 and 5.7%, respectively; Table 1), these two fly ash samples were classified as Class F. (38) This classification reflects a relatively low Ca content, which is similar to the results obtained for Israeli fly ash samples reported in previous studies. (5)
Table 1. Chemical Composition (Major Elements) of the Fly Ash Samples Based on XRF
 KLP-unreacteda (mass %)KLP-reacteda (mass %)Zibulo-unreacteda (mass %)Zibulo-reacteda (mass %)
SiO239.5636.9536.1136.01
Al2O326.8122.9823.6719
Fe2O32.071.554.093.05
CaO6.017.325.737.94
TiO21.651.481.601.35
K2O0.500.440.710.59
Na2O<0.01<0.011.090.66
MgO0.540.171.380.30
P2O50.790.040.58<0.01
SO31.110.061.200.06
LOI5.814.523.453.83
a

Percentages for oxides are absolute values and not normalized to 100%. Values for LOI include both water and organic carbon.

At the end of each experiment, the filtered fluid phase was analyzed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS; Analytik Jena Plasma Quant MS Elite quadrupole ICP-MS analyzer). This provided the concentrations of major elements in the reacted fluids.

2.3. Thermal Gravimetric Analyses and Ca Oxalate Content

We used thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA; STA Jupiter 449F3 analyzer) to precisely determine the proportion of oxalate minerals in the reacted fly ash samples. The TGA measurements were based on the protocol reported in previous studies, (39) with 29–31 mg of sample being heated from 50 to 950 °C in a nitrogen environment at a rate of 10 °C min–1. For samples containing calcium.
Oxalate minerals, three stages of mass loss were observed with increasing temperature: (40,41) (1) dehydration of hydrated Ca oxalate to form anhydrous calcium oxalate (CaC2O4) in the range 120–350 °C; (2) decomposition of CaC2O4 to CaCO3 between 350 and 550 °C; and (3) decomposition of CaCO3 to CaO from 550 to 800 °C. Loss on ignition (LOI) was determined using a similar method: samples with a mass of 49–51 mg were heated from 50 to 950 °C in air at a heating rate of 20 °C min–1; the temperature was held constant for 15 min at 105, 750, and 950 °C.
To calculate the maximum proportion of anhydrous calcium oxalate in the reacted fly ash (PCaC2O4max) from the TGA data, we used the following equation: (25,35,41)
PCaC2O4max=MCaC2O4×(Δms2+Δms3)MCaC2O4MCaO
(2)
where MCaC2O4 is the molar mass of anhydrous calcium oxalate (CaC2O4), MCaO is the molar mass of calcium oxide (CaO), Δms2 is the proportional mass loss in Step 2, and Δms3 is the proportional mass loss in Step 3.
To calculate the minimum amount of calcium oxalate, we made a minor modification to eq 2. Thermal gravimetry analyses of the unreacted samples (Figure 1) revealed a small but significant loss of mass (0.96% and 0.64% of KLP and Zibulo, respectively) in the 350–800 °C temperature range. Assuming that this mass loss also contributes to the mass change in the samples after the reaction, the minimal Ca oxalate content (PCaC2O4min) is given by:
PCaC2O4min=MCaC2O4×(Δms2+Δms3Δmu)MCaC2O4MCaO
(3)
where Δmu is the proportional mass loss of the unreacted sample at 350–800 °C. Although we report both values, the actual oxalate content is likely to be closer to the maximal estimate calculated in eq 2. This is because the mass change in the unreacted phases in the 350–800 °C temperature range is probably due to the decomposition of Ca-bearing phases, such as calcite and portlandite. (42,43) On exposure to oxalic acid, these minerals are readily converted into Ca oxalate phases.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Thermal gravimetric analysis of unreacted coal fly ash samples. Three steps were observed in the unreacted samples: (1) loss of water; (2) decomposition of Ca-bearing phases, such as calcite and portlandite; (3) reaction between unoxidized carbon and iron oxide.

To estimate the maximal mass proportion of carbon stored in the reacted fly ash (PC), we substituted the minimum and maximum values for the Ca oxalate content into the following expression:
PC=PCaC2O4max2MCMCaC2O4
(4)
where MC is the molar mass of carbon. These values can be compared with the potential carbon storage of reacted fly ash (SC; i.e., the mass proportion of carbon that could be stored in reacted fly ash if all the Ca was bound to oxalate), which is calculated by:
SC=FCaO2MCMCaO
(5)
where FCaO is the mass proportion of CaO in the reacted sample, estimated from XRF.
Here, we also define the effective carbon storage capacity per unit mass of unreacted fly ash (ECSC; i.e., the maximal mass of carbon per unit mass of unreacted CFA that is eventually stored as Ca oxalate) as:
ECSC=ξPCaO2MCMCaO
(6)
where PCaO is the mass proportion of CaO in the unreacted sample, and ξ is the overall conversion efficiency of Ca to Ca oxalate.

2.4. Reaction Rate Model

The rate of Ca dissolution during the reaction was evaluated with a modified shrinking-particle model. (44,45) The model assumes that the reactive Ca-bearing particles are spherical and of uniform size, and predicts the proportion of the remaining mass of unreacted Ca at any given time. The mass of an individual particle, mp, is given by:
mp=43πr3×MwVm
(7)
where r is the grain radius (assumed to be the average grain size of the Ca-bearing particles), Mw is the molecular mass of CaO (56 g mol–1), and Vm is the molar volume of CaO (16.76 × 10–6 m3 mol–1). It then follows that the remaining mass proportion of unreacted particles (Prem) in the sample during the experiment is:
Prem=rt3r03
(8)
where rt is the grain radius at time t. The grain radius at time t will depend on the grain dissolution rate (J), and is given by the expression:
rt=r0VmJt
(9)
Substituting eq 9 into eq 8 gives the following analytical expression:
Prem=(r0VmJt)3r03
(10)
Fly ash contains both amorphous or crystalline Ca-bearing phases that could have very different dissolution rates. (38,46,47) Therefore, CaO release may require a multirate approach, and in our model, we consider the simplest such scenario in which fly ash dissolves at two distinct rates (J1 and J2). In this case, the remaining proportion of unreacted Ca becomes:
Prem=f(r0VmJ1t)3r03+(1f)(r0VmJ2t)3r03
(11)
where f is the proportion of total Ca initially associated with phase 1.
For each experimental data set, a MATLAB code was used to identify optimal values for J1, J2, and f by comparing the model (eq 11) with the proportion of remaining reactive Ca (Prem) given by:
Prem=1Preact
(12)
where Preact is the mass proportion of reacted CaO in the solid phase at time t, estimated from the TGA results. We note that by calculating Prem from the TGA data, Ca precipitation is assumed to be directly coupled to Ca release.
In the simulations, we assumed an initial partical radius of 15 μm. Optimal parameters were found by using a MATLAB error minimization algorithm based on the simplex search method, and the norm function was used to evaluate the error. To assess the uncertainties of the model parameters, we used a bootstrapping method in which we removed a single datum and then determined the best-fit parameters. This operation was performed for each point, and the relative standard deviations (RSD) for J1, J2, and f were calculated.

3. Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

3.1. Textural Changes to Fly Ash during Reaction with Oxalic Acid

The SEM images revealed that many of the fly ash particles in the unreacted samples (both KLP and Zibulo) were spherical in shape, ranging in size from ∼100 nm to tens of micrometers (Figure 2 and Supplementary Figure S1). Many of the particles also appeared in aggregate form. The spherical shape of the particles reflects the combined processes of coagulation, condensation, and nucleation of evaporated materials following combustion. (48) Particles with a defined crystal habit were not observed in the unreacted samples (Figure 2a,b). In previous studies, spherical particles in fly ash were reported to exhibit a wide range of compositions, comprising carbonaceous, silica, aluminosilicate, and Ca and Fe bearing phases. (6)

Figure 2

Figure 2. Electron micrographs of the two types of coal fly ash: (a) unreacted KLP fly ash; (b) unreacted Zibulo fly ash; (c) KLP fly ash after 4 days of exposure to 0.1 M oxalic acid; (d) Zibulo fly ash, again after 4 days of reaction in 0.1 M oxalic acid. After the reaction, the presence of euhedral crystals─most likely Ca oxalate─are observed. Additional SEM images are provided in Supplementary Figure S1.

After the reaction with oxalic acid, both types of CFA showed significant textural changes (Figure 2 and Supplementary Figure S1). Although many spherical particles were still present, distinct new phases with an apparent crystalline habit had formed. The size of these crystals was in the range of ∼0.5 to 10 μm. Chemical analysis with EDS indicated that the dominant cation in the crystals was Ca, consistent with the presence of Ca oxalate. In both the KLP and Zibulo samples, the composition of the unreacted spherical particles was predominantly aluminosilicate.

3.2. Fly Ash Mineralogy and Chemical Composition

X-ray diffraction confirmed that a significant level of Ca oxalate was present in the reacted fly ash (Figure 3). As early as 0.5 h after exposure to oxalic acid, both whewellite (CaC2O4·H2O) and weddellite (CaC2O4·(2 + x)H2O, x < 0.5) appeared (Figure 4), although other Ca-bearing minerals were no longer detected. The whewellite content increased steadily during the first 4 days of the reaction, reaching proportions of 32.6% (KLP) and 41.5% (Zibulo) of the crystalline phases. By contrast, weddellite showed a different pattern: peak values were observed after 4 h, followed by a steady decrease at longer reaction times, with values eventually falling below the detection limit. This result indicates that whewellite may have been formed by the conversion of weddellite, which is consistent with the greater thermodynamic stability of whewellite at the experimental conditions applied in the study. (49) Additionally, the near-constant values for whewellite after 4 days are likely to indicate that the conversion of the reactive Ca into oxalate phases was complete.

Figure 3

Figure 3. X-ray diffraction patterns of the two types of coal fly ash: (a) unreacted KLP fly ash; (b) unreacted Zibulo fly ash; (c) KLP fly ash after 16 days of exposure to 0.1 M oxalic acid; (d) Zibulo fly ash, again after 16 days of reaction in 0.1 M oxalic acid. Note that in this figure, only the major mineral phases are indicated.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Proportion of whewellite (CaC2O4·H2O) and weddellite (CaC2O4·(2 + x)H2O, x < 0.5) during the reaction between coal fly ash samples and 0.1 M oxalic acid. Values are based on XRD measurements. Each point represents a separate experiment.

Following the complete removal of Ca-bearing crystalline phases at a very early stage in the experiments, the amount of Ca oxalate continued to increase. This suggests that much of the Ca was provided by the dissolution of an amorphous source. This is supported by considering the relatively low CaO content in the unreacted fly ash calculated from the XRD measurements (Figure 3 and Table S1); in the KLP and Zibulo samples, the predicted CaO associated with crystalline phases is only 1.5 and 1.1%, respectively (Figure 5). This contrasts sharply with the much higher concentrations measured by XRF (6 and 5.7% for KLP and Zibulo, respectively; Figure 5), which reflect the total CaO in the samples.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Comparison of the chemical compositions for whole samples (total) and crystalline components only in the unreacted fly ash. Total values are based on XRF measurements (Table 1), while the crystalline component is estimated from the XRD results (Supplementary Table S1). The difference between the total and crystalline values are attributed to the presence of amorphous phases. Error bars represent the variance (1σ) of measurements.

The XRF analysis of the samples after the reaction indicated that relatively minor compositional changes had occurred: Al2O3, Fe2O3, MgO, P2O5, and SO3 decreased slightly, while CaO content increased by 1.3 and 2.2% for the KLP and Zibulo samples, respectively (Table 1). These changes suggest that labile phases containing Al, Fe, Mg, and Si in the unreacted fly ash were dissolved, and Ca was preferentially precipitated into insoluble oxalate phases during the reaction. The ICP-MS measurements of the reacted fluid revealed that the dissolved major elements (Table 2) represented less than 4.7% (KLP) and 8.1% (Zibulo) of the mass in the unreacted fly ash. Thus, overall, a relatively small proportion of the fly ash dissolved congruently during the reaction. With respect to Ca, mass balance calculations at the end of the experiments reveal that 92% and 86% is bound to solid phases for KLP and Zibulo, respectively.
Table 2. Comparison of Major Element Concentrations in the Unreacted Fly Ash and in the Fluid Phase at the End of the Experiments
 KLP fluida (mass %)KLP fly ashb (mass %)Zibulo fluida (mass %)Zibulo fly ashb (mass %)
Si1.4618.491.8616.88
Al1.8814.193.1712.52
Fe0.561.451.392.86
Ca0.354.290.584.10
Mg0.440.321.130.83
a

Percentages are calculated per unit mass of unreacted fly ash; values are based on ICP-MS measurements of the reacted fluid.

b

Based on XRF measurements. Values are not normalized to 100%.

3.3. Ca Oxalate Quantification with Thermal Gravimetry

The TGA analyses for the reacted samples (Figure 6) showed three distinct stages of mass loss that were consistent with the thermal decomposition of Ca oxalate. (40,41) The CaC2O4 contents estimated from the TGA measurements were in agreement with the XRD results, with a plateau being reached after 4 days of reaction for both types of CFA (Figure 7). The CaC2O4 contents after 16 days of reaction were found to be in the range of 14.7–16.4% for the KLP ash and 17.2–18.3% for Zibulo. Substituting these values into eq 4, we calculated that 1 tonne of reacted KLP fly ash would contain 27.6–30.8 kg of carbon, while for Zibulo ash the range was 32.3–34.3 kg. These values corresponded well with the theoretical carbon storage potential for reacted fly ash (SC in eq 5), which is 31.4 kg t–1 and 34 kg t–1 for KLP and Zibulo, respectively. These results suggest that at the end of the experiments, 88–98% of the Ca in the solid phases is present as Ca oxalate in the KLP samples, while the corresponding range for the Zibulo fly ash is 95–100%. Combining these values with the proportion of Ca remaining in the solid phase after the reaction (Section 3.2), the overall conversion efficiencies (ξ in eq 6) of Ca to Ca oxalate were calculated to be 81–90% for KLP and 82–86% for Zibulo.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Thermal gravimetric analysis of coal fly ash samples after 16 days of reaction in 0.1 M oxalic acid. Three steps were observed in the reacted samples: (1) dehydration of hydrated Ca oxalate to form anhydrous calcium oxalate (CaC2O4) at 120–350 °C; (2) decomposition of CaC2O4 to CaCO3 at 350–550 °C; and (3) decomposition of CaCO3 to CaO at 550–800 °C.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Anhydrous calcium oxalate (CaC2O4) content as a function of time based on thermal gravimetry measurements. Both the maximum (green) and minimum (orange) calcium oxalate contents (calculated using eqs 2 and 3, respectively) are shown. Shaded regions represent the range. Each point represents a separate experiment.

Based on eq 6, the effective carbon storage capacities (ECSC) for unreacted fly ash were estimated to be 23.1 and 21.1 kg t–1 for KLP and Zibulo ash, respectively. Compared to other carbon storage methods in fly ash that convert Ca to carbonate minerals, the ECSC values obtained using the oxalic acid method were significantly higher. For example, in a previous study, (26) a storage capacity of 10 kg carbon per tonne of fly ash was achieved at a higher temperature (40 °C versus 25 °C in our experiments) and with a fly ash sample possessing a higher proportion of CaO (16.4% versus 5.7–6% in our experiments). Our results demonstrate that using the oxalic acid method, up to 63 kg carbon per tonne of fly ash could be stored for samples with a similar level of CaO content.

3.4. Rate Modeling of Ca Release

We found that the dissolution rate model with 2 distinct rates (eq 11) fitted the experimental data well (Figure 8), suggesting that at least two phases dominate the release of Ca during the experiments. In both the KLP and Zibulo ashes, the model indicated that the more reactive phase released Ca about 40 times faster than the less reactive phase (Table 3). The rate constants for the KLP ash are slightly higher than those of the Zibulo ash, while the Zibulo ash has a greater proportion of the reactive phase (48.6%) than KLP (39.7%). These differences could stem from variations in particle size and Ca partitioning during the combustion process.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Remaining mass proportion of Ca-bearing phases in coal fly ash as a function of time for two different samples fitted by the dissolution model. Both the experimental data and optimized model fitting (described in Section 2.4) are shown in each figure. Error bars represent the variance (1σ) of the measurements.

Table 3. Fly Ash Dissolution Rates and Optimized Model Parameters
 J1 (mol m–2 s–1)J1 RSDJ2 (mol m–2 s–1)J2 RSDff RSDerrora
KLP1.52 × 10–44.4%3.51 × 10–63.8%0.3971.8%0.081
Zibulo1.00 × 10–410.5%2.55 × 10–66.8%0.4864.0%0.093
a

Calculated by the second-order norm function in MATLAB.

The two different rates probably reflect the initial rapid dissolution of portlandite under the low pH of our experiments, (50) coupled with the slower dissolution rate associated with the amorphous Ca-bearing phases comprising calcium aluminosilicate glasses. (46) If this is indeed the case, 51.4% of the Ca in Zibulo ash and 61.3% in KLP ash are associated with slow-dissolving amorphous material, and mass balance considerations dictate that CaO in the glass phases in both ash types are in the range of 2.9–3.6% of the total mass.

3.5. Evaluation of the Potential Applications

At present, 1 Gt of CFA is produced worldwide each year, (12) and CaO contents for CFA are typically in the range of 0.1–52%. (51) Assuming a similar level of efficiency to that found in our experiments, the effective carbon storage capacity for fly ash could vary in the range of 0.4–200 kg t–1. Taking a conservative value for CaO content of 9% (corresponding to an ECSC value of 35 kg t–1), the reaction between oxalic acid and fly ash can potentially store 35 Mt of carbon worldwide, which is equivalent to 128 Mt of CO2. Currently, carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies store only 40 Mt CO2 each year, (52,53) although the projected scale of CCUS projects needs to be approximately 2.6 Gt each year to reach climate goals. (54) This indicates that carbon storage in CFA using Ca oxalate could represent ∼5% of the global environmental target.
Our experiments suggest that other forms of industrial waste containing high Ca, Mg, and Fe contents could also be effective materials for storing carbon using the oxalate method. Possible materials include cement and concrete in building debris, slag from steel manufacturing, mining, and mineral processing wastes, and phosphogypsum generated during fertilizer production. Prior research has indicated that alkaline wastes have great potential as carbon storage materials. (19) However, CFA represents only 12.3% of the total amount. If our method were to demonstrate a similar level of efficiency for other kinds of alkaline waste, as much as 1.04 Gt year–1 of CO2 could be stored through oxalate mineralization.
Because CFA is utilized in the construction industry, ash containing Ca oxalate could provide a way to enhance carbon storage in infrastructure projects. The compressive strength and durability of cement blended with fly ash mineralized with CaCO3 are higher than that with fresh fly ash, (55) and this might also be the case for fly ash containing Ca oxalate. Additionally, Ca oxalate is relatively insoluble even under acidic conditions, which could help improve the long-term resistance of cement and concrete to weathering. (56) Moreover, toxic elements in fly ash are reported to coprecipitate with Ca carbonate, (57) and this might also be the case for fly ash containing Ca oxalate. However, further research is needed to explore these additional possible benefits.

4. Concluding Remarks

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Our study demonstrated the potential of the oxalic acid method for efficiently storing carbon in CFA. By converting a high percentage of calcium in fly ash into calcium oxalate at room temperature and pressure, we were able to achieve a storage capacity that would be equivalent to storing 128 Mt CO2 year–1 in fly ash through mineralization if applied on a global scale. However, we only explored the reaction under a very limited range of conditions, and further testing of the reaction could lead to even more efficient conversion of Ca and potential mineralization of additional cations, such as Fe and Mg. Additionally, our experiments suggest that other forms of industrial waste containing high Ca, Mg, and Fe contents could also be effective materials for storing carbon using the oxalate method.
Although our experiments reached a high level of Ca utilization within days, the eventual deployment of the method to store carbon will depend on several factors. First, the Ca content in fly ash can vary significantly depending on the coal source, so the method may not be viable for ash with extremely low Ca contents. Second, although Ca oxalate is insoluble at ambient temperature and pressure, its stability under field conditions is not well known, and assessing its environmental behavior is crucial. Third, the direct conversion of CO2 to oxalic acid is feasible but is currently uneconomical; (30) in the future, the cost of forming oxalic acid could be reduced significantly by catalytic pathways or bioengineering processes. (36,58)

Data Availability

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Data will be made available on request.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestengg.3c00063.

  • Electron micrographs of the two types of coal fly ash; mineralogical composition of the unreacted fly ash samples based on XRD measurements (PDF).

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Hao Wu - Institute of Earth Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, IsraelSchool of Energy Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, ChinaOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2746-5337
    • Sean Aruch - Institute of Earth Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel
    • Roni Grayevsky - Institute of Earth Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel
    • Yanbin Yao - School of Energy Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, ChinaOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3838-4305
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Dr. Nadya Teutsch is thanked for providing the coal ash samples. The Israel Science Foundation and the Council for Higher Education of Israel are thanked for generous funding. We also thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42125205) and the China Scholarship Council.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 58 other publications.

  1. 1
    Coal-Fired Power. (accessed May 9, 2023).
  2. 2
    Andrae, A. S. G. Hypotheses for Primary Energy Use, Electricity Use and CO2 Emissions of Global Computing and Its Shares of the Total between 2020 and 2030. WSEAS Trans. Power Syst. 2020, 15, 5059,  DOI: 10.37394/232016.2020.15.6
  3. 3
    International Energy Outlook 2021. (accessed May 9, 2023).
  4. 4
    Friedlingstein, P.; Jones, M. W.; O’Sullivan, M.; Andrew, R. M.; Bakker, D. C. E.; Hauck, J.; le Quéré, C.; Peters, G. P.; Peters, W.; Pongratz, J.; Sitch, S.; Canadell, J. G.; Ciais, P.; Jackson, R. B.; Alin, S. R.; Anthoni, P.; Bates, N. R.; Becker, M.; Bellouin, N.; Bopp, L.; Chau, T. T. T.; Chevallier, F.; Chini, L. P.; Cronin, M.; Currie, K. I.; Decharme, B.; Djeutchouang, L. M.; Dou, X.; Evans, W.; Feely, R. A.; Feng, L.; Gasser, T.; Gilfillan, D.; Gkritzalis, T.; Grassi, G.; Gregor, L.; Gruber, N.; Gürses, Ö.; Harris, I.; Houghton, R. A.; Hurtt, G. C.; Iida, Y.; Ilyina, T.; Luijkx, I. T.; Jain, A.; Jones, S. D.; Kato, E.; Kennedy, D.; Goldewijk, K. K.; Knauer, J.; Korsbakken, J. I.; Körtzinger, A.; Landschützer, P.; Lauvset, S. K.; Lefèvre, N.; Lienert, S.; Liu, J.; Marland, G.; McGuire, P. C.; Melton, J. R.; Munro, D. R.; Nabel, J. E. M. S.; Nakaoka, S. I.; Niwa, Y.; Ono, T.; Pierrot, D.; Poulter, B.; Rehder, G.; Resplandy, L.; Robertson, E.; Rödenbeck, C.; Rosan, T. M.; Schwinger, J.; Schwingshackl, C.; Séférian, R.; Sutton, A. J.; Sweeney, C.; Tanhua, T.; Tans, P. P.; Tian, H.; Tilbrook, B.; Tubiello, F.; van der Werf, G. R.; Vuichard, N.; Wada, C.; Wanninkhof, R.; Watson, A. J.; Willis, D.; Wiltshire, A. J.; Yuan, W.; Yue, C.; Yue, X.; Zaehle, S.; Zeng, J. Global Carbon Budget 2021. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2022, 14, 19172005,  DOI: 10.5194/ESSD-14-1917-2022
  5. 5
    Nathan, Y.; Dvorachek, M.; Pelly, I.; Mimran, U. Characterization of Coal Fly Ash from Israel. Fuel 1999, 78, 205213,  DOI: 10.1016/S0016-2361(98)00144-6
  6. 6
    van der Merwe, E. M.; Prinsloo, L. C.; Mathebula, C. L.; Swart, H. C.; Coetsee, E.; Doucet, F. J. Surface and Bulk Characterization of an Ultrafine South African Coal Fly Ash with Reference to Polymer Applications. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2014, 317, 7383,  DOI: 10.1016/J.APSUSC.2014.08.080
  7. 7
    Alterary, S. S.; Marei, N. H. Fly Ash Properties, Characterization, and Applications: A Review. J. King Saud. Univ. Sci. 2021, 33, 101536  DOI: 10.1016/J.JKSUS.2021.101536
  8. 8
    Vassilev, S. V.; Menendez, R.; Alvarez, D.; Diaz-Somoano, M.; Martinez-Tarazona, M. R. Phase-Mineral and Chemical Composition of Coal Fly Ashes as a Basis for Their Multicomponent Utilization. 1. Characterization of Feed Coals and Fly Ashes☆. Fuel 2003, 82, 17931811,  DOI: 10.1016/S0016-2361(03)00123-6
  9. 9
    Akinyemi, S. A.; Gitari, W. M.; Petrik, L. F.; Nyakuma, B. B.; Hower, J. C.; Ward, C. R.; Oliveira, M. L. S.; Silva, L. F. O. Environmental Evaluation and Nano-Mineralogical Study of Fresh and Unsaturated Weathered Coal Fly Ashes. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 663, 177188,  DOI: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.01.308
  10. 10
    Yao, Z. T.; Ji, X. S.; Sarker, P. K.; Tang, J. H.; Ge, L. Q.; Xia, M. S.; Xi, Y. Q. A Comprehensive Review on the Applications of Coal Fly Ash. Earth Sci. Rev. 2015, 141, 105121,  DOI: 10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2014.11.016
  11. 11
    Shahzad Baig, K.; Yousaf, M. Coal Fired Power Plants: Emission Problems and Controlling Techniques. J. Earth Sci. Clim. Change 2017, 8, 404,  DOI: 10.4172/2157-7617.1000404
  12. 12
    Rao, K. A.; Sreenivas, T. Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from Coal Fly Ash: A Review; CRC Press, 2019.
  13. 13
    Hemalatha, T.; Ramaswamy, A. A Review on Fly Ash Characteristics – Towards Promoting High Volume Utilization in Developing Sustainable Concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 546559,  DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.01.114
  14. 14
    Blissett, R. S.; Rowson, N. A. A Review of the Multi-Component Utilisation of Coal Fly Ash. Fuel 2012, 97, 123,  DOI: 10.1016/J.FUEL.2012.03.024
  15. 15
    Golewski, G. L. Improvement of Fracture Toughness of Green Concrete as a Result of Addition of Coal Fly Ash. Characterization of Fly Ash Microstructure. Mater. Charact. 2017, 134, 335346,  DOI: 10.1016/J.MATCHAR.2017.11.008
  16. 16
    Lackner, K. S. A Guide to CO2 Sequestration. Science 2003, 300, 16771678,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1079033
  17. 17
    Sanna, A.; Uibu, M.; Caramanna, G.; Kuusik, R.; Maroto-Valer, M. M. A Review of Mineral Carbonation Technologies to Sequester CO2. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 80498080,  DOI: 10.1039/C4CS00035H
  18. 18
    Bourzac, K.; Savage, N.; Owens, B.; Scott, A. R. Materials and Engineering: Rebuilding the World. Nature 2017, 545, S15S20,  DOI: 10.1038/545s15a
  19. 19
    Pan, S. Y.; Chen, Y. H.; Fan, L. S.; Kim, H.; Gao, X.; Ling, T. C.; Chiang, P. C.; Pei, S. L.; Gu, G. CO2 Mineralization and Utilization by Alkaline Solid Wastes for Potential Carbon Reduction. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 399405,  DOI: 10.1038/s41893-020-0486-9
  20. 20
    Tamilselvi Dananjayan, R. R.; Kandasamy, P.; Andimuthu, R. Direct Mineral Carbonation of Coal Fly Ash for CO2 Sequestration. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 41734182,  DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.05.145
  21. 21
    Yuan, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, T.; Wang, J.; Romero, C. E. Mineralization Characteristics of Coal Fly Ash in the Transition from Non-Supercritical CO2 to Supercritical CO2. Fuel 2022, 318, 123636  DOI: 10.1016/J.FUEL.2022.123636
  22. 22
    Meng, J.; Liao, W.; Zhang, G. Emerging CO2-Mineralization Technologies for Co-Utilization of Industrial Solid Waste and Carbon Resources in China. Minerals 2021, 11, 274,  DOI: 10.3390/MIN11030274
  23. 23
    Karalis, K.; Kollias, K.; Bartzas, G.; Mystrioti, C.; Xenidis, A. CO2 Sequestration Using Fly Ash from Lignite Power Plants. Mater. Proc. 2022, 5, 131,  DOI: 10.3390/MATERPROC2021005131
  24. 24
    Gadikota, G. Carbon Mineralization Pathways for Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization. Commun. Chem. 2021, 4, 23,  DOI: 10.1038/s42004-021-00461-x
  25. 25
    Ji, L.; Yu, H.; Wang, X.; Grigore, M.; French, D.; Gözükara, Y. M.; Yu, J.; Zeng, M. CO2 Sequestration by Direct Mineralisation Using Fly Ash from Chinese Shenfu Coal. Fuel Process. Technol. 2017, 156, 429437,  DOI: 10.1016/J.FUPROC.2016.10.004
  26. 26
    Ji, L.; Yu, H.; Zhang, R.; French, D.; Grigore, M.; Yu, B.; Wang, X.; Yu, J.; Zhao, S. Effects of Fly Ash Properties on Carbonation Efficiency in CO2 Mineralisation. Fuel Process. Technol. 2019, 188, 7988,  DOI: 10.1016/J.FUPROC.2019.01.015
  27. 27
    Yin, T.; Yin, S.; Srivastava, A.; Gadikota, G. Regenerable Solvents Mediate Accelerated Low Temperature CO2 Capture and Carbon Mineralization of Ash and Nano-Scale Calcium Carbonate Formation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106209  DOI: 10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2022.106209
  28. 28
    Ji, L.; Yu, H.; Yu, B.; Jiang, K.; Grigore, M.; Wang, X.; Zhao, S.; Li, K. Integrated Absorption–Mineralisation for Energy-Efficient CO2 Sequestration: Reaction Mechanism and Feasibility of Using Fly Ash as a Feedstock. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 352, 151162,  DOI: 10.1016/J.CEJ.2018.07.014
  29. 29
    Pastero, L.; Curetti, N.; Ortenzi, M. A.; Schiavoni, M.; Destefanis, E.; Pavese, A. CO2 Capture and Sequestration in Stable Ca-Oxalate, via Ca-Ascorbate Promoted Green Reaction. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 666, 12321244,  DOI: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.02.114
  30. 30
    Schuler, E.; Demetriou, M.; Shiju, N. R.; Gruter, G. J. M. Towards Sustainable Oxalic Acid from CO2 and Biomass. ChemSusChem 2021, 14, 36363664,  DOI: 10.1002/CSSC.202101272
  31. 31
    Costa, R. S.; Aranha, B. S. R.; Ghosh, A.; Lobo, A. O.; da Silva, E. T. S. G.; Alves, D. C. B.; Viana, B. C. Production of Oxalic Acid by Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 Using Silver-Carbon Material from Babassu Coconut Mesocarp. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 2020, 147, 109678  DOI: 10.1016/J.JPCS.2020.109678
  32. 32
    Yang, Y.; Gao, H.; Feng, J.; Zeng, S.; Liu, L.; Liu, L.; Ren, B.; Li, T.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, X.; Yang, Y.; Gao, H.; Feng, J.; Zeng, S.; Liu, L.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, X.; Ren, B.; Li, T. Aromatic Ester-Functionalized Ionic Liquid for Highly Efficient CO2 Electrochemical Reduction to Oxalic Acid. ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 49004905,  DOI: 10.1002/CSSC.202001194
  33. 33
    Rowley, M. C.; Estrada-Medina, H.; Tzec-Gamboa, M.; Rozin, A.; Cailleau, G.; Verrecchia, E. P.; Green, I. Moving Carbon between Spheres, the Potential Oxalate-Carbonate Pathway of Brosimum Alicastrum Sw; Moraceae. Plant Soil 2017, 412, 465479,  DOI: 10.1007/s11104-016-3135-3
  34. 34
    Gadd, G. M.; Bahri-Esfahani, J.; Li, Q.; Rhee, Y. J.; Wei, Z.; Fomina, M.; Liang, X. Oxalate Production by Fungi: Significance in Geomycology, Biodeterioration and Bioremediation. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2014, 28, 3655,  DOI: 10.1016/J.FBR.2014.05.001
  35. 35
    Curetti, N.; Pastero, L.; Bernasconi, D.; Cotellucci, A.; Corazzari, I.; Archetti, M.; Pavese, A. Thermal Stability of Calcium Oxalates from CO2 Sequestration for Storage Purposes: An In-Situ HT-XRPD and TGA Combined Study. Minerals 2022, 12, 53,  DOI: 10.3390/MIN12010053
  36. 36
    Grayevsky, R.; Reiss, A. G.; Emmanuel, S. Carbon Storage through Rapid Conversion of Forsterite into Solid Oxalate Phases. Energy Fuels 2023, 37, 509517,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.2c03245
  37. 37
    Lieberman, R. N.; Knop, Y.; Palmerola, N. M.; Muñoz, C.; Cohen, H.; Izquiredo, M.; Lorenzo, J. A.; Taboas, B.; Font, O.; Querol, X. Production of Environmentally Friendly Sand-like Products from Granitoid Waste Sludge and Coal Fly Ash for Civil Engineering. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117880  DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.117880
  38. 38
    Chancey, R. T.; Stutzman, P.; Juenger, M. C. G.; Fowler, D. W. Comprehensive Phase Characterization of Crystalline and Amorphous Phases of a Class F Fly Ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 2010, 40, 146156,  DOI: 10.1016/J.CEMCONRES.2009.08.029
  39. 39
    Li, L.; Liu, W.; Qin, Z.; Zhang, G.; Yue, H.; Liang, B.; Tang, S.; Luo, D. Research on Integrated CO2 Absorption-Mineralization and Regeneration of Absorbent Process. Energy 2021, 222, 120010  DOI: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2021.120010
  40. 40
    Price, D.; Dollimore, D.; Fatemi, N. S.; Whitehead, R. Mass Spectrometric Determination of Kinetic Parameters for Solid State Decomposition Reactions. Part 1. Method; Calcium Oxalate Decomposition. Thermochim. Acta 1980, 42, 323332,  DOI: 10.1016/0040-6031(80)85093-3
  41. 41
    Hourlier, D. Thermal Decomposition of Calcium Oxalate: Beyond Appearances. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2019, 136, 22212229,  DOI: 10.1007/s10973-018-7888-1
  42. 42
    Payá, J.; Monzó, J.; Borrachero, M. V.; Perris, E.; Amahjour, F. Thermogravimetric Methods for Determining Carbon Content in Fly Ashes. Cem. Concr. Res. 1998, 28, 675686,  DOI: 10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00030-1
  43. 43
    Chindaprasirt, P.; Rattanasak, U.; Taebuanhuad, S. Resistance to Acid and Sulfate Solutions of Microwave-Assisted High Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer. Mater. Struct. 2013, 46, 375381,  DOI: 10.1617/s11527-012-9907-1
  44. 44
    Kimball, B. E. Biogeochemical Cycling of Copper in Acid Mine Drainage. Doctoral dissertation; The Pennsylvania State University, 2009. (accessed 2022-10-31).
  45. 45
    Sendula, E.; Lamadrid, H. M.; Rimstidt, J. D.; Steele-MacInnis, M.; Sublett, D. M.; Aradi, L. E.; Szabó, C.; Caddick, M. J.; Zajacz, Z.; Bodnar, R. J. Synthetic Fluid Inclusions XXIV. In Situ Monitoring of the Carbonation of Olivine Under Conditions Relevant to Carbon Capture and Storage Using Synthetic Fluid Inclusion Micro-Reactors: Determination of Reaction Rates. Front. Clim. 2021, 3, 722447  DOI: 10.3389/fclim.2021.722447
  46. 46
    Aughenbaugh, K. L.; Chancey, R. T.; Stutzman, P.; Juenger, M. C.; Fowler, D. W. An Examination of the Reactivity of Fly Ash in Cementitious Pore Solutions. Mater. Struct. 2013, 46, 869880,  DOI: 10.1617/s11527-012-9939-6
  47. 47
    Snellings, R. Surface Chemistry of Calcium Aluminosilicate Glasses. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2015, 98, 303314,  DOI: 10.1111/JACE.13263
  48. 48
    Heasman, I.; Watt, J. Particulate Pollution Case Studies Which Illustrate Uses of Individual Particle Analysis by Scanning Electron Microscopy. Environ. Geochem. Health 1989, 11, 157162,  DOI: 10.1007/BF01758666
  49. 49
    Conti, C.; Brambilla, L.; Colombo, C.; Dellasega, D.; Gatta, G. D.; Realini, M.; Zerbi, G. Stability and Transformation Mechanism of Weddellite Nanocrystals Studied by X-Ray Diffraction and Infrared Spectroscopy. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2010, 12, 1456014566,  DOI: 10.1039/C0CP00624F
  50. 50
    Luo, Q.; Chen, G.; Sun, Y.; Ye, Y.; Qiao, X.; Yu, J. Dissolution Kinetics of Aluminum, Calcium, and Iron from Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion Fly Ash with Hydrochloric Acid. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 1818418191,  DOI: 10.1021/ie4026902
  51. 51
    Bhatt, A.; Priyadarshini, S.; Acharath Mohanakrishnan, A.; Abri, A.; Sattler, M.; Techapaphawit, S. Physical, Chemical, and Geotechnical Properties of Coal Fly Ash: A Global Review. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2019, 11, e00263  DOI: 10.1016/J.CSCM.2019.E00263
  52. 52
    About CCUS. (accessed May 9, 2023)
  53. 53
    Zhang, Y.; Jackson, C.; Krevor, S. An Estimate of the Amount of Geological CO2 Storage over the Period of 1996–2020. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2022, 9, 693698,  DOI: 10.1021/ACS.ESTLETT.2C00296
  54. 54
    The Role of CO2 Storage. (accessed May 9, 2023).
  55. 55
    Pan, S. Y.; Hung, C. H.; Chan, Y. W.; Kim, H.; Li, P.; Chiang, P. C. Integrated CO2 Fixation, Waste Stabilization, and Product Utilization via High-Gravity Carbonation Process Exemplified by Circular Fluidized Bed Fly Ash. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 30453052,  DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b00014
  56. 56
    Goss, S. L.; Lemons, K. A.; Kerstetter, J. E.; Bogner, R. H. Determination of Calcium Salt Solubility with Changes in PH and PCO2, Simulating Varying Gastrointestinal Environments. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2007, 59, 14851492,  DOI: 10.1211/JPP.59.11.0004
  57. 57
    Hunter, H. A.; Ling, F. T.; Peters, C. A. Coprecipitation of Heavy Metals in Calcium Carbonate from Coal Fly Ash Leachate. ACS EST Water 2021, 1, 339345,  DOI: 10.1021/ACSESTWATER.0C00109
  58. 58
    Murcia Valderrama, M. A.; van Putten, R. J.; Gruter, G. J. M. The Potential of Oxalic – and Glycolic Acid Based Polyesters (Review). Towards CO2 as a Feedstock (Carbon Capture and Utilization – CCU). Eur. Polym. J. 2019, 119, 445468,  DOI: 10.1016/J.EURPOLYMJ.2019.07.036

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

ACS ES&T Engineering

Cite this: ACS EST Engg. 2023, 3, 9, 1227–1235
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.3c00063
Published May 23, 2023

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

1950

Altmetric

-

Citations

-
Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Thermal gravimetric analysis of unreacted coal fly ash samples. Three steps were observed in the unreacted samples: (1) loss of water; (2) decomposition of Ca-bearing phases, such as calcite and portlandite; (3) reaction between unoxidized carbon and iron oxide.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Electron micrographs of the two types of coal fly ash: (a) unreacted KLP fly ash; (b) unreacted Zibulo fly ash; (c) KLP fly ash after 4 days of exposure to 0.1 M oxalic acid; (d) Zibulo fly ash, again after 4 days of reaction in 0.1 M oxalic acid. After the reaction, the presence of euhedral crystals─most likely Ca oxalate─are observed. Additional SEM images are provided in Supplementary Figure S1.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. X-ray diffraction patterns of the two types of coal fly ash: (a) unreacted KLP fly ash; (b) unreacted Zibulo fly ash; (c) KLP fly ash after 16 days of exposure to 0.1 M oxalic acid; (d) Zibulo fly ash, again after 16 days of reaction in 0.1 M oxalic acid. Note that in this figure, only the major mineral phases are indicated.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Proportion of whewellite (CaC2O4·H2O) and weddellite (CaC2O4·(2 + x)H2O, x < 0.5) during the reaction between coal fly ash samples and 0.1 M oxalic acid. Values are based on XRD measurements. Each point represents a separate experiment.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Comparison of the chemical compositions for whole samples (total) and crystalline components only in the unreacted fly ash. Total values are based on XRF measurements (Table 1), while the crystalline component is estimated from the XRD results (Supplementary Table S1). The difference between the total and crystalline values are attributed to the presence of amorphous phases. Error bars represent the variance (1σ) of measurements.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Thermal gravimetric analysis of coal fly ash samples after 16 days of reaction in 0.1 M oxalic acid. Three steps were observed in the reacted samples: (1) dehydration of hydrated Ca oxalate to form anhydrous calcium oxalate (CaC2O4) at 120–350 °C; (2) decomposition of CaC2O4 to CaCO3 at 350–550 °C; and (3) decomposition of CaCO3 to CaO at 550–800 °C.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Anhydrous calcium oxalate (CaC2O4) content as a function of time based on thermal gravimetry measurements. Both the maximum (green) and minimum (orange) calcium oxalate contents (calculated using eqs 2 and 3, respectively) are shown. Shaded regions represent the range. Each point represents a separate experiment.

    Figure 8

    Figure 8. Remaining mass proportion of Ca-bearing phases in coal fly ash as a function of time for two different samples fitted by the dissolution model. Both the experimental data and optimized model fitting (described in Section 2.4) are shown in each figure. Error bars represent the variance (1σ) of the measurements.

  • References


    This article references 58 other publications.

    1. 1
      Coal-Fired Power. (accessed May 9, 2023).
    2. 2
      Andrae, A. S. G. Hypotheses for Primary Energy Use, Electricity Use and CO2 Emissions of Global Computing and Its Shares of the Total between 2020 and 2030. WSEAS Trans. Power Syst. 2020, 15, 5059,  DOI: 10.37394/232016.2020.15.6
    3. 3
      International Energy Outlook 2021. (accessed May 9, 2023).
    4. 4
      Friedlingstein, P.; Jones, M. W.; O’Sullivan, M.; Andrew, R. M.; Bakker, D. C. E.; Hauck, J.; le Quéré, C.; Peters, G. P.; Peters, W.; Pongratz, J.; Sitch, S.; Canadell, J. G.; Ciais, P.; Jackson, R. B.; Alin, S. R.; Anthoni, P.; Bates, N. R.; Becker, M.; Bellouin, N.; Bopp, L.; Chau, T. T. T.; Chevallier, F.; Chini, L. P.; Cronin, M.; Currie, K. I.; Decharme, B.; Djeutchouang, L. M.; Dou, X.; Evans, W.; Feely, R. A.; Feng, L.; Gasser, T.; Gilfillan, D.; Gkritzalis, T.; Grassi, G.; Gregor, L.; Gruber, N.; Gürses, Ö.; Harris, I.; Houghton, R. A.; Hurtt, G. C.; Iida, Y.; Ilyina, T.; Luijkx, I. T.; Jain, A.; Jones, S. D.; Kato, E.; Kennedy, D.; Goldewijk, K. K.; Knauer, J.; Korsbakken, J. I.; Körtzinger, A.; Landschützer, P.; Lauvset, S. K.; Lefèvre, N.; Lienert, S.; Liu, J.; Marland, G.; McGuire, P. C.; Melton, J. R.; Munro, D. R.; Nabel, J. E. M. S.; Nakaoka, S. I.; Niwa, Y.; Ono, T.; Pierrot, D.; Poulter, B.; Rehder, G.; Resplandy, L.; Robertson, E.; Rödenbeck, C.; Rosan, T. M.; Schwinger, J.; Schwingshackl, C.; Séférian, R.; Sutton, A. J.; Sweeney, C.; Tanhua, T.; Tans, P. P.; Tian, H.; Tilbrook, B.; Tubiello, F.; van der Werf, G. R.; Vuichard, N.; Wada, C.; Wanninkhof, R.; Watson, A. J.; Willis, D.; Wiltshire, A. J.; Yuan, W.; Yue, C.; Yue, X.; Zaehle, S.; Zeng, J. Global Carbon Budget 2021. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2022, 14, 19172005,  DOI: 10.5194/ESSD-14-1917-2022
    5. 5
      Nathan, Y.; Dvorachek, M.; Pelly, I.; Mimran, U. Characterization of Coal Fly Ash from Israel. Fuel 1999, 78, 205213,  DOI: 10.1016/S0016-2361(98)00144-6
    6. 6
      van der Merwe, E. M.; Prinsloo, L. C.; Mathebula, C. L.; Swart, H. C.; Coetsee, E.; Doucet, F. J. Surface and Bulk Characterization of an Ultrafine South African Coal Fly Ash with Reference to Polymer Applications. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2014, 317, 7383,  DOI: 10.1016/J.APSUSC.2014.08.080
    7. 7
      Alterary, S. S.; Marei, N. H. Fly Ash Properties, Characterization, and Applications: A Review. J. King Saud. Univ. Sci. 2021, 33, 101536  DOI: 10.1016/J.JKSUS.2021.101536
    8. 8
      Vassilev, S. V.; Menendez, R.; Alvarez, D.; Diaz-Somoano, M.; Martinez-Tarazona, M. R. Phase-Mineral and Chemical Composition of Coal Fly Ashes as a Basis for Their Multicomponent Utilization. 1. Characterization of Feed Coals and Fly Ashes☆. Fuel 2003, 82, 17931811,  DOI: 10.1016/S0016-2361(03)00123-6
    9. 9
      Akinyemi, S. A.; Gitari, W. M.; Petrik, L. F.; Nyakuma, B. B.; Hower, J. C.; Ward, C. R.; Oliveira, M. L. S.; Silva, L. F. O. Environmental Evaluation and Nano-Mineralogical Study of Fresh and Unsaturated Weathered Coal Fly Ashes. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 663, 177188,  DOI: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.01.308
    10. 10
      Yao, Z. T.; Ji, X. S.; Sarker, P. K.; Tang, J. H.; Ge, L. Q.; Xia, M. S.; Xi, Y. Q. A Comprehensive Review on the Applications of Coal Fly Ash. Earth Sci. Rev. 2015, 141, 105121,  DOI: 10.1016/J.EARSCIREV.2014.11.016
    11. 11
      Shahzad Baig, K.; Yousaf, M. Coal Fired Power Plants: Emission Problems and Controlling Techniques. J. Earth Sci. Clim. Change 2017, 8, 404,  DOI: 10.4172/2157-7617.1000404
    12. 12
      Rao, K. A.; Sreenivas, T. Recovery of Rare Earth Elements from Coal Fly Ash: A Review; CRC Press, 2019.
    13. 13
      Hemalatha, T.; Ramaswamy, A. A Review on Fly Ash Characteristics – Towards Promoting High Volume Utilization in Developing Sustainable Concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 546559,  DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.01.114
    14. 14
      Blissett, R. S.; Rowson, N. A. A Review of the Multi-Component Utilisation of Coal Fly Ash. Fuel 2012, 97, 123,  DOI: 10.1016/J.FUEL.2012.03.024
    15. 15
      Golewski, G. L. Improvement of Fracture Toughness of Green Concrete as a Result of Addition of Coal Fly Ash. Characterization of Fly Ash Microstructure. Mater. Charact. 2017, 134, 335346,  DOI: 10.1016/J.MATCHAR.2017.11.008
    16. 16
      Lackner, K. S. A Guide to CO2 Sequestration. Science 2003, 300, 16771678,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1079033
    17. 17
      Sanna, A.; Uibu, M.; Caramanna, G.; Kuusik, R.; Maroto-Valer, M. M. A Review of Mineral Carbonation Technologies to Sequester CO2. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 80498080,  DOI: 10.1039/C4CS00035H
    18. 18
      Bourzac, K.; Savage, N.; Owens, B.; Scott, A. R. Materials and Engineering: Rebuilding the World. Nature 2017, 545, S15S20,  DOI: 10.1038/545s15a
    19. 19
      Pan, S. Y.; Chen, Y. H.; Fan, L. S.; Kim, H.; Gao, X.; Ling, T. C.; Chiang, P. C.; Pei, S. L.; Gu, G. CO2 Mineralization and Utilization by Alkaline Solid Wastes for Potential Carbon Reduction. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 399405,  DOI: 10.1038/s41893-020-0486-9
    20. 20
      Tamilselvi Dananjayan, R. R.; Kandasamy, P.; Andimuthu, R. Direct Mineral Carbonation of Coal Fly Ash for CO2 Sequestration. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 41734182,  DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.05.145
    21. 21
      Yuan, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, T.; Wang, J.; Romero, C. E. Mineralization Characteristics of Coal Fly Ash in the Transition from Non-Supercritical CO2 to Supercritical CO2. Fuel 2022, 318, 123636  DOI: 10.1016/J.FUEL.2022.123636
    22. 22
      Meng, J.; Liao, W.; Zhang, G. Emerging CO2-Mineralization Technologies for Co-Utilization of Industrial Solid Waste and Carbon Resources in China. Minerals 2021, 11, 274,  DOI: 10.3390/MIN11030274
    23. 23
      Karalis, K.; Kollias, K.; Bartzas, G.; Mystrioti, C.; Xenidis, A. CO2 Sequestration Using Fly Ash from Lignite Power Plants. Mater. Proc. 2022, 5, 131,  DOI: 10.3390/MATERPROC2021005131
    24. 24
      Gadikota, G. Carbon Mineralization Pathways for Carbon Capture, Storage and Utilization. Commun. Chem. 2021, 4, 23,  DOI: 10.1038/s42004-021-00461-x
    25. 25
      Ji, L.; Yu, H.; Wang, X.; Grigore, M.; French, D.; Gözükara, Y. M.; Yu, J.; Zeng, M. CO2 Sequestration by Direct Mineralisation Using Fly Ash from Chinese Shenfu Coal. Fuel Process. Technol. 2017, 156, 429437,  DOI: 10.1016/J.FUPROC.2016.10.004
    26. 26
      Ji, L.; Yu, H.; Zhang, R.; French, D.; Grigore, M.; Yu, B.; Wang, X.; Yu, J.; Zhao, S. Effects of Fly Ash Properties on Carbonation Efficiency in CO2 Mineralisation. Fuel Process. Technol. 2019, 188, 7988,  DOI: 10.1016/J.FUPROC.2019.01.015
    27. 27
      Yin, T.; Yin, S.; Srivastava, A.; Gadikota, G. Regenerable Solvents Mediate Accelerated Low Temperature CO2 Capture and Carbon Mineralization of Ash and Nano-Scale Calcium Carbonate Formation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106209  DOI: 10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2022.106209
    28. 28
      Ji, L.; Yu, H.; Yu, B.; Jiang, K.; Grigore, M.; Wang, X.; Zhao, S.; Li, K. Integrated Absorption–Mineralisation for Energy-Efficient CO2 Sequestration: Reaction Mechanism and Feasibility of Using Fly Ash as a Feedstock. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 352, 151162,  DOI: 10.1016/J.CEJ.2018.07.014
    29. 29
      Pastero, L.; Curetti, N.; Ortenzi, M. A.; Schiavoni, M.; Destefanis, E.; Pavese, A. CO2 Capture and Sequestration in Stable Ca-Oxalate, via Ca-Ascorbate Promoted Green Reaction. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 666, 12321244,  DOI: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.02.114
    30. 30
      Schuler, E.; Demetriou, M.; Shiju, N. R.; Gruter, G. J. M. Towards Sustainable Oxalic Acid from CO2 and Biomass. ChemSusChem 2021, 14, 36363664,  DOI: 10.1002/CSSC.202101272
    31. 31
      Costa, R. S.; Aranha, B. S. R.; Ghosh, A.; Lobo, A. O.; da Silva, E. T. S. G.; Alves, D. C. B.; Viana, B. C. Production of Oxalic Acid by Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 Using Silver-Carbon Material from Babassu Coconut Mesocarp. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 2020, 147, 109678  DOI: 10.1016/J.JPCS.2020.109678
    32. 32
      Yang, Y.; Gao, H.; Feng, J.; Zeng, S.; Liu, L.; Liu, L.; Ren, B.; Li, T.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, X.; Yang, Y.; Gao, H.; Feng, J.; Zeng, S.; Liu, L.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, X.; Ren, B.; Li, T. Aromatic Ester-Functionalized Ionic Liquid for Highly Efficient CO2 Electrochemical Reduction to Oxalic Acid. ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 49004905,  DOI: 10.1002/CSSC.202001194
    33. 33
      Rowley, M. C.; Estrada-Medina, H.; Tzec-Gamboa, M.; Rozin, A.; Cailleau, G.; Verrecchia, E. P.; Green, I. Moving Carbon between Spheres, the Potential Oxalate-Carbonate Pathway of Brosimum Alicastrum Sw; Moraceae. Plant Soil 2017, 412, 465479,  DOI: 10.1007/s11104-016-3135-3
    34. 34
      Gadd, G. M.; Bahri-Esfahani, J.; Li, Q.; Rhee, Y. J.; Wei, Z.; Fomina, M.; Liang, X. Oxalate Production by Fungi: Significance in Geomycology, Biodeterioration and Bioremediation. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2014, 28, 3655,  DOI: 10.1016/J.FBR.2014.05.001
    35. 35
      Curetti, N.; Pastero, L.; Bernasconi, D.; Cotellucci, A.; Corazzari, I.; Archetti, M.; Pavese, A. Thermal Stability of Calcium Oxalates from CO2 Sequestration for Storage Purposes: An In-Situ HT-XRPD and TGA Combined Study. Minerals 2022, 12, 53,  DOI: 10.3390/MIN12010053
    36. 36
      Grayevsky, R.; Reiss, A. G.; Emmanuel, S. Carbon Storage through Rapid Conversion of Forsterite into Solid Oxalate Phases. Energy Fuels 2023, 37, 509517,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.2c03245
    37. 37
      Lieberman, R. N.; Knop, Y.; Palmerola, N. M.; Muñoz, C.; Cohen, H.; Izquiredo, M.; Lorenzo, J. A.; Taboas, B.; Font, O.; Querol, X. Production of Environmentally Friendly Sand-like Products from Granitoid Waste Sludge and Coal Fly Ash for Civil Engineering. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117880  DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.117880
    38. 38
      Chancey, R. T.; Stutzman, P.; Juenger, M. C. G.; Fowler, D. W. Comprehensive Phase Characterization of Crystalline and Amorphous Phases of a Class F Fly Ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 2010, 40, 146156,  DOI: 10.1016/J.CEMCONRES.2009.08.029
    39. 39
      Li, L.; Liu, W.; Qin, Z.; Zhang, G.; Yue, H.; Liang, B.; Tang, S.; Luo, D. Research on Integrated CO2 Absorption-Mineralization and Regeneration of Absorbent Process. Energy 2021, 222, 120010  DOI: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2021.120010
    40. 40
      Price, D.; Dollimore, D.; Fatemi, N. S.; Whitehead, R. Mass Spectrometric Determination of Kinetic Parameters for Solid State Decomposition Reactions. Part 1. Method; Calcium Oxalate Decomposition. Thermochim. Acta 1980, 42, 323332,  DOI: 10.1016/0040-6031(80)85093-3
    41. 41
      Hourlier, D. Thermal Decomposition of Calcium Oxalate: Beyond Appearances. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2019, 136, 22212229,  DOI: 10.1007/s10973-018-7888-1
    42. 42
      Payá, J.; Monzó, J.; Borrachero, M. V.; Perris, E.; Amahjour, F. Thermogravimetric Methods for Determining Carbon Content in Fly Ashes. Cem. Concr. Res. 1998, 28, 675686,  DOI: 10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00030-1
    43. 43
      Chindaprasirt, P.; Rattanasak, U.; Taebuanhuad, S. Resistance to Acid and Sulfate Solutions of Microwave-Assisted High Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer. Mater. Struct. 2013, 46, 375381,  DOI: 10.1617/s11527-012-9907-1
    44. 44
      Kimball, B. E. Biogeochemical Cycling of Copper in Acid Mine Drainage. Doctoral dissertation; The Pennsylvania State University, 2009. (accessed 2022-10-31).
    45. 45
      Sendula, E.; Lamadrid, H. M.; Rimstidt, J. D.; Steele-MacInnis, M.; Sublett, D. M.; Aradi, L. E.; Szabó, C.; Caddick, M. J.; Zajacz, Z.; Bodnar, R. J. Synthetic Fluid Inclusions XXIV. In Situ Monitoring of the Carbonation of Olivine Under Conditions Relevant to Carbon Capture and Storage Using Synthetic Fluid Inclusion Micro-Reactors: Determination of Reaction Rates. Front. Clim. 2021, 3, 722447  DOI: 10.3389/fclim.2021.722447
    46. 46
      Aughenbaugh, K. L.; Chancey, R. T.; Stutzman, P.; Juenger, M. C.; Fowler, D. W. An Examination of the Reactivity of Fly Ash in Cementitious Pore Solutions. Mater. Struct. 2013, 46, 869880,  DOI: 10.1617/s11527-012-9939-6
    47. 47
      Snellings, R. Surface Chemistry of Calcium Aluminosilicate Glasses. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2015, 98, 303314,  DOI: 10.1111/JACE.13263
    48. 48
      Heasman, I.; Watt, J. Particulate Pollution Case Studies Which Illustrate Uses of Individual Particle Analysis by Scanning Electron Microscopy. Environ. Geochem. Health 1989, 11, 157162,  DOI: 10.1007/BF01758666
    49. 49
      Conti, C.; Brambilla, L.; Colombo, C.; Dellasega, D.; Gatta, G. D.; Realini, M.; Zerbi, G. Stability and Transformation Mechanism of Weddellite Nanocrystals Studied by X-Ray Diffraction and Infrared Spectroscopy. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2010, 12, 1456014566,  DOI: 10.1039/C0CP00624F
    50. 50
      Luo, Q.; Chen, G.; Sun, Y.; Ye, Y.; Qiao, X.; Yu, J. Dissolution Kinetics of Aluminum, Calcium, and Iron from Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion Fly Ash with Hydrochloric Acid. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 1818418191,  DOI: 10.1021/ie4026902
    51. 51
      Bhatt, A.; Priyadarshini, S.; Acharath Mohanakrishnan, A.; Abri, A.; Sattler, M.; Techapaphawit, S. Physical, Chemical, and Geotechnical Properties of Coal Fly Ash: A Global Review. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2019, 11, e00263  DOI: 10.1016/J.CSCM.2019.E00263
    52. 52
      About CCUS. (accessed May 9, 2023)
    53. 53
      Zhang, Y.; Jackson, C.; Krevor, S. An Estimate of the Amount of Geological CO2 Storage over the Period of 1996–2020. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2022, 9, 693698,  DOI: 10.1021/ACS.ESTLETT.2C00296
    54. 54
      The Role of CO2 Storage. (accessed May 9, 2023).
    55. 55
      Pan, S. Y.; Hung, C. H.; Chan, Y. W.; Kim, H.; Li, P.; Chiang, P. C. Integrated CO2 Fixation, Waste Stabilization, and Product Utilization via High-Gravity Carbonation Process Exemplified by Circular Fluidized Bed Fly Ash. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 30453052,  DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b00014
    56. 56
      Goss, S. L.; Lemons, K. A.; Kerstetter, J. E.; Bogner, R. H. Determination of Calcium Salt Solubility with Changes in PH and PCO2, Simulating Varying Gastrointestinal Environments. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2007, 59, 14851492,  DOI: 10.1211/JPP.59.11.0004
    57. 57
      Hunter, H. A.; Ling, F. T.; Peters, C. A. Coprecipitation of Heavy Metals in Calcium Carbonate from Coal Fly Ash Leachate. ACS EST Water 2021, 1, 339345,  DOI: 10.1021/ACSESTWATER.0C00109
    58. 58
      Murcia Valderrama, M. A.; van Putten, R. J.; Gruter, G. J. M. The Potential of Oxalic – and Glycolic Acid Based Polyesters (Review). Towards CO2 as a Feedstock (Carbon Capture and Utilization – CCU). Eur. Polym. J. 2019, 119, 445468,  DOI: 10.1016/J.EURPOLYMJ.2019.07.036
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestengg.3c00063.

    • Electron micrographs of the two types of coal fly ash; mineralogical composition of the unreacted fly ash samples based on XRD measurements (PDF).


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.