Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Waste Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman
Construction and demolition waste: Comparison of standard up-flow column and down-flow lysimeter leaching tests Stefania Butera a,⇑, Jiri Hyks b, Thomas H. Christensen a, Thomas F. Astrup a a b
Technical University of Denmark, Department of Environmental Engineering, Building 115, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark Danish Waste Solutions ApS, Agern Allé 3, Hørsholm, Denmark
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 10 December 2014 Accepted 28 April 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: C&DW Standard-column Lysimeter Particle size pH static Geochemical modelling
a b s t r a c t Five samples of construction and demolition waste (C&DW) were investigated in order to quantify leaching of inorganic elements under percolation conditions according to two different experimental setups: standardised up-flow saturated columns ( 1 indicate overestimation by standard columns, values < 1 indicate underestimation). Values are highlighted in bold to indicate significant differences between initial concentration estimated through standard-column test and through lysimeter (greater than factor of 2). Data are emphasised in italics to indicate that results from one of the tests were below LOD, and that the comparison should therefore be regarded in a qualitative way. For some elements/C&DW samples, the measured concentrations were too low (below LOD or LOQ) to draw reliable conclusions about the relative performances of the two tests, and were therefore excluded (–).
Aluminium Antimony Arsenic Barium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Anionic chromium Cobalt Copper DOC Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Molybdenum Nickel Phosphorous Potassium S as sulphate Selenium Silicon Sodium Strontium Vanadium Zinc
C&DW1
C&DW2
C&DW3
C&DW4
C&DW5a
C&DW5b
0.8 – 0.8 0.8 5.9 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.8 2.2 1.0 5.3 1.3 1.1 8.8 1.2 0.9 1.4 1.8 0.9 5.6 0.3 1.6 1.0 1.6 0.1
0.4 3.5 0.1 2.2 8.0 1.3 1.4 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.6 3.1 0.9 3.1 1.4 – 15 0.7 0.6 1.2 1.5 0.5 5.0 0.2 1.4 2.4 1.0 0.3
3.1 5.1 5.3 1.9 – 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.1 2.2 2.5 0.6 8.8 1.3 0.1 0.6 1.6 1.4 0.2 1.6 1.3 124 0.6 1.3 1.5 0.5 –
5.8 4.9 1.5 1.5 1.9 0.9 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.0 2.5 2.0 0.6 15 0.9 0.02 0.2 1.7 0.9 0.3 1.6 1.2 35 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.2 –
0.8 – 0.1 1.2 2.0 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.5 4.2 0.8 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.6 0.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.4 0.1
1.2 4.0 0.3 0.8 – 1.2 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.2 3.0 1.4 6.4 0.9 2.6 14 1.9 1.3 1.1 1.5 2.2 3.1 2.9 1.3 0.8 1.0 0.4
Table 2 Mineral phases identified as relevant for controlling the release of the main elements (that is, the mineral phases closest to equilibrium and with saturation indices between 1 and 1) for the five C&DW samples, as well as mineral phases found in existing literature for similar materials. Phases are reported in round brackets when they were relevant only for a limited number of eluate samples, or only in specific C&DW samples.
Al
Ca
Engelsen et al. (2009, 2010)
van der Sloot (2000, 2002)
This study
C3AH6 Ettringite C2ASH8 Portlandite Jennite Ettringite Calcite
–
AFm phasesGibbsite C6AC0 3H32 [tricarboaluminate]
GypsumPortlandite
AFm phases C6AC0 3H32 [tricarboaluminate] (CSH) (Portlandite) (Anhydrite/gypsum) (Ba/Ca–SO4 solid solutions)
Cr
CrO2 4 substitution in ettringite
Ba(S,Cr)SO4
Ba–CrO4/SO4 solid solutions
Cu
Tenorite [CuO] Cu(OH)2
–
Cu[OH]2 Tenorite
Fe
C4FC0 0.5H11.5 C2FSH8
–
AFm phases (Fe[OH]3am/ferrihydrite)
Mg
Brucite [Mg(OH)2] Magnesite [MgCO3] CO3-hydrotalcite
Magnesite [MgCO3] Brucite[Mg(OH)2]
Brucite [Mg(OH)2] (CO3/OH-hydrotalcite) (Magnesite [MgCO3])
Mo Ni S
MoO2 4 substitution in ettringite Ni(OH)2 Ettringite
CaMoO4 Ni(OH)2 Anhydrite Ettringite
– Ni(OH)2 (Anhydrite) Ba/Ca–CrO4/SO4 solid solutions
Si
Jennite Tobermorite I C2ASH8
Ba V Zn
– – –
AFm phases (CSH) (Silica) (ZnSiO3) Ba/Sr–CrO4/SO4 solid solutions CaVO4 at pH > 9 ZinciteWillemite
Ba/Ca/Sr–CrO4/SO4 solid solutions – ZnSiO3
Please cite this article in press as: Butera, S., et al. Construction and demolition waste: Comparison of standard up-flow column and down-flow lysimeter leaching tests. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.04.032
S. Butera et al. / Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
up-flow column test, might affect the mineralogy in contact with water, and thereby the leaching, by exposing fresh surfaces containing phases typical of recent concrete (for example, portlandite and hydrogarnet). On the other hand, other factors, such as the differences in pH itself or the degree of equilibrium might be responsible for the observed differences in SI. 3.7. Critical constituents with respect to limit values Limit values related to cumulative release at L/S 10 lkg1TS were consistently exceeded only for selenium (both for the EU Landfill acceptance criteria and the Dutch SQD related to unrestricted use). In one case (the up-flow column with CDW4) even the non-hazardous landfill acceptance criteria were exceeded. Chromium and SO4, and to a lesser extent Cu and Pb, exceeded either of their respective limit values in one or two samples. Although Sb seemingly exceeded the SQD limits, it should be noted that the cumulative release was calculated from measurements which were often below LOD (by using half of the LOD itself). Nevertheless, in all cases the materials could still be used according to Dutch legislation, as they always complied with limits for restricted utilisation (that is, with established insulation and monitoring measures). With respect to the initial leachate concentrations from the percolation tests (which are only regulated by the EU Landfill Directive), the critical elements were chromium (with initial concentrations exceeding limit values for inert landfills by up to eight times in the up-flow columns and up to four times in the lysimeters) and chloride (with initial concentrations up to 70% and 10% higher than the limit values in the up-flow columns and lysimeters, respectively). Additionally, Se, Mo and SO4 exceeded the limits only with initial concentrations estimated from the up-flow columns (for details regarding the comparison with limit values, see Table G.4 in Supplementary Data). Interestingly, most of the constituents identified by existing literature as ‘‘of concern’’ in C&DW (Cr, SO4, Cl, Wahlström et al., 2014; van der Sloot, 2000) were estimated by both percolation tests with remarkably high levels of agreement, especially considering the heterogeneity of C&DW materials. 4. Conclusions The leaching behaviour of five C&DW samples was tested using two different percolation leaching tests, and a pH-static test. Results from the percolation tests showed relatively good agreement in terms of cumulative releases at L/S 10 lkg1TS between standard up-flow saturated columns and unsaturated, intermittent down-flow lysimeters with non-crushed material. In general, differences were within a factor of 2; however, for a range of elements, significant differences were observed in terms of cumulative release at L/S 10 lkg1TS: P, Ba, Mg and Zn (lower releases in up-flow columns compared to lysimeters), and Pb (higher releases in up-flow columns compared to lysimeters). More differences between the two tests were associated with the early leaching below L/S 5 lkg1TS: Al, As, Ba, Cd, Cu, DOC, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Sb, Se, Si and Zn. Differences in pH were observed between the two percolation tests, suggesting that the particle size reduction applied to materials in standard up-flow columns could lead to higher leachate pH via the exposure of new, non-carbonated particle surfaces. Furthermore, non-equilibrium conditions in the lysimeters, owing to the larger particle size, preferential flows and absence of a pre-equilibration phase, might also be responsible for the observed differences. Calculated mineral saturation indices indicated that leaching could be controlled by different phases depending on sample and percolation test type: AFm, portlandite, solid solutions of Ba/Ca/Sr sulphate and
11
chromate, gypsum, amorphous silica. Minerals such as portlandite were modelled as more likely in up-flow columns, while phases such as amorphous silica were closer to equilibrium in the lysimeters. Additionally, differences among the samples were found, which could be attributed to differences in material ageing and/or presence of masonry in the C&DW samples. In comparison with available leaching limit values, the evaluated C&DW samples were found to be in compliance with restricted applications according to Dutch legislation, and comparable with waste accepted at landfills for inert waste according to the EU Landfill Directive, with the exception of Cr, Se, Sb, and SO4 leaching, which was in some cases above the EU acceptance criteria for landfills receiving inert waste. While standard up-flow columns offer the benefits of comparability and standardised conditions, the results of comparison between columns and lysimeters suggest that columns may lead to different releases compared to those of the lysimeters. In cases when leaching data are used for environmental and/or risk assessments, lysimeter studies may help translating the results of standardised percolation test such as CEN TS14405 to intended use conditions, keeping in mind that significant differences still exist between real utilisation conditions and lysimeters. Modelling may also be useful in order to interpret data from standardised percolation test in a way that reflects the intended use conditions in the utilisation scenarios in question. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Susanne Kruse and Sinh Hy Nguyen (DTU Environment) for their patient and careful analytical work. Alberto Maresca (DTU Environment) is also acknowledged for his support with laboratory activities, as is Maria Rosenberger Rasch (Aalborg Portland) for her contribution via microscopy analysis. Elisa Allegrini (DTU Environment) is also acknowledged for countless constructive discussions. Three anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged for their valuable comments. This research has been partly funded by Aalborg Portland A/S and Dansk Byggeri, as well as the Danish Research Council through the IRMAR project. Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.04. 032. References Alonso-Santurde, R., Coz, A., Quijorna, N., Viguri, J.R., Andrés, A., 2010. Valorization of foundry sand in clay bricks at industrial scale. J. Ind. Ecol. 14, 217–230. Astrup, T.F., Dijkstra, J.J., Comans, R.N.J., Van Der Sloot, H.A., Christensen, T.H., 2006. Geochemical modeling of leaching from MSWI air-pollution-control residues. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 3551–3557. Butera, S., Christensen, T.H., Astrup, T.F., 2014. Composition and leaching of construction and demolition waste: inorganic elements and organic compounds. J. Hazard. Mater. 276, 302–311. CEN TS 14405, 2014. CEN TS 14405:2014 Characterization of Waste – Leaching Behaviour Test – Up-flow Percolation Test (Under Specified Conditions). Crest, M., Blanc, D., Moszkowicz, P., Dujet, C., 2007. Experimental percolation under intermittent conditions: influence on pollutants emission from waste. J. Hazard. Mater. 139, 523–528. Del Valle-Zermeño, R., Formosa, J., Prieto, M., Nadal, R., Niubó, M., Chimenos, J.M., 2014. Pilot-scale road subbase made with granular material formulated with MSWI bottom ash and stabilized APC fly ash: environmental impact assessment. J. Hazard. Mater. 266, 132–140. Delay, M., Lager, T., Schulz, H.D., Frimmel, F.H., 2007. Comparison of leaching tests to determine and quantify the release of inorganic contaminants in demolition waste. Waste Manage. 27, 248–255. Dutch Ministry of Housing Spatial Planning and the Environment, 2007. Soil Quality Decree (Besluit bodemkwaliteit). EN 12457-1, 2002. EN 12457-1 Characterisation of Waste – Leaching – Compliance Test for Leaching of Granular Waste Materials and Sludges – Part 1.
Please cite this article in press as: Butera, S., et al. Construction and demolition waste: Comparison of standard up-flow column and down-flow lysimeter leaching tests. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.04.032
12
S. Butera et al. / Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
EN 14997, 2015. EN 14997 Characterization of Waste – Leaching Behavior Tests – Influence of pH on Leaching with Continuous pH-Control. Engelsen, C., Mehus, J., Pade, C., Sæther, D., 2005. Carbon Dioxide Uptake in Demolished and Crushed Concrete. Project Report 395-2005. Byggforsk, Nordic Innovation Centre. Engelsen, C., van der Sloot, H.A., Wibetoe, G., Petkovic, G., Stoltenberg-Hansson, E., Lund, W., 2009. Release of major elements from recycled concrete aggregates and geochemical modelling. Cem. Concr. Res. 39, 446–459. Engelsen, C., van der Sloot, H.A., Wibetoe, G., Justnes, H., Lund, W., StoltenbergHansson, E., 2010. Leaching characterisation and geochemical modelling of minor and trace elements released from recycled concrete aggregates. Cem. Concr. Res. 40, 1639–1649. European Commission, 2002. Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 Establishing Criteria and Procedures for the Acceptance of Waste at Landfills Pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC. EU. Eurostat, 2010. Waste Statistics. (accessed 02.11.14). Galvín, A.P., Ayuso, J., Agrela, F., Barbudo, A., Jiménez, J.R., 2013. Analysis of leaching procedures for environmental risk assessment of recycled aggregate use in unpaved roads. Constr. Build. Mater. 40, 1207–1214. Galvín, A.P., Ayuso, J., García, I., Jiménez, J.R., Gutiérrez, F., 2014. The effect of compaction on the leaching and pollutant emission time of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 294–304. Garrabrants, A.C., Sanchez, F., Kosson, D.S., 2004. Changes in constituent equilibrium leaching and pore water characteristics of a Portland cement mortar as a result of carbonation. Waste Manage. 24, 19–36. Guyonnet, D., Bodénan, F., Brons-Laot, G., Burnol, A., Chateau, L., Crest, M., Méhu, J., Moszkowicz, P., Piantone, P., 2008. Multiple-scale dynamic leaching of a municipal solid waste incineration ash. Waste Manage. 28, 1963–1976. Hjelmar, O., Hyks, J., Wahlström, M., Laine-ylijoki, J., van Zomeren, A., Comans, R., Kalbe, U., Schoknecht, U., Krüger, O., Grathwohl, P., Wendel, T., Abdelghafour, M., Mehu, J., Schiopu, N., Lupsea, M., 2013. Robustness Validation of TS-2 and TS-3 Developed by CEN/TC351/WG1 to Assess Release from Products to Soil, Surface Water and Groundwater. Final Report NEN – Secretariat of CEN/TC 351, March 2013. Hjelmar, O., Hyks, J., Oberender, A., Kalbe, U., Bandow, N., van Zomeren, A., Dijkstra, J., 2014. Additional Robustness Testing on TS-3 (CEN/TC 351/WG1). Kalbe, U., Berger, W., Eckardt, J., Simon, F.-G., 2008. Evaluation of leaching and extraction procedures for soil and waste. Waste Manage. 28, 1027–1038. Karius, V., Hamer, K., Lager, T., 2002. Reaction fronts in brick-sand layers: column experiments and modeling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36, 2875–2883. Kim, H.J., Endo, K., Tang, Q., Yamada, M., 2011. A comparison of leaching behaviours of construction and demolition waste residues from the intermediate-scale lysimeters with different length/width ratios. In: Cossu, R., He, P., Kjeldsen, P., Matsufuji, Y., Reinhart, D., Stegmann, R. (Eds.), Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. CISA Publisher. Kosson, D.S., van Der Sloot, H.a., Sanchez, F., Garrabrants, A.C., 2002. An integrated framework for evaluating leaching in waste management and utilization of secondary materials. Environ. Eng. Sci. 19, 159–204. Kosson, D.S., van der Sloot, H.A., Garrabrants, A.C., Seignette, P.F.A.B., 2014. Leaching Test Relationships, Laboratory-to-Field Comparisons and Recommendations for Leaching Evaluation using the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF). Report U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Kumarathasan, P., McCarthy, G.J., Hassett, D.J., Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.F., 1990. Oxyanion substituted ettringites: synthesis and characterization; and their potential role in immobilization of As, B, Cr, Se and V. Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 178, 83–104. Kylefors, K., Andreas, L., Lagerkvist, A., 2003. A comparison of small-scale, pilotscale and large-scale tests for predicting leaching behaviour of landfilled wastes. Waste Manage. 23, 45–59. López Meza, S., Garrabrants, A.C., van der Sloot, H.A., Kosson, D.S., 2008. Comparison of the release of constituents from granular materials under batch and column testing. Waste Manage. 28, 1853–1867.
López Meza, S., van der Sloot, H.A., Kosson, D.S., 2009. The effects of intermittent unsaturated wetting on the release of constituents from construction demolition debris. Environ. Eng. Sci. 26, 463–469. López Meza, S., Kalbe, U., Berger, W., Simon, F.-G., 2010. Effect of contact time on the release of contaminants from granular waste materials during column leaching experiments. Waste Manage. 30, 565–571. Ministry of the Flemish Community, 1997. Flemish Regulation Concerning Waste Prevention and Management (VLAREA). Flanders, Belgium. Monier, V., Hestin, M., Trarieux, M., Mimid, S., Domrose, L., van Acoleyen, M., Hjerp, P., Mudgal, S., 2011. Service Contract on Management of Construction and Demolition Waste, Report EU Commission. Müllauer, W., Beddoe, R.E., Heinz, D., 2012. Effect of carbonation, chloride and external sulphates on the leaching behaviour of major and trace elements from concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 34, 618–626. Nielsen, P., Kenis, C., Quaghebeur, M., Hermans, M., 2006. Environmental quality assessment of construction and demolition waste: comparison of percolation and batch leaching tests. In: Ilic, M., Goumans, J.J.J.M., Miletic, S., Heynen, J.J.M., Senden, G.J. (Eds.), WASCON 2006 Belgrade, Serbia & Montenegro. ISCOWA, Belgrade. Onori, R., Polettini, A., Pomi, R., 2011. Mechanical properties and leaching modeling of activated incinerator bottom ash in Portland cement blends. Waste Manage. 31, 298–310. Parkhurst, D.L., Appelo, C.A.J., 2013. Description of input and examples for PHREEQC Version 3—a computer program for speciation, batch-reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations. In: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, Book 6, Chap. A43. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey, p. 497. Sanchez, F., Gervais, C., Garrabrants, A.C., Barna, R.C., Kosson, D.S., 2002. Leaching of inorganic contaminants from cement-based waste materials as a result of carbonation during intermittent wetting. Waste Manage. 22, 249–260. Schreurs, J.P.G.M., van der Sloot, H.A., Hendriks, C., 2000. Verification of laboratory to field leaching behavior of coal fly ash and MSWI bottom ash as a road base material. Waste Manage. 20, 193–201. Strufe, N., Trap, N., Lauritzen, E.K., 2006. Kortlægning af forurenende stoffer i byggeog anlægsaffald. Report, Danish EPA (in Danish). Tam, V., Tam, C., 2006. A review on the viable technology for construction waste recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 47, 209–221. Van der Sloot, H.A., 2000. Comparison of the characteristic leaching behavior of cements using standard (EN 196-1) cement mortar and an assessment of their long-term environmental behavior in construction products during service life and recycling. Cem. Concr. Res. 30, 1079–1096. Van der Sloot, H.A., 2002. Characterization of the leaching behaviour of concrete mortars and of cement-stabilized wastes with different waste loading for long term environmental assessment. Waste Manage. 22, 181–186. Van der Sloot, H.A., van Zomeren, A., Meeussen, J.C.L., Hoede, D., Rietra, R.P.J.J., Stenger, R., Lang, T., Schneider, M., Spanka, G., Stoltenberg-Hansson, E., Lerat, A., Dath, P., 2008. Environmental CRIteria for CEMent based Products, Report ECN. Van Gerven, T., Van Baelen, D., Dutré, V., Vandecasteele, C., 2003. Influence of carbonation and carbonation methods on leaching of metals from mortars. Cem. Concr. Res. 34, 149–156. Van Gerven, T., Cornelis, G., Vandoren, E., Vandecasteele, C., Garrabrants, A.C., Sanchez, F., Kosson, D.S., 2006. Effects of progressive carbonation on heavy metal leaching from cement-bound waste. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. J. 52, 826–837. Wahlström, M.J.L.Y., Määttänen, A., Luotojärvi, T., Kivekäs, L., 2000. Environmental quality assurance system for use of crushed mineral demolition wastes in road constructions. Waste Manage. 20, 225–232. Wahlström, M., Laine-Ylijoki, J., Järnström, H., Kaartinen, T., Erlandsson, M., Cousins, A.P., Wik, O., Suer, P., Oberender, A., Hjelmar, O., Birgisdóttir, H., Butera, S., Astrup, T.F., Jørgensen, A., 2014. Environmentally Sustainable Construction Products and Materials – Assessment of Release, Report Nordic Innovation. Wehrer, M., Totsche, K.U., 2008. Effective rates of heavy metal release from alkaline wastes – quantified by column outflow experiments and inverse simulations. J. Contam. Hydrol. 101, 53–66.
Please cite this article in press as: Butera, S., et al. Construction and demolition waste: Comparison of standard up-flow column and down-flow lysimeter leaching tests. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.04.032
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Waste Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman
Construction and demolition waste: Comparison of standard up-flow column and down-flow lysimeter leaching tests Stefania Butera a,⇑, Jiri Hyks b, Thomas H. Christensen a, Thomas F. Astrup a a b
Technical University of Denmark, Department of Environmental Engineering, Building 115, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark Danish Waste Solutions ApS, Agern Allé 3, Hørsholm, Denmark
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 10 December 2014 Accepted 28 April 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: C&DW Standard-column Lysimeter Particle size pH static Geochemical modelling
a b s t r a c t Five samples of construction and demolition waste (C&DW) were investigated in order to quantify leaching of inorganic elements under percolation conditions according to two different experimental setups: standardised up-flow saturated columns ( 1 indicate overestimation by standard columns, values < 1 indicate underestimation). Values are highlighted in bold to indicate significant differences between initial concentration estimated through standard-column test and through lysimeter (greater than factor of 2). Data are emphasised in italics to indicate that results from one of the tests were below LOD, and that the comparison should therefore be regarded in a qualitative way. For some elements/C&DW samples, the measured concentrations were too low (below LOD or LOQ) to draw reliable conclusions about the relative performances of the two tests, and were therefore excluded (–).
Aluminium Antimony Arsenic Barium Cadmium Calcium Chloride Chromium Anionic chromium Cobalt Copper DOC Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Molybdenum Nickel Phosphorous Potassium S as sulphate Selenium Silicon Sodium Strontium Vanadium Zinc
C&DW1
C&DW2
C&DW3
C&DW4
C&DW5a
C&DW5b
0.8 – 0.8 0.8 5.9 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.8 2.2 1.0 5.3 1.3 1.1 8.8 1.2 0.9 1.4 1.8 0.9 5.6 0.3 1.6 1.0 1.6 0.1
0.4 3.5 0.1 2.2 8.0 1.3 1.4 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.6 3.1 0.9 3.1 1.4 – 15 0.7 0.6 1.2 1.5 0.5 5.0 0.2 1.4 2.4 1.0 0.3
3.1 5.1 5.3 1.9 – 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.1 2.2 2.5 0.6 8.8 1.3 0.1 0.6 1.6 1.4 0.2 1.6 1.3 124 0.6 1.3 1.5 0.5 –
5.8 4.9 1.5 1.5 1.9 0.9 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.0 2.5 2.0 0.6 15 0.9 0.02 0.2 1.7 0.9 0.3 1.6 1.2 35 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.2 –
0.8 – 0.1 1.2 2.0 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.5 4.2 0.8 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.6 0.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.4 0.1
1.2 4.0 0.3 0.8 – 1.2 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.2 3.0 1.4 6.4 0.9 2.6 14 1.9 1.3 1.1 1.5 2.2 3.1 2.9 1.3 0.8 1.0 0.4
Table 2 Mineral phases identified as relevant for controlling the release of the main elements (that is, the mineral phases closest to equilibrium and with saturation indices between 1 and 1) for the five C&DW samples, as well as mineral phases found in existing literature for similar materials. Phases are reported in round brackets when they were relevant only for a limited number of eluate samples, or only in specific C&DW samples.
Al
Ca
Engelsen et al. (2009, 2010)
van der Sloot (2000, 2002)
This study
C3AH6 Ettringite C2ASH8 Portlandite Jennite Ettringite Calcite
–
AFm phasesGibbsite C6AC0 3H32 [tricarboaluminate]
GypsumPortlandite
AFm phases C6AC0 3H32 [tricarboaluminate] (CSH) (Portlandite) (Anhydrite/gypsum) (Ba/Ca–SO4 solid solutions)
Cr
CrO2 4 substitution in ettringite
Ba(S,Cr)SO4
Ba–CrO4/SO4 solid solutions
Cu
Tenorite [CuO] Cu(OH)2
–
Cu[OH]2 Tenorite
Fe
C4FC0 0.5H11.5 C2FSH8
–
AFm phases (Fe[OH]3am/ferrihydrite)
Mg
Brucite [Mg(OH)2] Magnesite [MgCO3] CO3-hydrotalcite
Magnesite [MgCO3] Brucite[Mg(OH)2]
Brucite [Mg(OH)2] (CO3/OH-hydrotalcite) (Magnesite [MgCO3])
Mo Ni S
MoO2 4 substitution in ettringite Ni(OH)2 Ettringite
CaMoO4 Ni(OH)2 Anhydrite Ettringite
– Ni(OH)2 (Anhydrite) Ba/Ca–CrO4/SO4 solid solutions
Si
Jennite Tobermorite I C2ASH8
Ba V Zn
– – –
AFm phases (CSH) (Silica) (ZnSiO3) Ba/Sr–CrO4/SO4 solid solutions CaVO4 at pH > 9 ZinciteWillemite
Ba/Ca/Sr–CrO4/SO4 solid solutions – ZnSiO3
Please cite this article in press as: Butera, S., et al. Construction and demolition waste: Comparison of standard up-flow column and down-flow lysimeter leaching tests. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.04.032
S. Butera et al. / Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
up-flow column test, might affect the mineralogy in contact with water, and thereby the leaching, by exposing fresh surfaces containing phases typical of recent concrete (for example, portlandite and hydrogarnet). On the other hand, other factors, such as the differences in pH itself or the degree of equilibrium might be responsible for the observed differences in SI. 3.7. Critical constituents with respect to limit values Limit values related to cumulative release at L/S 10 lkg1TS were consistently exceeded only for selenium (both for the EU Landfill acceptance criteria and the Dutch SQD related to unrestricted use). In one case (the up-flow column with CDW4) even the non-hazardous landfill acceptance criteria were exceeded. Chromium and SO4, and to a lesser extent Cu and Pb, exceeded either of their respective limit values in one or two samples. Although Sb seemingly exceeded the SQD limits, it should be noted that the cumulative release was calculated from measurements which were often below LOD (by using half of the LOD itself). Nevertheless, in all cases the materials could still be used according to Dutch legislation, as they always complied with limits for restricted utilisation (that is, with established insulation and monitoring measures). With respect to the initial leachate concentrations from the percolation tests (which are only regulated by the EU Landfill Directive), the critical elements were chromium (with initial concentrations exceeding limit values for inert landfills by up to eight times in the up-flow columns and up to four times in the lysimeters) and chloride (with initial concentrations up to 70% and 10% higher than the limit values in the up-flow columns and lysimeters, respectively). Additionally, Se, Mo and SO4 exceeded the limits only with initial concentrations estimated from the up-flow columns (for details regarding the comparison with limit values, see Table G.4 in Supplementary Data). Interestingly, most of the constituents identified by existing literature as ‘‘of concern’’ in C&DW (Cr, SO4, Cl, Wahlström et al., 2014; van der Sloot, 2000) were estimated by both percolation tests with remarkably high levels of agreement, especially considering the heterogeneity of C&DW materials. 4. Conclusions The leaching behaviour of five C&DW samples was tested using two different percolation leaching tests, and a pH-static test. Results from the percolation tests showed relatively good agreement in terms of cumulative releases at L/S 10 lkg1TS between standard up-flow saturated columns and unsaturated, intermittent down-flow lysimeters with non-crushed material. In general, differences were within a factor of 2; however, for a range of elements, significant differences were observed in terms of cumulative release at L/S 10 lkg1TS: P, Ba, Mg and Zn (lower releases in up-flow columns compared to lysimeters), and Pb (higher releases in up-flow columns compared to lysimeters). More differences between the two tests were associated with the early leaching below L/S 5 lkg1TS: Al, As, Ba, Cd, Cu, DOC, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Sb, Se, Si and Zn. Differences in pH were observed between the two percolation tests, suggesting that the particle size reduction applied to materials in standard up-flow columns could lead to higher leachate pH via the exposure of new, non-carbonated particle surfaces. Furthermore, non-equilibrium conditions in the lysimeters, owing to the larger particle size, preferential flows and absence of a pre-equilibration phase, might also be responsible for the observed differences. Calculated mineral saturation indices indicated that leaching could be controlled by different phases depending on sample and percolation test type: AFm, portlandite, solid solutions of Ba/Ca/Sr sulphate and
11
chromate, gypsum, amorphous silica. Minerals such as portlandite were modelled as more likely in up-flow columns, while phases such as amorphous silica were closer to equilibrium in the lysimeters. Additionally, differences among the samples were found, which could be attributed to differences in material ageing and/or presence of masonry in the C&DW samples. In comparison with available leaching limit values, the evaluated C&DW samples were found to be in compliance with restricted applications according to Dutch legislation, and comparable with waste accepted at landfills for inert waste according to the EU Landfill Directive, with the exception of Cr, Se, Sb, and SO4 leaching, which was in some cases above the EU acceptance criteria for landfills receiving inert waste. While standard up-flow columns offer the benefits of comparability and standardised conditions, the results of comparison between columns and lysimeters suggest that columns may lead to different releases compared to those of the lysimeters. In cases when leaching data are used for environmental and/or risk assessments, lysimeter studies may help translating the results of standardised percolation test such as CEN TS14405 to intended use conditions, keeping in mind that significant differences still exist between real utilisation conditions and lysimeters. Modelling may also be useful in order to interpret data from standardised percolation test in a way that reflects the intended use conditions in the utilisation scenarios in question. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Susanne Kruse and Sinh Hy Nguyen (DTU Environment) for their patient and careful analytical work. Alberto Maresca (DTU Environment) is also acknowledged for his support with laboratory activities, as is Maria Rosenberger Rasch (Aalborg Portland) for her contribution via microscopy analysis. Elisa Allegrini (DTU Environment) is also acknowledged for countless constructive discussions. Three anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged for their valuable comments. This research has been partly funded by Aalborg Portland A/S and Dansk Byggeri, as well as the Danish Research Council through the IRMAR project. Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.04. 032. References Alonso-Santurde, R., Coz, A., Quijorna, N., Viguri, J.R., Andrés, A., 2010. Valorization of foundry sand in clay bricks at industrial scale. J. Ind. Ecol. 14, 217–230. Astrup, T.F., Dijkstra, J.J., Comans, R.N.J., Van Der Sloot, H.A., Christensen, T.H., 2006. Geochemical modeling of leaching from MSWI air-pollution-control residues. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 3551–3557. Butera, S., Christensen, T.H., Astrup, T.F., 2014. Composition and leaching of construction and demolition waste: inorganic elements and organic compounds. J. Hazard. Mater. 276, 302–311. CEN TS 14405, 2014. CEN TS 14405:2014 Characterization of Waste – Leaching Behaviour Test – Up-flow Percolation Test (Under Specified Conditions). Crest, M., Blanc, D., Moszkowicz, P., Dujet, C., 2007. Experimental percolation under intermittent conditions: influence on pollutants emission from waste. J. Hazard. Mater. 139, 523–528. Del Valle-Zermeño, R., Formosa, J., Prieto, M., Nadal, R., Niubó, M., Chimenos, J.M., 2014. Pilot-scale road subbase made with granular material formulated with MSWI bottom ash and stabilized APC fly ash: environmental impact assessment. J. Hazard. Mater. 266, 132–140. Delay, M., Lager, T., Schulz, H.D., Frimmel, F.H., 2007. Comparison of leaching tests to determine and quantify the release of inorganic contaminants in demolition waste. Waste Manage. 27, 248–255. Dutch Ministry of Housing Spatial Planning and the Environment, 2007. Soil Quality Decree (Besluit bodemkwaliteit). EN 12457-1, 2002. EN 12457-1 Characterisation of Waste – Leaching – Compliance Test for Leaching of Granular Waste Materials and Sludges – Part 1.
Please cite this article in press as: Butera, S., et al. Construction and demolition waste: Comparison of standard up-flow column and down-flow lysimeter leaching tests. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.04.032
12
S. Butera et al. / Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
EN 14997, 2015. EN 14997 Characterization of Waste – Leaching Behavior Tests – Influence of pH on Leaching with Continuous pH-Control. Engelsen, C., Mehus, J., Pade, C., Sæther, D., 2005. Carbon Dioxide Uptake in Demolished and Crushed Concrete. Project Report 395-2005. Byggforsk, Nordic Innovation Centre. Engelsen, C., van der Sloot, H.A., Wibetoe, G., Petkovic, G., Stoltenberg-Hansson, E., Lund, W., 2009. Release of major elements from recycled concrete aggregates and geochemical modelling. Cem. Concr. Res. 39, 446–459. Engelsen, C., van der Sloot, H.A., Wibetoe, G., Justnes, H., Lund, W., StoltenbergHansson, E., 2010. Leaching characterisation and geochemical modelling of minor and trace elements released from recycled concrete aggregates. Cem. Concr. Res. 40, 1639–1649. European Commission, 2002. Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 Establishing Criteria and Procedures for the Acceptance of Waste at Landfills Pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC. EU. Eurostat, 2010. Waste Statistics. (accessed 02.11.14). Galvín, A.P., Ayuso, J., Agrela, F., Barbudo, A., Jiménez, J.R., 2013. Analysis of leaching procedures for environmental risk assessment of recycled aggregate use in unpaved roads. Constr. Build. Mater. 40, 1207–1214. Galvín, A.P., Ayuso, J., García, I., Jiménez, J.R., Gutiérrez, F., 2014. The effect of compaction on the leaching and pollutant emission time of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 294–304. Garrabrants, A.C., Sanchez, F., Kosson, D.S., 2004. Changes in constituent equilibrium leaching and pore water characteristics of a Portland cement mortar as a result of carbonation. Waste Manage. 24, 19–36. Guyonnet, D., Bodénan, F., Brons-Laot, G., Burnol, A., Chateau, L., Crest, M., Méhu, J., Moszkowicz, P., Piantone, P., 2008. Multiple-scale dynamic leaching of a municipal solid waste incineration ash. Waste Manage. 28, 1963–1976. Hjelmar, O., Hyks, J., Wahlström, M., Laine-ylijoki, J., van Zomeren, A., Comans, R., Kalbe, U., Schoknecht, U., Krüger, O., Grathwohl, P., Wendel, T., Abdelghafour, M., Mehu, J., Schiopu, N., Lupsea, M., 2013. Robustness Validation of TS-2 and TS-3 Developed by CEN/TC351/WG1 to Assess Release from Products to Soil, Surface Water and Groundwater. Final Report NEN – Secretariat of CEN/TC 351, March 2013. Hjelmar, O., Hyks, J., Oberender, A., Kalbe, U., Bandow, N., van Zomeren, A., Dijkstra, J., 2014. Additional Robustness Testing on TS-3 (CEN/TC 351/WG1). Kalbe, U., Berger, W., Eckardt, J., Simon, F.-G., 2008. Evaluation of leaching and extraction procedures for soil and waste. Waste Manage. 28, 1027–1038. Karius, V., Hamer, K., Lager, T., 2002. Reaction fronts in brick-sand layers: column experiments and modeling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36, 2875–2883. Kim, H.J., Endo, K., Tang, Q., Yamada, M., 2011. A comparison of leaching behaviours of construction and demolition waste residues from the intermediate-scale lysimeters with different length/width ratios. In: Cossu, R., He, P., Kjeldsen, P., Matsufuji, Y., Reinhart, D., Stegmann, R. (Eds.), Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. CISA Publisher. Kosson, D.S., van Der Sloot, H.a., Sanchez, F., Garrabrants, A.C., 2002. An integrated framework for evaluating leaching in waste management and utilization of secondary materials. Environ. Eng. Sci. 19, 159–204. Kosson, D.S., van der Sloot, H.A., Garrabrants, A.C., Seignette, P.F.A.B., 2014. Leaching Test Relationships, Laboratory-to-Field Comparisons and Recommendations for Leaching Evaluation using the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF). Report U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Kumarathasan, P., McCarthy, G.J., Hassett, D.J., Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.F., 1990. Oxyanion substituted ettringites: synthesis and characterization; and their potential role in immobilization of As, B, Cr, Se and V. Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 178, 83–104. Kylefors, K., Andreas, L., Lagerkvist, A., 2003. A comparison of small-scale, pilotscale and large-scale tests for predicting leaching behaviour of landfilled wastes. Waste Manage. 23, 45–59. López Meza, S., Garrabrants, A.C., van der Sloot, H.A., Kosson, D.S., 2008. Comparison of the release of constituents from granular materials under batch and column testing. Waste Manage. 28, 1853–1867.
López Meza, S., van der Sloot, H.A., Kosson, D.S., 2009. The effects of intermittent unsaturated wetting on the release of constituents from construction demolition debris. Environ. Eng. Sci. 26, 463–469. López Meza, S., Kalbe, U., Berger, W., Simon, F.-G., 2010. Effect of contact time on the release of contaminants from granular waste materials during column leaching experiments. Waste Manage. 30, 565–571. Ministry of the Flemish Community, 1997. Flemish Regulation Concerning Waste Prevention and Management (VLAREA). Flanders, Belgium. Monier, V., Hestin, M., Trarieux, M., Mimid, S., Domrose, L., van Acoleyen, M., Hjerp, P., Mudgal, S., 2011. Service Contract on Management of Construction and Demolition Waste, Report EU Commission. Müllauer, W., Beddoe, R.E., Heinz, D., 2012. Effect of carbonation, chloride and external sulphates on the leaching behaviour of major and trace elements from concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 34, 618–626. Nielsen, P., Kenis, C., Quaghebeur, M., Hermans, M., 2006. Environmental quality assessment of construction and demolition waste: comparison of percolation and batch leaching tests. In: Ilic, M., Goumans, J.J.J.M., Miletic, S., Heynen, J.J.M., Senden, G.J. (Eds.), WASCON 2006 Belgrade, Serbia & Montenegro. ISCOWA, Belgrade. Onori, R., Polettini, A., Pomi, R., 2011. Mechanical properties and leaching modeling of activated incinerator bottom ash in Portland cement blends. Waste Manage. 31, 298–310. Parkhurst, D.L., Appelo, C.A.J., 2013. Description of input and examples for PHREEQC Version 3—a computer program for speciation, batch-reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations. In: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, Book 6, Chap. A43. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey, p. 497. Sanchez, F., Gervais, C., Garrabrants, A.C., Barna, R.C., Kosson, D.S., 2002. Leaching of inorganic contaminants from cement-based waste materials as a result of carbonation during intermittent wetting. Waste Manage. 22, 249–260. Schreurs, J.P.G.M., van der Sloot, H.A., Hendriks, C., 2000. Verification of laboratory to field leaching behavior of coal fly ash and MSWI bottom ash as a road base material. Waste Manage. 20, 193–201. Strufe, N., Trap, N., Lauritzen, E.K., 2006. Kortlægning af forurenende stoffer i byggeog anlægsaffald. Report, Danish EPA (in Danish). Tam, V., Tam, C., 2006. A review on the viable technology for construction waste recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 47, 209–221. Van der Sloot, H.A., 2000. Comparison of the characteristic leaching behavior of cements using standard (EN 196-1) cement mortar and an assessment of their long-term environmental behavior in construction products during service life and recycling. Cem. Concr. Res. 30, 1079–1096. Van der Sloot, H.A., 2002. Characterization of the leaching behaviour of concrete mortars and of cement-stabilized wastes with different waste loading for long term environmental assessment. Waste Manage. 22, 181–186. Van der Sloot, H.A., van Zomeren, A., Meeussen, J.C.L., Hoede, D., Rietra, R.P.J.J., Stenger, R., Lang, T., Schneider, M., Spanka, G., Stoltenberg-Hansson, E., Lerat, A., Dath, P., 2008. Environmental CRIteria for CEMent based Products, Report ECN. Van Gerven, T., Van Baelen, D., Dutré, V., Vandecasteele, C., 2003. Influence of carbonation and carbonation methods on leaching of metals from mortars. Cem. Concr. Res. 34, 149–156. Van Gerven, T., Cornelis, G., Vandoren, E., Vandecasteele, C., Garrabrants, A.C., Sanchez, F., Kosson, D.S., 2006. Effects of progressive carbonation on heavy metal leaching from cement-bound waste. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. J. 52, 826–837. Wahlström, M.J.L.Y., Määttänen, A., Luotojärvi, T., Kivekäs, L., 2000. Environmental quality assurance system for use of crushed mineral demolition wastes in road constructions. Waste Manage. 20, 225–232. Wahlström, M., Laine-Ylijoki, J., Järnström, H., Kaartinen, T., Erlandsson, M., Cousins, A.P., Wik, O., Suer, P., Oberender, A., Hjelmar, O., Birgisdóttir, H., Butera, S., Astrup, T.F., Jørgensen, A., 2014. Environmentally Sustainable Construction Products and Materials – Assessment of Release, Report Nordic Innovation. Wehrer, M., Totsche, K.U., 2008. Effective rates of heavy metal release from alkaline wastes – quantified by column outflow experiments and inverse simulations. J. Contam. Hydrol. 101, 53–66.
Please cite this article in press as: Butera, S., et al. Construction and demolition waste: Comparison of standard up-flow column and down-flow lysimeter leaching tests. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.04.032
