UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The evaluation of heavy metal contents in the bottom ash from Burnaby refuse incinerator Ting, Jyh-Haw 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0637.pdf [ 3.61MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0050407.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0050407-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0050407-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0050407-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0050407-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0050407-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0050407-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0050407-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0050407.ris

Full Text

THE EVALUATION OF HEAVY METAL CONTENTS IN THEBOTTOM ASH FROM BURNABY REFUSE INCINERATORbyJYH-HAW TINGB.S. (Environmental Science), Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan,R.O.C., 1986A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESDepartment of Civil EngineeringWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAJuly 19940 Jyh-Haw Ting, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of therequirements for an advanced degree at the University of BritishColumbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely availablefor reference and study. I further agree that permission forextensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may begranted by the head of my department or by his or herrepresentatives. It is understood that copying or publication ofthis thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without mywritten permission.(Signature)Department of (Itt’; /The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDateABSTRACTEighteen sets of bottom ash samples from the Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict’s (GVRD) Burnaby MSW Incinerator were collected during 1991. Thesamples were analyzed for particle size distribution based on seven fractions.The coarse fractions with particle sizes greater than the 9.5 mm (3/8 inch)diameter were analyzed as to material content, while the fine fractions withparticle sizes less than the 9.5 mm were subjected to leaching tests following theLeachate Extraction Procedure (B.C. Reg. 63/88). Fine materials clinging to thecoarse particles were collected and tested for the leachability of heavy metals.The total metal levels in the particles with sizes less than the 9.5 mm diameterwere also evaluated.The results of the particle size gradation tests indicate that the bottom ashfrom the Burnaby MSW Incinerator generally meets the specification for a well-graded base course specified in the B.C. Standard Specifications for HighwayConstruction. The material distribution in the fractions with particle sizes greaterthan the 9.5 mm diameter have shown that magnetic materials contributed about12 % by weight of the bottom ash stream, which suggests the need of a secondmagnet. Inert materials such as glass, rock, concrete, ceramic and clinker werefound to be the largest component of the coarse particles with sizes greater thanthe 9.5 mm diameter.The leaching test results of the three fine bottom ash fractions with particlesizes less than the 9.5 mm diameter have shown that lead is the only of the eightselected elements which would leach out with levels exceeding the regulationlimits. In the three fine bottom ash fractions, the one with particle sizes between11the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter were found to contain the greatestleachable lead levels. On the other hand, the coarsest fraction with particle sizesbetween the 4.75 mm and 9.5 mm diameter were found to leach out lead with thelowest levels. The fine material clinging to the coarse particles were also found toleach out heavy metals with levels comparable to the three fine bottom ashfractions. The results of the total metal concentrations in the three fine bottom ashfractions indicate that metal levels generally increase with a particle sizedecrease. For leachable metal levels, the trend is not apparent.111TABLE OF CONTENTSAbstractTable of Contents ivList of Tables viList of Figures viiiAcknowledgment xiChapter 1. Introduction 1Chapter 2. Literature Review 42.1 Extraction Test for MSW Incinerator Residue 52.2 Factors Affecting Leachable Metal Levels from the MSW 8Incinerator Bottom Ash2.3 Findings Regarding the Leaching of MSW Incinerator 13Bottom Ash2.4 Characteristics of MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash 152.5 Possible Utilizations of the Glass in MSW Incinerator 20Bottom Ash2.6 The Recovery and Reclamation of Materials from Bottom Ash 222.7 MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Used as Fill Materials 252.8 MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Used in Concrete Making 272.9 MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Used as Aggregates in Road 28Construction2.10 Other Issues Regarding the Use of Bottom Ash 322.11 Summary 34Chapter 3. Materials and Methods 373.1 Sampling Procedure 373.2 Particle Size Distribution Analysis 423.3 Quartering Procedure 433.4 Material Components Distribution Analysis 453.5 Leachate Extraction Procedure 463.6 Total Metals Acid Digestion 493.7 Metal Analysis 50Chapter 4. Results 524.1 Bottom Ash Particle Size Distribution 524.2 Material Distribution in Bottom Ash Fractions with Particle 56Size Greater than the 9.5 mm Diameter4.3 The Leachable Metal Levels of the Bottom Ash Fractions 614.4 The Fixed and Total Metal Levels of the Bottom Ash Fractions 914.5 The Leaching Test Results of the Washing-off Materials of 101the Samples from Coarse Bottom Ash Fractions4.6 Metal Concentrations in the Rinse Water of Samples from 105Three Coarse Bottom Ash Fractionsiv4.7 Result Summary 109Chapter 5. Discussion 1125.1 Issues Regarding the Samplings of Bottom Ash 1125.2 Particle Size Gradation in the Burnaby MSW Incinerator 113Bottom Ash5.3 Material Contents in Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash 1145.4 The Leachable Heavy Metals from Bottom Ash 118Chapter 6. Summary and Conclusions 128Chapter 7. Recommendations 131References 133Appendix 1. Raw Data - Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Particle 141Size DistributionAppendix 2. Raw Data - Material Components Distribution in Coarse 145Bottom Ash FractionsAppendix 3. Raw Data - LEP Leachable Metal Concentrations in the 153Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorAppendix 4. Raw Data - Leachable Metal Concentrations of the Washing- 157off from the coarse bottom ash fractions with Particle SizeGreater than the 9.5 mm DiameterAppendix 5. Raw Data- Fixed(Non-leachable) Metal Levels in the Bottom 158Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorAppendix 6. Raw Data- Selected LEP Leachable Metal Concentrations in 159the Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorAppendix 7. Total Metal Results in the Bottom Ash Fractions from 160Burnaby MSW IncineratorAppendix 8. The Fixed Metal Levels as Percentages of the Total Metal 161Levels in Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSWIncineratorAppendix 9. Raw Data - Metal Concentrations in the Bottom Ash Rinse 162WatervLIST OF TABLESTable 2.1 Total Metal Concentrations in the Ashes 16Table 2.2 Leachate Quality Standards 18Table 2.3 Typical MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Physical and Chemical 19PropertiesTable 2.4 Average Composition of Municipal Incinerator Bottom Ash 21Table 2.5 Metallic Ash Constituents 23Table 3.1 Burnaby Refuse Incinerator Bottom Ash Sampling Schedules vs. 40Sample WeightsTable 4.1 Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Particle Size Gradation vs. 54BC Standard Specifications for Highway ConstructionTable 4.2 Descriptive Material Distributions in Four Coarse Bottom Ash 57Fractions (With Particle Diameter Greater Than 9.5 mm) fromBurnaby MSW IncineratorTable 4.3 Statistics Summary for the LEP Leachable Metals Found in the 73Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator withParticle Size Between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm DiametersTable 4.4 Statistics Summary for the LEP Leachable Metals Found in the 74Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator withParticle Size Between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm DiametersTable 4.5 Statistics Summary for the LEP Leachable Metals Found in the 75Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator withParticle Size Less than the 2.36 mm DiameterTable 4.6 Comparison of the Geometric Means of Results from the B.C. Reg. 7763/88 Leachate Extraction Procedure with Data from SelectedLiteratureTable 4.7 Geometric Means of the LEP Leachable Cadmium and Lead Levels 88in the Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator Takenon Each Sampling DateTable 4.8 Geometric Means of the Fixed (Non-leachable) Metal Levels in the 93Three Fine Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorviTable 4.9 Average Fixed Metal Levels as Percentages of the Total Metals in 95the Three Bottom Ash FractionsTable 4.10 Ranges of Total Metal Concentrations in Bottom Ash from this 97Research and Selected ReferenceTable 4.11 Comparison of Metal Levels in the LEP Leachate of Three Fine 104Bottom Ash Fractions and the Washing-off from Coarse BottomAsh FractionsTable 4.12 Average Metal Concentration in Coarse Bottom Ash Rinse Water 106(1Kg Ash: 1L Distilled Water Ratio) and the Maximum AcceptableLevels Specified in RegulationsTable 4.13 Summary of the Metal Levels Specified in Selected Water Quality 108Guidelines for Industrial UsesviiLIST OF FIGURESFigure 3.1 Summary of Bottom Ash Sampling & Analysis Procedures 38Figure 3.2 Greater Vancouver Regional District Burnaby Incinerator - A 39Refuse to Energy FacilityFigure 3.3 The Collection of Bottom Ash Sample at the End of No.3 Ash 41Conveyer of Burnaby Refuse IncineratorFigure 3.4 Quartering on a Hard, Clean Level Surface 44Figure 3.5 Quartering on a Canvas Blanket 44Figure 3.6 Rotary Extractor Used in Bottom Ash Leachate Extraction Procedure 48Figure 4.1 Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Size Distribution 53Figure 4.2 MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate Gradations: This Study 55and Selected referencesFigure 4.3 Material Contribution by Coarse Fractions to the Bottom Ash 59Stream from Burnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.4 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Cadmium Results from 64Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.5 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Chromium Results from 64Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.6 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Copper Results from 65Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.7 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Iron Results from Three 65Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.8 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Manganese Results from 66Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.9 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Nickel Results from 66Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.10 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Lead Results from Three 67Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorVII’Figure 4.11 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Zinc Results from 67Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.12 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed 68LEP Cadmium Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions fromBurnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.13 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed 68LEP Chromium Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions fromBurnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.14 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed 69LEP Copper Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions fromBurnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.15 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed 69LEP Iron Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions fromBurnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.16 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed 70LEP Manganese Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions fromBurnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.17 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed 70LEP Nickel Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions fromBurnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.18 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed 71LEP Lead Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions fromBurnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.19 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed 71LEP Zinc Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions fromBurnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.20 The Trends of the LEP Cadmium Concentration in the Three 79Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorDuring 1991Figure 4.21 The Trends of the LEP Chromium Concentration in the Three 80Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorDuring 1991Figure 4.22 The Trends of the LEP Copper Concentration in the Three Bottom 81Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991ixFigure 4.23 The Trends of the LEP Iron Concentration in the Three Bottom 82Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991Figure 4.24 The Trends of the LEP Manganese Concentration in the Three 83Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorDuring 1991Figure 4.25 The Trends of the LEP Nickel Concentration in the Three Bottom 84Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991Figure 4.26 The Trends of the LEP Lead Concentration in the Three Bottom 85Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991Figure 4.27 The Trends of the LEP Zinc Concentration in the Three Bottom 86Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991Figure 4.28(a),(b) Geometric Means of Metal Concentrations Leached from 90Bottom Ash Fractions in the Leachate Extraction ProcedureFigure 4.29(a) Total Metal Concentrations of Three Bottom Ash Fractions from 98Burnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.29(b) Total Metal Concentrations of Three Bottom Ash Fractions from 99Burnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.30 Geometric Means of the Total Metals Concentrations in Three 100Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.31 Comparison of Total Lead Contribution by Three Bottom Ash 102Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 4.32 Comparison of the Leachable and Total Lead Levels in the Three 103Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991Figure 5.1 LEP Leachable Lead Contribution by Three Fine Bottom Ash 117Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorFigure 5.2 Variation in Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Generation 121Over Time in Burnaby and New WestminsterFigure 5.3 Ratio of Mass of Residues Generated to the Mass of Solid Waste 122Burnt Corrected for Moisture DifferencesxACKNOWLEDGMENTI would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Jim Atwater, for his constantencourage and helpful advise throughout the course of this study. Special thanksalso are extended to Dr. Ken Hall, Mike Stringer and Rob Miller for theirvaluable suggestions and advise during the preparation of this thesis.I would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by the GVRDSolid Waste and Recycling Department staff, Montenay Inc. staff, GVRD Librarystaff, UBC Civil Engineering Department Environmental Engineering Laboratorystaff, UBC Mining & Mineral Process Engineering Department staff, UBC CivilEngineering Work Shop Staff and B.C. Research during the study of this project.Finally, I would like to express appreciation to my parents for theirpatience and support throughout my study in Canada.xi1Chapter 1.IntroductionMunicipal refuse has been disposed of in landfills for many years. Withthe increasing cost of the landfills and the reduced pollutant levels released frommunicipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators in recent years, MSW incineratorshave become more popular for the disposal of the municipal refuse. The GreaterVancouver Regional District’s (GVRD) Burnaby Municipal Refuse Incinerator is amass burning incinerator with inclined reciprocating grates and water wallboilers. It has been operated since 1988 by Montenay Inc. and is capable ofincinerating about 230 tonnes of refuse daily in each of the three identical lines.In 1991, it had disposed of 227,590 tonnes of refuse and generated 45,350 tonnesof bottom ash and 6,970 tonnes of fly ash. (Montenay Inc., 1988, 1991) Currently,the fly ash and bottom ash from the Burnaby Refuse Incinerator are disposedseparately at an engineered landfill site with a complete leachate control system.(Sawell et al., 1990)Previous literature has shown that bottom ash has the potential for reuseas substitutes for the aggregates in asphalt paving, concrete construction and infill without prominent negative impacts on the environment. (Collins, 1977)(Gress et a!., 1991) However, the public still hesitates to accept bottom ash as anon-hazardous material due to the readily leachable nature of some heavy metalsthat may exceed the levels defining hazardous materials. (Denison, 1988) Onemight expect that the finer particles of the bottom ash contain higher leachablemetal levels due to their greater contact surface with the extraction mediumwhen compared to the coarser particles of the same weight. However, onlylimited research has reported that finer portions contain higher metal2concentrations than coarse fractions. (Stegemann et at., 1991) The coarse fraction(particle size greater than 9.5 mm) of the bottom ash is typically composed ofinert materials such as glass, rock etc. and generally won’t leach out highconcentrations of metals. As the fine bottom ash fractions compose about 40 % byweight of the bottom ash stream, some further research on the leaching of heavymetals from the fine bottom ash fractions relative to particle size is needed forbetter management of the bottom ash. If higher levels of leachable heavy metalswere found to associate with any specific fraction, this fraction could be sortedout of the bottom ash stream and disposed of separately. The rest of the bottomash could be reduced in the leachable heavy metals and would be moreacceptable as a reusable material. The public could benefit not only from thesaving of money in the storage, transportation and treatment of only thehazardous fraction instead of the whole bottom ash stream but also from the saleof the non-hazardous fraction as reusable materials.This research is intended to characterize the bottom ash generated at theGVRD’s Burnaby Refuse Incinerator and provide information through the testson the fine and coarse bottom ash fractions for the evaluation of the possibility ofusing such materials. Particle size distribution tests on the bottom ash werecarried out as this parameter is a primary specification for the use of bottom ashas a substitute for aggregate in construction purposes. In addition, the materialdistribution in the coarse bottom ash fractions (with particle size greater than 9.5mm diameter) has been evaluated to obtain further information about the contentof the bottom ash for possible reuse. Effort has also been given to address thebottom ash fractions with higher leachability of heavy metals subject to the B.C.Reg. 63/88 Leachate Extraction Procedure (LEP) and the results will be valuablefor considering the effective disposal and management of such materials. The3fine bottom ash fraction (with particle size less than the 9.5 mm diameter) isseparated into three fractions: <2.36 mm diameter, between the 2.36 mm and the4.75 mm diameter and between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter. All threefractions were subjected to the LEP test as well as total metal digestion and thefiltrates of the leachate were analyzed for selected heavy metals by using AtomicAbsorption Spectrophotometry. The selected metals include those for whichthere is the most environmental concern; lead, cadmium, zinc and copper as wellas chromium, iron, manganese and nickel. Samples from the coarse bottom ashfractions were washed with distilled water and the washing-off materials werecollected and compared with the fine bottom ash fractions LEP leachable metallevels. The wash water of the coarse bottom ash was also analyzed for itsreusabiity based on the heavy metal concentrations.This thesis consists of seven chapters and nine appendices. Relevantliterature on MSW incinerator bottom ash is reviewed in Chapter 2. Presented inChapter 3 are the sampling procedures, analysis protocols, and instrumentalanalysis procedures used in this study. The results are reported in Chapter 4.Chapter 5 presents a discussion section on the findings of this study. Theconclusions of this study are presented in Chapter 6, followed by somerecommendations in Chapter 7. The raw data of the analyses and experiments inthis study are collected in the Appendix section.4Chapter 2.Literature ReviewWith the increasing acceptance of the incineration of municipal solidwastes (MSW) by municipalities around North America, the general public isincreasingly concerned with the potential pollution from the incinerator, as wellas with the management and disposal of the large quantities of ash residues.Since the air pollution control technologies developed through the eighties havedramatically reduce the levels of the contaminants in the flue gas released fromthe MSW incinerators, the management of the ash residues has become animportant issue in the control of post incineration pollution. Fly ash and bottomash are the two major categories among the remaining residue streams.Conventionally, the fly ash and bottom ash were combined before treatment.Recent research has reported that the fly ash contained higher levels of manytoxic metals than bottom ash. (Andrews et al., 1991) Separate treatment of fly ashand bottom ash has become the trend of MSW incinerator ash residuemanagement.MSW incinerator bottom ash is the largest fraction of the ash residuestream. The most popular disposal scenario of bottom ash is placing it in alandfill with a leachate collecting system. (Repa, 1987) Due to the highpercentages of inert materials, bottom ash has been used as substitute materialsfor different purposes. The disposal and recycle of MSW incinerator bottom ashhas become one of the most interesting issues in the field of solid wastemanagement. Many studies dealing with bottom ash topics have been reviewedand these findings are reported in the following pages. These topics includeincinerator residue extraction tests, factors on the leachable metal levels from5bottom ash, leaching of MSW incinerator bottom ash, characteristics of bottomash, utilization of glass in bottom ash, recovery and reclamation of materialsfrom bottom ash, utilization of bottom ash as fill materials, bottom ash used inconcrete making and bottom ash used in road construction.2.1 Extraction Tests for MSW Incinerator ResidueSince MSW incinerator ash residues have been reported to contain manyhazardous materials (Denison 1988), knowledge about the levels of thesematerials in the ash residues and their mobility is necessary when consideringthe proper management and final disposal of ash. Currently, ash residues frommost of the MSW incinerator in North America are sent to landfills. In order toevaluate the behavior of the incinerator ash after landfilling, many tests havebeen applied to simulate the leaching of the incinerator residues. The methodsused to evaluate the leaching of the incinerator ashes can be split into twocategories : column methods and batch extraction methods. The column test isused to simulate the long term leaching behavior of the MSW incinerator bottomash from a ash disposal site. Its long leaching time and the large quantity of ashneeded have limited its use on the leaching test of the MSW incinerator bottomash. On the other hand, the batch type tests are simpler and more reproducibleand thus widely used by many agencies or research groups. (Jackson et at., 1984)The Extraction Procedure Toxicity (EP Toxicity) test and The ToxicCharacteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) are the most commonly usedprocedures applied to MSW incinerator ash in U.S.. The EP Toxicity test is alaboratory test that attempts to mimic the landfill environment and disposalscenario of five percent unknown waste and 95 percent untreated municipalwaste in an unlined landfill. The EP Toxicity test required that a minimum of 1006grams of sample be extracted with 16 times its weight in deionized water. 0.5 Nacetic acid is added as needed to maintain the solution at pH 5.0 ± 0.2. After 24hours, deionized water is added to the solution to a final 1:20 solid-to-liquidratio. The reason for using acetic acid as the extractant acid is that it is a commonconstituent of young landfill leachates. The EP Toxicity test has been used by theU.S. EPA to determine if an unknown waste that may be subjected to leaching ina landfill should be managed as a hazardous waste.However, the inability of the EP Toxicity test to represent the conditions ata landfill comprised solely of incinerator ash led to the development of TCLP.Unlike EP Toxicity test, TCLP uses either buffered acetic acid or dilute acetic acidas the extractant depending on the initial pH of aqueous sample. Instead of arigorously control of pH, the extractant is introduced in one addition and the pHof the solution is allowed to drift to a final equilibrium after the extractant isadded. The extraction is carried out for 18 hours in a closed extraction container.In British Columbia, the Leachate Extraction Procedure (LEP) listed inSpecial Waste Regulation 63/88 of the Waste Management Act is the extractionprocedure used to classify wastes as hazardous or non-hazardous. The testinvolved slowly mixing a 50 gram sample of ash in 800 mL of distilled water in aclosed vessel for 24 hours at pH 5.0±0.2 (or less if the natural pH of the waste isacid). A maximum of 200 mL of 0.5 N acetic acid can be added into the solution ifneeded during the extraction to lower the pH to the required level. The solutionis adjusted to 1000 mL with distilled water at the end of the test. The liquid andsolid phases are separated via filtration through 0.45 micron membrane filters.The resulting leachate is preserved to pH 2 with nitric acid for the subsequentmetal analyses. (Government of British Columbia, 1992)7In addition to EP, TCLP and LEP, there are various other extractionmethodologies used by different groups to evaluate the leachable metalsconcentrations in MSW incinerator residues. The inherent differences betweenthese extraction procedures results in the unavoidable variance between the datacollected by different tests. There is a difficulty in comparing the results from thedifferent extraction tests. Besides, the extraction fluids there are other factorscontributory to confusing this task. These factors include the sample size, theparticle size for test, the combustion technology, air pollution control system, andthe inherent variability of ash characteristics as well as the samplingmethodology. (Clapp et at., 1988) (Sawell et at., 1989) (Atwater et at., 1993) Agroup of experts from North America and West Europe have been workingtogether since 1990 to compare not only the data about the ash characteristics butalso its treatment and disposal. Their original desire to build a global data base ofash information has proven impossible due to the insufficient descriptions in theliterature about the methods used. However, they believed these results are stillvaluable when used to illustrate relevant trends. (Chandler et at., 1991)There were many studies which have compared the levels of metalconcentrations in fly ash and bottom ash. Clapp et at. (1988) discovered thatcadmium content was at least five times greater in the fly ash than in the bottomash. They also discovered that lead content was much greater in the fly ash whilebarium was much more predominant in the bottom ash. Sawell et at. (1990) foundthe relatively heat stable metals such as chromium and nickel were concentratedin the bottom ash, whereas relatively volatile metals such as cadmium andmercury were concentrated in the fly ash. They pointed out that lead was at ahigher concentration in the bottom ash than in the fly ash. This finding is8contrary to that reported by Clapp et at. (1988), which may be related to thedifferences between the two studies in the refuse sources, incinerator designs andanalytical protocols. Andrews et at. (1991) discovered that for most metals,bottom ash leach test concentrations are less than concentrations for combinedand fly ash. Sawell et at. (1989) also found that bottom ashes were more waterinsoluble than fly ashes and suggested that bottom ashes are suitable for landfilldisposal and should be kept at an alkaline pH.2.2 Factors Affecting Leachable Metal Levels from the MSW IncineratorBottom AshAll of the batch extraction methods have specified a screen openingthrough which the ash residues are subject to the test. In the LEP test, the sieveopening is specified as 3/8 inch (9.5 mm). Such bottom ash still contains differentparticle size materials and further sifting of such bottom ash into severalfractions would be necessary when focusing on the relation between metalcontaminant and particle size. Scientist have addressed the finest materials in theMSW incinerator ash containing the highest level of contaminants. (Greenberg etat., 1978) (Sawell et at., 1986) However, there is still limited information availableabout the relationship of particle size to metal concentrations in MSW bottomash. A study conducted by Sawell et at. (1990) demonstrated that bottom ashparticles less than 4.0 mm in size contained the highest concentrations of lead.Stegemann et at. (1991) examined the composition and leachability of thedifferent bottom ash in four size fractions: <0.4 mm, 0.4 mm -2 mm, 2 mm - 8mm, and> 8 mm. Each fraction was subjected to a series of tests including totalmetal and Sequential Chemical Extraction acid neutralization capacity test andtwo European regulatory tests. Based on the results in total metal analysis, they9observed a clear trend for the zinc level to decrease with increasing particle size.To a lesser degree, such a tendency was observed for cadmium, nickel andcopper. However, no trend for lead was apparent. Higher leachability of thesemetals was observed in the finer size fractions. They discovered that the smallestparticle size fraction appeared to have a greater acid neutralization capacity thanthe other three particle size fractions. Stegemann et a!. (1991) concluded that theremoval of the higher contaminant size fractions from the MSW incineratorbottom ash will improve the suitability of the remaining bottom ash forconstructive utilities such as road building.Some researchers compared the characteristics of the residues from MSWincinerators with different combustion technologies and discovered that thechemical properties of the ashes might be related to the incinerator design.Sawell et a!. (1989) reported that ferrous metal removal in the pre-processing ofrefuse at a refuse derived fuel (RDF) incinerator have reduced the concentrationsof cadmium, lead and zinc in the fly ash. They also reported that in a RDF facilitythe volatile metals were evenly distributed between fly ash and bottom ash,while much higher volatile metals concentrations were found in the fly ash thanbottom ash from the modular incinerator. However, Andrew et a!. (1991)reported that ash from RDF incinerator has not been shown to contain lower totalor leachable levels of most toxic metals than ash from mass burn plants.The different characteristics of ash residues from MSW incinerators withdifferent combustion systems have shown to have a effect on ash managementstrategy. Sawell et al. (1989) reported that the chemical characteristics of fly ashand bottom ash from a RDF facility with ferrous recovery were similar andseparate collection for treatment of fly ash may not be necessary. Contrarily, the10characteristics of ashes from a modular facility were very different, and thus theseparate collection of fly ash and bottom ash, and the treatment of the fly ash arerequired.The effects of different pH leaching solutions on leachable heavy metalsfrom incinerator ashes have been addressed by many MSW ash workers. Resultshave shown significant influence of pH on the metal concentrations in MSW ashleachate. Andrew et at. (1991) performed research to determine the chemical andleaching properties of fly ash, combined ash and bottom ash from MSWincinerators and reported that the leaching of lead and cadmium from theresidues is chiefly dependent on the pH of the leaching solutions. Hasselriis(1988) pointed out that the leaching of heavy metals from the naturally alkalineMSW incinerator residues can be kept to minimum levels by not being subject toexcessive acid or alkaline environments. He discovered that the minimumsolubility of lead is in the pH range from about 8 to 10. With either higher orlower pH leachate, the solubility of lead will increase dramatically. Similarresults were also reported by Sundstrom et at. (1991) and Sloot et at. (1989).Sundstrom et at. (1991) found that lead and zinc exhibited amphoteric behaviorand had minimum solubility in the extraction between pH 8 and 10. They alsodiscovered that most metals, including cadmium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese,decreased in solubility as pH increased. Sloot et at. (1989) examined the influenceof pH and compared the results with the prediction of a geochemical speciationmodel. They reported that the leaching behavior was found to be very systematicin some cases the pH range for minimum leaching of metals is in the range from8 to 10; at pH values below 7, the leaching of metals from incinerator residuesincrease sharply. Thus their suggestion has emphasized the importance of the11knowledge of the long term pH changes for the disposal and utilization ofincinerator residues.DiPietro et at. (1989) applied controlled batch experiments and ageochemical thermodynamic computer model (MINTEQ) to evaluate theinfluence of pH and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) on metal leachabilitiesof MSW incinerator residues. They discovered that pH has a significant influenceon the aqueous phase concentration of Ca, Zn, Cd, Cu, Ni, Fe, Mn, Pb and Al. Onthe other hand, ORP was found to have significant influence on the mobilizationof Zn, Cu, Ni, Fe, Pb and Al. They found that ash residues exposed to acidicreducing conditions have higher aqueous metal concentrations compared toalkaline reducing conditions. DiPietro et at. reported that the influence of ORP isstrongly affected by pH and may be non-linear across extreme upper and lowerpH levels. They also reported that MINTEQ was able to imitate the trends andchanges in experimentally derived metals solubilities in batch extractions for awide range of pH and ORP. They believed that the model has the potential toimprove predictions of leachate concentration at different liquid/solid ratios.Sawell et at. (1989) applied the Sequential Chemical Extraction Procedureto test the potential availability of metals for leaching from the ashes underdifferent leaching conditions. The results indicate that larger proportions ofmetals present in the bottom ash were available for leaching under acidicleaching conditions than those in the dry scrubber or fabric filter fly ash. Yetthese results were in conflict with results from previous (Sawell and Constable,1988; Sawell et at., 1989b) studies which have verified that larger proportions ofmetals in the fly ashes are available for leaching than those in bottom ashes. Theythought the difference may be due to the higher buffering capacity of the fabric12filter ash compared to those from other facilities and the change in thepredominant metal species as a results of some industrial input to the refusestream.In the research of Francis et al. (1987), four resource recovery ashes wereleached under field conditions simulating monodisposal of ash in a monofill andcodisposal of the ash in a landfill with MSW. The Waste Extraction Test (WET)was chosen as the laboratory ash extraction procedure with the RCRA EP forcomparison. Two other extraction mediums were also used to extract the ash.They found that the extracts from the WET contained higher concentrations ofAs, Cd, Cr, Pb, Se, and Zn than extracts from any of the other tests. Comparisonbetween the concentrations determined in the WET and those observed inleachate at the field lysimeter was made and it indicated that the WEToverestimated the toxic metal concentrations in the leachate, except for selenium.The extreme case was lead where concentrations, determined by WET, werefound to be 800 times higher than that observed at the field test site.Concentrations of the other metals in the WET extracts were observed to be 25 to75 times higher than that found in the field leachate. In their conclusion, Franciset al. suggested that the WET was conservative when used as an indicator of theleaching characteristics of heavy metals from resource recovery ashes in either amonodisposal or codisposal scenario.Hasselriis (1988) reported that leaching tests which use deionized water orsimulated acid rain was found to simulate landfill leaching conditions better thanthe EP and TCLP tests which use acid that will counteract the natural bufferingability of the ash residues. He also reported that two or three washes wouldremove almost all of the leachable lead and cadmium from the ash, thus13suggesting that most of the soluble metals were on the surfaces of the ashresidues.2.3 Findings Regarding the Leaching of MSW Incinerator Bottom AshLong term effect on the chemical compositions in the leachates from ashdisposal sites have been monitored by ash researchers. Schoenberger et a!. (1976)discovered that there were only two of their selected chemical parameters, ironand chemical oxygen demand, in the leachate of a ash disposal site that could beseen to be decreasing during four years of monitoring. They also reported thatpH, phosphate, and chloride, appeared to be in a cyclical trend and were notnecessarily decreasing. The nitrate was discovered to be very low until aboutthirty months after the start of leaching, when the nitrate concentrationincreased. They believed that the increase in nitrate was due to thedecomposition of organic nitrogen compounds present in the residue. They alsoobserved the high concentration of salt as sodium and potassium in the leachateand suggested that substantial dilution around a residue landfill would berequired. Maynard (1977) reported that the leachate of the MSW residue hadhigh concentrations of pollutants initially but that the concentration level waslow enough for treatment in the sanitary sewer system. He found that aftercontinued leaching, the contamination to the leachate from the residue willeventually be acceptable for ground water contact.Hjelmar (1989) performed a study on leachate from two MSW incineratorash monofills and two MSW incinerator ash codisposal sites, covering periods of5 to 16 years. The data revealed that infiltration of precipitation into an ashlandfill may be reduced by the installation of a somewhat permeable top layer,14e.g. clay, combined with a surface drainage system. High concentrations ofinorganic salts and low concentrations of most trace elements were observed inleachate from both monofill and codisposal sites. Hjelmar also indicated thatcodisposal of organic waste with incinerator ash is problematic due to acontradiction between the options available for treatment and discharge of thelargely inorganic leachate from well-combusted ash and the generally organicleachate from domestic garbage. In his conclusion, Hjelmar suggested that aproper and consistent disposal strategy for MSW incinerator ash must approachsiting and design as well as the possible treatment and ultimate fate of theleachate in a long term perspective.Legiec et at. (1989) investigated the kinetics of lead, cadmium, andchromium extraction through a series of batch extraction studies of ash residuesfrom a MSW incinerator. Eight different time periods were set to examine theash/extractant conditions in the batch extraction study. All liquid fractions wereanalyzed for pH, conductivity, Pb, Cd, and Cr. The results revealed that the pHvalues all increased from the initial extractant pH to steady-state equilibrium pHvalues of 3.0±0.4. Legiec et at. believed that the difference of pH observed in theunsteady state time period was due to the varied structure of the ashes and theirrelated buffering capacities. They also discovered that the trend in the change inconductance for all the ashes was that of a sharp decrease until an asymptoticvalues was attained, and then the conductance was maintained throughout therest of the time period. The lead concentration curves of the extractions showed adefinite variance between the ashes. Some ashes were found to have the rate ofremoval of lead faster than the rate of neutralization in the ash. The extractablelevels of cadmium for all the tested ashes stabilized rapidly, and the removal15mechanism exhibited a pH dependency. The chromium concentrations for all theashes quickly stabilized.Sawell et at. (1990) conducted research on characterization of some of thechemical properties and leachability of separate ash streams from the GreaterVancouver Regional District’s Burnaby Municipal Refuse Incinerator as a part ofEnvironment Canada’s National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program(NITEP) during the fall of 1988. In their investigation of the metal concentrationsin the samples. (Table 2.1), Sawell et al. noted that low to moderateconcentrations (less than 3500 ig/g) of antimony, arsenic, boron, barium,cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel and selenium,and high to very high concentrations of aluminum (up to 6.4 %), lead (up to 1.0%) and zinc (up to 1.5 %) were found in the ashes.In order to reduce the hazardous character of the MSW incinerator ash,Denison et at. (1990) recommend that the objectives of ash management have toinclude the following : 1) separately test and manage fly and bottom ash; 2)dispose of ash separately from other wastes in a secure facility; 3) encourage orrequire treatment of ash prior to disposal to reduce both its present and futurehazards; 4) keep toxic metals out of products and keep wastes containing metalsout of incinerators.2.4 Characteristics of MSW Incinerator Bottom AshSince MSW incinerator bottom ash is not listed as a hazardous waste inregulations of many agencies, the management and disposal of bottom ash doesnot need to meet the stringent requirement for special wastes. In British16Table 2.1 Total Metal Concentractions in the AshesAll units are in .tg/g (ppm)Bottom ash (recycle**)Bottom ash (no-recycle)Dry scrubber ash (recycle*jDry scrubber ash (no-recyde)Fabric filter ash (recycle**)Fabric filter ash (no-recyde)= BA-R= BA-NR= DS-R= DS-NR= FF-R= FF-NR** A portion of fly ash was reused as a substitute for a portion of the freshlime injected into the flue gas stream for add gas control.Element BAR* BANR* DSR* DSNR* FFR* FFNR*Al 41900 43800 63500 35900 7430 6670Sb 200 270 290 170 525 450As 4.5 1.5 118 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3Ba 790 860 1590 710 200 138B 160 330 350 132 124 96.2Cd 11 18 94 36 300 154Cr 3170 1200 490 270 125 86Co 350 290 92 26 <5 <5Cu 2370 3000 1000 530 450 335Pb 9900 8750 2860 1400 7830 4870Mn 1910 2170 2600 1170 300 240Hg 3.4 2.1 34 8 54 24Ni 1840 1350 3520 260 75 66Se <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2Ag <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Zn 2360 5210 9950 5000 14500 9350Note : *Source: Sawell et al. (1990)17Columbia, only those bottom ash failing to pass the Leachate Quality Standardslisted in Table 2.2 when subjected to LEP test will be defined as special wastes.(Government of British Columbia, 1992) Generally MSW incinerator bottom ashis not a special waste.In addition to the leaching test, efforts have been made to collect physicaland chemical characteristics of the MSW incinerator bottom ash in order toevaluate it for some utility scenarios. These characteristics include grain sizedistribution, material distribution, abrasion resistance, durability, bulk specificgravity, density, compaction, and acid neutralizing capacity. A list of typicalMSW incinerator bottom ash physical and chemical properties is shown in Table2.3. If the properties of the bottom ash tested are compatible with intended needs,it is possible to utilize bottom ash for such needs. For instance, the grain sizedistribution of MSW incinerator bottom ash must meet the standardspecifications for highway construction when considering the use of thesematerials as base or sub-base aggregates in road construction. (Gress et at., 1991)(Hartlén et at., 1989) Durability of bottom ash represents the ability of suchmaterial to retain its strength and size distribution under stress. The MSWincinerator ash used as an aggregate in construction utilities needs to have agood durability. (Atwater et at., 1993) Compaction tests are important to considerdue to the risk of crushing of bottom ash particles during laying and compactionwhen used as a substitute for sand and gravel. (Hartlén et at., 1989) Moreover,economic considerations are typically more decisive than environmentalconcerns when considering specific utilization.18Table 2.2 Leachate Quality StandardsContaminant Concentration in Waste Extract (mg/L)Aldicarb 0.9Aidrin + Dieldrin 0.07Arsenic 5.0Barium 100.0Benzene 0.5Boron 500.0Cadmium 0.5Carbaryl/ 1-Naphthyl-N-methyl carbamate 9.0Carbon tetrachioride 0.5Chlordane 0.7Chromium 5.0Copper 100.0Cyanide (free) 20.0Diazinon 2.0DDT 3.02,4-D 10.0Ethylbenzene 0.24Fluorides 150.0Heptachlor + Heptachior epoxide 0.3Lead 5.0Lindane 0.4Mercury 0.1Methoxychlor 90.0Nitrate + Nitrite 1000.0Nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) 5.0Parathion 5.0Pentachlorophenol 3.0Selenium 1.0Silver 5.0Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6- 0.1Toluene 2.4Trichiorophenoxyacetic acid,2,4,5- (2,4,5-T) 28.0Trihalomethanes 35.0Uranium 10.0Xylenes 30.0Zinc 500.0Source: Government of British Columbia (1992)ParameterWater Content (%)Uniformity Coefficient (D60/D10)Effective Size (D1O, mm)Bulk Specific Gravity (<4.75 mm)Bulk Specific Gravity (>4.75 mm)Adsoprtion (%, <4.75 mm)Adsoprtion (%, >4.75 mm)LOT (%)Ferrous Content (%)Unit Weight (kg/m3)Optimum Proctor Moisture (%)Proctor Dry Density (kg/m3)LA Abrasion (%)Na2SO4 Soundness (Fine Fraction)Na2SO4 Soundness (Coarse Fraction)Acid Neutralization Capacity (meg/g)- 38.0- 0.762- 2.06- 2.43- 21.23- 7.80- 10.7- 39.9- 1,223- 17- 1,782- 48.2- 14.32- 2.76- 3.5Table 2.3 Typical MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Physical and ChemicalProperties19Range of Values2.6 - 5311.60.1551.302.037.661.744.815.61,109111,72446.410.382.511.5Source: Gressetal. (1991)202.5 Possible Utilizations of the Glass in MSW Incinerator Bottom AshAn approximate material composition of MSW incinerator bottom ash isgiven by Kenahan et at. (1967) in Table 2.4. The bottom ash is comprised of morethan 40 % glass. The high percentage of glass in bottom ash has led to research onglass reuse. Johnson et at. (1973) conducted a study on evaluating the economicsof four processes for using glass fractions from municipal incinerator residues.They used the colored glass fractions in three processes, brick production, floortile production, and glass wool production, and then the colorless glass fractionin glass spheres production. They discovered that the making of the productsfrom the glass fractions recycled from the municipal incinerator residues wastypically an economically feasible operation. However, they recommended thatthe market size and the effect on the market should be analyzed carefully.Buekens et at. (1979) reported that the glass cullet recovered from theMSW incinerator residue is possibly suitable for the manufacturing of brick andslag wool. Like Johnson et at. (1973), they believed that the only serious obstacleis the marketing of the end products.In the research of Carbone et at. (1989), refuse incinerator ashes wereincorporated into melted glass, ceramics and cement to yield solid materials. TheEP Toxicity test was applied to measure the extent of leachability of toxicelements. From the results of their study, Carbone et at. discovered that suchsolid matrices can immobilize toxic elements effectively. They reported that theash-cement could be used as construction materials, and the glass or ceramicmaterials could possibly be utilized for production of decorative productsTable 2.4 Average Composition of Municipal IncineratorBottom AshMaterial % Dry WeightFerrous Metals 28.2Non-ferrous metals 1.4Glass 44.1Ceramics/Stone 1.9Ash 15.4Carbon 8.3Other Organics 0.721Source : Kenahan et al. (1967)22instead of disposed in landfills. They suggested that the refuse incinerator ashcould be incorporated into melted glass at the incinerator site prior to landfilldisposal. However, they pointed out that the melting of glass using the heat fromthe incinerator would reduce the heat available for the generation of steam andelectricity which is sold to make up for the cost of operation of refuse-derivedfuel incinerators.Harlow et at. (1990) conducted research on the vitrification of MSWincinerator ash. Vitrification is a process that changes materials such as silica,silica oxides, or iron oxides into a glass-like substance. In their study, theyreported that further refinement of fly ash and bottom ash by a sintering orvitrification procedure is an acceptable practice in producing light weightaggregates which are suitable for use in construction projects. They suggestedthat glass is an excellent medium for encapsulating hazardous materials. Theyfound that molten glass can effectively dissolve or capture most inorganicmaterials and then be cooled to a solid state. The solid state products werediscovered to be highly resistant to groundwater leaching. Their studies showedthat the leaching levels of metals from the products of the vitrification processwere reduced by up to three orders of magnitude when compared to the inputmaterials.2.6 The Recovery and Reclamation of Materials from Bottom AshGiven that the input MSW contains a variety of materials, the remainingbottom ash contains unburned materials including many metallic constituents. Astudy conducted by Sussman (1989) reported the metallic constituents of23Table 2.5 Metallic Ash ConstituentsMAJOR % MINOR % TRACE %Al 3 Cu 0.1 As 0.003Ca 8 Pb 0.2 Ba 0.05Fe 10 Mn 0.6 Cd 0.003Na 6 Mo 0.1 Cr 0.02Si 30 K 0.4 Hg 0.0006Ti 0.7 Se 0.004Zn 0.3 Ag 0.0006Source: Sussman (1989)24incinerator ash listed in Table 2.5. The reclaiming of these metals from incineratorresidues has been evaluated from a feasibility and economical perspective.Reclamation is the regeneration of waste materials or the recovery ofmaterials with value from waste. Reclamation methods include dewatering, ionexchange, distillation, and smelting. (Wagner, 1990) However, the collection offerrous scrap from the MSW incinerator residue is not reclamation. Bothreclamation and recovering of metallic materials from MSW incinerator bottomash not only create benefits from the sale of such materials but also provide greataid in extending the life of landfill sites. Research conducted by Henn et al. (1971)has evaluated the recycling of ferrous, aluminum, and copper-zinc scrap as wellas colorless and colored glass from MSW incinerator residues. They reported thatafter the recycling process, 17 %, on a dry weight basis, of the original incineratorresidue would needed to be landfilled. The volume of the materials sent tolandfill would become less than 10 % of the original volume of the residue. Sincethere is no data available regarding the volume reduction related to the recyclingof such materials from the bottom ash of the Burnaby MSW Incinerator, it can beestimated that only about 3.4 % of the original volume of the residue needs to belandfilled based on the finding that 20 % by weight of the incoming refuseremained as residue. The data of Henn et a!. (1971) seems higher than theestimates for the Burnaby MSW Incinerator and may be due to the difference ofthe characteristics between the ash samples. In addition to the volume reductionby recycling the ash components, a study conducted by Tay (1988) has reportedthat the revenue collected from the sale of electricity and scrap iron could offsetthe annual cost of operating the MSW incinerator.25Buekens et al. (1979) have evaluated the possibility of recovering thenonferrous metals from MSW incinerator ash and reported that it has high valuebut it was only present in small amounts. Sussman (1989) conducted research onevaluation of the testing methods, constituents and potential uses of MSWincinerator ash. In his report, Sussman concluded that present testing methodsdo not adequately simulate the real situation when ash is placed into a controlledlandfill unit. He suggested that cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, silver and gold arerecoverable from incinerator ash by using chemical processes similar to thoseused in the mineral industry.Research conducted by Legiec et al. (1989) used a plating technique, thecyclic voltammetry, to determine the characteristic peak of lead, and to evaluatethe recoverability of lead, cadmium, and chromium from the ash extractsolutions. The treated and untreated ashes were subjected to total metals analysisand the results revealed a 45 % reduction for lead and a 90 % reduction forcadmium. They also reported that the recovered metal was in a relatively pureform and suggested the potential of recovering such metals from the ash extractsolutions with electrochemical process.2.7 MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Used As Fill MaterialsMSW incinerator bottom ash have been used as fill materials since the1960’s. Requardt et at. (1962) evaluated the possibility of using incinerator ash asthe covering material on a landfill. They reported that incinerator ash has manyadvantages over sandy clay as landfill cover material. These benefits include thecompatibility over a broad range of weather conditions, the greater internalstrength after compactness, the freedom from shrinkage upon drying, afforded26by surface rigidity, and the lack of muddiness in the area during rainy weather.Maynard (1977) reported that the benefits of using incinerator residue as fillmaterials are that it is inert, non-plastic, well-graded, granular and easy tocompact to near its maximum density. Once compacted, the residue is relativelystable and insensitive to additional pressures within a practical range. Hartlén etal. (1989) pointed out the importance of sorting the bottom ash before using it asfill materials because sorting will eliminate uncombusted and metallic materials.They have tested both fresh and aged sorted bottom ash and the results showedthat aged ash performed better than fresh ash. The higher water content of thefresh ash was believed to be the main reason why it couldn’t perform better thanthe aged ash. Meanwhile, they also suspected that oxidation during aging maychange the properties of the ash. The results of compaction tests also indicatedthat sorted MSW incinerator bottom ash was very suitable as fill material instructural fills.Andrews (1991) has also reported the successful use of MSW incineratorresidues as a substitute for soil in the Tampa Bay region since 1983. The residueafter sorting has been applied as daily cover at the landfill working face, assubstitute for aggregates in road base, to stabilize sandy or muddy areas, and toconstruct berms. Some of the characteristics of the reused MSW incineratorresidue were reported as the following: 1) The high alkalinity of the residue wasdiscovered to be related to carbonates and bicarbonates present in the material; 2)the strength of the products made with reused MSW incinerator residue was asstrong or stronger than the products made with conventional raw material; 3) thematuration period is usually greater than that for conventionally made products;4) once the residue was incorporated into a cement matrix, the heavy metalconstituents in it were virtually immobilized.27MSW incinerator bottom ash used as landfill roads, barriers, and covermaterials in U.S. have been reported, (Atwater et al., 1993) The bottom ash fromBurnaby MSW incinerator have been used for constructing road access to theclosed Coquitlam landfill as well as for making work platforms for otheractivities. (Atwater et a!., 1993)2.8 MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Used in Concrete MakingThe use of MSW incinerator bottom ash instead of natural aggregates inconcrete has also been evaluated. Research conducted by Stoelhorst (1991) haveshown that MSW incinerator bottom ash concrete is limited to low valueunreinforced constructions due to its lower quality compared to concrete madewith river sand and gravel. They reported that the high chloride content of MSWincinerator bottom ash has a potential risk of corrosion of the reinforcement steel.They also reported that only crushed, screened and iron-free ash can beconsidered for use as an aggregate for concrete. Research conducted by Kreijger(1984) has pointed out that the reaction between aluminum (present in ashresidue) and cement will result in expansion and thus decrease the strength ofthe concrete made with MSW incinerator bottom ash. In addition, the expansionproblem due to silica-alkali reactions caused by the glass present in ash was alsoreported by Kreijger (1984) when evaluating the strength of bottom ash madeconcrete.Tay (1988) reported that a lot of fine material and fibers attached to the ashparticle could become contrary, which causes a poor concrete setting andinconsistent concrete strength, when using residue as fine aggregate for concrete28mixing. Compared to a natural sand, the wasted incinerator residue wasdiscovered to have similar specific gravity and higher water absorption values.From a series of tests, Tay concluded that the incinerator residues after washingcould be used as fine aggregate in concrete.2.9 MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Used As Aggregates in RoadConstructionMany studies have been carried out on the possibility of using incineratorresidues as aggregates in bituminous base construction (littercrete pavement).Paviovich et al. (1977) evaluated the use of municipal incinerator residue asaggregates in bituminous pavement construction in the laboratory and in thefield. They found that, with proper precautions, incinerator residue is useful asaggregate substitute in bituminous base construction. These precautions includethe removal of fines and the addition of slurried-lime to the stockpile, which wasused as an anti stripping agent for the glass in the incinerator residue. A study byBlank (1976) reported that the possibility of the manufacture of lightweightaggregates from incinerator residues is dependent upon a high content of glass,which evolves a gas on heating and expands to a lightweight aggregate havingsatisfactory structure and strength at high temperatures.Haynes et al. (1975) (1977) reported that littercrete pavement met thespecifications for asphalt stabilized materials and it can use conventionalequipment and technology. He also reported that the performance of littercretepavement is as good as that of the conventional pavement. From the results ofthe investigations, they estimated the life of the littercrete pavement to be 10- 15years and found it is limited by the strength of the lime stabilized subgrade. In29some areas where aggregates cost are high, the low cost of the incineratorresidues has resulted in the use of incinerator residues in bituminous baseconstruction. Teague et al. (1978) conducted research on the performance oflittercrete pavement during the first three years of service. In his report, heconcluded that littercrete pavement performed, almost identical with theconventional pavement.Patankar et al. (1979) evaluated the economic and environmental factorsinfluencing the use of fused and unfused incinerator residues in highwayconstruction. They reported that from the results of economic analysis, unfusedincinerator residue is very practical when the landfilling cost savings associatedare taken into account. They found that although the fused incinerator residuemay have significant skid-resistant properties on pavement, its use is not justifiedsolely on the basis of economics. They also indicated that the amount ofincinerator residue available is far less than the demand for urban aggregates.Patankar et al. believed that there wouldn’t be a business conflict to the fixedinvestment of the vertically integrated highway construction and materialsindustry. The same comment has been reported by Strauss (1989) in his researchon the potential reuse of hardened incinerator ash.Lauer (1979) conducted a study evaluating the potential use of MSWincinerator residue as a source of aggregate. In his research, the fly ash wascombined with the residue. From the results of American Society of Testing andMaterials (ASTM) acceptance tests, the residue was found to be potentiallysuitable for using as subbase and base-course material and aggregate forasphaltic concrete, Portland cement concrete, and masonry concrete block. Hepointed out that the expansion of the alkali-aggregate occurred when the waste30glass was substituted for the coarse aggregates in concrete, and it could becontrolled by adding fly ash collected in an electroprecipitator from a refuseincinerator instead of some of the cement to dissipate the alkali.Collins et al. (1977) classified the municipal incinerator residues in threecategories, based on degree of burnout. These categories are well burned-out,intermediately burn-out, and poorly burn-out. He thought that municipalincinerator residues are predictable in their composition and gradation. From theresults of his study on the use of incinerator residue in highway construction,Collins concluded that only well burned and intermediately burned residueswere viable for use in highway construction. They recommended that an agingperiod was necessary to improve the quality of the residue prior to its use as a fillmaterial. Based on the results of the laboratory tests and field performance ofbase course and wearing surface mixtures placed in various test sections, theysuggested that the incinerator residue should be blended with natural aggregateson an equal weight basis in bituminous paving mixtures. Since the incineratorresidue contains a high percentage of glass, Collins et al. also reported that theaddition of hydrated lime is necessary for improving the anti-strippingproperties of asphalt when using incinerator residue in bituminous pavingmixtures. They discovered that the use of incinerator residue in Portland cementconcrete was not suitable since the aluminum reactivity in the mixture causes anexpansion. From the results of 48 hour leachate tests, he discovered that the useof a binding agent, such as lime, cement, or asphalt, tended to encapsulate theelements in the incinerator residue and noticeably reduce their solubilities andconcentrations in the leachate. In their conclusions, Collins et al. reported that theuse of incinerator residue in bituminous paving mixture appeared to be the mostpromising application of the MSW incinerator residue. Collins (1978) also31reported that the energy requirements and economics associated with the use ofincinerator residue as a synthetic aggregate through heat fusion, and theproduction of structural brick and mineral wool insulation has to be taken intoaccount in the reuse of incinerator residue.Research conducted by Buekens et al. (1979) found that high combustiontemperatures that cause the sintering and the partial melting of the residue has abenefit of decreasing the solubility of ash in ground water and thus reducing thepotential water pollution of the tipped ash. He also reported that the gradedincinerator ash is still a desirable raw material which can be used for hardeningsecondary roads, preparing park or sport grounds or as a sub-base material forroad making. However, the high porosity, improper grading, low strength andbrittleness of the residue also makes for some problems in road construction. Itshigh sulfate content also restricts its use to a minimum distance of 0.5 m fromconcrete products.Walter (1976) also confirmed that MSW incinerator residue is usable inboth base and surface course of asphalt pavements. He reported that hot asphaltcoating on the incinerator residue would form an impervious covering whichprevents leaching of heavy metals from the residue into surrounding soils.However, he discovered that excess ferrous material present in the residue canadversely affect adhesion of the asphalt due to its highly oxidized state afterincineration. Consequent pavement failure, a requirement for more asphalt and achange in aggregate characteristics with time were also related to the ferrousconstituent in the incinerator residue. Thus he recommended that the removal ofoversize particles and excessive ferrous materials prior to the utilization ofincinerator residue in asphalt pavement was necessary. Additional residue32gradation, was also suggested by Walter, which might further reduce thevariability of the residue quality due to its heterogeneous property.2.10 Other Issues Regarding the Use of Bottom AshBlaisdell et at. (1990) conducted a study to evaluate the economicfeasibility of drying MSW incinerator residue. He reported that the moisture ofash due to the quench water increases the weight and cost of the ash sent to thelandfill as well as the cost of treatment of the increased leachate generated. Withincreasing landfill disposal costs, he suggested that bottom ash moisturereduction would be worth taking into consideration. In four bottom ash moisturereduction schemes investigated, he discovered that the use of electric resistanceheating after quench to reduce moisture was the most economically feasibledesign.Strauss (1989) conducted a study regarding the evaluation of thestabilization of heavy metals in incinerator ash and the potential reuse of thehardened materials. He discovered that the quality of the stabilized productsmade from MSW residue was adequate, but with the cost of production and thecost of amortization of the equipment it could not compete with naturalaggregates. He also reported that in the melting and solidification of the MSWincinerator ash, a dramatic reduction in volume was observed (from 3 to 5 timesless volume). Strauss suggested that this process was economical even whenusing landfill disposal, since the ability to put 3 to 5 times more ash in the samespace may offset the cost of installing and operating the melting plant. In thebrick making scenario, the cost of the product was found to be too high. He33predicted that if the percentage of the ash could be high enough, the process maybe more economical.In addition to the applications stated above, many studies have beencarried out or are underway on developing other uses for MSW incineratorresidues. These alternative uses include artificial reef development and theproduction of brick, cinder block, and curbing. (Andrews, 1991)Though many MSW incinerator bottom ash utilization options have beenpracticed successfully for years, there are still several issues impeding theutilization of MSW incinerator residues. These issues include: “1) EnvironmentalConsequences and Human Health Concerns, which focus on the heavy metals inthe ashes as well as their form and their ultimate fate when the ash is applied touses like roadbed, building blocks, etc. 2) Long-term Performance and Predictionof Performance, which concerns the ability of accurately measuring andpredicting the environmental behavior of the ashes over extended periods forvarious utilization scenarios. 3) Liability, the potential liability for futureproblems and the uncertain regulatory situations have impeded the utilization ofMSW incinerator residues. 4) The Lack of Guidance on MSW Incinerator AshMeasurement and Utilization, which has impeded the initialization of fielddemonstrations required to evaluate the benefits, risks and other factorsassociated with ash utilization and thus creates uncertainty for the industry, theusers, and the public. 5) The Need of Criteria for Utilization, which must specifythe physical properties and characteristics of the materials to be replaced for theMSW incinerator ash to meet. 6) Markets, already mentioned in some previousliterature, is a decisive issue of all MSW incinerator ash utilization options.”34Further research and demonstrations are needed to assist in resolving theseissues. (Wiles, 1991)2.11 SummaryThe conventional disposal of MSW incinerator bottom ash in landfillshave been practiced for years. Many researchers have addressed the evaluationof the leachable metal levels from such ash landfills due to potentialcontamination of groundwater sources which may in turn provide a pathway forhuman contact. Owing to the lack of specific guidelines for the testing ofincinerator residues, many test protocols have been developed by differentgroups and agencies for the extraction of contaminants from the residue fromMSW incinerators. Scientists found that results from different test protocols werenot comparable due to the different test conditions as well as other factors suchas combustion technology, sampling protocol, sample size, leaching medium,and pH of leaching solution which all have effects on the leachable metalconcentrations in the leachate from MSW incinerator residues. Despite thedifferent extraction tests, many studies have shown that MSW incinerator bottomash generally leached out metals in concentrations lower than the maximumacceptable levels in regulations defining hazardous materials. Moreover, much ofthe utilization research regarding the incinerator residue in the past was done oncombined bottom and fly ash. It is remarkable that the fly ash properties havealso changed over the last ten years with the pollution control requirements suchas acid gas scrubbers and the subsequent injection of lime into the gas treatmentstream.35Few ash researchers have addressed the leachable metal levels in thebottom ash associated with residue particle size. A study from Western Europe(Stegemann et al., 1991) reported that metal concentration in the leachateincreased with the decreasing particle size of the extracted bottom ash sample.Only limited literature is available for clarifying this finding. This leads to theextraction test practiced on three bottom ash fractions in this study to verify therelationship between particle size and the leachable metal level.Since MSW incinerator bottom ash is generally classified as a non-hazardous material, many researchers have evaluated the possible utilization ofthese materials. The use of the glass and metallic materials in the bottom ashhave been evaluated for feasibility and economics. The factor deciding the use ofglass in the bottom ash, however, is the market potential of end products madefrom such materials. The successful use of MSW incinerator bottom ash as anaggregate substitute in concrete mixing, road base making and bituminouspaving have been reported by many researchers in both North America andWestern Europe. Utilization of bottom ash in artificial reef development andproduction of brick, cinder block, curbing and other materials have also beenreported by researchers. Physical properties such as durability, particle sizegradation, specific gravity, and LA abrasion have to be evaluated and meet thespecifications of specific use.The main objective of this study is to determine if leachable heavy metalswere concentrated in any specific fractions of the fine bottom ash from theBurnaby MSW Incinerator. If any specific fraction was found to leach out higherlevels of heavy metals, a better management of the bottom ash could be made bysorting out the problematic fraction which would upgrade the quality of the rest.36Another objective of this study is to characterize the grain size distribution of thebottom ash. This physical property of bottom ash is required for engineeringpurposes when evaluating the suitability of bottom ash as aggregate substitute inuses such as road building and concrete mixing. Many engineering uses ofbottom ash require the ash to meet the specifications for the grain sizedistribution of the conventional aggregate used. Also, the material distribution ofthe coarse bottom ash fraction is to be characterized in this study. Like the grainsize distribution, knowledge of the material distribution of the coarse bottom ashfractions is necessary when considering the reuse of bottom ash in engineeringuses. In addition, the fixed and total metals in the fine bottom ash fractions are tobe evaluated in this study for a general understanding of the heavy metals levelsin the bottom ash. When a long term disposal of the bottom ash is considered,such information will be beneficial for a proper management of such ashresidues.37Chapter 3.Materials And MethodsA brief description of the methods used in this research is presented inthis chapter. A flow chart of the procedures is shown in Figure 3.1.3.1 Sampling ProcedureThe bottom ash samples used in this research were collected at theBurnaby Refuse Incinerator between January and December 1991. The samplingfrequency was originally designed as three times per month. It was latermodified to twice per month, based on the practicalities of sampling. Onoccasion, sampling was postponed due to regular plant shut down formaintenance, or a busy plant schedule. The samping location is shown in thecross sectional diagram of the Burnaby Incinerator, Figure 3.2. The samplingschedule as well as the quantity of ash collected is illustrated in Table 3.1.For each sampling date, ten to twelve half-bucket containers were used tocollect bottom ash samples at the plant. Except for those obtained betweenJanuary and February at the end of No.2 ash conveyer, the bottom ash sampleswere collected at the end of No.3 ash conveyer. A sheet of plywood as shown inFigure 3.3 was attached to the bottom ash crane to direct bottom ash falling offthe conveyer into a crane bucket. A roller magnet at the end of conveyer collectedferrous materials from the bottom ash, the ferrous material was discharged to apit beside the ash bunker, thus the ash samples collected did not include theferrous metal fraction. The average collecting time for one half-bucket of bottomash was approximately twenty minutes. The bottom ash crane was then movedEnvironmentalEng.Lab,UBCCivilEng.Dept.2kgSampleRinsedWith2LDistilledWaterPhysicalComponentsDistributionAnalysisFractionsofPassing50mmSieveOpeningGet10-12Setsof6SizeFractionalSamplesCombineEach3SetsoftheSameSizeFractionalSamplesGet4Setsof6SizeFractionalSamplesFigure3.1SummaryofBottomAshSampling&AnalysisProceduresIMANOEUVERINGAPROW2nEcEIvtaGHALL3MAW4TENANCEBAY4flEFUSEBUNICER5 5FEEbCHUTE7GIATESDCHtLQEfl9ASHd(INKER10BOILERIISUPERHEATER12ECONOMIZER13CONDITIONINGTOWER14RETC4I(LIMEINJECTIONI15FABRICFILTERSIASt4CIGREATERVANCOUVERREGIONALDISTRICTBURNABYINCINERATOR-AREFUSETOENERGYFACILITYFigure3.2GreaterVancouverRegionalDistrictBurnabyIncinerator-ARefusetoEnergyFacilityFflBottomashsamplestakenfromhere40Table 3.1 Burnaby Refuse Incinerator Bottom AshSampling Schedule vs. Sample WeightsSampling Number of Total Bottom Ash Average Half-bucketDate Half-buckets Sample Wt. (kg) Sample Wt. (kg)1/2/91 12 N/A* N/A*1/14/91 12 N/A* N/A*1/22/91 12 N/A* N/A*2/4/91 10 688.5 68.852/18/91 12 765.0 63.753/6/91 10 580.3 58.033/30/91 12 618.0 51.504/12/91 12 658.8 54.904/21/91 12 666.4 55.534/29/91 12 622.6 51.886/6/91 12 650.8 54.237/7/91 12 630.6 52.558/10/91 12 615.4 51.288/30/91 12 532.1 44.349/13/91 12 664.2 55.359/26/91 12 652.7 54.3911/16/91 11 591.7 53.7912/17/91 10 521.8 52.18*NOTE-The prticle size distribution analysis began 2/4/91.41Figure 3.3 The Collection of Bottom Ash Sample at the End of No.3 AshConveyer of Burnaby Refuse Incinerator42outside the plant to load the bottom ash into the half-bucket containers. Ten totwelve half-buckets of bottom ash were collected in at half hour intervals.According to ASTM Method No. D75-87, “Standard Practice for SamplingAggregates” (ASTM 1989), the suggested approximate minimum mass of fieldsamples for 50 mm (two inches) size aggregate is 100 kg. The ASTM DesignationC 136-84a “Standard Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates”(ASTM 1991), suggests that a 20 kg sample is appropriate when 50 mm diameteraggregate is present. In this research, ten to twelve half-buckets of bottom ash,instead of one large sample, were taken for each sampling day. Each half-bucketheld about fifty to sixty kilograms of air-dried bottom ash.The bottom ash samples were subjected to an air drying procedure. Eachhalf-bucket of ash was dumped onto a piece of clean plastic and kept in the openair at the plant for a week to ten days. During this period, regular mixing of theash piles was practiced to make sure that the bottom ash samples werethoroughly dry before beginning the subsequent particle size distributionanalysis.3.2 Particle Size Distribution AnalysisThe particle size distribution survey of the bottom ash was performed byusing a Gilson Test-Master® Model TM-4 sifting machine. This top loading lowvibration test-screening machine holds six trays and a pan. The sifting time wasset at five minutes for one load of ash to be separated to seven fractions. The sizesof the sieve opening used in this test were 2 inches (50 mm), 1 inch (25.0 mm),1/2 inch (12.5 mm), 3/8 inch (9.5 mm), No. 4 sieve (4.75 mm), and No. 8 sieve(2.36 mm). Each half-bucket of the air dried bottom ash was divided into three43loads to ensure complete separation. The same fractions resulting from the threesiftings were combined. Each fraction was then weighed at the plant and conedand quartered to reduce each fraction to a desired testing size, of approximatelytwo kilograms.3.3 Quartering Procedure3.3.1 The seven fractions or portions of each bottom ash sample weresubject to a coning & quartering procedure following the guidelines stated inMethod B (Quartering) of ASTM Designation: C702-87 “Standard Practice forReducing Field Samples of Aggregate to Testing Size” (ASTM 1991). Eachfraction of the ash sample was placed on a piece of clean plastic located on ahard, clean, level surface in the incinerator plant. The material was mixedthoroughly by turning the entire sample over three times. After the mixing, theentire sample was shoveled to form a conical pile. The conical pile was thencarefully flattened to a uniform thickness and diameter by pressing down theapex with a shovel so that each quarter sector of the resulting pile contained thematerial originally in it. The diameter was approximately four to eight times thethickness. The flattened mass was divided into four equal quarters with a shovel.The two diagonally opposite quarters, including all fine material, were removedand the cleared spaces were cleaned. The remaining quarters were mixed andquartered successively until the sample was reduced to the desired size. Thequartering procedures is shown in Figure 3.4.3.3.2 An alternative to the procedure described in 3.3.1 was alsopracticed in this research when handling the finer fractions, which pass the 3/8’(9.5 mm) opening sieve. The ash sample was placed on a piece of clean plastic44S.cmplc l)icdcd Into ç)rter tirc (.)ppcscIe Qir1erIRcjcc i h ihcc iwo Quarter’Figure 3.4 Quartering on a Hard, Clean Level Surface(Source : ASTM Designation: C 702 - 87)Mcs by Roilcng ott BLanket Form Cone alter Mctcng7’Quarter After Rattening ConeSample Dwcded IntO Quarters/ ——Retain Opposite QuartersRejcei the Other TwoQuartersFigure 3.5 Quartering on a Canvas Blanket(Source: ASTM Designation: C 702- 87)L’J________Cone Sample on Hard Clerr Surface Mo. to. Forming New Cone Quarter k(tri flaiccncn (one45and was mixed by alternately lifting each corner of the plastic and pulling it overthe sample toward the diagonally opposite corner, causing the material to berolled. The pile was flattened and divided into quarters, as described in 3.3.1. Thediagonally opposite quarters were removed and the fines on the plastic werecarefully cleaned. The remaining material was mixed and quartered successivelyuntil the sample was reduced to the desired size (Figure 3.5).3.4 Material Components Distribution AnalysisThe bottom ash samples with particle size greater than 9.5 mm weresubject to a material components distribution analysis. Due to its small groupand heavy weight, compared to other fractions, the portion with particle sizegreater than 50 mm was analyzed visually for its material components at theplant site and discarded thereafter.The portions between 50 mm and 9,5 mm were sorted at theEnvironmental Lab of UBC Civil Engineering Department. Two kilograms of theair dried bottom ash with particle size between 50 mm and 25 mm was rinsedwith 2 liters of distilled water several times until no more fine materials could beremoved from the ash. The rinsed bottom ash samples were collected with astrainer and air dried in the laboratory for approximately one week and thensubjected to visual sorting of the material components. Before the start of thesorting procedure, ten clean beakers were weighed and labeled. The air dried ashsamples were weighed and then sorted into ten different material categories. Thecategories of the material components of the bottom ash samples used in thisresearch include ferrous metals, which were not removed by the roller magnet,brick, concrete pieces, glass pieces, unburned paper & wood pieces, ceramics,46rock and gravel, non-ferrous metals, glass mixtures and fused & unidentifiedmixtures. Each category of the material component of a bottom ash sample wassorted out and put into a specific beaker. When the sorting procedure wascompleted, each beaker carrying a category of the material component of thebottom ash was weighed. Weights for the ten material components of a bottomash sample were divided by the total weight of the ash sample to get the materialcomponent distribution percentages on a weight basis.The bottom ash rinse water was collected and filtered through a 7.0 cmdiameter Whatman 934-AH glass fiber filter with a porcelain Büchner filteringfunnel. The solid phase was collected and air dried. The liquid phase waspreserved with concentrated nitric acid for metal analysis described in section3.7.The air dried bottom ash of the fractions between 25 mm and 12.5 mm andthe fractions between 12.5 mm and 9.5 mm were subjected to the same procedurestated above, except one kilogram of air dried ash was rinsed with 1 liter ofdistilled water.3.5 Leachate Extraction ProcedureThe fine aggregate portions (passing 9.5 mm mesh opening) of the bottomash samples were subjected to Leachate Extraction Procedure (LEP) following theExtraction Procedure outlined in B.C. Reg. 63/88 “Waste Management Act,Special Waste Regulation” Schedule 4 (Government of British Columbia, 1992).The moisture of the air dried ash samples was determined by drying a suitablealiquot to constant weight at 60° C in an oven. The equivalence of 50 g dry47weight of the bottom ash was placed in one liter 1000 mL NalgeneTM high-density polyethylene wide-mouth square bottle with 800 mL of distilled water.The bottle was capped and agitated at about 10 rpm in a rotary extractor, whichcan hold 12 bottles at one time (Figure 3.6). At 15 minutes after the start, therotary extractor was stopped and a bottle was removed for a pH measurement.The solution in the bottle was agitated and immediately measured with aBeckman PHITM 44 pH meter. If the pH of the solution was greater than 5.0 ± 0.2,a sufficient volume of 0.5 N acetic acid was added to adjust the pH to 5.0 ± 0.2and then the bottle was capped and returned to the extraction. If the pH of thesolution was less than 5.0 ± 0.2, no adjustment was needed and the bottle waskept in the tumbling apparatus. The bottle and its contents were rotated in therotary extractor at 10 rpm at room temperature (20°C to 25°C). The followingprocedure was carefully followed during the period of extraction:1) The pH of the solution was measured at 1 hour, 3 hours, and 6 hours. Ifthe pH was above 5.2, it was reduced it to pH 5.0 ± 0.2 by adding of 0.5N acetic acid. If the pH was below 5.0, no adjustments were made. Themaximum amount of the 0.5 N acetic acid added was no more than 200mL in the test.2) Adjusted the volume of the solution to 1000 mL with distilled water, ifthe pH was below 5.0 ± 0.2 after 6 hours.3) Measured and reduced the pH to 5.0 ± 0.2, if needed, after 22 hours andcontinued the extraction for an additional 2 hours.48Figure 3.6 Rotary Extractor Used In Bottom Ash Leachate ExtractionProcedure49At the end of the extraction period, if a total of 200 mL of 0.5 acetic acidwasn’t added, enough distilled water was added to the bottle so that the totalvolume of the liquid was 1000 mL. The amount of 0.5 N acetic acid added andthe final pH of the solution were also recorded. The solution was then filteredthrough a 0.45 tm Satorius cellulose nitrate membrane filter with a NalgeneTMfilter funnel and clamp (Cat. No. FT 356). The filtrate was preserved by addingconcentrated nitric acid to lower the pH to less than pH 2 and stored at 40 C formetal analysis. The solid portion was collected, air dried at room temperature,and subject to a total metals acid digestion procedure. A blank sample wascarried through the entire procedure by using dilute acetic acid at pH 5.0 ± 0.2.3.6 Total Metals Acid DigestionThe solids obtained from the LEP procedure were pulverized to 100 meshsize. After the pulverization, there usually were pieces of metals remaining in theash powder. These metals appeared as the forms of drops or chips which weretypically aluminum, lead, copper and iron. They comprised about 10 % to 20 %by weight of the solid subject to pulverization. These metal pieces did notpulverize to powder in the pulverization process, which was done at the Miningand Mineral Process Engineering Department (UBC) using the pulverizingmachine. They were removed from the pulverized ash to make sure that theremaining ash powder was homogenous enough to get one gram of sample fortotal acid digestion. Therefore, the total metal results of the bottom ash in thisstudy have been underestimated due to the removal of metal pieces in thepulverization process. According to The Standard Methods No. 3030 F. “NitricAcid-Hydrochloric Acid Digestion Procedure” (A.P.H.A. et al. 1990) , one gram ofthe ground ash sample was weighed into a conical flask with 3 mL of50concentrated HNO3.The flask was placed on a hot plate located in a fume hood.The liquid in the conical flask was cautiously evaporated to a lowest volumepossible, making certain that the sample did not boil and that no area of thebottom of the container went dry. The sample & flask was then cooled and 5 mLconcentrated HNO3was added. A watch glass was used to cover the flask whenit was returned to the hot plate. The temperature of the hot plate was increasedso that a gentle reflux action occurred. The flask was heated continually, addingadditional acid as necessary, until the digestion was completed; when thedigestate was light in color or didn’t change in appearance with continuedrefluxing. The digestate was evaporated to <5 mL and cooled. 10 mL 1 + 1 HC1 (50 % concentration) and 15 mL water per 100 mL anticipated final volume wereadded into the flask, and then heated for an additional 15 minutes to dissolveany precipitate or residue. The flask was cooled and the remains on the flask walland watch glass were washed down with distilled water. The solution wasfiltered through a 0.45 jim Satorius cellulose nitrate membrane filter to removethe insoluble material. The filtrate was adjusted to 100 mL final volume withdistilled water for metal analysis.3.7 Metal AnalysisThe acid preserved liquid samples from the LEP, the Total Metals AcidDigestion and the Physical Components Distribution Analysis Procedure wereanalyzed for Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn by atomic absorption spectroscopy. AThermo Jarrell Ash IL VIDEOTM 22 aa/ae Spectrophotometer at the UBCCivil/Environmental Engineering Lab was used to determine metalconcentrations in liquid samples except for those Ni in the LEP leachate samplesand most of the samples from coarse bottom ash rinse water which were51determined by using a Perkin-Elmer 703 Atomic Absorption graphite furnace atthe same lab. The methodology of determining metal levels in the leachate of thebottom ash samples from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator was following No. 303 ofthe Standard Methods (APHA et aL, 1985). The procedures for setting up theatomic absorption spectrophotometers were following the specific users manualsfrom the manufacturers.52Chapter 4.ResultsThis chapter presents the results of the tests on the bottom ash samplestaken from January 2, 1991 to December 18, 1991 at the No. 2 and No. 3 units ofthe Burnaby Refuse Incinerator. The bottom ash particle size distribution testsbegan on February 4, 1991. The bottom ash material component characterizationfor the four coarse fractions with particle size greater than the 9.5 mm diameterwas done on samples collected on sampling dates between January 2, 1991 andDecember 18, 1991.4.1 Bottom Ash Particle Size DistributionThe particle size distribution for 173 bottom ash samples from BurnabyMSW Incinerator is shown in Figure 4.1. Detailed results for each sample arepresented in Appendix 1. On average, the fine ash passing the No. 4 (4.75 mm)sieve consists of 25 % by weight of the bottom ash. The fraction with a particlesize between the 4.75 mm and the 50 mm diameter contained 66 % by weight ofthe bottom ash stream. Only bout 9 % by weight of the bottom ash was retainedon the 50 mm opening sieve. Compared to the aggregate gradation rangespecified in Section 202 of the BC Ministry of Transportation and Highway’s“Standard Specifications for Highway Construction” (Government of BritishColumbia, 1991), the bottom ash tested generally meets the specification for awell-graded base course for use in highway construction. The aggregategradations of bottom ash as well as the standard specification are presented inTable 4.1. Bottom ash aggregate gradations reported in selected references areshown in Figure 4.2. It is apparant that the bottom ash from Burnaby MSW100-10090-9080..‘,‘,,.‘—‘80/_,...,/(50mm)70-.,/,///70‘/,/x/1/i”60,,‘/7(25mm)50-.•50Lii.,‘/Lii-.‘/,/1/2”(12.5mm)30-.-/30//3/8”5thPercentile20-_.(9.5mm)—-25thPercentle20——•--50Percentile-75thPercentile10-(4.75mm)---i---95thPercentileNo.80-,(2.36mm),I0110100SIEVESIZEINMILLIMETERSFigure4.1BURNARYMSWINCINERATORBOTTOMASHSIZEDISTRIBUTION(169SAMPLESON15DAYSBETWEENJANTODEC1991)54Table 4.1 Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom Ash Particle Size Gradation*vs. BC Standard Specifications for Highway ConstructionBurnaby MSW Incinerator Specification for Well GradedSieve Size Bottom Ash Base Course Aggregate(mm) (Percentage Passing by Weight) (Percentage Passing by Weight)75- 10050 (2 in.) 83—97-37.5- 60-40025 (1 in.) 65—90-12.5 (1/2 in.) 39-68 35—809.5 (3/8 in.) 30—59 25—604.75 (No.4) 14—37 20—402.36 (No. 8) 5—25 15—301.18- 10—200.300- 3—100.075- 0-5Note: * Based on the 90% confidence of the results for 173 samples.a,C U, C a, U a,120100 80 60 40 20 012010080 60 40 20 00.010.1110SieveSizeinMillimeters100Figure4.2MSWIncineratorBottomAshAggregateGradations:ThisStudyandSelectedReferences010156incinerator between February and December in 1991 contained more coarseparticles than reported in the literature. However, the bottom ash samples usedby Gress et al. (1991) and Stegemann et at. (1991) excluded oversized particles andcontained only those with size less than the 1 inch sieve opening. When theoversize particles (greater than the 1 inch sieve opening) were not taken intoaccount in the aggregate gradation of the bottom ash samples in this study, theaggregate gradation become quite comparable to those reported by Gress et at.(1991) and Stegemann et at. (1991). The data reported by Tay (1989) shows a quitedifferent aggregate gradation since only bottom ash passing through 5 mm sieveopening were analyzed.4.2 Material Distributions in Bottom Ash Fractions with Particle SizeGreater than the 9.5 mm DiameterThe descriptive material distributions in the bottom ash fractions withparticle size greater than the 9.5 mm diameter have been evaluated in this studyand the results are presented in Appendix 2. Four coarse bottom ash fractionsinclude those with particle size between the 9.5 mm and the 12.5 mm diameter,between the 12.5 mm and the 25 mm diameter, between the 25 mm and the 50mm diameter, and retained on the 50 mm opening sieve. The average descriptivematerial distribution in each bottom ash fraction is presented in Table 4.2.However, these results just simply present the materials distribution in eachbottom ash fraction based on the weight basis of each fraction. In order toevaluate the material distributions in each coarse bottom ash fraction on theweight basis of the whole bottom ash fractions, the bottom ash particle sizedistributions have also been incorporated into the calculations. The resultingmaterials distribution in the four bottom ash fractions on a weight basis for theTable4.2DescriptiveMaterialDistributionsinFourCoarseBottomAshFractions(WithParticleSizeGreaterThanthe9.5mmDiameter)FromBurnabyMSWIncinerator (OnWeight Basis)MaterialPercentageinFraction1*PercentageinFraction2*PercentageinFraction3*PercentageinFraction4*PS**>50mm25mm<PS**<50mm12.5mm<PS**<25mm9.5mm<PS’<12.5mmMagnetic0.41%30.42%25.82%22.99%Brick3.33%1.76%0.38%0.18%Concrete9.42%4.24%1.22%1.19%Glass0.11%3.70%14.10%22.72%Paper &Wood0.71%0.47%0.24%0.20%Ceramics0.74%8.53%7.75%3.33%Rock7.71%9.68%5.39%4.33%Non-ferrousMetals10.93%2.57%3.70%3.40%GlassMixtures***0.00%11.79%25.11%26.68%Otherst66.65%26.85%16.30%14.97%Note:*Theaveragepercentageofeachfractioninthetotal bottomashstreamis:Fraction1(9.44%),Fraction2(12.19%),Fraction3(24.16%), Fraction4(10.42%).**PS=particlesize.***Glassmixtures containmostlyglass.1Others containmostlyfusedmaterialsandsomematerialsnotclassifedasthoselistedinthetable.(ii58whole bottom ash fractions is presented in Figure 4.3. Results for each categoryare reported in the following:The magnetic materials found in the bottom ash were usually fused withother materials such as glass, ceramics, and rock, which generally appeared insmall quantities. Such materials were sometimes partially magnetic. Magneticcoins such as nickels and dimes were often found in good condition in thebottom ash samples. These coins were generally retained on the 12.5 mm openingsieve. As shown in Figure 4.3, the magnetic materials in these bottom ashfractions comprised totally around 12.5 % by weight of the bottom ash samples.The magnetic materials were chiefly found in the bottom ash fractions withparticle size less than the 50 mm diameter. Only a few large sized magneticmaterials were found in the bottom ash samples from Burnaby MSW Incineratorand this may be owing to the higher efficiency of the roller magnet in removingthose oversize magnetic materials from the bottom ash stream. The roller magnetseems less efficient in removing the partially magnetic materials with smallerparticle size from residue. The magnetic materials in the bottom ash may havemineralogical value for iron. However, further research on MSW incineratorbottom ash is required when evaluating the feasibility and economy ofrecovering iron from these residues.There was about 0.5 % brick and nearly 2 % concrete found in the bottomash on weight basis. These brick and concrete pieces were seldom fused withother materials. The distributions of brick and concrete pieces were typically inhigher percentages in the fractions with coarser particle size. This is probablyrelated to their greater physical strength which prevented them from beingbroken through the refuse collection, transportation and incineration processes.161614141212 10Figure4.3MaterialContributionbyCoarseBurnabyMSWIncinerator‘a 0FractionstotheBottomAshStreamfrom60On the other hand, glass and its mixtures are mostly distributed in finerfractions. This apparently is related to its fragile property. Unlike brick andconcrete, glass often fused with materials like metals, ceramics, rocks and othersand these mixtures were mainly classified as glass mixtures in this study. Onaverage, glass comprised 6.5 % by weight of the bottom ash while the glassmixtures were found to be 10.5 % of the bottom ash on weight basis.The percentages of ceramics and rock in the bottom ash samples were veryclose, about 3.5 % on weight basis. The distribution of the ceramics and rock inthe bottom ash were generally in the fractions with a particle size between the12.5 mm and the 50 mm diameter. Very few ceramics with particle size> 50 mmdiameter were found in the bottom ash samples. On the other hand, there wereoccasional rocks with particle size greater than the 50 mm diameter discovered inthe bottom ash. The greater physical strength of rocks than that of ceramics isbelieved to be the primary explanation that such large sized rocks could survivethe processes from refuse collection to incineration.The non-ferrous metals discovered in the bottom ash were approximately2.5 % on weight basis, about half with particle size greater than the 25 mmdiameter and the other between the 9.5 mm and the 25 mm diameter. Thesemetals were generally aluminum, tin, copper, penny coins and unclassifiedmetals. Sometimes there were glass or ceramics pieces, which only appeared insmall quantity, clinging to these materials. The aluminum discovered was piecesof beverage cans in most of the cases. Tin and copper chiefly appeared as dropsin the bottom ash samples. Like nickels and dimes, the penny coins were usuallyfound in the bottom ash fraction with particle size between the 12.5 mm and the25 nun diameter.61Unburned paper and wood pieces were found in very small quantities inthe bottom ash, (< 0.5 % by weight). These materials were chiefly unburnednewspaper. A few pieces of unburned tree trunks were also found in the bottomash stream. However, these large wood pieces were always discovered in sampleof a weight much greater than the desired 50 kilogram sample size and thus wereexcluded from the sampling. In summer season, unburned grass clippings werealso found in the fractions with particle sizes less than the 9.5 mm diameter,which were not tested for material distribution.Fused mixtures and unclassified materials comprised about 15 % of thebottom ash samples on weight basis. These materials were abundant in all of fourcoarse bottom ash fractions tested in this study. Many of the categories statedabove have been found fused with clinkers in the bottom ash samples. Clinkerscomprised the majority of these fused materials in most of the cases. There weresome fused materials with large particle sizes found in the bottom ash samples.Such materials were so strong that they could remain in good shapes throughthe sifting procedure. Generally, these over sized fused materials were at a littlehigher percentage of the bottom ash than those with smaller particle sizes.4.3 The Leachable Metal Levels of The Bottom Ash FractionsThe metal concentrations in leachate from B.C. Reg. 63/88 LeachateExtraction Procedure (LEP) on samples from three fine bottom ash fractions arereported in Appendix 3. Before describing these results, it is important to makesure that the data are normally distributed. An approach to judging datanormality in this study is to sequence the results in ascending order and plot the62data value against the normal deviation (Z-score) associated with the mediumrank of each sequenced point. The medium rank of each data point in asequenced data set containing N data points can be approximated by the formulashown below:P = (i - 0.3)/(N + 0.4) for the th point.where: N = number of data points in a data set;P = medium rank of each data point in a sequenced data setThe normal deviate (Z-score) can be calculated using the followingapproximation: (Rigo, 1989; Abramowitz et a!., 1968)forP0.5:T = SQRT[-0.2 x ln(P)]Z = T - (2.30753 + 0.27061T)/(1 + 0.99229T + 0.04481T2)while, for P> 0.5:T = SQRT[-0.2 x ln(1 - P)]Z = (2.30753 + 0.27061T)/(1 + 0.99229T + 0.04481T2)- Twhere: P = medium rank of each data point in a sequenced data set;Z = normal deviate (Z-score)When the data is properly normalized, the plot of the sequenced dataversus Z-score will be quite close to a straight line. Results with a plot shown as acurve or two different lines are not normally distributed.63Sequenced and plotted versus Z-score, the LEP leachable metalconcentrations in the three bottom ash fractions with particle size less than the9.5 mm diameter are presented in Fig. 4.4 to Fig. 4.11. The results withconcentrations below the detection limits were presented as half theconcentration of the detection limits which are less problematic to handle thanpresenting the numbers as zero or detection limit concentrations when furtherdata transformation is required. (Rigo, 1989) From this analysis, most of the dataare described as curves and thus not normaly distributed. Few results with largevalues are the main cause of these data failing to fit a normal distribution. Theonly data set showing a plot close to a straight line is the LEP leachable cadmiumconcentration in the bottom ash fraction with particle size between the 4.75 mmand the 9.5 mm diameter.Since most of the data about the LEP leachable metal concentrations in thethree fine bottom ash fractions are not normally distributed, data transformationis required before any good statistical analysis can be drawn from those data. Thenatural logarithm transform is chosen in this study because it is suitable for adata set with the mean about equal to the standard deviation. (Rigo, 1989) Tojudge the normalcy, the transformed data are sequenced and plotted versus Zscore for the three fine bottom ash fractions. The result plots, shown in Fig. 4.12to Fig. 4.19, are closer to straight lines for all of those transformed data sets andare fairly normally distributed for a statistical analysis.The statistical analysis of the results must be properly calculated andconcise enough to provide information regarding LEP results to meet theconcerns of the general public as well as the regulatory agencies. In the U.S., awaste is determined to be non-hazardous if the 80 percent upper confidence limitU’.a)0UCadmium Concentration (mg/L)Figure 4.4 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Cadmium Results fromThree Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorChromium Concentration (mg/L)Figure 4.5 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Chromium Results fromThree Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator320—1-2-3.mm....-..— -2• artc%ize < . 6 mm-0 05 i 15 2:5 3:5 420UC,,320—1-2-3‘ I 4.Z5 mm < Partcte Size c .5.xnm I-: a rff6V 4.( mm r—— .2..4 --—.-...-------—.-—....- .- ....—...-—-.--..— •0w $. xxLs.t..oo8. 0.....—..-.... + ,c. p.x 00 o.Os 0.1 0.15 0.265a)0C.)Copper Concentration (mg/L)Figure 4.6 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Copper Results fromThree Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incineratoriron Concentration (mg/L)Figure 4.7 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Iron Results fromThree Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator32I’—1. I I I....—. -2o • artieze < . 6 mm0..-:....... 0-2-30 5 ib 15 20 25 30 350C.)320—1-2-3x 4.Z5 mm < articte Size < 9.S..znm0mn< Partj size < 4.15 mm 2• Particle size c .i6 mm.I.) 20 40 60 80 luO66I0U(.1,Figure 4.8 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Manganese Results fromThree Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator0C)U,Figure 49 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Nickel Results fromThree Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorManganese Concentration (mg/L)-2-3Nickel Concentration (mg/L)Zinc Concentration (mg/L)Figure 4.11 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Zinc Results fromThree Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator67323—1—mm < jzem 2• artlceze < . 6 mm1 1‘ .—-0Ea)0(3f%J-2-3C, 50 100 150 200Lead Concentration (mg/L)Figure 4.10 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of LEP Lead Results fromThree Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator32a)1.0U(I,0—1-2-3.I-3••x 4.75 mm < Particle Size <• (.. 0 mm.c PartJLe 51ze < 4.15 mm 2c o•• Particle Size < mmZZH00-x.-‘0 • XC) 50 100 260 2500U,Figure 4.13 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEPChromium Results from Three Bottom Ash Fractions fromBurnaby MSW Incinerator68I0ciU,r4Figure 4.12 Z-ScoreCadmiumTransformed Cadmium Concentration : Ln(mg/L)(Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEPResults from Three Bottom Ash Fractions fromBurnaby MSW Incinerator320—1-2-3Transformed Chromium Concentration : L.n(mg/L)0C)Cl,69a)0UCl,Figure 4.14 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP CopperResults from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorTransformed Copper Concentration : Ln(mg/L)320-2-3Transformed Iron Concentration: Ln(mg/L)Figure 4.15 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP IronResults from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator70a)0C.)(1)Transformed Manganese Concentration: Ln(mg/L)Figure 4.16 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP ManganeseResults from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorTransformed Nickel Concentration : Ln(mg/L)Figure 4.17 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP NickelResults from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator202—13 I -3x 0x 4.-.....——-.X 0j x 4.75 mm c Particle Size < 9.5jm X • 0.1 0 Z.3 mm.< Particle Size < 4.15 mm x...e 2• Particle Size c Li6 mm 0.x-2-3-‘ -1 Ô 2 3 423 --2a)10C.)U,—1)c 0.2‘x.’:x 4.75 mm .c Particle Size c 9.Smm Q0Lib mm..< Particle Size < 4.15 mm - 2• Particle Size c Li6 mm-2-3-0 -5 -4 -3 - . o-371Transformed Lead Concentration : Ln(mg/L)Figure 4.18 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP LeadResults from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW IncineratorTransformed Zinc Concentration : Lri(mg/L)Figure 4.19 Z-Score (Normal Probability) Plot of Natural Log Transformed LEP ZincResults from Three Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator32.-3x 0C)I0I-)C,)—10 -x • 0•$ %:-.x 4.75 mm < Particle Size < 9.Smm X- 0 Z.b mm..< Particle size 4.15 mm) .- x—-. ... • Particle Size < Li6 mm.1 )O •-2-3-6 -2 Ô-3C)I-0UC,,3a0—1-2-3X 02 * ax 0 •‘*.-.•*.x — ——1ZELZ Z[ mm < Particle 5ize < .rnm0Z.3 mm.< Partjte size < 4.( mm .......—. .—.- ... ..• Particle Size < .i6 mm0• XI.) a 3 4 572(UCL) is less than the standard. (USEPA, 1986) The 80 percent UCL of a data setprovides very valuable information about the data since there is 90 percentchance for any given data points to be below this value. In this study, the 80percent UCL of the LEP leachable metal levels in the three bottom ash fractionsare calculated. When the value of the 80 percent UCL of the concentrations for aspecific element is below the regulation limit, it is adequate to determine thebottom ash fraction to be non-hazardous on an individual elemental basis. The 80percent UCL for each data set is calculated by following the formula shownbelow:UCL = +t100s/J,where:5E is the mean value of the data set;t100 is the 80 percent probability t - statistic for n - 1 data points;S is the standard deviation; andn is the number of data points in the analysis.These calculations are presented in Table 4.3,4.4 and 4.5 as statistical summariesfor both the LEP leachable metal levels in three bottom ash fractions and thetransformed data. The 80 percent UCL as well as the mean value for thetransformed data of the LEP leachable metal concentrations in three bottom ashfractions were calculated and then inverted to the untransformed data plane byreversing the mathematics of the transformation process. (Rigo, 1989) Thosemeans obtained by transformation back to the original scale are the geometricmeans of the original data.Compared with the B.C. regulatory limits (Schedule 4 of B.C. Reg. 63/88),the bottom ash fraction with particle size between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mmTable4.3StatisticsSummaryforTheLEPLeachableMetalsFoundinTheBottomAshFractionFromBurnabyMSWIncinerator WithParticleSizeBetweenthe4.75mmandthe9.5mmDiameter(mgIL)NORMALIZINGNO.METALTRANSFORMATIONPOINTSCadmiumNone71NaturalLog71ChromiumNone71NaturalLog71CopperNone71NaturalLog71IronNone71NaturalLog71ManganeseNone71NaturalLog71NickelNone71NaturalLog71LeadNone71NaturalLog71ZincNone71NaturalLog71KUR-TRANSFORMTRANSFORMTOSISSTANDARDUCL51.330.50.060.17-0.69-3.173.415.00.04-1.361.61-4.0244.74100.03.134.874.610.5937.048.340.321.2156.395.181.810.8130.300.321.33-1.4449.005.05.87-0.211.610.608.23500.030.83-0.146.213.20INVERSEDGEOMETRICUCLMEAN0.060.040.040.040.013.131.451.818.342.583.365.181.872.240.320.205.871.3830.8320.9724.57STDSKEW-MEANDEV.NESS0.050.096.73-3.280.740.700.030.041.87-4.251.510.202.523.926.100.371.44-1.516.5111.965.420.951.72-0.633.6210.167.250.631.161.140.270.354.94-1.611.090.234.2610.446.560.331.81-0.2727.1923.672.193.041.03-0.36Table4.4StatisticsSummaryforTheLEPLeachableMetalsFoundinTheBottomAshFractionFromBurnabyMSWIncinerator WithParticleSizeBetweenthe2.36mmandthe4.75mmDiameter(mg/L)NORMALIZINGNO.METALTRANSFORMATIONPOINTSCadmiumNone72NaturalLog72ChromiumNone72NaturalLog72CopperNone72NaturalLog72IronNone72NaturalLog72ManganeseNone72NaturalLog72NickelNone72NaturalLog72LeadNone72NaturalLog72ZincNone72NaturalLog72INVERSEDGEOMETRICUCLMEAN0.110.080.080.050.053.132.697.052.473.3312.225.326.370.480.350.4017.198.299.9547.3437.8942.24SThSKEW-KUR-TRANSFORMTRANSFORMMEANDEV.NESSTOSISSTANDARDUCL0.100.083.0614.600.50.11-2.490.650.421.14-0.69-2.390.070.060.99-0.405.00.08-3.061.03-0.430.221.61-2.912.861.793.3616.64100.03.130.990.611.344.214.611.086.016.771.682.817.050.901.96-1.201.821.209.9714.692.465.6012.221.671.170.87-0.211.850.440.300.980.850.48-1.040.87-0.31-0.01-0.9114.6616.571.581.775.017.192.121.200.19-0.991.612.3043.8422.920.32-0.49500.047.343.630.71-1.111.946.213.74Table4.5StatisticsSummaryforTheLEPLeachableMetals FoundinTheBottomAshFractionFromBurnabyMSWIncinerator WithParticleSizeLessthe2.36mmDiameter(mgIL)NORMALIZINGNO.STDSKEW-KUR-TRANSFORMTRANSFORMINVERSEDGEOMETRICMETALTRANSFORIS4ATIONPOINTSMEANDEV.NESSTOSISSTANDARDUCLUCLMEANCadniiumNone780.270.535.6833.050.50.340.340.16NaturalLog78-1.810.830.783.67-0.69-1.69QiromiumNone780.060.040.68-0.325.00.060.060.05NaturalLog78-3.040.660.05-0.681.61-2.94CopperNone782.151.552.026.65100.02.382.381.57NaturalLog780.451.08-3.4117.774.610.61IronNone781.124.316.7851.241.751.750.10NaturalLog78-2.262.25-0.02-0.04-1.93ManganeseNone788.8612.354.7528.9510.6710.675.90NaturalLog781.780.791.181.191.89NickelNone780.480.402.9014.110.540.540.35NaturalLog78-1.060.97-1.937.88-0.92LeadNone7814.4625.984.1223.305.018.2718.273.94NaturalLog781.371.88-0.661.781.611.65J.2ZincNone7856.6129.561.402.92500.060.9460.9449.58NaturalLog783.900.54-0.611.326.213.9876diameter can be classified as non-hazardous material due to the 80 percent UCLfor all LEP leachable metal levels tested below the regulation limits. The twobottom ash fractions with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter would notbe classified as non-hazardous materials since the 80 percent UCL for the LEPleachable lead levels are greater than the maximum acceptable concentration. Inthe fractions with particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter,the 80 percent UCL of the LEP leachable lead levels is 9.95 mg/L, almost doublethe value of the maximum acceptable level of 5 mg/L. On the other hand, thebottom ash fraction with a particle size less than the 2.36 mm diameter wasdiscovered to contain LEP leachable lead levels with the 80 percent UCL of 5.19mg/L, which is slightly greater than the regulation limit. For other LEP leachablemetals in these two bottom ash fractions, the 80 percent UCL levels are all muchless than the regulation limits.Consider the geometric means of the LEP leachable metal concentrationsin the three bottom ash fractions, only the fraction with a particle size betweenthe 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter contains the LEP leachable leadconcentration greater than the regulation limit. Table 4.6 presents a summary ofthese data as well as some selected literature data for comparison. Generallyspeaking, for cadmium, chromium, manganese and zinc, the geometric means inthe three bottom ash fractions are comparable to literature data. On the otherhand, copper, nickel and lead are the three leachable elements in the threebottom ash fractions with geometric means less than the published literaturedata. Compared to data from Sawell et al. (1990) on the bottom ash from theBurnaby MSW Incinerator, the lead concentrations in the bottom ash LEPleachate have shown a dramatic decrease, to about one third or less of the value.Compared to another study conducted by Sawell et al. (1988), however, only theTable4.6ComparisonofTheGeometricMeansofResultsformtheB.C.Reg. 63/88LeachateExtractionProcedureWithDataFromSelectedLiterature(mg/L)Fraction1Fraction2Fraction3LiteratureLiteratureLiteratureRegulatoryMetal4.75mm<PS*<9.5mm2.36mm<PS*<4.75mmPS*<2.36mmData1**Data2***Data3tLimitffGEOMETRICMEANGEOMETRICMEANGEOMETRICMEANMEANMEANMEANMEANCd0.040.080.160.050.360.050.5Cr0.010.050.050.100.090.065.0Cu1.452.691.576.806.260.39100.0Fe2.582.470.10Mn1.875.325.906.345.74Ni0.200.350.351.621.510.64Pb1.388.293.9421.6031.408.035.0Zn20.9737.8949.5829.7052.6027.37500.0Source:*p5=ParticleSize**Sawelleta!.(1990):Incineratoroperatedwithrecyclingof aportionofflyashasasubstituteforaportionof thefreshlimeinjectedintothefluegasstreamfor acidgascontrolSawelleta!.(1990):SamesourceasaboveexceptwithoutflyashrecycletSawelletat.(1988)ifGovernment of BritishColumbia(1992)78bottom ash fraction with a particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mmdiameter contains the LEP leachable lead concentration with a geometric meanslightly greater than literature data.The trends of the LEP leachable metals in the three bottom ash fractionsfrom Burnaby MSW Incinerator during 1991 are presented in Fig. 4.20 to Fig.4.27. Although only a limited number of samples were tested in each samplingdate, the variation of the results of the leachable metal concentrations in thebottom ash fractions have shown to be reasonably log normally distribution onmost of the sampling dates. Considering the results of samples taken on asampling date as a sample set, there were only a few results found withconsiderably higher or lower values than the others in a sample set. Withoutthose peculiar results, the rest in the data sets are generally log normallydistributed. These results are troublesome when considering the geometricmeans of the data sets. Fortunately, such results were not found very often. Aspresented in Fig. 4.20 to Fig. 4.27, the results from different sample sets aregenerally consistent with each other for the leachable concentrations of anelement in a bottom ash fraction. As these results are reasonably log normallydistributed, the geometric means of the results in each data set can be estimatedfrom these figures. There are some sample sets apparently containing lower orhigher geometric means than the others. For instance, the LEP leachablecadmium concentrations in the three bottom ash fractions, taken on January 14,1991, are obviously higher than those in the samples taken on other dates.However, the LEP leachable iron concentrations in the bottom ash fraction with aparticle size less than the 2.36 mm diameter, taken on March 30 in 1991, are allbelow the detection limit, apparently lower than those found on the other dates.79Figure 4.20 The Trends of the LEP Cadmium Concentration in the Three Bottom AshFractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 19914.75 mm <PARTICLE SIZE < 9.5 mmNXX XXXXXX XXXX100.1“1-j0)Ez0I—zLiiUz0U0.1-D0ULii20)Ez0.01XXN* XXXX xNX XX-io iz i4MONTH IN 199110-2.36 mm <PARTICLE SIZE < 4.75 mm b01- —1XXNX N X *N0.1- N 0.1XX N XX XXXX XXX4 io 12 140.01MONTH IN 1991-j0)Ez10- -10PARTICLE SIZE < 2.36 mmX1- 1XN N*XX X N X NX X xXX N x NX N0.1 XX Ny 0.1XXX0.012 4 6 8MONTH IN 199110 12 14.- 4.75 mm < PARTICLE SIZE < 9.5 mmx1 . *..xxx2C)2z0.0.01-0C-,LU 0.001-Jx80f1A Alxxxxx x )cxx xx x X X X XXX X X4 10 12 14MONTH IN 1991- A AA1a-JC)2z0II—zLUC-,z0C-,0L)LU-J-j.-C)2z0IzIJJC-)z0C-)D0()LU-J1 2.36 mm < PARTICLE SIZE < 4.75 mm - 1X x xX X0.1 x -0.1x X X XX X )( X X XX )( X X XX XXXX0.01 x X x -0.01X X•001• 4 10 12 14000lMONTH IN 19911- PARTICLE SIZE < 2.36 mm - 10.1 . 0.1X* x XXx X X Xxx x xxx X XXxX X0.01A-0...A2 4 B B 10 12 14MONTH IN 1991Figure 4.21 The Trends of the LEP Chromium Concentration in the Three Bottom AshFractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 199181Figure 4.22 The Trends of the LEP Copper Concentration in the Three Bottom AshFractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991, fin 1004.75 mm < PARTICLE SIZE < 9.5 mm -: 10w XXX xXXXXX x xXKX*X X X X X1.* XX X x xX X X0.1 -01xfif1 nflfi ff14MONTH IN 19911001’Xn nal10 12 142.36 mm <PARTICLE SIZE < 4.75 mmXX-jEz0Izw0z00LIJ000-J0,EzIIXX X XX X XK Xx*XXXX0.1- 4 10 12 14MONTH IN 1991100100.1100100.10.01100. PARTICLE SIZE < 2.36 mm::0.01X0.001 2 4 6 8MONTH IN 199110 12 140001Figure 4.23 The Trends of the LEP Iron Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractionsfrom Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 19911 ñ(t821000“. 4.75 mm < PARTICLE SIZE < 9.5 mm100 100xx x010 ...x 100 X x x xx x x x1 x X.xx x x0.1 x 0.1x 0.010.01I. nfl4MONTH IN 1991I10 122.36 mm <PARTICLE SIZE < 4.75 mmx-JEzCzIJJC,z0C,z00IJJ—I-JC,EzI-JC)Ez0.1x0 x Fxx x xx x x x.xx x xx -0.xfin,ax.1000• 100.10—i-0.01fi fifi1xxxx...II- 4 10 12 14MONTH IN 19911 00- PARTCLE SIZE ac Z.36 mi - 100xIf X 10xx.-x X00.1 •• “1..‘ x xxxx x x0.01 - - 0.01xxxxx X Xxc XWxxx0.001x xxxx2 4MONTH IN 199110 12, nf’114831000100“ 4.75 mm < PATIcL.E SIZE < 9.5 mmxX X10XX XX X*XX X X X1XX0.1- -U.4 10 12 14MONTH IN 19911010000001 000- 2.36 mm < PARTICLE SIZE < 4.75 mm -100 K x 1X X XXX X X)( XX10- L.X x 1X X X XX XXXX XMXX1 10.1- .U.4 10 12 14MONTH IN 1991lnnn0)Ez0zuJL)z0I-)w(1)‘JJzzUi-J-j0)Ez6 8MONTH IN 1991Figure 4.24 The Trends of the LEP Manganese Concentration in the Three Bottom AshFractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991lnnn-_PARTICLE SIZE < 2.36 mm100 ...XX xXX X XXX10 .x .X XX XX XXXX X x* XX XX X XXX X X XXXX X1000100102 4 10 12 142 4 6 8MONTH IN 19914MONTH IN 19914MONTH IN 1991I (14.75 mm <PARTICLE SIZE < 9.5 mmIa0.1( ñl84100:10XXXXXXXXXX X X0.001.In‘C“1n fiXn nni10 12 14-JC,Eza10‘ 2.36 mm < PARTICLE SIZE < 4.75 mm -X X1- ..X 1XX X*X ‘C X XXX‘C XXXAXX0..0.01-If’10 12 14,• fIPARTICLE SIZE < 2.36 mm -X1 .X -1x XX K * X X* xX ‘CX XX X.I_ ‘C 010XX0...0.001- -Xt• (II10 12 14f’ ff’IFigure 4.25 The Trends of the LEP Nickel Concentration in the Three Bottom AshFractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991Figure 4.26 The Trends of the LEP Lead Concentration in the Three Bottom AshFractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991I rnn4.75 mm <PARTICLE SIZE < 9.5 mm8510001001.Xx10 “ ,,X XxxxxXxx*XXx x XX XXXXX Xxx x *x X XX X X0.01100.00110.1 x *x 0.012 4 6 6 10 12MONTH IN 1991-J0)Ez0I-JC,Ez0zLIJ(3z00U.’-JLii-J-J0)EzI(1000100‘“‘‘ 2.36 mm < PARTICL SIZE < 4.75 mm100*x X xX x XX xX X Xin.x * xX 0 xXX x X XX XXXX X1 * 10.1101 “i”4MONTH IN 199110 122. 11000‘‘‘ PARTICLE SIZE < 2.36 mm100 100x X x**XX X x10 4 .. X 10* 2 XX1 - X * 1X XX0.1 -0.1x. n..0.01f• ffIx2 4 6 8MONTH IN 1991ni10 12n14-JEz-JS...EzI_________________________________________Figure 4.27 The Trends of the LEP Zinc Concentration in the Three Bottom Ash Fractionsfrom Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991•‘“.“ 4.75 mm < PARTICLE SIZE < .5 mmXion x x- X*X X XXX XX XX x X *101- 4 ft i2MONTH IN 19911000 Z.36 mm <PARflCII SIZE c 4.75 mm100_X xin- .X8610001001014100010010.1000100V, nan2 4 6 8 10 12MONTH IN 19914-JS..0)EzCI 10PARTICLE SIZE.< Z.36 mm!.... x j4 10 12 14MONTH IN 19911087In view of proper management of the MSW incinerator bottom ash, the samplesets with higher geometric means are of more concern than the rest, especiallywhen exceeding the regulation limit. Among the eight elements tested, lead is theonly metal found in some size segregated bottom ash samples with LEPleachable levels exceeding the regulation limits. However, on an individualsample basis, cadmium concentrations greater than 0.5 mg/L were found in theLEP leachate of the odd bottom ash samples. Therefore, a closer review on thetrends of these two LEP leachable metals’ concentrations in the three bottom ashfractions is necessary for an appropriate decision on the safe disposal of thesethree bottom ash fractions; more so for lead than cadmium.Table 4.7 presents the geometric means of the leachable cadmium and leadlevels in the three bottom ash fractions on each sampling date during thesampling period. Although some samples have been found with leachablecadmium concentrations exceeding the regulation limit, the geometric means ofthe leachable cadmium levels in the three tested bottom ash fractions taken oneach sampling date are all below the regulation limit. Therefore, consideration ofthe trend of the leachable metal levels in the bottom ash fractions is then focusedon lead only. For the bottom ash fraction with a particle size between the 4.75mm and the 9.5 mm diameter, the geometric means of the leachable lead levelsare below the regulation limit in the samples taken in between March andDecember in 1991. Four of the five sample sets taken in between January andFebruary, 1991 were found to contain the leachable lead levels with geometricmeans exceeding the regulation limit. In the bottom ash fraction with a particlesize between the 2.36 nun and the 4.75 mm diameter, there are only five samplesets containing leachable lead levels with geometric means less than theregulation limit in the eighteen sample sets taken in between January andTable4.7GeometricMeansof theLEPLeachableCadmiumandLeadLevelsintheBottomAshFractionsfromBurnabyMSWIncinerator TakenonEachSamplingDateCADMIUM(mg/L)LEAD(mg/L)ELEMENTFRACTION1*FRACTION2*FRACTION3*FRACTION1*FRACTION2*FRACTION3*DATE1/2/910.070.090.105.197.5722.761/14/910.200.360.4011.1530.3757.301/22/910.090.130.461.132.2310.922/4/910.060.170.105.046.702.792/18/910.040.050.077.9222.477.293/6/910.040.110.170.744.220.893/30/910.020.060.100.485.860.084/12/910.030.060.192.206.681.274/21/910.020.070.104.8211.914.534/29/910.020.040.161.994.387.266/6/910.080.130.283.1059.8249.917/7/910.030.090.280.9242.6024.228/10/910.030.050.160.804.091.518/30/910.020.080.221.585.205.049/13/910.020.050.130.605.521.389/26/910.020.040.150.042.631.4911/16/910.050.090.200.6910.445.3312/17/910.030.090.200.276.301.07Note:Boldnumbers=numbersthataregreater thantheregulationlimits.*Fraction1(4.75mm<ParticleSize<9.5mm)Fraction2(2.36mm<ParticleSize<4.75mm)Fraction3(ParticleSize<2.36mm)89December in 1991. Moreover, these five sample sets were not collected onsuccessive sampling dates but were generally collected on every third samplingdate in the 18 sampling dates during 1991. Those samples collected on January14, February 18, June 6, and July 7 in 1991 were found containing leachable leadlevels with much greater geometric means than the other. In the finest bottomash fraction with a particle size less than the 2.36 mm diameter, there were half ofthe sampling sets containing the leachable lead concentrations with geometricmeans greater than the regulation limit. Most of these samples were taken inbetween January and February, or in between late April and July in 1991.Samples collected on January 2, January 14, June 6, and July 7 in 1991 were foundcontaining greater leachable lead levels than the other. Such finds are verysimilar to that for the bottom ash fraction with a particle size between the 2.36mm and the 4.75 mm diameter. For samples collected on August 30 andNovember 16, 1991, the leachable lead levels were found with geometric meansslightly greater than the regulation limit.The function of the particle size on the metal concentrations in the bottomash LEP leachate is shown in Figures 4.28(a) and (b). Generally speaking, there issome kind of relationship between the particle size and the leachable level forsome metals in the bottom ash fractions. However, there is no clear trend that candescribe such function for all elements leached from those bottom ash fractionstested in this research. The geometric means of the concentrations of cadmium,manganese and zinc in the LEP leachate showed a trend to increase withdecreasing particle size. On the other hand, the iron concentrations in the LEPleachate decrease with the particle size decrease. The LEP leachable ironconcentrations in the leachate from the two bottom ash fractions with particlesize greater than the 2.36 mm diameter are very close, both are much greater than90-J0)Ez10Cd Cr Fe Mn Ni Pb-J0)EzIFigure 4.28(a) Geometric Means of Metal Concentrations Leached fromBottom Ash Fractions in the Leachate Extraction Procedure100010010Figure 4.28(b) Geometric Means of Metal Concentrations Leached fromBottom Ash Fractions in the Leachate Extraction ProcedureCu Zn91the concentration in the leachate from the finest fraction. This might be related tothe inclination of the magnetic metals to fuse with other materials, such as glassand clinker, during the incineration process and become larger pieces unable topass the 2.36 mm diameter. The geometric means of the LEP leachable copperand lead were found to be the greatest in the bottom ash fraction with a particlesize between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter. For chromium and nickel,the geometric means of these elements in the LEP leachate from the two bottomash fractions with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter are about thesame, both are greater than those in the LEP leachate from the fraction with aparticle size between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter.4.4 The Fixed and Total Metal Levels of the Bottom Ash FractionsDue to the difficulty in the pulverization of bottom ash samples, somesmall metal pieces have been picked out of the ash samples before thepulverization procedure. Such metal pieces were often visually recognized asiron, copper and lead. These metal pieces were generally about 10 % to 20 % byweight of the bottom ash pulverized. However, further information about thepercentage of each metal is not available in this study. The fixed and total iron,copper and lead found in the bottom ash from Burnaby MSW Incinerator werethus underestimated for some degree, based on the results from the pulverizedash samples used in this study.Since the bottom ash samples were subject to the LEP test prior to the aquaregia digestion, the metal levels in the aqua regia extractions would be viewed asthe fixed part of the metal levels in the bottom ash fractions which didn’t leachout in the LEP test. The fixed part of metal levels in the bottom ash fractions92represents a potential metal contamination of the bottom ash in addition to theleachable component. Moreover, the total metal concentrations in the testedbottom ash fractions could be viewed as the sum of the fixed and leachable metallevels. The results of the fixed and the corresponding leachable metalconcentrations in the bottom ash samples are presented in Appendix 5 andAppendix 6, respectively. The results of the total metal concentrations in thethree bottom ash fractions are also presented in Appendix 7.The geometric means of the fixed metal concentrations in the bottom ashfractions from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator are presented in Table 4.8. Thegeometric means of the fixed cadmium concentrations in the three bottom ashfractions with particle size less than the 9.5 mm diameter are less than 8 mg/kg.For the fixed chromium in the fine bottom ash fractions, the geometric means ofthe results are in between the level around 100 mg/kg (0.01 %) and 200 mg/kg(0.02 %). The geometric means of the fixed copper levels in the bottom ashfractions fell in the range between 1500 mg/kg (0.15 %) and 4000 mg/kg (0.4 %).Iron is the most abundant element of the eight tested metals in the three finebottom ash fractions. The geometric means of the fixed iron levels in the bottomash fractions are around 7 % — 8 % on weight basis of the bottom ash fractions.The fixed manganese levels in the three fine bottom ash fractions were foundwith geometric means in between 800 mg/kg (0.08 %) and 1000 mg/kg (0.1 %).The geometric means of the fixed nickel levels in the three bottom ash fractionswere found in between 100 mg/kg (0.01 %) and 250 mg/kg (0.025 %). The fixedlead levels in the three fine bottom ash fractions were found with geometricmeans in between 790 mg/kg (0.079%) and 4200 mg/kg (0.42 %). For the fixedzinc levels, the results were found with geometric means in between 1300 mg/kg(0.13 %) and 2700 mg/kg (0.27 %) in the three bottom ash fractions. From Table93Table 4.8 Geometric Means of the Fixed (Non-leachable) Metal Levels in the ThreeFine Bottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator (mg/kg)Concentration (mg/kg)Fraction 4.75 mm < PS* <9.5mm 2.36mm < PS’ < 4.75 mm PS < 2.36mmMetalCd 2.7 4.2 7.7Cr 98 118 141Cu 1663 2193 3670Fe 73921 77379 71101Mn 864 982 1091Ni 125 177 242Pb 790 2235 4135Zn 1364 2005 2699* PS = Particle Size.944.8, it is clear that the fixed metal levels in the tested bottom ash fractionsgenerally increase with the particle size decrease. The trend is most apparent forlead. The geometric mean of the fixed lead levels in the finest bottom ash fractionis more than 5 times the value for the fraction with a particle size between the4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter. Iron is the only exception of the eightelements tested. It seems more abundant in the fraction with a particle sizebetween the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter.The fixed metal concentrations as the percentages of the total metalconcentrations in the three bottom ash fractions from the Burnaby MSWIncinerator are given in Appendix 8. A summary of these results is presented inTable 4.9. Since the total metal concentration in the bottom ash sample is the sumof the leachable and fixed metal concentrations, Table 4.9 also provides theleachability of metals from the three bottom ash fractions. In the eight testedelements, cadmium and zinc are the two metals more easily leached from the ashthan the others. Approximately 30 % of the total concentrations of Ca and Zn inthe three bottom ash fractions was leachable. Iron seems to be the least leachablein the eight elements tested (< 0.2 %) in the fine bottom ash fractions. Chromium,copper and nickel leached out on average less than 5 % of the total metal in thethree bottom ash fractions. Manganese on average leached out by around 10 % to15 % of the total concentration in the bottom ash fractions. For lead, 5 % to 12 %of the total metal in the fine bottom ash fraction was leached out. The leachabilityof the metals has no clear trend related to the particle size for all the eightelements tested. However, chromium, copper, iron have similar leachabilitiesfrom the three fine bottom ash fractions. Cadmium is more leachable in the twofiner fractions with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter. Manganese, lead95Table 4.9 Average Fixed Metal Levels as Percentages of the Total Metalsin the Three Bottom Ash Fractions (On Weight Basis)Metal 4.75 mm < PS” < 9.5 mm 2.36 mm < PS’ < 4.75 mm PS < 2.36 mmCd 77.0% 69.4% 69.0%Cr 99.0% 98.7% 99.1%Cu 96.7% 95.3% 98.3%Fe 99.8% 99.9% 100%Mn 91.9% 84.4% 89.0%Ni 93.5% 94.6% 96.4%Pb 92.8% 88.3% 94.7%Zn 72.4% 68.6% 71.2%Note: * PS = Particle Size96and zinc seem more leachable in the bottom ash fraction with a particle sizebetween the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter. Nickel is the only elementwhich shows a increase in leachability with the particle size increase.A summary of the total metal concentrations in the samples of the threetested bottom ash fractions is presented in Table 4.10. Results from selectedliterature are also listed as comparison. Generally, the metal constituents in thethree fine bottom ash fractions were comparable to those reported in previousstudies. The results for the three fine bottom ash fractions in the sampling periodare presented in Figure 4.29 (a) and (b). It is clear that these results varied overtime for all three bottom ash fractions. Comparing the variations for all elementstested in three fractions, iron is the only metal showing little variation during thesampling period. The great variations of these elements are typically due to theheterogeneous nature of the municipal refuse. Most of the time, these variationswere quite consistent for each metal in all three bottom ash fractions.The geometric means of the total metals levels in the three fine bottom ashfractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator are presented in Figure 4.30. Anapparent trend is shown in this figure that the total metals concentrations in thebottom ash generally increase as particle size decreases for most of the testedelements. The total cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel andzinc concentrations in the bottom ash fractions were found to have this trend. Onthe other hand, iron did not show a clear trend.The total lead contributions of the three fine fractions in the bottom ashsamples are presented in Figure 4.31. The lead contributions by the three finebottom ash fractions were found to be 0.05 - 0.25 % of the bottom ash on weightTable4.10RangesofTotalMetalConcentrationsinBottomAshfromthisReseasrchandSelectedReference(mg/kg)MetalThisResearchSawell etal.(1990)Roffman(1991)KossonetaI.(1991)4.75mm<PS<9.5inn2.36mm<PS<4.75mmPS’ <2.36mmResultRangeResultRangeResultRangeCd0.70-9.722.2-16.16.7-33.911-181.1-4635.2-35.7Cr45.6-315.265.2-150.489-534.81200-317013-520196.9-777.6Cu713.8-5000880-7012.41732.8-162322370-300080-107001477.2-2105.4Fe37736.4-130805.245650-105392.452754-1086551000-13350075763.5Mn350.8-9210685.2-5836847.2-33621910217050-31001064Ni32.96-503.293.18-728.482.84-600.41350-18409-226431Pb248.4-3805964.6-104351252.8-105688750-9900110-50001563.3Zn838-81211112-194872292-71242360-5210200-124004821.4-6792.9Note:*PS=ParticleSize.0)-C, E C 0 4-. I-. 4-a C C., C 0 C.) E z E 2 C.)IMonthin1991Monthin19910,.C, E C 0 4-a I C a) U C 0 C.) C 2Monthin1991Figure4.29(a)TotalMetalsConcentrationsofThreeBottomAshFractions23456789101112Monthin1991fromBurnabyMSWIncinerator0)_0)0)E-0)sEoC1..04_a C4_aCCoa)C.)Ca)0 C-)a) C 0)a)C10000)--0)0)-EEC oC.2.4_aL.100Cø4_a4_aa)Coa)CUio0oCC.)0 C.)13C.,-C0 z10Figure4.29(b)TotalMetalsConcentrationsofThreeBottomAshFractionsfromBurnabyMSWIncineratorMonthin199123456789101112Monthin199123456789101112Monthin1991Monthin19910) 0) E C 0 4-, L.. 4-’ C a, U C 0 C-)io5.4.75mm<ParticleSize<9.5mm2.36mm<ParticleSize<4.75mmParticleSize<2.36mm11000 1001 100010010 1MetalFigure4.30GeometricMeansoftheTotalMetalsConcentrationsinThreeBottomAshFractionsfromBumabyMSWIncineratorCdCrCuFeMnNiPbZnC C101basis. The finest bottom ash fraction generally contributed the greatest portion oflead in the bottom ash, about half of the sum contributed by all three fine bottomash fractions. Also from Figure 4.31, the samples taken on February 18, June 6,August 10, November 16 and December 17 in 1991 were found containing highertotal lead concentrations than those taken on other dates, all greater than 0.15 %on weight basis of the bottom ash stream.Figure 4.32 shows the LEP leachable and total lead concentrations in thethree fine bottom ash fractions. Both trends of the LEP leachable and total leadconcentrations during the sampling period were quite consistent. However, it isapparent that the LEP leachable lead levels were much more variable than thetotal lead levels in all the three bottom ash fractions, by up to 100 times. Thehigher variations in the LEP leachable lead may be related to the chemicalnatures of different lead forms in the bottom ash as well as the bottom ashchemistry, which in turn are related to the heterogeneous nature of the municipalsolid wastes.4.5 The Leaching Test Results of the Washing-off Materials of the Samples fromCoarse Bottom Ash FractionsThe samples from the bottom ash fractions with particle size greater thanthe 9.5 mm diameter were rinsed with distilled water and the washings werecollected. These washings were normally particles with sizes less than the 9.5mm diameter. They were air dried and processed with the LEP procedure. Themetal concentrations in the leachate of the washed material are presented inTable 4.11, along with the ranges of the results of the leachate from the LEP test.The levels of the metals in the leachate of the washed-off materials wereMonthin1991Figure4.31ComparisonofTotalLeadContributionbyThreeBottomAshFractionsfromBurnabyMSWIncinerator4.75mm<ParticleSize<9.5mm--.--2.36mm<ParticleSize<4.75mm°ParticleSize<2.36mmASumofThreeFractionsIIIIIII0) C 0 I 4-. C 0 C.) C 0 C-) -Q 0 -j 4-0 0 I-2500200015001000 500 0-••I’/••I/—:—————-.;/I-.------------jf...---•/.‘025002000150010005000IIIIIIII12345678910111213“3FC0I!CwUC00)0)BC0CC0C-)0CSFigure 4.32 Comparison of The Leachable and Total Lead Levels in the ThreeBottom Ash Fractions from Burnaby MSW Incinerator During 1991——Total Lead—OP- Leachable Lead10’1000100100.10.0110’.10’Bottom Ash Fraction with Particle Size -. :_..ZE.J‘:;/\3vZ 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month in 199131000Bottom Ash Fraction with Particle SizeBetween 2.36 mm & 4.75 mm DiameterOCC0CeCC0C-)-J--10310’1000100100.10.0110’10100010010101000100100.1100U.—....-c..J ..., / .p..q , ...10 ‘CW,,...O./ ..-.. V .. ..—..l1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Month in 1991Bottom Ash Fraction with Particle SizeLess than 2.36 mm Diameter1000100100.10/-\ .._e\\ I \./N..z. f.z 3 4Month in 19918 9 10 11 12 13104Table 4.11 Comparsion of Metal Levels in the LEP Leachate of Three Fine Bottom AshFractions and the Washing-off from Coarse Bottom Ash FractionsFine Bottom Ash Fractions Washings from Coarse BottomMetal 4.75mm < PS* <9.5mm 2.36mm < PS* <4.75mm PS* <2.36mm Ash FractionsRange (mgIL) Range (mg/L) Range (mgIL) Range (mgIL) Average (mg/L)Cd <0.05 - 0.228 <0.005- 0.7 <0.005- 3.59 0.09 - 0.51 0.18Cr <0.005 - 0.19 <0.005 - 0.21 <0.005 - 0.17 <0.005 - 0.05 0.02Cu <0.005 - 26.50 0.67 - 31.5 <0.005 - 9.73 0.6 - 14.2 2.75Fe 0.01 - 45.0 <0.005 - 91.0 <0.005- 35.0 0.07 - 4.3 1.00Mn 0.27 - 105.5 0.85 - 82.9 2.13- 93.5 4.3 - 79.9 19.98Ni 0.007 - 4.28 0.04 - 2.59 <0.005 - 2.8 0.14 - 1.0 0.43Pb 0.01- 77.0 0.98 - 83.0 <0.005 - 184.0 0.12 - 75.8 5.05Zn 1.78 - 204.8 2.47 - 145.6 8.14 - 165 20.6 - 394 68.5Note: * PS = Particle Size.105comparable with those from the fine bottom ash fractions. However, it is notclear that these washed materials relate to any one of the three fine bottom ashfractions tested in this study. The leachable metal levels were basically equivalentto that for the mixture of the three fine bottom ash fractions. The results of theLEP leachable metals levels in the washed-off materials are presented inAppendix 4.4.6 Metal Concentrations in the Rinse Water of Samples from Three CoarseBottom Ash FractionsTable 4.12 shows the results of the metal concentrations in the coarsebottom ash rinse water. The maximum acceptable levels listed in CanadianDrinking Water Guidelines and Special Waste Regulation Leachate QualityStandards are also presented as comparison. The metal concentrations in therinse water for all three coarse bottom ash fractions from the Burnaby MSWIncinerator were far below the regulation levels specified in Leachate QualityStandards. The cadmium concentrations in the rinse water of the three coarsebottom ash fractions were only 1 % to 2 % of the maximum acceptable levelspecified in Leachate Quality Standards. For chromium and zinc, theconcentrations in the rinse water of the three coarse fractions were all less than 1% of the maximum acceptable concentrations specified. Copper levels in the rinsewater samples were about 0.1 % to 1.5 % of the regulation limit. Leadconcentrations in the rinse water were around 3 % to 4.5 % of the maximumacceptable concentration specified in the Special Waste Regulation.Some metal concentrations in the bottom ash rinse water appeared to behigher than the levels specified in Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines.106Table 4.12 Average Metal Concentrations in Coarse Bottom Ash Rinse Water(1Kg Ash: 1L Distilled Water Ratio) and the Maximum Acceptable Levels Specifiedin Regulations (mg[L)Bottom Ash FractionMetal 25 mm < PS’ < 50 nni 12.5 mm < PS’ < 25 mn 9.5 mm < PS < 12.5 mm Regulation 1 Regulation 2***Rinse Water Rinse Water Rinse WaterCd 0.005 0.006 0.010 0.005 0.50Cr <0.005 0.01 0.02 0.05 5.00Cu 0.12 0.19 0.35 1.0 100.00Fe 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.3Mn 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.05Ni <0.005 <0.005 0.01Pb 0.15 0.17 0.22 0.05 5.00Zn 0.06 0.01 0.01 5.0 500.00Note: * PS = Particle SizeCanadian Drinking Water Guidelines (Environment Canada, 1979)*** Special Waste Regulation: Leachate Quality Standards (Government of British Columbia, 1992)107(Environment Canada, 1979) The concentrations of lead in the rinse water wereabout 3 to 4 times greater than the maximum acceptable level. The averagecadmium concentrations in the rinse water of two bottom ash fractions withparticle size between the 12.5 mm and 50 mm diameter were in the range of theregulation level. Cadmium in the rinse water of the bottom ash fraction with aparticle size between the 9.5 mm and the 12.5 mm diameter was twice the levelspecified in the regulation. Manganese in the rinse water of the bottom ashfraction with a particle size between the 25 mm and the 50 mm diameter weregreater than the regulation limit by 60 % of the maximum acceptableconcentration. Copper in the rinse water of the bottom ash fraction with aparticle size between the 12.5 mm and the 25 mm diameter were also found to begreater than the regulation levels by around 46 % of the acceptable concentration.The results of the metal concentrations in the bottom ash rinse water are shownin Appendix 9.Appendix 10 presents a collation of the metal levels specified in selectedwater guidelines for industrial uses. (Canadian Council of Resource andEnvironment Ministers, 1993) A summary of these metal levels is shown in Table4.13. Iron, manganese and copper are the three elements specified in most ofthese guidelines. Comparing to the regulations, the metal concentrations foundin the bottom ash rinse water are still below the maximum acceptable levelsspecified in some of the water quality guidelines for industrial uses. Those usesinclude the water for the pulp and paper industry, the chemical and alliedindustries, the food and beverage industry, the tanning and leather industry, andthe petroleum industry. For most of the time, the rinse water of the bottom ashfraction with a particle size between the 25 mm and the 50 mm diameter didn’tTable4.13SummaryoftheMetalLevelsSpecifiedinSelectedWaterQualityGuidelinesforIndustrialUsesWaterGuidelines(mgIL)IndustryOne-throughCooling&PowerGenerationPulp&PaperSteamGeneratorsMakeupWaterSystemCoolingTowerStationsIndustryLowestHighestLowestHighestLowestHighestLowestHighestLowestHighestMetalFe0.010<1.0<0.5<0.5—<0.5<0.01<1.0<0.1<1.0Mn——<0.02<0.5—<0.5—<0.01<0.05<0.5Cu0.010<0.1———<0.08—<0.01—Zn———————<0.01——WaterGuidelines(mg/L)IndustryFood&BeverageChemical&AlliedTextileTanning&LeatherPetroleumIndustryIndustriesIndustryIndustryIndustryLowestHighestLowestHighestLowestHighestLowestHighestMetal<1.0Fe<0.1<1<0.02NS**ND<0.3<0.1<50—Mn<0.05<0.2<0.02(Fe+Mn)NSND<0.05<0.01<0.2—Cu—144D*——<0.015———Zn—————————*ND=notdetected.**NS=not specified.Sources:CanadianCouncilofResourceandEnvironmentMinisters,1993.00109pass some of the regulations specified in the uses listed above due to the higheriron levels.4.7 Result Summary1) The particle size gradation of the bottom ash from Burnaby MSWIncinerator generally meets the specification for well graded base courseaggregate specified in BC Standard Specifications for Highway Construction.2) Magnetic materials comprised around 20 % to 30 % on weight basis ofthe coarse bottom ash fractions (particle size between 9.5 mm and 50 mmdiameter) from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator. Inert materials, including brick,concrete, ceramics, rock, clinker, glass and its mixture, comprised around 60 % to70 % by weight of the coarse bottom ash fractions. The non-ferrous metals foundin the coarse bottom ash fractions are between 2 % and 4 % on weight basis foreach fraction. For the oversize bottom ash fraction with particle size greater thanthe 50 mm diameter, inert materials comprised more than 80 % on weight basisof this fraction. Magnetic materials and non-ferrous metals found in the oversizefraction were less than 0. 5 % and around 11 % on weight basis, respectively.3) The 80 % upper confidence limit (UCL) and geometric mean of lead inthe LEP leachate of the bottom ash fraction with particle size between the 4.75mm and the 9.5 mm diameter is less than the regulation limit. On daily samplebasis, there were four of the eighteen sampling dates on which the dailygeometric means of the LEP lead levels were found greater than the regulationlmiit.1104) For the bottom ash fraction with particle size greater than the 2.36 mmand the 4.75 mm diameter, the 80 % UCL and geometric mean of lead in the LEPleachate have shown that this fraction would be classified as hazardous materialsince both values are greater than the regulation limit.5) The 80 % UCL of the lead in the LEP leachate of the bottom ash fractionwith particle size less than the 2.36 mm diameter was found slight greater thanthe regulation limit. However, the geometric mean of the LEP leachable leadfrom this bottom ash fraction did not exceed the regulation limit. On a dailybasis, there were half of the eighteen sampling dates on which the dailygeometric means of the leachable lead levels from this bottom ash fraction weregreater than the regulation limit.6) There is no clear trend found between the particle size and the metalconcentration in the LEP leachate of the fine bottom ash fractions for all the eightelements tested. Cadmium, magnesium and zinc are the three metals showing atrend of increasing with the particle size decrease in the LEP leachate from thefine bottom ash fractions. Chromium and nickel were leached out about the samelevels in the two bottom ash fractions with particle size less than the 4.75 mmdiameter, both were greater than those leached from the fraction with particlesize between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter. Lead and Copper werefound in greater concentrations in the LEP leachate from the bottom ash fractionwith particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter. Iron wasleached out in higher levels from the two fractions with particle size between the2.36 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter than the finest fraction with particle size lessthan 2.36 mm diameter.1117) Based on the results in this study, the fixed and total metalconcentrations in the three bottom ash fractions with particle sizes less than the9.5 mm diameter generally increased as particle size decreased. The onlyexception of the eight elements tested is iron, where there is no clear trendbetween the metal concentration and the particle size. Due to the difficulty in thepulverization process, it is expected that iron, copper and lead might have beenunderestimated for the fixed (non-leachable) and total concentration in the finebottom ash fractions. However, the trend between the particle size and metallevels will still be good for lead and copper since most small metal chips wereremoved from the finer fractions in the pulverization process.8) The trends of the leachable and total lead levels in the three fine bottomash fractions from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator were quite comparable to eachother during the sampling period in 1991. However, the variance of the leachablelead levels is much greater than that of the total lead levels by as much as 100times.9) The washings collected from the washing of the coarse bottom ashfractions were found to contain LEP leachable heavy metals in levels comparableto those found in the leachate of the fine bottom ash fractions. The heavy metallevels in the wash water of the coarse bottom ash fractions were found to bebelow the regulation limits specified in the Special Waste Regulation : LeachateQuality Standards (Government of British Columbia, 1992). However, cadmium,manganese and lead levels in the wash water exceeded the standards in theCanadian Drinking Water Guidelines (Environment Canada, 1979). Comparingto other standards for industrial uses, the wash water of the coarse bottom ashfractions in this study is reusable in limited industries.112Chapter 5Discussion5.1 Issues Regarding the Samplings of Bottom AshWhen sampling heterogeneous materials like incinerator residues, there isconcern as to how representative the collected samples are, of the whole residuestream. It is difficult to collect several hundred kilograms of samples which willrepresent the contents of hundreds of tonnes of the MSW incinerator bottom ash.Therefore, the sampling procedure must be designed to increase therepresentative nature of the collected samples. In this research, efforts have beenmade to get a representative sample from the bottom ash stream by collecting tento twelve samples of about fifty kilograms at the frequency of half an hour eachon a sampling date. As the bottom ash is continuously carried out on theconveyer from the incinerator, such a collection method has the benefit of gettingmore homogeneous samples from the bottom ash stream and avoiding thecollection of residues from any single refuse source which could cause highervariability.However, there are still some factors that will affect the consistency of theincinerator refuse source which in turn will increase the variability of theremaining residues. The first is the changing nature of the refuse source to theincinerator. As the Burnaby Refuse Incinerator is one of several facilities in theGVRD solid waste management system, the refuse flow can be manipulated withservice areas being varied. The proportions of refuse collected from each servicearea in the Burnaby MSW Incinerator refuse source may change day by day. Thesecond obvious factor is the seasonal variations of the contents in refuse. A study113reported by Atwater et a!. (1993) has pointed out that refuse collected inVancouver Lower Mainland during the period between April to mid-Novembercontained increased yard or trimmed lawn wastes. The yard wastes have beenfound to have a higher content of ash than other materials. Generally speaking,yard wastes yields 23.3 % by weight as ash residue through the incinerationprocess. (Robinson, 1986) The increase of yard wastes in the refuse source willincrease the percentage of the remaining residues and thus change thecharacteristics of the bottom ash from the incineration process.5.2 Particle Size Gradation In the Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom AshIn the survey of particle size gradation of MSW incinerator bottom ash,there is one thing to be considered: aging of the bottom ash. It was found thataging decreases the moisture content in the bottom ash and makes the bottomash easier to sift into different fractions without clogging on the sieve openings.Without an aging process, it is likely that more fine materials will cling on thecoarse particles and the particle size gradation results based on such materialswill have greater variability. Therefore, aging is a necessary procedure beforebottom ash is subjected to the sifting procedure of the particle size gradation test.The particle size gradation of the bottom ash samples from the BurnabyMSW Incinerator have been found to meet the BC Standard Specification forHighway Construction as an aggregate substitute. A comparison with the MasterMunicipal Specifications (Municipal Engineers’ Division of the Association ofProfessional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia et at., 1991), showsthat the particle size gradation of the Burnaby MSW Incinerator bottom ash alsomeets the specifications for aggregates used in select granular subbase. That114means the bottom ash would be usable in highway construction based on itsaggregate gradation. However, there are some other physical properties of MSWincinerator bottom ash that would concern highway construction engineers.Determination of physical properties such as unit weight, specific gravity,durability, L. A. abrasion, density, compaction and etc. would provide moreinformation about the MSW incinerator bottom ash. Such information wouldhelp evaluate the suitability of using the MSW incinerator bottom ash asaggregate in highway construction. As the determination of physical propertiesother than the particle size gradation of the Burnaby MSW Incinerator bottomash was not an objective of this study, no data was generated. Research on thephysical properties of the Burnaby MSW Incinerator bottom ash is desired toassess its physical suitability.5.3 Material Contents in Burnaby MSW Incinerator Bottom AshIn addition to the physical properties, the material distribution in thebottom ash from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator is also needed when evaluatingthe reuse of such ash residues in engineering uses. In the ten categories verified,glass and magnetic materials are the two categories that have been reported tohave some adverse effects on the products made of bottom ash. Therefore, it willbe necessary to have a close review of such material contents in the bottom ashbefore any proper disposal and management of the ash residue can be made.According to the findings of this study, glass in the bottom ash constituted6.5 % by weight of the bottom ash stream from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator.The glass mixture in the bottom ash was found to be about 10.5 % by weight ofthe bottom ash stream. If the glass in the glass mixtures were roughly estimated115as one quarter by weight of the mixtures, the glass in the bottom ash streamwould be about 9 % on weight basis. As the bottom ash is known to be about 22% by weight of the burned refuse, the glass in the refuse can be estimated to beabout 2 % by weight of the refuse. Compared to typical glass content in theMSW, averagely 4-16 % on weight basis (Cerrato, 1993), this low percentage ofglass in the refuse burned at the Burnaby MSW incinerator may be contributableto the Blue Box Recycling plan practiced in the Lower Mainland area. However,there is no data available about how much the Blue Box Recycling plan hashelped reduce the glass content in the MSW. Some researchers have reported onthe recycling of glass cullet from MSW incinerator bottom ash. (Buekens et al.,1979) The success is basically dependent on the percentage of glass content in thebottom ash. The low percentage of glass in this bottom ash could make therecycling of the glass cullet from the bottom ash less economical and therefore,impractical.Another issue regarding the glass in the bottom ash is the use of bottomash as aggregates in Portland Cement concrete. A study from the CivilEngineering Department of the University of British Columbia (1992) had usedthe bottom ash from Burnaby MSW Incinerator as the 10 %, 30 % and 50 %aggregate substitutions in Portland Cement concrete specimens. These bottomash concrete specimens were tested for different physical properties relating tothe strength of the concrete. The results have shown that the strength of thebottom ash concrete specimens was degraded when comparing to those concretespecimens made of natural aggregates. The conclusion of that study suggestedthat the degradation was related to the glass pieces in the bottom ash whichprovide a source of alkali that is reactive and believed to cause the problem of theexpansion in the bottom ash made concrete. Therefore, the glass content in the116bottom ash will limit the bottom ash to be used as an aggregate substitute only inunreinforced concrete.A recent study (WASTE Program Consortium, 1992) has reported that thealkali content in the bottom ash from Burnaby MSW Incinerator is about 7 % byweight of the bottom ash stream. According to the study reported by Atwater etat. (1993), the glass in MSW refuse streams contains alkali (Na20) from 20 % to 25% on weight basis. From the findings of this study, glass and the glass in themixtures composed about 9 % by weight of the bottom ash stream from theBurnaby MSW Incinerator. Therefore, the alkali content in the bottom ash streamdue to glass would be equal to 1.8 % to 2.3 % on weight basis, which is muchlower than the data reported by WASTE, 1992. Since the material distributiontests in this study were applied on coarse bottom ash fractions (with particle sizegreater than the 9.5 mm diameter) only, the difference of the alkali content in thebottom ash could be contributed by the fine bottom ash fractions.Magnetic materials comprised about 12 % on average of the bottom ashstream from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator. Though the magnetic materialsfound in the bottom ash samples are partially magnetic and mostly mixed withmaterials such as glass and clinker, it is still profitable to sort out these magneticmaterials from the bottom ash stream by a second magnet. The benefits from thesale of the collected scrap, and the reduced rusting from the bottom ash used asaggregate substitute in some construction uses might compensate for part or allof the cost for installing and operating the second magnet.-J E 0 I 4-, a) C-) 0 U -D Cu a) -J a) -D Cu -c U a) -J 0 LU -J14 12 1014 12 10 8 66442200Monthin1991Figure5.1LEPLeachableLeadContributionbyThreeFineBottomAshFractionsfromBurnabyMSWIncinerator8123456789101112131185.4 The Leachable Heavy Metals From Bottom AshThe leaching of heavy metals from the bottom ash is probably the issue ofgreatest concern regarding the reuse of bottom ash in construction uses.According to the results in this study, lead is the only metal in the eight elementstested which will leach out at levels greater than the regulation limit from thefine bottom ash fractions. Presented in Figure 5.1 is the LEP leachable leadcontribution by the three fine bottom ash in the whole bottom ash stream fromthe Burnaby MSW Incinerator. Based on the whole bottom ash basis, the annualaverage of the leachable lead contribution by the fine bottom ash fractions isapproximately 4 mg/L, which is less than the regulation limit 5 mg/L. As coarsebottom ash fractions contain mostly inert materials, it is logical to use theleachable lead contribution by the three fine bottom ash fractions (with particlesize less than the 9.5 mm diameter) to represent the leachable lead concentrationin the total bottom ash stream. Therefore, the bottom ash from Burnaby MSWIncinerator is suitable for reuse due to the leachable lead level passing theregulation limit on an annual basis.In addition to an annual average, one needs to be concerned about theseasonal and even the daily variation of the leachable lead level in the bottomash. In a certain season or period of time the bottom ash may contain leachablelead levels higher than regulatory levels and those bottom ashes would not besuitable for reuse as an aggregate substitute. One would have to decide on atreatment scenario other than reuse for the bottom ash collected in such specificperiods of time. Those quantities of bottom ash with higher leachable lead mighthave to be collected separately and treated as a special waste. This wouldincrease the quality of bottom ash for reuse and would make sure that bottom119ash with high leachable lead levels will be adequately disposed. However, thecost for the disposal and treatment of those special waste might outweigh thesavings generated by the reuse of the higher quality fraction.Based on the results presented in Figure 5.1, it is apparent that there aresome sampling dates with leachable lead levels in the bottom ash from theBurnaby MSW Incinerator which exceed the regulation limit. Those samplingdates include February 18, April 21, June 6, July 7, and November 16 in 1991. Itseems that in summer season between April and July, the leachable lead levels inthe bottom ash samples from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator were greater thanthose in other seasons. Therefore, there might be a problem for the reuse of thebottom ash generated in summer due to the higher levels of the leachable lead init. Based on the data gathered in 1991, separate disposal of the bottom ashcollected in summer may be needed to make sure that the bottom ash for reusewould be safe based on the leaching of lead from it. Another problem that mayhave to be considered is that there may be some individual date other than theproblematic summer season that the bottom ash may contain higher levels ofleachable lead. To identify such dates, a daily database on the leaching of theheavy metals from the bottom ash would be useful. However, to get a databaseon the leaching of heavy metals from the MSW bottom ash on a daily basis, agreat deal of research on the bottom ash would have to be done and that may notbe practical. It is suggested that continuing research on the leaching of heavymetals from the bottom ash is needed. The sampling frequency, however, has tobe determined as short as possible to get a representive data base within aresearch budget and manpower allocation which are affordable.120A possible explanation of the higher leachable lead concentration in thesummer season is the change of the characteristics of the refuse. The BurnabyMSW Incinerator utilizes refuse collected from several municipalities in theLower Mainland area. The refuse collected in each municipality may be quitedifferent from another and thus contribute variability in the characteristics of thebottom ash. The refuse sent to the Burnaby MSW Incinerator is collected fromboth residential and commercial sources. Therefore, the ratio of the these twosources in the incinerated refuse may play an important role on the properties ofthe resulting bottom ash.Figure 5.2 shows the variations in the residential and commercial refusegenerated in Burnaby and New Westminster in between January, 1991 and June,1992. Figure 5.3 shows the residue/refuse ratios (bottom ash, iron and fly ash) ofthe incinerated refuse collected in the same period of time. Comparing thevariations of the refuse sources and the ash/solid ratios of the burned solidwastes, it is apparent that the increased residential waste ratio in the refusecollected between April and July in 1991 had increased the ash/solid ratios of therefuse incinerated. As most of the gardening work is beginning in April, it isobvious that there would be an increase of yard wastes in the residential refuse.According to the finding in this study, many unburned grass clippings werefound in the fine fractions of the bottom ash samples taken in the summer of1991. A likely cause of the increased ratio of the residential waste in the collectedrefuse is due to the increase of the yard waste collected in summer time. As yardwastes are believed to be one of the most likely lead containing materials(Robinson, 1986), it is possible that the increase of the leachable lead levels in thebottom ash stream collected from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator in the summertime of 1991 was related to the increased yard wastes in the refuse source. A5000Z45004000Ui a.35000300042500z20001500cn1000Ui Z500z 0 I-.0TIME-MONTHSFigure5.2VariationinResidentialandCommercialSolidWasteGenerationOverTimeInBurnabyandNewWestmisterr.-•-,-1•-•———-0401c’i04CMoam0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)>-Lii<z-jDD-D<0Z(Source:Atwateretal.,1993)LU 0 U) LU CrFigure5.3RatioofMassofResiduesGeneratedtotheMassofSolidWasteBurntCorrectedforMoistureDifferences(Source:Atwateretal.,1993)U0 --0 LU LU Li. IEl.LIbB.m•”0ia—0_WUBBElBBUBBB25-20 15 105. 0El UEl%BNSWCORRB%BAISW•%FEISWCORR.•%FNSWCORR0 a..•.•.•.•“•...y-..,gI’—I•.NWig)0-0ao—Nr4;4;4;4;4;•:•‘;•;-.aaaaaaaa000aaaaNnenai-.a0—N.-NCiAa•.•.••II,.•_q_••IIII.—,—.—..•(‘1NNNNNaaaaaaaa——aaaaaaaaaTIME-MONTHS123separate collection and disposal of the yard wastes from the refuse may lower theleachable lead level in the MSW incinerator bottom ash and improve its qualityfor reuse in different purposes. However, no data are available so far that couldprove such a supposition. Further research on the leachable level’s contributionby the yard wastes is needed to clarify this point.Besides the verification and separation of high lead containing materialsfrom the refuse to improve the leaching of lead from the MSW incinerator bottomash, consideration could be given to separating those bottom ash fractionscontaining higher leachable lead levels from the whole bottom ash stream toimprove the quality of the remaining material for reusability. It was suspectedthat high levels of leachable lead may be found in a specific fraction or fractionsof the finer bottom ash (with particle size less than the 9.5 mm diameter) as thematerials contained in the coarse bottom ash fractions with particle size greaterthan the 9.5 mm diameter are basically inert materials such as glass, concrete,rock and clinker.According to the findings in this study, the 80 % UCL values of theleachable lead levels in the two bottom ash fractions with particle size less thanthe 4.75 mm diameter are both greater than the maximum acceptable levelspecified in the Schedule 4 of B.C. Reg. 63/88. On the other hand, samples fromthe bottom ash fraction with particle size between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mmdiameter were found to pass the LEP tests. This finding suggests that in thebottom ash from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator, only the fine fractions withparticle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter would be considered as specialwastes due to the leachable lead levels. Therefore, sorting of these specialfractions out of the bottom ash stream for separate disposal and treatment would124certainly make the remaining fractions more suitable as reusable materials fordifferent purposes. The problem with this procedure is the high cost for thespecial waste treatment which would apply on the sorted out fractions.As the fraction with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diametercomprised about 20 % by weight of the bottom ash stream from the BurnabyMSW Incinerator, it would cost a lot of money to treat such a quantity of bottomash as a special waste. Therefore, further separations in the finer fraction may beneeded to cut down the cost since there is still a possibility that only some of thesub-fraction is a special waste. Based on the results in this study, the leachablelead levels were found to be higher in the fraction with particle size between the2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter than those in the finest fraction (with particlesize less than the 2.36 mm diameter). It seems that the refining fraction sizeshould focus on the fraction with particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75mm diameter rather than the finest fraction.The explanations for the concentration of heavy metals in the smallerparticle size fractions have not been verified in previous literature. It is assumedthat incineration of some materials, such as paint and inks on paper andpackaging, and additives in plastics and rubber, that contain relatively highamounts of heavy metals may contribute a major portion of the fines in theincineration residue. (Stegemann et al., 1991) Stegemann et al. (1991) alsoreported that research in Germany (Schneider, 1986) had suggested that the finegrate siftings may contain higher levels of heavy metals since they have not beenexposed to the full residence time or temperature in the incinerator and as suchwere not volatilized to the same extent. As the grate siftings are mostly particleswith the sizes less than the 9.5 mm diameter, they contributed to the heavy metal125levels in the fine bottom ash fractions. Therefore, separating the grate siftingsfrom the bottom ash may reduce the heavy metal levels in the bottom ash stream.Another issue relating the heavy metal levels and the particle size wasfound in the fine bottom ash fractions. From the findings of this study, the totalmetal levels in the three bottom ash fractions with particle size less than the 9.5mm diameter are basically increasing as the particle size increase. The onlyexception is the iron which is greater in the fraction with particle size betweenthe 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter. It is expected that finer fractions wouldleach out greater metal levels compared to the same mass of a coarse fraction dueto their greater total surface area of the fine particles, when contacting with theleaching liquid. However, findings in this study have shown that such anassumption is not necessarily true for some elements tested. For instance, leadand copper were both leached out in higher levels from the second finest bottomash fraction, with particle size between the 2.36 mm and the 4.75 mm diameter.Though some literature has reported similar phenomenon in the fine bottom ashfractions, the causes for such a phenomenon are still unknown. From the findingsin this study, one conclusion can be drawn that the leachable levels of all thetested metals but iron seems to be higher in the two bottom ash fractions withparticle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter.Based on the results of the particle size gradation of the bottom ashsamples from Burnaby MSW Incinerator, there will be on average 80 % of thebottom ash retained with particle size greater than the 4.75 mm diameter. Thisretained bottom ash would be safe because of its lower level of the leachableheavy metals and thus is reusable at anytime. In order to use this material inconstruction some natural sand will be required to mix with the bottom ash to126make up the fine portion of the particle size gradation which is specified in thestandard specifications for aggregates used in many construction uses. Besidesthe special fraction of the bottom ash, the fine materials that cling on the coarseparticles may also be of concern due to the higher levels of leachable heavymetals found in those fine materials. The quality of such ash residue may beimproved by several washes. The drawback of the washing procedure is that onewill have to treat the wash water after several washings of bottom ash.Comparing the results to the data reported by Sawell et al. (1990), theleachable lead levels in the bottom ash from Burnaby MSW Incinerator havechanged over time. The leachable lead concentrations in the fine bottom ashfractions collected through 1991 were all less than those reported in the bottomash samples collected in the late 1988 by Sawell et al. There is one majordifference between the sampling procedures used by Sawell et al. and this studyand that is: those bottom ash pieces that failed to pass the 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) sieveopening were mashed in Sawell et al.’s study so that all bottom ash fractions wereable to pass. In this study, only that bottom ash passing the 9.5 mm sieve openingis subject to the LEP test. Therefore, samples in Sawell et al.’s study may notreflect the real behaviors of the bottom ash when subject to leaching since most ofthe coarse particles will not easily break up. Some part of the ash particlescontaining leachable lead may have been incorporated into glass and thusimmobilized. Mashing such materials may release the leachable lead from theimmobilized materials and thus increase the chance of the contact between thelead and the leaching solution during the leaching test. Then, the leadconcentrations in the leachate may have been increased to some degree.127Another possible explanation of the higher leachable lead levels in thebottom ash reported by Sawell et a!. (1990) is probably related to the change ofthe materials distribution in the refuse. GVRD (1989) have had a programinvestigating the source of lead in the MSW stream. In addition to lead acidbatteries, several other sources of lead were identified, including fire assaylaboratory cupels, wastes from three North Shore laboratories and weights fromcommercial fish nets. These wastes were removed from the incinerators feed andare disposed by alternative methods such as the reclaiming of lead from theMSW stream. This would possibly lead to the reduced lead levels in the bottomash samples taken in this study. Besides the lead source control program, somerecycling programs such as the Blue Box Recycling plan may also contribute tothe reduction of lead levels in the bottom ash from the Burnaby MSWIncinerator. Many recyclable materials such as corrugated paper, newsprint, rigidplastics as well as glass and tin cans have been removed from the MSW streamsince 1989. As reported by Robinson (1986), corrugated, newsprint, other paper,film plastic, rigid plastic, textiles, yard wastes and sweepings are the materialsbelieved most likely to contain lead in the municipal refuse. Such materials in theincinerated refuse would certainly increase the total lead levels in the resultingbottom ash. As the total lead levels increase, it is logical that the leachable leadlevels in the bottom ash will increase, too. Therefore, it is possible that the lowerleachable lead levels found in the bottom ash samples in this study may haveresulted from the recycling programs which removed part of the lead containingmaterials including the corrugated paper, newsprint, some rigid plastics andother paper from the municipal refuse.128Chapter 6Summary and ConclusionsThe particle size distribution of the bottom ash from the Burnaby MSWIncinerator is comparable to other MSW incinerators. The results of the particlegradation of the Burnaby MSW Incinerator bottom ash generally fall in the rangespecified in the “Standard Specifications for Highway Construction”(Government of British Columbia, 1991) for the aggregates used for a well-graded base course in highway construction. It is believed that the Burnaby MSWIncinerator bottom ash could be used as aggregate substitute in highwayconstructions based on the particle gradation only.Findings about the material distribution of the four coarse bottom ashfractions (with particle size greater than the 9.5 mm diameter) have shown thatinert materials such glass, concrete, ceramic and clinker make up the largest partof coarse bottom ash fractions. The magnetic materials composed of about 12.5 %by weight of the bottom ash stream and typically appeared as pieces withparticle size less than the 50 mm diameter. A second magnet may be needed tosort out of these magnetic materials from the bottom ash from Burnaby MSWIncinerator. Glass was found to be about 10 % by weight of bottom ash which inturn was about 2 % of the incinerated refuse on a weight basis.With the exception of iron, the fixed (non-leachable) and total metal levelsfor the selected elements tested in the three fine bottom ash fractions showed anapparent trend that metal levels generally increase with particle size decrease.On the other hand, only cadmium, manganese and zinc leachable metals levelsfollowed that trend. Iron was leached from the two fractions with particle size129between the 4.75 mm and the 9.5 mm diameter rather than the finest fractions.For lead and copper, the middle fine bottom ash fraction (between the 2.36 mmand the 4.75 mm diameter) was found to contain greater leachable levels than theother two fractions. Among the eight elements tested, lead is the only elementleached out in levels exceeding the regulation limit from the two fine bottom ashfractions with particle size less than the 4.75 mm diameter. These two fine bottomash fractions would be classified as special wastes due to the leachable leadlevels.In comparison with data reported in the literature by Sawell et al. (1990),the LEP leachable lead levels in the three fine bottom ash fractions of this studyare much lower. It is most likely that the GVRD’s lead source control program aswell as the Blue Box Recycling plan practiced in the GVRD municipalities isresponsible for the decrease of leachable lead levels. For chromium, copper andnickel, the leachable levels in the three fine bottom ash fractions from theBurnaby MSW Incinerator are slightly lower than Sawell et al.’s data. As forcadmium, manganese and zinc, the leachable levels in the three fine bottom ashfractions are comparable to the literature data.The lead levels in the bottom ash contributed by the three fine bottom ashfractions have shown that there are some high values in February, Novemberand the period between April and August in 1991. The increase of yard waste inthe refuse collected in the summer time may be a possible cause for the increaseof the lead levels in the bottom ash from the Burnaby MSW Incinerator duringthat period.130The fine materials collected from washing the coarse bottom ash fractionshave shown a similarity to the three fine bottom ash fractions regarding the LEPleachable metal levels. Results of the metal concentrations in the wash waterhave shown that only a small fraction of the metals in the fine bottom ash arewater soluble. The wash water of the coarse bottom ash fractions could be usedrepeatedly.131Chapter 7Recommendations1. A second magnet is suggested to collect the magnetic materials from thebottom ash stream more effectively.2. The bottom ash from Burnaby MSW Incinerator is suitable for use asaggregates in highway base construction based on its particle size gradation.However, other physical properties of the bottom ash are not available toevaluate the suitability of reusing such materials for this purpose. Furtherresearch on the physical properties of the bottom ash is necessary to determinethat suitability.3. A period of aging time is needed for the bottom ash to avoid the clogging ofthe sieve openings during the sifting procedure by reducing the moisture contentof the bottom ash. The particle size gradation based on the aged bottom ash willalso reduce the variability due to the fine materials clinging on the coarseparticles.4. Since the grate siftings have been reported to contain higher heavy metallevels, it is recommended that separate disposal methods be considered for thegrate siftings and the bottom ash. A study by Rob Miller for the GVRD isexamining the effect of removing the grate siftings from the Burnaby MSWIncinerator bottom ash.1325. Several washes of the coarse bottom ash fractions will help improve the qualityof bottom ash by washing off the fine materials that contain higher levels ofheavy metals from the coarse particles.6. Further research is needed to verify the lead levels in the bottom ash relating tothe increase of yard wastes in the refuse.133REFERENCESAbramowitz, M. and I. Segun (1968), Handbook of Mathematical Functions, NewYork, Dover Publications, Inc., May 1968, P. 933.Andrews, Carol A. and Mary T. Hoffman (1991), Analysis of Laboratory and FieldLeachate Test Data for Ash from Twelve Municipal Solid Waste Combustors,Municipal Waste Incineration, papers and Abstracts from the SecondAnnual International Specialty Conference, April 15-19, 1991, HyattRegency Hotel, Tampa, Florida, p. 739-758.Andrews, James C. (1991), Incinerator Ash Disposal in the Tampa Bay Region,Municipal Waste Incineration, papers and Abstracts from the SecondAnnual International Specialty Conference, April 15-19, 1991, HyattRegency Hotel, Tampa, Florida, p. 284-298.A.P.H.A., A.W.W.A., and W.P.C.F. (1985), Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater, 16th Edition, 1985.A.P.H.A., A.W.W.A., and W.P.C.F. (1990), Standard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater, 17th Edition, 1990.ASTM (1989), Standard Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates,Designation: D 75-87, 1989 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02,p. 577-580.ASTM (1991), Standard Practice for Reducing Field Samples of Aggregate to TestingSize, Designation: C 702-87, 1991 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.04.02, p. 361-364.Atwater, Jim and D. Sims (1993), Bottom Ash Utilization Project, Prepared for theSolid Waste and Recycling Department, Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict, January 15, 1993.Black, Horance R. (1976), Synthetic Aggregate from Incinerator Residues, Journal ofthe Engineering Mechanics Division (Proceedings of the American Societyof Civil Engineers), Vol. 102, No. EM1, February 1976, p. 31-41.Blaisdell, Mark, Daesoo Lee and Brian Baetz (1990), Economic Feasibility of DryingMunicipal Solid-Waste Combustion Residue, Journal of Energy Engineering,Vol. 116, No. 2, August 1990, p. 87-97.Buekens, A.G. and J.G. Schoeters (1979), Utilization of Incinerator Residue,Proceedings of the 2nd World Recycling Conference, 1979, Brussels, p.11/4/121-11/4/137.134Carbone, Lawrence G., Walter H. Gutenmann and Donald J. Lisk (1989), ElementImmobilization in Refuse Incinerator Ashes by Solidfication in Glass, Ceramic orCement, Chemosphere, Vol. 19, No. 12, P. 1951-1958.Cerrato, David S. (1993), Characterization of Waste Streams, Chapter 3 of TheMcGraw-Hill Recycling Handbook, Ed. Herbert F. Lund, New York,McGraw-Hill, Inc. , 1993, p. 3.29.Chandler, A.J., J. Hartlen, D. Kosson, H.A. van der Sloot, T.T. Eighmy, 0.Hjelmar, S.E. Sawell and J. Vehiow (1991), An International Perspective onAsh From Municipal Waste Incinerators, Municipal Waste Incineration,papers and Abstracts from the Second Annual International SpecialtyConference, April 15-19, 1991, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Tampa, Florida, p.284-298.Clapp, T.L., J.F. Magee II, R.C. Ahiert and D.S. Kosson (1988), Municipal SolidWaste Composition and the Behavior of Metals in Incinerator Ashes,Environmental Progress, Vol. 7, No. 1, February 1988, p. 22-30.Collins, Robert Joseph (1977), Highway Construction Use of Incinerator Residue, inProceedings of the Conference of Geotechnical Practice for Disposal ofSolid Waste Materials, June 13-15, 1977, The University of Michigan, AnnArbor, Michigan, p. 246-266.Collins, R.J., R.H. Miller and S.K. Ciesielski (1977), Guidelines for Use of IncineratorResidue as Highway Construction Material, U. S. Department ofTransportation Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-RD77-150, September 1977.Collins, Robert J. (1978), Promising Applications for Municipal Incinerator Residues,Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Municipal Waste Utilization, May2-3, 1978, Chicago, p. 212-221.Denison, Richard A. (1988), The Hazards of Municipal Incinerator Ash asFundamental Objectives of Ash Management, Resource Recovery ofMunicipal Solid Wastes, AIChE Symposium Series, Vol. 84, No. 265, 1988,p. 148-153.Dension, Richard A. and John Ruston, ed. (1990), Recycling and IncinerationEvaluating the Choices, Washington D.C., Island Press, 1990.DiPietro, John V., M. Robin Collins, Marcel Guay and T. Taylor Eighmy (1989),Evaluation of pH and Oxidation-Reduction Potential on Leachability ofMunicipal Solid Waste Incinerator Residues, in Proceedings of theInternational Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion, April 11-14,1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol. 1, p. 2B-21 through 2B-43.135Environment Canada (1979), Water Quality Sourcebook-Inland Waters Directorate.Francis, C.W. and G.H. White (1987). Leaching of Toxic Metals from IncineratorAshes, Journal of WPCF, Vol. 59, No. 11, November 1987, P. 979-986.Government of British Columbia (1991), Standard Specifications for HighwayConstruction, Section 22, p. 202-1 through 202-14.Government of British Columbia (1992). Waste Management Act, Special WasteRegulation, B.C. Reg. 63/88, April 16, 1992.Greenberg, R.R., W.H. Zoller and G.E. Gordon (1978), Composition and ParticleSize in Refrse Incineration, Environmental Science and Technology, No. 12,1978, p. 566-573.Gress, D.L., X. Zhang, S. Tarr, I. Pazienza and T.T. Eighmy (1991), Municipal SolidWaste Combustion Ash as An Aggregate Substitute in Asphaltic Concrete,Waste Materials in Construction, in proceedings of the InternationalConference on Environmental Implications of Construction with WasteMaterials, Maastricht, The Netherlands, November 10-14, 1991, J.J.J.MGoumans, H.A. van der Sloot and Th. G. Aalbers (Editors), ElsevierScience Publishers, Amsterdam, 1991, p. 161-175.GVRD(Greater Vancouver Regional District) (1989), Incinerator Ash Management -Lead Monitoring and Removal Program, Report to Water and WasteManagement Committee Meeting, October 12, 1989.Harlow, G. L., C. A. Whitehurst, H. Robards, D. Deville and B. V. Rao (1990), AshVitrification-A Technology Ready for Transfer, Proceedings of the (14thBiennial) National Waste Processing Conference, June 3-6 1990, LongBeach, California, P. 143-150.Hartlén, Jan and Jan Rogbeck (1989), Sorted Incinerator Slag Used As FillMaterial, in Proceedings of the International Conference on MunicipalWaste Combustion, April 11-14, 1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol. 1, p. 5B-1through 5B-13.Hasselriis, Floyd (1988), How Control of Combustion, Emissions and AshResidues from Municipal Solid Waste can Minimize Environmental Risk,Resource Recovery of Municipal Solid Wastes, AIChE Symposium Series,Vol. 84, No. 265, 1988, p. 154-167.Haynes, J. and W.B. Ledbetter (1975), Incinerator Residue in Bituminous BaseConstruction, U. S. Department of Transportation Federal HighwayAdministration, Report No. FHWA-RD-76-12, December 1975.136Haynes, Joseph. A. and William B. Ledbetter (1977), Incinerator Residue in AsphaltBase Construction, Transportation Engineering Journal of ASCE, Vol. 103,No. TE5, September 1977, p. 555-564.Henn, John J. and Frank A. Peters (1971), Cost Evaluation of a Metal and MineralRecovery Process for Treating Municipal Incinerator Residues, Bureau ofMines, United States Department of the Interior, Information Circular8533, 1971.Hjelmar, Ole (1989), Characterization of Leaching from Landfilled MSWI Ash, inProceedings of the International Conference on Municipal WasteCombustion, April 11-14, 1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol. 1, p. 3B-1through 3B-19.Jackson, Danny R., Benjamin C. Garrett and Thomas A. Bishop (1984), Comparisonof Batch and Column Methods for Assessing Leachability of Hazardous Waste,Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 18, No. 9, p. 668-673.Johnson, Paul W. and James A. Barclay (1973), Economic Studies of Uses of the GlassFractions From Municipal Incinerator Residues, Bureau of Mines, UnitedStates Department of the Interior, Information Circular 8567, 1973.Kenahan, C.B. and P.M. Sullivan (1967), Lets not overlook salvage, Am. PublicWorks Assoc., Rep. 34:5.Kreijger, P.C. (1984), Some Notes Regarding the Performance of Waste Materials andConcrete in Building Components, in Proceedings of the NATO AdvancedResearch Institute Conference on Adhesion Problems in the Recycling ofConcrete, New York, New York: Plenum. p. 396-401.Lauer, K.R. (1979), Potential Use of Incinerator Reside as Aggregate for PortlandCement Concrete, Transportation Research Record, No. 734, 1979.Legiec, l.A., C. A. Hayes and D. S. Kosson (1989), Continuous Recovery of HeavyMetals from MSW Incinerator Ashes, Environmental Progresses, Vol. 8,No. 3, August 1989, p. 212-216.Maynard, Theodore R. (1977). Incinerator Residue Disposal in Chicago, inProceedings of the Conference on Geotechnical Practice for Disposal ofSolid Waste Materials, June 13-15, 1977, The University of Michigan, AnnArbor, Michigan, p. 773-792.Montenay Inc. (1988). Greater Vancouver Regional District Burnaby Incinerator - ARefuse to Energy Facility, Unpublished data of Montenay Inc., 1988.137Montenay Inc. (1991). Unpublished statistic data of Montenay Inc., 1991.Municipal Engineers’ Division of the Association of Professional Engineers andGeoscientists of British Columbia, the British Columbia Road Builders andHeavy Construction and the Consulting Engineers of British Columbia(1991), Master Municipal Specfications, September 1991, Section 02226, p. 6.Paviovich, R.D., H.J. Lentz and W.C. Ormsby (1977), Installation of IncineratorResidues as Base-Course Paving Material in Washing, D.C., Report ofDepartment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, ReportNo. FHWA-RD-78-114, December 1977.Patankar, Uday M., Gary D. Gindlesperger, Emilio Palermo and Michael R.Taylor (1979), Evaluation of the Economic and Environmental Feasibility ofUsing Fused and Unfused Incinerator Residue in Highway Construction, U. S.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, ReportNo. FHWA-RD-79-83, April 1979.Repa, Edward (1987). The Confusion and Questions about Ash, Waste Age, Vol. 18,No. 9, September 1987, p. 89-93.Requardt, G.J. and W.M. Harrington,Jr. (1962), Utilization of Incinerator Ash asLandfill Cover Material, Paper presented at APWA Public Works Congress,New Orleans, October 1962.Rigo, H. Gregor (1989), Evaluation of Incinerator Ash Testing Data - A StatisticallyCorrect Approach, in Proceedings of the Intentional Conference onMunicipal Waste Combustion, April 11-14, 1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol.1, p. 5C-15 through 5C-30.Robinson, William D. (1986), The Solid Waste Hand Book A Practical Guide, JohnWiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1986, p. 531.Santoleri, Joseph J. (1991), Incinerator Technology Overview, in Proceedings of SPIEEnvironmental Sensing & Combustion Diagnostics, Vol. 1434, Los Angels,Ca., January 24-25, 1991, p. 2-13.Sawell, S.E., T.R. Bridle and T.W. Constable (1986), Assessment ofAsh ContaminantLeachability, NITEP Phase Il-Testing of the FLAKT Air Pollution ControlTechnology at the Quebec City Municipal Energy from Waste Facility,Industrial Programs Branch, Wastewater Technology Centre (Burlington,Ontario: Environment Canada).Sawell, S.E. and T.W. Constable (1988), National Incinerator Testing and EvaluationProgram : The Combustion Characterization of Mass Burning Technology -138Assessment of Contaminant Leachability from Residues, Environment CanadaReport, IP-82, August 1988.Sawell, S.E. and T.W. Constable (1989), The National Incinerator Testing andEvaluation Program : Characterization of Residues from A Refuse Derived FuelCombustion System and A Modular Municipal Waste Incinerator, inProceedings of the Intentional Conference on Municipal WasteCombustion, April 11-14, 1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol. 1, p. 2B-45through 2B-62.Sawell, S.E., T.W. Constable and R.K. Klicius (1989b), National Incinerator Testingand Evaluation Program:: Characterization of Residues from A ModularMunicipal Waste Incinerator with Lime-based Air Pollution Control,Environment Canada Report, Manuscript Series, IP-lOl, September 1989.Sawell, S.E., T.W. Constable, and R.K. Klicius (1990). The National IncineratorTesting and Evaluation Program: Characterization of Residues from A State-of-Art Mass Burning Municipal Waste Incinerator (Burnaby, B.C.), EnvironmentCanada Report, IP-ilO (revised), April 1990.Schneider, J. (1986), Bestimmung der elementaren Mullzusammensetzung durchAnalytik der Mullverbennungsruckstande, Recycling International. VI., Ed.K.J. Kozmiensky, EF-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.Schoenberger, Robert J. and P. Walton Purdom (1976), Long Term ChemicalLeaching from Incinerator Residue, Proceedings of the National WasteProceeding Conference, May 23, 1979, Boston, p. 489-497.Sloot, H.A. van der, G.J. de Groot, J. Wijkstra, and P. Leeders (1989). LeachingCharacteristics of Incinerator Residues and Potential for Modification ofLeaching, in Proceedings of the International Conference on MunicipalWaste Combustion, April 11-14, 1989, Hollywood, Florida, Vol. 1, p. 2B-1through 2B-19.Stegemann, J.A. and J. Schneider (1991), Leaching Potential of Municipal WasteIncinerator Bottom Ash as A Function of Particle Size Distribution, WasteMaterials in Construction, in proceedings of the International Conferenceon Environmental Implications of Construction with Waste Materials,Maastricht, The Netherlands, November 10-14, 1991, J.J.J.M Goumans,H.A. van der Sloot and Th. G. Aalbers (Editors), Elsevier SciencePublishers, Amsterdam, 1991, p. 135-143.Stoelhorst, D. (1991), The Use of Waste Materials in Civil Engineering, WasteMaterials in Construction, in proceedings of the International Conferenceon Environmental Implications of Construction with Waste Materials,Maastricht, The Netherlands, November 10-14, 1991, J.J.J.M Goumans,139H.A. van der Sloot and Th. G. Aalbers (Editors), Elsevier SciencePublishers, Amsterdam, 1991, p. 71-80.Strauss, William (1989), Stablization of Heavy Metals in Incinerator Ash and PotentialRe-use of the Hardened Material, in Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Municipal Waste Combustion, April 11-14, 1989,Hollywood, Florida, Vol. 2, p. 11B-1 through 11B-13.Sundstrom, D.W., H.E. Klei, B.A. Weir and A.J. Perna (1991), Leaching Behavior ofResidues from Mass Burn and Refuse Derived Fuel Incinerators, MunicipalWaste Incineration, papers and Abstracts from the Second AnnualInternational Specialty Conference, April 15-19, 1991, Hyatt RegencyHotel, Tampa, Florida, p. 759-774.Sussman, David B.(1989), Municipal Waste Combustion Ash: Testing Methods,Constituents and Potential Uses, in Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Municipal Waste Combustion, April 11-14, 1989,Hollywood, Florida, Vol.2, p. 11B-13 through 11B-25.Tay, Joo-Haw (1988), Energy Generation and Resources Recovery from RefuseIncineration, Journal of Energy Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 3, December1988, p. 107-117.Teague, D.J. and W.B. Ledbetter (1978), Three Years Results on the Performance ofIncinerator Residue in a Bituminous Base, U. S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-RD-78-144, August1978.University of British Columbia, Civil Engineering 321, (1992), Three reportsinvestigating the substitution of 10 %, 30 % and 50% MSW incineratorbottom ash for conventional aggregate in concrete. Submitted to ProfessorS. Mindess, April 1992.US EPA (1986), Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Vol. II: Field Manual,Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, Third Edition, November 1986, p.Nine-6.Wagner, Travis P. (1990), Hazardous Waste Identification and Classification Manual,Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990, p. 78.Walter, C. Edward (1976), Practical Refuse Recycling, Journal of the EngineeringMechanics Division (Proceedings of the American Society of CivilEngineers), Vol. 102, No. EM1, February 1976, p. 139-148.WASTE Program Consortium (1992), Waste Analysis, Sampling, Testing andEvaluation. Effect of Waste Stream Characteristics on MSW Incineration: The140Fate and Behavior of Metals (Mass Burn MSW Incineration: Burnaby, B. C.Produced for Environment Canada, the US Environmental ProtectionAgency, the International Lead - Zinc Research Organization and theGreater Vancouver Regional District, Consortium members include: A. J.Chandler and Associates Ltd.; Rigo and Rigo Associates, Inc.; TheEnvironmental Research Group- University of New Hampshire; andWastewater Technology Center (Burlington, Ontario).Wiles, Canton C. (1991), Incinerator Ash Disposal in the Tampa Bay Region,Municipal Waste Incineration, papers and Abstracts from the SecondAnnual International Specialty Conference, April 15-19, 1991, HyattRegency Hotel, Tampa, Florida, p. 205-227.141APPENDIX 1. RAW DATA - BURNABY REFUSE INCINERATOR BOTTOM ASH PARTICLE SIZEDISTRIBUTION (Unit: Percentage by Weight)11.07%14.45%10.87%10.59%10.21%14.75%6.13%11.15%6.20%9.27%3 1.42%39.80%34.48%33.65%33.21%36.30%26.37%32.32%22.44%34.79%13.01%15.36%14.95%14.55%13.81%11.01%13.47%15.24%13.27%14.64%20.35%17.34%19.24%20.24%20.06%18.81%26.94%22.03%30.43%21. 15%10. 78%4.87%6.87%9.01%8.16%10. 15%15.54%10. 29%17.43%8.12%10.40%8.52%6.90%7.91%10.09%6.10%6.83%8.75%12.91%8.10%5.94%8.00%32. 16%25.47%22.94%23.64%22.91%29,21%25.92%25.95%24.75%21.26%3 1.76%28.24%11.82%11. 89%12.37%12.53%10.67%11.51%12.00%12.05%10.53%9.16%12.64%10.75%20. 19%22.54%34.86%27.11%26.80%28.87%32.00%24.20%22.62%24.56%26.28%28.55%10. 17%11.89%15.41%14.67%18.78%14.26%14.00%13.80%14.23%21.09%13.86%16.24%13.46%13.40%13.90%16.39%14.24%11.81%16.77%7.75%15.90%18.72%Date: 2/4/91Samples 50mm< PS 25mm< PS <50mm 12.Smm< PS <25mm 9.5mm< PS <12,5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2,36mm< PS <4,75mm PS <2.36mm1 6.97% 6.40%2 2.73% 5.45%3 7.58% 6.01%4 4.32% 7.64%5 5.22% 9.33%6 4.92% 4.06%7 3.85% 7.70%8 5.74% 3.23%9 4.36% 5.87%10 6.36% 5.67%Date 2/18/91Samples SOmm< PS 25mm< PS <50mm 12.Smm< PS <25mm 9,Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm1 4.49% 10.77%2 8.34% 11.36%3 2.78% 4.75%4 3.02% 11.11%5 5.54% 5.21%6 4.55% 5.50%7 2.17% 7.08%8 9.04% 6.22%9 7.98% 6.99%10 6.58% 9.25%11 3.35% 6.17%12 4.47% 3.76%Date 3/6/9 1Samples S0mjn< PS 25mm< PS <50mm 12.Smm< PS <25mm 9.Smin< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm1 5.57% 13.37%2 10.36% 11.92%3 8.14% 13.05%4 20.49% 10.55%5 7.54% 6.53%6 8.21% 4.96%7 16.93% 10.30%8 2.38% 17.68%9 11.48% 10.91%10 17.78% 3.60%Date: 3/30191Samples SOmm< PS 25mm< PS <50mm 12.5mm< PS <25mm 9.5mm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4,75mm PS <2.36mm1 4.57% 7.94% 23.35% 11.67% 22.02% 11.07% 19.37%2 1.28% 5.86% 22.14% 11.80% 26.08% 11.34% 21.50%3 5.28% 8.90% 18.00% 9.10% 23.19% 11.35% 24.17%4 6.92% 10.33% 21.49% 8.67% 19. 10% 10.24% 23.25%5 7.80% 8.89% 23.41% 11.98% 22.14% 8.80% 16.97%6 8.28% 12.48% 23.68% 9.26% 21.15% 13.16% 11.99%7 6.57% 12.68% 27.29% 10.31% 20.84% 11.10% 11.21%8 9.58% 14.96% 24.45% 9.40% 17.43% 10.58% 13.59%9 7.77% 12.41% 22.92% 9.47% 19.98% 12.03% 15.44%10 3.91% 10.34% 21.99% 10.07% 21.90% 14.07% 17.71%11 5.62% 7.93% 23.02% 9.91% 24.23% 14.87% 14.43%12 7.93% 9.96% 21.86% 10.38% 20.76% 13.25% 15.86%Date: 4/12/91Samples SOmm< PS 25mm< PS <50mm 12.Smm< PS<25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2,36mm< PS <4.75mm PS<2.36mm1 14.37% 10.73% 19.40% 9.51% 19.87% 10.73% 15.39%2 11.41% 11.16% 18.71% 9.88% 20.56% 9.80% 18.47%3 13.23% 15.19% 25.35% 9.04% 14.91% 7.92% 14.35%4 11.23% 11.42% 20.04% 9.58% 18.01% 9.39% 20.33%5 10.92% 15.07% 20.91% 8.30% 16.93% 13.38% 14.48%6 10.51% 14.79% 26.75% 9.24% 17.51% 9.44% 11.77%7 9.90% 14.46% 26.94% 9.12% 17.21% 9.81% 12.56%8 4.32% 10.94% 31.71% 10.85% 21.14% 10.20% 10.85%30.55%28. 19%32.97%26.77%31.61%32.01%25.90%25.92%30. 10%32.58%11.70%10.98%10.08%8.81%12.80%13.26%9.98%11.72%10.44%9.63%19.96%17.60%15.00%12.29%19.83%22.36%15.29%24.03%15.71%13.63%5.39%7.55%6.86%4.71%7.46%7.39%4.84%10.53%5.46%4.07%1429 8.33% 8.78% 14.93% 8.51% 27.78% 17.47% 14.21%10 7.50% 10.64% 28.60% 10.20% 19.35% 9.33% 14.39%11 7.74% 7.95% 17.96% 11.56% 25.49% 10.73% 18.58%12 11.93% 9.79% 19.29% 10.16% 22.65% 9.79% 16.40%Date: 4t21/91Samples 50mm< PS 25mm< PS <S0tmn 12,5mm< PS <25mm 9.5mm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm1 6.83% 14.26% 27.92% 10,93% 17.51% 8.11% 14.43%2 9.01% 11.84% 21.26% 10.12% 19.94% 10.22% 17.61%3 8.93% 18.94% 25.48% 9.84% 16.13% 6.78% 13.90%4 12.11% 14.57% 28.05% 10.29% 16.85% 6.65% 11.48%5 13.63% 12.54% 25.00% 9.87% 19.65% 9.95% 9.36%6 12.40% 11.31% 21.63% 10,68% 22.62% 11.76% 9.59%7 12.36% 10.09% 20.44% 10.60% 21.53% 13.54% 11.44%8 5.19% 13.45% 29.31% 11.97% 20.78% 8.35% 10.95%9 9.29% 12.44% 21.00% 9.69% 24.39% 18.09% 5.09%10 7.10% 14.40% 28.80% 11.14% 19.72% 7.89% 10.95%11 4.72% 11.18% 25.24% 11.85% 21.19% 9.44% 16.38%12 13.06% 9.77% 18.54% 10.87% 19.74% 9.27% 18.74%Date: 4129/91Samples 5Omm< PS 25mm< PS <50mm 12.Smm< PS <25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm1 9.79% 12.41% 21.90% 9.89% 17.46% 9.08% 19.48%2 19.78% 15.45% 18.49% 8.17% 15.45% 7.85% 14.81%3 11.68% 18.17% 27.68% 10.64% 16.09% 4.93% 10.81%4 14.08% 17.95% 27.20% 9.72% 13.98% 5.36% 11.70%5 12.91% 15.87% 24.75% 9.15% 15.70% 8.07% 13.54%6 15.00% 17.77% 26.17% 8.79% 14.52% 6.59% 11.17%7 12.27% 16.91% 29.37% 9.94% 14.59% 6.32% 10.59%8 15.06% 20.69% 25.68% 8.34% 12.78% 6.18% 11.27%9 12.87% 16.20% 25.31% 9.43% 15.65% 7.66% 12.87%10 9.81% 14.98% 28.51% 10.23% 17.98% 7.54% 10.95%11 16.92% 14.83% 27.84% 10.28% 15.29% 5.73% 9.10%12 13.51% 16.99% 25.49% 10.57% 15.90% 6.86% 10.68%Date: 6/6/9 1Samples SOmm< PS 25mm< PS <50mm 12.Smm< PS<25mm 9.5imn< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm1 15.20% 16.04% 21.11% 8.07% 13.70% 7.41% 18.48%2 12.54% 10.90% 19.10% 8.61% 15.66% 9.67% 23.52%3 11.13% 14.41% 19.64% 7.58% 13.19% 842% 25.63%4 6.71% 17.56% 22.61% 9.10% 16.08% 8.00% 19.94%5 11.11% 20.49% 27.22% 846% 14.27% 7.03% 11.42%6 16.38% 19.60% 26.63% 8.04% 11.16% 5.83% 12.36%7 9.37% 13.27% 30.89% 10.20% 14.01% 6.40% 15.86%8 8.22% 9.99% 22.28% 10.26% 21.40% 9.20% 18.66%9 10.14% 18.15% 25.97% 10.42% 17.08% 5.98% 12.26%10 17.38% 21.68% 26.08% 8.15% 11.92% 4.21% 10.57%11 13.94% 21.29% 24.12% 8.76% 13.86% 5.09% 12.94%12 14.07% 18.11% 20.71% 7.42% 14.64% 8.38% 16.67%Date: 7/7/91Samples SOmm< PS 25mm< PS <50mm 12.5mm< PS <25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm1 17.50% 17.50% 19.65% 7.14% 13.29% 8.31% 16.62%2 10.78% 17.63% 28.22% 9.50% 14.79% 7.03% 12.05%3 7.95% 17.89% 24.11% 9.42% 16.68% 7.87% 16.08%4 13.98% 21.60% 29.99% 9.35% 13.11% 4.53% 7.43%5 4.01% 12.64% 31.09% 13.04% 19.66% 7.12% 12.44%6 12.31% 20.79% 27.40% 9.51% 13.34% 6.00% 10.65%7 13.93% 25.43% 24.80% 7.19% 11.86% 6.74% 10.06%8 10.98% 17.28% 28.60% 9.79% 15.74% 6.55% 11.06%9 14.07% 14.07% 28.42% 10.36% 17.87% 7.32% 7.89%10 7.03% 22.05% 30.70% 10.27% 15.35% 5.84% 8.76%11 16.94% 11.81% 23.04% 9.87% 17.23% 8.42% 12.68%12 17.15% 27.75% 29.87% 7.90% 9.34% 3.66% 4.34%Date: 8/10/91Samples SOmm<PS 25mm<PS <50mm 12.5mm<PS <25mm 9.Smm<PS <12,5mm 4.75mm<PS <9.5mm 2.36mm<PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm1 9.34% 9.74% 19.68% 9.94% 20.48% 10.83% 19.98%2 13.58% 11.64% 24.09% 10.16% 17.01% 8.45% 15.07%1433 14.50% 12.28% 22.16% 10.34% 16.90% 7.48% 16.34%4 8.71% 13.88% 26.95% 11.43% 19.33% 7.71% 11.98%5 15.31% 10.61% 26.76% 10.89% 17.09% 6.95% 12.39%6 11.40% 14.40% 23.31% 10.28% 18.59% 9.08% 12.94%7 11.15% 10.17% 23.10% 11.25% 19.15% 8.98% 16.19%8 4.73% 11.58% 26.97% 12.23% 19.93% 8.90% 15.66%9 10.93% 9.74% 26.74% 12.72% 20.18% 7.85% 11.83%10 6.44% 15.00% 29.56% 11.44% 16.67% 7.44% 13.44%11 10.57% 8.90% 22.99% 10.76% 18.30% 9.49% 18.98%12 11.64% 13.06% 28.34% 11.54% 17.41% 6.98% 11.03%Date 8/30/91Samples SOmm< PS 25mm< PS <50mm 12.Smm< PS <25mm 9.5mm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4,75mm PS <2.36mm1 5.09% 8.96% 27.54% 13.50% 20.24% 8.30% 16,37%2 8.82% 10.31% 25.59% 12.67% 18.88% 8.07% 15.65%3 9.38% 8.37% 25.86% 13.56% 20.03% 6.97% 15.84%4 8.19% 10.45% 32.12% 13.10% 17.00% 6.17% 12.97%5 7.47% 5.90% 22.89% 15.18% 24.10% 8.80% 15.66%6 7.99% 7.08% 22.85% 11.73% 20.83% 10.11% 19.41%7 3.85% 5.31% 22.27% 13.63% 25.91% 11.24% 17.79%8 10.40% 9.35% 21.26% 9.93% 16.94% 9.70% 22.43%9 6.94% 10.88% 28.13% 12.62% 19.21% 7.41% 14.81%10 5.94% 6.97% 23.20% 12.91% 21.94% 9.94% 19.09%11 5.49% 4.34% 18.58% 11.95% 23.36% 11.33% 24.96%12 1.54% 6.87% 24.76% 12.56% 25.95% 9.36% 18.96%Date: 9/13191Samples SOmm< PS 25mm< PS <50mm 12,Smm< PS <25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm1 14.46% 12.07% 25.21% 11.32% 18.93% 6.69% 11.32%2 8.03% 11.91% 24.98% 12.10% 21.49% 8.03% 13.46%3 11.53% 11.69% 22.97% 11.53% 21.95% 8.22% 12.12%4 8.70% 10.91% 19.88% 10.56% 22.36% 10.38% 17.21%5 10.99% 11.36% 21.14% 10.90% 20.13% 8.59% 16.90%6 12.50% 10.47% 25.00% 12.02% 20.74% 7.56% 11.72%7 3.52% 10.65% 24.54% 13.20% 24.05% 9.97% 14.08%8 9.63% 10.32% 25.06% 12.70% 21.82% 7.93% 12.53%9 11.21% 8.67% 18.95% 10.20% 21.92% 10.37% 18.69%10 5.29% 8.08% 21.17% 13.00% 26.00% 10.31% 16.16%11 7.43% 10.80% 22.04% 12.21% 23.19% 9.03% 15.31%12 12.80% 9.62% 19.35% 10.39% 21.66% 9.91% 16.27%Date: 9126/91Samples SOmm< PS 2Smm< PS <50mm 12.Smm< PS <25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm1 2.80% 7.98% 19.65% 9.87% 22.04% 13.16% 24.51%2 12.56% 8.41% 19.76% 9.83% 18.84% 9.93% 20.67%3 3.87% 7.83% 21.64% 10.96% 21.92% 11.42% 22.38%4 13.65% 7.36% 15.96% 8.24% 18.09% 10.64% 26.06%5 6.84% 7.58% 17.38% 9.33% 20.70% 13.49% 24.68%6 13.80% 16.14% 20.17% 8.70% 15.50% 7.86% 17.83%7 8.65% 7.08% 17.99% 9.93% 19.27% 11.21% 25.86%8 9.92% 11.91% 23.64% 10.27% 17.52% 7.59% 19.15%9 10.81% 6.77% 15.29% 8.61% 19.07% 11.25% 28.21%10 6.26% 9.92% 19.93% 8.26% 12.84% 7.01% 35.78%11 4.75% 9.80% 23.47% 11.09% 21.49% 10.20% 19.21%12 8.81% 8.99% 19.45% 9.54% 18.72% 10.28% 24.22%Date: 11/16/91Samples S0inm< PS 2Smm< PS <50mm 12.5mm< PS <25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm PS <2.36mm1 13.95% 11.59% 18.36% 7.69% 13.95% 13.33% 21.13%2 14.17% 15.79% 16.25% 6.68% 13.27% 12.18% 21.66%3 3.58% 6.74% 16.63% 8.32% 17.16% 21.79% 25.79%4 7.68% 11.22% 23.36% 8.90% 16.89% 10.92% 21.03%5 16.03% 21.64% 25.39% 8.22% 14.00% 4.96% 9.76%6 23.51% 11.43% 17.55% 6.94% 15.84% 10.86% 13.88%7 4.71% 10.88% 23.22% 11.40% 22.80% 10.25% 16.74%8 16.75% 18.34% 25.66% 7.76% 13.32% 6.70% 11.46%9 12.89% 9.56% 10.55% 5.23% 14.88% 16.05% 30.84%10 11.07% 14.67% 20.12% 5.71% 16.08% 12.39% 19.95%11 15.20% 12.45% 19.02% 10.20% 14.90% 10.78% 17.45%144Date 12/17/91Samples 5Omm< PS 25mm< PS <50mm 12.5mm< PS <25mm 9.Smm< PS <12.5mm 4.75mm< PS <9.5mm 2.36mm< PS <4.75mm Ps <2.36mm1 11.53% 10.09% 15.95% 9.89% 18.54% 14.02% 19.98%2 4.67% 5.28% 17.28% 11.18% 29.47% 11.79% 20.33%3 6.56% 8.81% 15.20% 8.29% 22.45% 15.03% 23.66%4 7.43% 6.28% 15.49% 9.47% 23.27% 14.69% 23,36%5 7.39% 12.45% 17.51% 9.92% 20.85% 13.77% 18.12%6 5.56% 11.22% 19.18% 8.07% 19.29% 12.16% 24.53%7 8.32% 10.06% 19.83% 8.61% 16.54% 12.48% 24.18%8 5.19% 10.61% 17.79% 7.85% 16.91% 13.37% 28.29%9 10.31% 12.06% 16.94% 7.46% 17.31% 12.89% 23.02%10 6.66% 13.93% 14.79% 8.04% 20.93% 14.88% 20.76%145APPENIZ)IX 2. RAW DATA.- MATERIAL COMPONENTS DISTRIBUTION IN COARSEBOTTOM ASH FRACTIONS (Unit: Percentage by Weight)Fraction 1. 50 mm < Particle SizeSample No. Magnetic Bricks Concrete Glass Paier & Porcelin & Rock Non-ferrous MixWood Tile Metals21-001 1.03% 0.00% 13.40% 0,00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.15% 25.77% 54.64%21-002 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 9.09% 57.58%21-003 0.00% 0.00% 18.87% 0.00% 1.89% 0.00% 22.64% 16.04% 40.57%21-004 0.00% 8.33% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 46.67%21-005 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.27% 29.58% 59.15%21-006 0.00% 0.00% 17.46% 0.00% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 15.87% 65.08%21-007 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 37.04% 0.00% 62.96%21-008 0.00% 0.00% 41.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 29.89% 27.59%21-009 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.00% 19.70% 78.79%21-010 0.00% 0.00% 28.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.48% 7.23% 43.37%22-001 0.00% 5.00% 21.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.67% 66.67%22-002 2.13% 0.00% 12.77% 0.00% 0.00% 3.19% 0.00% 10.64% 71.28%22-003 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 32.26% 67.74%22-004 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 35.29% 2.94% 61.76%22-005 0.00% 0.00% 31.34% 0.00% 0.00% 7.46% 0.00% 19.40% 41.79%22-006 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 24.53% 37.74% 37.74%22-007 0.00% 0.00% 38.46% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 26.92% 34.62%22-008 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.15% 2.15% 32.26% 63.44%22-009 0.00% 0.00% 41.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 27.84% 30.93%22-010 0.00% 20.27% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 28.38% 48.65%22-011 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 47.73% 2.27% 50.00%22-012 0.00% 0.00% 28.07% 0.00% 0.00% 10.53% 0.00% 29.82% 31.58%31-001 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.67% 55.00%31-002 3.76% 18.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.80% 0.00% 23.31% 36.09%31-003 7.29% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 15.63% 28.13% 23.96%31-004 0.00% 13.62% 6.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.26% 75.32%31-005 0.00% 16.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.36% 70.79%31-006 0.00% 32.97% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 67.03%31-007 2.30% 32.26% 12.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.60% 42.40%31-008 0.00% 37.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00%3 1-009 0.00% 9.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.30% 78.69%31-010 0.00% 18.94% 11.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.96% 15.42% 50.66%32-001 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 68.42% 0.00% 31.58%32-002 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%32-003 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.8 1% 77.78%32-004 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 73.33%32-005 3.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19.77% 76.74%32-006 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 45.88% 54.12%32-007 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.72% 0.00% 0.00% 20.69% 77.59%32-008 0.00% 4.76% 9.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 29.52% 56.19%32-009 0.00% 0.00% 25.61% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.32% 21.95% 45.12%32-010 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 61.90% 38.10%32-011 0.00% 0.00% 54.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.76% 33.33%32-012 0.00% 12.77% 21.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.06% 64.89%41-001 0.00% 0.00% 36.36% 0.00% 0.00% 1.95% 5.84% 2.60% 53.25%41-002 0.00% 0.00% 52.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.63% 2.82% 39.44%41-003 0.00% 41.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.04% 51.41%41-004 0.00% 0.00% 34.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.90% 22.41% 36.21%41-005 0.00% 0.00% 12.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.30% 78.29%41-006 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.63% 0.00% 92.59%41-007 0.00% 0.00% 24.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.43% 3.48% 61.74%41-008 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 21.28% 0.00% 0.00% 6.38% 72.34%146Sample No. Magnetic Bricks Concrete Glass Paper & Porcelin & Rock Non-ferrous MixturesWood Tile Metals41-009 0.00% 0.00% 4.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 95.65%41-010 0.00% 0.00% 17.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 82.56%41-011 0,00% 0.00% 25.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.67% 0.00% 60.00%41-012 0.00% 0.00% 14.84% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 28.91% 32.03% 24.22%42-001 0.00% 15.00% 6.25% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.25% 62.50%42-002 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.12% 0.00% 0.00% 98.88%42-003 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.93% 96.30%42-004 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.75% 99.25%42-005 0.00% 0.00% 2.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.59% 0.00% 88.96%42-006 0.00% 0.00% 15.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13.87% 0.00% 70.80%42-007 0.00% 0.00% 3.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 43.54% 0.00% 53.06%42-008 0.00% 10.71% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 16.07% 0.00% 66.07%42-009 0.00% 8.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 15.65% 8.70% 66.96%42-010 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.39% 0.00% 0.00% 98.61%42-011 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.24% 87.76%42-012 3.05% 0.00% 9.92% 0.00% 3.82% 0.00% 0.00% 31.30% 51.91%43-001 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.49% 3.09% 80.41%43-002 0.00% 4.45% 1.62% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 93.93%43-003 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.70% 96.30%43-004 0.00% 0.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19.01% 80.28%43-005 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%43-006 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.48% 74.52%43-007 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 21.97% 15.91% 62.12%43-008 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.16% 97.84%43-009 0.00% 0.00% 46.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.45% 13.79% 36.21%43-010 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.42% 91.58%43-011 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.54% 99.46%43-012 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.06% 0.00% 91.94%61-001 0.00% 8.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.26% 82.72%61-002 0.00% 18.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.27% 3.92% 74.51%6 1-003 2.52% 0.00% 5.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 35.29% 14.29% 42.86%61-004 0.00% 0.00% 20.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.55% 0.00% 58.90%61-005 0.00% 5.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.59% 89.91%61-006 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.23% 98.77%61-007 0.00% 0.00% 10.89% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.93% 82.18%61-008 0.00% 5.38% 16.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.45% 2.15% 69.89%61-009 0.00% 0.00% 7.62% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.43% 80.95%61-010 0.00% 0.00% 12.37% 0.00% 0.00% 1.55% 2.58% 5.67% 77.84%61-011 1.80% 0.00% 1.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.17% 80.24%61-012 4.11% 0.00% 3.42% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.68% 91.78%71-001 0.00% 0.00% 6.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.17% 0.00% 82.12%71-002 1.69% 0.00% 4.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.08% 11.02% 77.97%71-003 0.00% 0.00% 8.70% 0.00% 0.00% 2.17% 0.00% 0.00% 89.13%71-004 0.00% 2.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.69% 97.24%71-005 0.00% 0.00% 47.50% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 2.50% 45.00%71-006 5.04% 0.00% 9.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 22.69% 63.03%71-007 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.87% 96.13%71-008 0.00% 0.00% 9.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.78% 89.92%71-009 0.00% 1.35% 22.30% 0.00% 0.00% 10.81% 0.00% 0.68% 64.86%71-010 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%71-011 0.00% 8.00% 13.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.57% 77.71%71-012 0.00% 11.24% 3.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.56% 2.81% 2.81% 79.21%8 1-001 0.00% 0.00% 24.47% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.53%81-002 0.00% 17.65% 6.72% 2.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.88% 67.23%81-003 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.64% 0.00% 0.00% 2.55% 96.82%81-004 0.00% 0.00% 5.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.21% 14.58% 75.00%147Sample No. Magnetic Bricks Concrete Glass Paper & Porcelin & Rock Non-ferrous MixturesWood Tile Metals81-005 1.23% 9.20% 0.00% 0.00% 1.23% 0.00% 8.59% 12.27% 67.48%81-006 0.00% 0.00% 2.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.53% 87.22%81-007 0,00% 0.88% 20.35% 0.00% 0.00% 5.31% 0.00% 0.00% 73.45%81-008 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.88% 94.12%81-009 0.00% 12.73% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 87.27%81-010 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.45% 0.00% 6.90% 22.41% 67.24%81-011 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19.44% 80.56%81-012 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.43% 3.48% 86.09%82-001 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 26.09% 23.91% 50.00%82-002 4.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.27% 84.51%82-003 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.16% 0.00% 33.78% 8.11% 45.95%82-004 1.54% 0.00% 32.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 23.08% 18.46% 24.62%82-005 17.74% 33.87% 0.00% 0.00% 6.45% 0.00% 0.00% 6.45% 35.48%82-006 1.27% 0.00% 18.99% 0.00% 1.27% 7.59% 21.52% 16.46% 32.91%82-007 0.00% 0.00% 13.51% 0.00% 0.00% 13.51% 0.00% 0.00% 72.97%82-008 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.11% 0.00% 10.11% 20.22% 59.55%82-009 0.00% 0.00% 28.33% 0.00% 6.67% 5.00% 0.00% 55.00% 5.00%82-010 0.00% 15.38% 0.00% 0.00% 9.62% 0.00% 0.00% 3.85% 71.15%82-011 0.00% 27.42% 4.84% 0.00% 0.00% 6.45% 48.39% 0.00% 12.90%82-012 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 15.38% 84.62%91-001 0.00% 2.29% 4.57% 1.71% 0.00% 0.00% 14.86% 0.00% 76.57%91-002 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 80.72%91-003 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.68% 9.56% 86.76%91-004 0.00% 0.00% 10.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 89.80%91-005 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.52% 97.48%91-006 0.00% 0.00% 26.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 24.81% 48.84%91-007 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.78% 97.22%91-008 0.00% 0.00% 29.20% 0.00% 1.77% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 69.03%91-009 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40.91% 27.27% 31.82%91-010 0.00% 0.00% 10.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.04% 3.51% 71.93%91-011 0.00% 0.00% 17.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 82.14%91-012 0.00% 0.00% 8.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 24.81% 12.78% 54.14%92-001 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 17.65% 82.35%92-002 0.00% 0.00% 26.61% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 35.48% 0.81% 37.10%92-003 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.52% 0.00% 76.19%92-004 0.00% 0.00% 18.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 77.27% 0.65% 3.90%92-005 0.00% 0.00% 72.97% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.35% 25.68%92-006 0.00% 0.00% 2.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.62% 93.08%92-007 2.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 61.36% 7.95% 28.41%92-008 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.22% 24.35% 70.43%92-009 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 31.71% 34.96%92-010 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.67% 81.33%92-011 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 83.33%92-012 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 35.42% 21.88% 42.71%111-001 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.47% 0.00% 2.21% 7.35% 88.97%111-002 0.00% 0.00% 25.48% 0.00% 1.91% 0.00% 0.00% 5.10% 67.52%111-003 0.00% 20.59% 17.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 29.41% 0.00% 32.35%111-004 0.00% 3.95% 0.00% 0.00% 1.32% 0.00% 0.00% 6.58% 88.16%111-005 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 2.03% 96.45%111-006 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.56% 0.00% 94.44%111-007 0.00% 0.00% 24.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.56%111-008 0.00% 0.00% 5.79% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.58% 92.63%111-009 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.20% 0.00% 12.59% 83.22%111-010 0.00% 0.00% 13.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 11.90% 57.94%111-011 0.00% 3.23% 14.19% 0.00% 1.29% 0.00% 11.61% 3.87% 65.81%121-001 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30.00% 70.00%148Sample No. Magnetic Bricks Concrete Glass Porcelin & Rock Non-ferrous Mixtures121-002 0.00% 0.00% 23.91% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19.57% 56.52%121-003 0.00% 0.00% 15.79% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 84.21%121-004 0.00% 0.00% 40.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.19% 58.33%121-005 0.00% 0.00% 13.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.59% 15.07% 61.64%121-006 3.77% 0.00% 9.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 39.62% 47.17%121-007 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 22.09% 5.81% 72.09%121-008 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.26% 12.77% 34.04% 48.94%121-009 0.00% 0.00% 19.64% 0.00% 0.89% 0.00% 14.29% 20.54% 44.64%121-010 0.00% 0.00% 11.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.69% 24.68% 51.95%Fraction 2. 25 mm < Particle Size < 50 mmSample No. Magnetic Bricks Concrete Glass Porcelin & Rock Non-ferrousMUTesOthers11-101 22.14% 1.96% 2.40% 14.04% 0.82% 9.42% 4.79% 2.04% 12.66% 29,74%11-102 18.23% 3.04% 11.97% 8.10% 1.33% 12.19% 2.64% 4.88% 18.27% 19.35%11-103 19.50% 5.04% 5.25% 5.43% 1.99% 14.19% 6.61% 2.46% 14.75% 24.78%11-104 23.80% 3.10% 3.47% 3.39% 2.63% 15.72% 9.23% 1.87% 13.57% 23.23%12-101 24.19% 12.39% 0.93% 2.48% 2.07% 11.55% 1.28% 2.75% 16.38% 25.97%12-102 11.71% 8.48% 16.99% 7.61% 0.52% 11.60% 1.36% 2.95% 16.44% 22.33%12-103 1.96% 11.39% 8.91% 15.52% 2.52% 8.13% 5.57% 7.63% 9.17% 29.20%12-104 5.60% 16.12% 1.63% 4.02% 3.82% 13.01% 11.12% 5.95% 12.82% 25.92%13-101 14.23% 12.63% 1.70% 2.96% 0.29% 15.68% 11.53% 1.28% 10.28% 29.43%13-102 20.83% 2.91% 0.48% 15.27% 1.17% 8.98% 8.68% 3.00% 13.59% 25.08%13-103 18.35% 0.98% 3.25% 16.91% 0.85% 13.19% 10.43% 4.75% 8.67% 22.62%13-104 19.29% 0.00% 5.91% 7.99% 0.31% 15.44% 13.23% 1.47% 15.83% 20.54%21-101 18.99% 1.32% 4.08% 8.08% 0.45% 14.71% 19.01% 4.20% 6.95% 22.23%21-102 19.80% 0.00% 0.00% 9.38% 0.06% 11.69% 14.07% 6.33% 17.55% 21.12%21-103 16.90% 1.04% 4.83% 11.62% 1.79% 17.52% 7.75% 1.15% 13.81% 23.58%21-104 18.71% 2.24% 2.71% 6.50% 0.12% 9.56% 27.12% 0.93% 12.58% 19.54%22-101 17.71% 0.00% 3.69% 3.05% 0.11% 10.09% 28.82% 1.90% 15.57% 19.06%22-102 16.72% 2.59% 0.00% 15.08% 2.47% 18.51% 7.70% 3.09% 13.39% 20.45%22-103 18.12% 0.00% 0.00% 2.89% 0.79% 18.62% 34.85% 0.54% 6.05% 18.15%22-104 19.03% 0.00% 3.84% 16.72% 0.66% 10.64% 18.58% 8.61% 7.68% 14.25%31-101 17.73% 1.54% 5.27% 2.30% 0.02% 7.64% 32.92% 0.01% 10.21% 22.36%31-102 24.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.98% 0.02% 2.44% 17.56% 1.94% 13.99% 39.05%31-103 28.00% 0.00% 4.90% 11.79% 0.00% 4.37% 9.97% 4.07% 5.38% 31.53%31-104 36.96% 1.04% 1.48% 0.00% 0.25% 2.55% 1.53% 0.45% 17.09% 38.64%32-101 37.50% 0.00% 12.22% 1.43% 0.00% 3.44% 8.93% 0.34% 13.68% 22.46%32-102 23.38% 0.00% 1.95% 1.11% 0.04% 8.09% 4.55% 13.76% 5.11% 42.02%32-103 34.84% 0.00% 8.01% 1.17% 0.01% 7.18% 6.96% 0.79% 13.22% 27.82%32-104 38.36% 0.00% 7.55% 0.00% 0.00% 7.79% 7.31% 0.23% 17.37% 21.39%41-101 32.84% 0.00% 27.81% 1.17% 0.00% 8.25% 3.81% 0.86% 13.14% 12.11%41-102 36.94% 0.00% 11.85% 2.58% 0.00% 10.80% 2.58% 3.22% 15.05% 16.98%41-103 26.72% 5.34% 15.90% 1.72% 0.00% 4.35% 7.25% 3.71% 17.87% 17.14%41-104 27.69% 1.51% 19.95% 0.00% 0.00% 1.86% 15.24% 0.00% 10.75% 23.01%42-101 44.63% 0.00% 1.37% 0.36% 0.07% 4.22% 9.12% 0.80% 11.31% 28.13%42-102 63.87% 0.00% 2.78% 0.85% 0.00% 3.54% 3.11% 1.63% 5.35% 18.86%42-103 22.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 4.10% 18.51% 0.00% 19.60% 35.50%42-104 48.47% 1.20% 1.13% 0.00% 0.13% 3.86% 6.22% 0.84% 8.16% 29.98%43-101 22.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.43% 0.08% 3.15% 7.22% 0.06% 20.47% 46.01%43-102 59.37% 0.00% 1.75% 1.53% 0.00% 5.62% 5.16% 1.99% 9.71% 14.86%43-103 46.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.93% 0.00% 4.83% 4.67% 2.07% 19.29% 21.69%43-104 28.63% 0.74% 4.08% 3.80% 0.01% 4.79% 11.14% 0.33% 18.65% 27.82%61-101 23.74% 0.52% 4.64% 0.61% 0.13% 3.64% 7.92% 1.50% 17.59% 39.71%61-102 43.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.33% 1.58% 0.96% 17.52% 29.43%61-103 45.36% 2.98% 0.00% 2.72% 0.00% 5.23% 5.79% 0.66% 7.94% 29.32%149Sample No. Magnetic Bricks Concrete Glass Paper & Porcelin & Rock Non-ferrous Glass OthersWood Tile Metals Mixtures61-104 29.17% 2.11% 0,00% 0.00% 0.08% 6.55% 1.87% 0.09% 5.01% 55.12%71-101 36.52% 3.28% 0.00% 0.12% 0.10% 0.00% 1.00% 0.33% 9.84% 48.82%71-102 33.61% 6.36% 3.78% 0.00% 0.03% 5.01% 2.96% 1.33% 11.64% 35.27%71-103 30.13% 0.95% 6.56% 0.18% 0.02% 4.96% 7.81% 2.43% 4.79% 42.16%71-104 35.22% 0.00% 2.07% 3.53% 0.02% 7.62% 13.83% 1.30% 9.90% 26.51%81-101 34.96% 0.00% 2.45% 4.15% 0.01% 8.71% 18.73% 1.47% 10.54% 18.98%81-102 23.23% 2.46% 0.00% 0.15% 0.00% 3.22% 3.41% 6.05% 15.53% 45.95%81-103 37.51% 2.46% 3.05% 0.00% 0.00% 3.87% 17.14% 2.88% 10.33% 22.76%81-104 40.48% 0.80% 3.21% 5.71% 0.05% 6.93% 5.55% 8.27% 9.75% 19.26%82-101 24.17% 0.00% 1.43% 7.64% 1.38% 17.84% 6.41% 2.34% 22.92% 15.87%82-102 26.72% 0.00% 1.17% 6.90% 0.79% 20.93% 13.00% 3.57% 14.94% 11.96%82-103 23.87% 0.00% 0.83% 3.10% 0.90% 25.46% 19.72% 7.31% 13.42% 5.39%82-104 31.52% 0.00% 1.99% 9.31% 0.02% 20.52% 12.66% 0.18% 9.58% 14.22%91-101 41.32% 0.53% 2.32% 0.00% 0.00% 4.38% 7.74% 5.37% 10.14% 28.20%91-102 35.07% 0.00% 8.60% 0.00% 0.00% 8.93% 17.37% 6.30% 1.76% 21.96%91-103 54.78% 0.00% 5.99% 1.99% 0.01% 5.82% 4.19% 2.87% 9.67% 14.67%91-104 18.76% 2.11% 4.32% 0.00% 0.00% 2.02% 6.45% 3.59% 11.97% 50.80%92-101 29.74% 0.81% 8.16% 2.67% 0.02% 9.15% 10.75% 2.56% 11.26% 24.87%92-102 30.56% 0.00% 12.41% 0.00% 0.85% 9.58% 7.90% 2.25% 3.29% 33.16%92-103 33.50% 0.00% 5.82% 1.20% 0.00% 6.84% 16.35% 0.43% 5.40% 30.46%92-104 31.07% 0.00% 7.63% 0.00% 0.00% 7.01% 10.85% 3.64% 10.76% 29.04%111-101 38.73% 0.00% 1.64% 0.00% 1.39% 10.41% 9.44% 2.28% 7.39% 28.71%111-102 43.78% 1.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.37% 2.59% 0.00% 9.15% 40.67%111-103 26.94% 2.13% 1.30% 0.01% 0.62% 7.41% 5.55% 2.08% 11.72% 42.24%111-104 36.65% 1.05% 1.17% 0.00% 0.66% 6.46% 6.01% 1.45% 9.27% 37.28%121-101 68.67% 0.00% 1.51% 2.68% 1.12% 1.70% 6.52% 4.54% 3.75% 9.52%121-102 52.73% 0.00% 1.02% 2.94% 0.01% 6.01% 5.51% 0.08% 8.45% 23.25%121-103 29.99% 0.00% 2.27% 0.02% 0.00% 7.98% 2.96% 0.19% 18.86% 37.73%121-104 51.48% 0.00% 0.03% 1.74% 0.00% 6.66% 9.59% 1.64% 3.07% 25.79%Fraction 3. 12.5 mm < Particle Size < 25 mmSample No. Magnetic Bricks Concrete Glass Porcelin & Rock No1ferrous M:es Others11-201 13.17% 0.49% 0.00% 20.93% 2.02% 5.74% 2.37% 1.47% 20.49% 33.31%11-202 10.20% 0.00% 0.36% 31.91% 0.31% 6.00% 1.42% 2.16% 38.09% 9.56%11-203 10.56% 0.00% 0.65% 32.09% 0.32% 5.19% 9.38% 0.60% 31.44% 9.77%11-204 8.32% 0.00% 0.00% 33.34% 0.34% 11.36% 6.40% 4.71% 28.49% 7.03%12-201 9.13% 2.00% 1.45% 14.51% 0.11% 11.19% 3.39% 3.61% 28.03% 26.59%12-202 8.22% 0.00% 2.66% 29.68% 1.08% 9.33% 2.06% 2.75% 25.59% 18.64%12-203 9.20% 0.28% 1.55% 35.37% 0.39% 7.84% 2.60% 3.34% 25.64% 13.79%12-204 11.29% 0.00% 0.00% 37.19% 0.14% 10.26% 0.80% 3.65% 31.31% 5.34%13-201 22.33% 0.82% 0.00% 19.05% 0.00% 13.49% 1.68% 2.04% 18.58% 22.01%13-202 10.57% 9.50% 0.28% 18.33% 0.44% 6.02% 5.83% 4.90% 28.17% 15.96%13-203 21.84% 2.13% 0.00% 10.00% 0.11% 16.76% 1.95% 3.79% 27.12% 16.30%13-204 18.62% 0.93% 0.35% 15.32% 0.38% 18.57% 1.01% 6.40% 26.03% 12.38%21-201 19.82% 0.00% 0.71% 13.33% 0.06% 7.30% 1.62% 2.50% 34.69% 19.96%21-202 19.44% 0.00% 0.00% 11.34% 0.05% 12.55% 8.45% 3.52% 31.99% 12.66%21-203 27.95% 0.44% 5.89% 10.94% 1.12% 5.68% 7.26% 3.08% 17.79% 19.86%21-204 21.40% 0.00% 2.30% 11.93% 0.11% 8.62% 6.78% 2.83% 28.01% 18.01%22-201 10.47% 0.00% 2.01% 28.89% 0.19% 14.79% 3.83% 6.59% 24.31% 8.91%22-202 11.46% 0.00% 2.42% 17.48% 0.37% 13.91% 7.80% 0.73% 28.19% 17.65%22-203 10.82% 0.00% 0.00% 19.51% 0.54% 14.56% 2.03% 13.15% 27.95% 11.44%22-204 11.01% 0.00% 2.08% 21.92% 0.72% 12.85% 4.66% 7.42% 26.93% 12.41%31-201 36.52% 1.89% 0.35% 9.02% 0.62% 8.87% 5.24% 1.78% 22.73% 12.97%31-202 42.93% 0.00% 0.40% 6.87% 0.29% 4.21% 2.53% 3.78% 21.91% 17.09%31-203 26.25% 0.00% 1.47% 15.55% 0.00% 7.94% 4.38% 4.01% 19.81% 20.59%150Sample No. Magnetic Bricks Concrete Glass 1 Porcelin & Rock Non-ferrous31-204 33.88% 0.00% 5.38% 9.36% 0.16% 1.53% 7.10% 3.81% 24.37% 14.41%32-201 28.44% 0.00% 1.66% 15.67% 0.16% 6.95% 16.02% 1.95% 21.32% 7.83%32-202 33.75% 0.55% 0.79% 18.06% 0.00% 9.15% 3.08% 2.07% 18.91% 13.64%32-203 17.56% 0.18% 1.86% 10.43% 0.41% 7.27% 7.07% 5.07% 26.38% 23.77%32-204 27.95% 0.21% 2.92% 14.79% 0.03% 4.60% 3.74% 3.40% 21.55% 20.81%41-201 30.92% 0.00% 4.99% 11.92% 0.22% 3.37% 4.56% 3.79% 23.53% 16.70%41-202 30.89% 1.08% 1.24% 13.57% 0.11% 5.27% 4.53% 4.77% 12.22% 26.32%41-203 24.72% 0.44% 1.89% 16.14% 0.00% 7.84% 6.79% 2.48% 18.59% 21.12%41-204 31.64% 0.00% 3.67% 13.91% 0.24% 4.36% 1.16% 2.62% 24.65% 17.75%42-201 42.14% 0.25% 0.69% 3.24% 0.09% 6.61% 7.24% 4.52% 15.78% 19.45%42-202 24.98% 0.00% 1.49% 8.61% 0.00% 6.32% 5.54% 2.62% 36.79% 13.64%42-203 35.45% 0.00% 1.04% 7.62% 0.00% 6.44% 5.88% 4.09% 27.21% 12.26%42-204 39.38% 0.00% 0.22% 7.53% 0.05% 8.19% 4.42% 4.87% 19.96% 15.38%43-201 35.81% 0.44% 0.96% 7.03% 0.00% 4.93% 4.80% 4.25% 15.25% 26.53%43-202 46.30% 0.00% 0.00% 6.46% 0.09% 3.65% 4.96% 1.38% 14.83% 22.32%43-203 37.03% 0.11% 0.33% 6.34% 0,00% 5.13% 4.22% 2.35% 20.23% 24.27%43-204 33.43% 0.00% 0.00% 6.87% 0.11% 6.07% 2.41% 1.21% 33.21% 16.70%61-201 23.23% 0.00% 0.78% 8.90% 0.00% 5.97% 4.26% 0.16% 38.90% 17.80%61-202 29.37% 0.00% 0.00% 3.13% 0.22% 2.20% 9.35% 2.77% 22.95% 30.02%61-203 29.77% 0.00% 0.25% 0.71% 0.05% 6.75% 5.66% 0.19% 27.33% 29.29%61-204 36.22% 0.00% 0.63% 2.54% 0.62% 4.64% 3.63% 3.04% 26.70% 21.97%71-201 23.98% 0.26% 1.87% 4.42% 0.06% 2.43% 3.42% 1.97% 38.91% 22.68%71-202 35.84% 0.00% 0.00% 2.52% 0.15% 2.56% 10.66% 5.34% 22.36% 20.55%71-203 45.96% 0.00% 0.00% 1.74% 0.13% 2.62% 5.28% 1.42% 19.08% 23.78%71-204 29.94% 0.00% 0.42% 10.74% 0.20% 3.36% 15.75% 2.37% 21.32% 15.90%81-201 26.79% 0.00% 0.00% 13.04% 0.05% 7.72% 4.68% 5.58% 29.83% 12.31%81-202 24.13% 0.90% 0.00% 15.33% 0.29% 5.15% 11.25% 5.89% 28.14% 8.92%81-203 20.07% 0.81% 0.00% 17.01% 0.49% 3.65% 14.29% 3.32% 26.58% 13.79%81-204 23.87% 0.50% 0.00% 14.73% 0.27% 5.22% 10.43% 5.13% 28.31% 11.54%82-201 20.58% 0.00% 0.16% 18.39% 0.52% 9.15% 8.94% 5.92% 26.04% 10.31%82-202 19.70% 0.12% 0.56% 22.76% 0.23% 10.18% 11.43% 6.26% 18.26% 10.48%82-203 13.78% 0.00% 0.34% 21.18% 0.26% 11.57% 7.52% 10.28% 30.03% 5.03%82-204 18.27% 0.00% 0.60% 28.78% 0.26% 14.78% 5.31% 4.57% 19.45% 7.98%91-201 32.92% 0.00% 5.42% 16.32% 0.00% 5.70% 5.47% 1.37% 23.55% 9.25%91-202 28.36% 0.00% 2.35% 10.14% 0.13% 6.45% 1.90% 7.60% 23.50% 19.57%91-203 25.18% 0.70% 0.00% 14.69% 0.00% 5.88% 1.94% 6.81% 34.04% 10.76%91-204 23.43% 0.00% 4.48% 17.54% 0.05% 7.27% 0.82% 3.87% 17.92% 24.60%92-201 27.19% 0.00% 2.75% 13.37% 0.12% 7.51% 6.82% 4.84% 27.13% 10.28%92-202 26.55% 0.00% 0.83% 12.74% 0.24% 6.22% 10.95% 5.50% 27.98% 9.01%92-203 37.64% 0.00% 3.02% 14.70% 0.06% 6.88% 2.22% 2.17% 25.71% 7.60%92-204 30.54% 0.00% 1.28% 10.65% 0.09% 6.01% 4.55% 3.48% 33.53% 9.87%111-201 23.73% 0.00% 0.00% 7.32% 0.02% 10.37% 7.47% 4.01% 27.62% 19.46%111-202 38.81% 0.00% 0.56% 2.94% 0.19% 11.27% 1.64% 2.35% 22.32% 19.94%111-203 42.66% 0.00% 0.00% 7.46% 0.08% 9.79% 3.47% 1.30% 18.61% 16.64%111-204 37.06% 0.00% 1.42% 4.55% 0.08% 10.20% 2.30% 0.61% 26.22% 17.56%121-201 37.27% 2.27% 1.43% 4.51% 0.71% 5.02% 4.62% 0.19% 17.48% 26.51%121-202 15.80% 0.00% 0.93% 23.48% 0.00% 8.60% 5.60% 3.37% 27.71% 14.49%121-203 29.37% 0.00% 2.50% 14.47% 0.00% 5.74% 6.02% 3.34% 26.65% 11.89%121-204 34.95% 0.00% 0.93% 12.24% 0.27% 16.56% 3.43% 7.05% 15.86% 8.71%Fraction 4. 9.5 mm < Particle Size < 12.5 mmSample No. Magnetic Bricks Concrete Glass Paper& Porcelin & Rock Non-ferrousMu Others11-301 10.92% 0.00% 0.88% 43.85% 0.19% 2.29% 3.48% 2.53% 14.01% 21.85%11-302 7.55% 0.00% 0.00% 40.40% 0.12% 2.64% 1.63% 2.65% 14.20% 30.79%11-303 9.32% 0.00% 0.71% 46.18% 0.25% 1.22% 2.97% 2.09% 14.04% 23.22%151Sample No. Magnetic Bricks Concrete Glass Porcelin & Rock Non-ferous Mixtures Others11-304 12,70% 0.00% 0.22% 39.24% 0.12% 1.88% 3.27% 3.52% 17.37% 21.70%12-301 7.44% 0.00% 0.22% 31.87% 0.00% 3.31% 3.94% 5.02% 34.68% 13.53%12-302 6.53% 0.00% 0.28% 33.57% 0.42% 2.17% 4.40% 4.73% 32.84% 15.06%12-303 9.01% 0.00% 0.78% 25.90% 0.15% 1.98% 3.53% 7.35% 36.77% 14.55%12-304 6.18% 0.00% 0.44% 45.90% 0.30% 3.47% 2.43% 4.73% 25.96% 10.60%13-301 11.13% 3.89% 0.46% 20.27% 0.17% 7.71% 4.23% 3.61% 33.17% 15.36%13-302 15.57% 0.28% 1.71% 21.32% 0.15% 4.48% 3.32% 2.69% 32.67% 17.82%13-303 18.18% 0.00% 0.00% 19.41% 0.26% 7.32% 4.07% 3.57% 32.50% 14.69%13-304 14.66% 1.29% 0.73% 20.53% 0.19% 6.54% 3.80% 3.49% 32.97% 15.80%21-301 28.10% 0.00% 0.55% 20.60% 0.15% 4.13% 1.04% 3.13% 27.65% 14.65%21-302 19.84% 0.09% 0.33% 16.76% 0.37% 3.72% 3.36% 4.34% 34.60% 16.59%21-303 20.60% 0.00% 0.88% 25.66% 0.02% 2.65% 2.54% 2.89% 35.93% 8.83%21-304 21.13% 0.00% 0.54% 25.70% 0.14% 3.50% 3.30% 2.06% 31.52% 12.12%22-301 8.59% 0.00% 0.00% 23.65% 0.25% 3.75% 6.49% 3.97% 41.05% 12.25%22-302 11.57% 0.08% 3.85% 31.61% 0.16% 5.48% 3.77% 3.11% 32.61% 7.77%22-303 10.82% 0.00% 0.00% 19.50% 0.54% 14.55% 2.03% 13.14% 27.94% 11.48%22-304 15.70% 0.00% 10.96% 27.86% 0.42% 3.29% 5.40% 3.06% 25.86% 7.45%31-301 34.93% 0.00% 2.21% 15.99% 0.30% 1.80% 3.69% 2.63% 19.01% 19.44%31-302 36.80% 0.14% 0.98% 15.99% 0.25% 4.66% 6.28% 3.33% 17.73% 13.82%31-303 34.14% 0.00% 0.77% 17.90% 0.13% 2.74% 3.96% 3.63% 18.87% 17.86%31-304 28.75% 0.00% 2.25% 18.70% 0.09% 2.35% 3.77% 4.82% 20.46% 18.79%32-301 25.39% 0.00% 0.22% 14.37% 0.09% 3.80% 7.35% 3.76% 27.93% 17.09%32-302 30.63% 0.58% 1.56% 19.43% 0.00% 1.99% 6.08% 3.51% 17.18% 19.05%32-303 26.75% 0.15% 1.84% 23.93% 0.18% 3.04% 5.75% 2.69% 17.48% 18.18%32-304 30.20% 0.06% 2.28% 19.70% 0.13% 3.21% 5.70% 1.97% 16.33% 20.42%41-301 29.35% 0.26% 1.61% 28.07% 0.05% 1.94% 4.59% 5.57% 16.77% 11.79%41-302 25.49% 0.00% 1.93% 24.27% 0.00% 1.90% 6.07% 2.61% 16.86% 20.88%41-303 22.84% 0.45% 1.34% 33.75% 0.77% 2.44% 5.23% 1.46% 13.05% 18.67%41-304 26.16% 0.00% 1.24% 24.36% 0.19% 4.05% 3.33% 3.56% 20.39% 16.72%42-301 41.38% 0.23% 0.15% 18.41% 0.17% 1.90% 4.06% 3.21% 16.36% 14.13%42-302 29.10% 0.15% 1.44% 12.18% 0.19% 3.57% 2.98% 2.85% 31.32% 16.24%42-303 31.49% 0.00% 0.88% 18.44% 0.07% 2.73% 3.06% 4.28% 25.10% 13.96%42-304 32.09% 0.00% 0.51% 18.52% 0.28% 2.10% 2.65% 3.69% 28.30% 11.87%43-301 30.71% 0.15% 0.55% 10.53% 0.07% 0.98% 4.65% 2.13% 24.35% 25.87%43-302 37.32% 0.64% 1.22% 19.86% 0.05% 3.21% 2.85% 2.57% 15.04% 17.24%43-303 31.07% 0.00% 0.63% 13.84% 0.12% 1.43% 2.97% 1.96% 26.06% 21.93%43-304 25.53% 0.27% 0.34% 19.18% 0.03% 1.94% 3.01% 2.77% 34.07% 12.86%61-301 25.75% 0.00% 0.42% 17.87% 0.28% 1.86% 6.42% 2.23% 25.74% 19.43%61-302 26.85% 0.00% 0.43% 11.42% 0.60% 1.06% 3.73% 1.31% 37.11% 17.49%61-303 26.48% 0.71% 0.49% 8.96% 0.22% 3.04% 2.84% 1.86% 42.92% 12.48%61-304 24.90% 0.00% 2.41% 8.19% 0.14% 1.81% 1.93% 1.78% 43.22% 15.63%71-301 33.61% 0.16% 1.00% 6.27% 0.18% 1.22% 4.01% 1.59% 28.56% 23.41%71-302 26.04% 0.00% 0.20% 13.08% 0.22% 4.03% 7.63% 3.75% 26.07% 18.98%71-303 33.41% 0.43% 0.35% 6.55% 0.31% 0.81% 3.89% 1.36% 38.96% 13.92%71-304 22.78% 0.00% 0.32% 19.05% 0.14% 2.71% 8.03% 3.58% 29.71% 13.68%81-301 16.08% 0.00% 1.24% 20.12% 0.16% 1.84% 7.98% 3.48% 32.45% 16.65%81-302 17.93% 0.08% 0.59% 16.31% 0.23% 2.76% 6.42% 4.77% 31.34% 19.55%81-303 12.53% 0.00% 0.67% 24.30% 0.38% 5.26% 5.67% 4.90% 32.03% 14.25%81-304 20.59% 0.00% 042% 21.35% 0.26% 3.62% 4.28% 4.92% 30.92% 13.62%82-301 17.36% 0.30% 0.46% 31.58% 0.70% 5.23% 4.34% 3.81% 26.50% 9.72%82-302 10.24% 0.00% 2.07% 46.24% 0.15% 6.10% 8.53% 1.71% 17.14% 7.84%82-303 2.88% 0.00% 0.63% 29.05% 0.10% 5.63% 4.47% 3.85% 34.77% 18.62%82-304 17.84% 0.00% 0.86% 33.54% 0.50% 5.74% 5.17% 4.44% 24.61% 7.31%91-301 28.70% 0.00% 0.68% 17.05% 0.11% 3.01% 2.00% 2.60% 31.64% 14.21%91-302 24.36% 0.00% 0.58% 28.23% 0.31% 2.65% 3.79% 3.95% 26.60% 9.54%91-303 23.44% 0.00% 1.61% 23.44% 0.01% 2.80% 4.57% 4.53% 31.37% 8.23%Sample No. Magnetic Bricks Concrete Glass Porceirn & Rock Non-ferrous MXu91-304 24.02% 0.00% 1.35% 22.49% 0.14% 2.31% 5.23% 2.84% 30.86% 10.76%92-301 30.09% 0.00% 1.52% 26.19% 0.13% 2.85% 3.40% 3.00% 23.03% 9.79%92-302 33.33% 0.00% 0.80% 22.80% 0.20% 2.93% 4.63% 2.69% 21.94% 10.69%92-303 29.32% 0.00% 1.64% 28.62% 0.21% 2.35% 5.57% 3.44% 19.96% 8.89%92-304 26.87% 0.00% 0.68% 25.37% 0.30% 4.00% 4.22% 3.85% 26.75% 7.97%111-301 25.30% 1.16% 1.11% 18.82% 0.11% 1.78% 3.83% 2.86% 31.28% 13.74%111-302 38.86% 0.00% 1.12% 9.20% 0.24% 1.34% 2.32% 1.63% 31,35% 13.94%111-303 41.38% 0.32% 0.82% 4.13% 0.08% 3.29% 3.62% 2.18% 22.87% 21.31%111-304 25.94% 0.00% 1.17% 10.14% 0.05% 3.17% 5.36% 3.88% 33.14% 17.15%121-301 26.90% 0.14% 2.07% 27.37% 0.08% 4.86% 4.63% 3.16% 23.13% 7.65%121-302 24.23% 0.00% 5.25% 32.24% 0.16% 4.35% 4.60% 3.42% 18.45% 7.29%121-303 21.78% 0.25% 1.19% 27.56% 0.00% 4.45% 6.61% 1.95% 24.18% 12.03%121-304 19.57% 0.41% 4.28% 31.42% 0.08% 3.34% 5.02% 5.00% 21.72% 9.16%152153APPENDIX 3. RAW DATA- LEP LEACHABLE METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE BOTTOMASH FRACTIONS FROM BURNABY MSW INCINERATOR (mg/L)Fraction 1. (4.75mm <Particle Size <9.5mm)Sample No. Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn11-401 0.06 0.01 6.63 0.19 3.67 0.13 3.90 48.411-402 0.08 0.01 4.40 0.24 4.05 0.10 6.83 27.911-403 0.06 <0005 7.49 0.47 3.57 0.10 12.03 125.211-404 0.09 <0.005 2.28 0.17 3.11 0.13 2.27 52.012401 0.22 0.07 2.55 6.50 105.5 4.28 5.30 24.912402 0.22 0.12 1.54 11.41 2.17 0.18 11.21 109.512403 0.15 0.11 3.28 5.98 2.70 0.29 24.1 40.712404 0.23 0.05 2.70 6.62 58.0 2.27 10.79 44.513401 0.06 0.02 1.24 0.08 6.05 0.07 0.36 18.713402 0.07 0.03 1.86 0.16 8.56 0.34 0.63 66.913403 0.18 0.04 3.98 0.59 2.54 0.07 6.41 52.821401 0.07 0.15 3.91 28.5 14.70 1.31 5.33 31.621402 0.11 0.16 2.12 1.76 1.67 0.42 2.27 48.321403 0.08 0.19 2.49 12.73 1.82 2.56 4.26 23.221404 0.01 0.04 3.53 16.33 2.13 0.26 12.54 27.322401 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 16.7 7.3 0.3 77.0 3122402 <0.05 <0.05 1.2 10.4 3.8 0.2 9.2 3722403 <0.05 <0.05 2.4 19.6 2.2 0.5 1.4 2822404 0.10 0.16 3.26 40.0 3.93 0.08 3.96 39,931401 0.04 <0.005 15.97 2.98 1.08 0.17 0.16 112.431402 0.06 0.01 0.91 0.01 19.48 0.07 2.17 55.331403 0.04 <0.005 0.70 0.55 14.60 0.07 1.34 38.331404 0.04 <0.005 0.36 1.09 7.08 0.19 0.63 17.632401 0.05 0.01 10.57 12.70 1.61 0.10 1.16 26.132402 0.02 0.08 0.30 10.35 1.81 0.18 0.10 9.4232-403 0.03 0.11 6.30 16.85 0.95 0.06 0.22 8.0632404 0.01 0.13 26.5 16.82 1.44 0.40 2.02 44.141401 0.04 0.05 4.03 20.5 1.47 0.29 11.13 23.941402 0.02 0.11 5.78 3.00 2.44 0.17 3.51 15.641403 0.04 0.12 3.11 22.5 1.00 0.32 0.33 43.541404 0.04 0.12 5.38 45.0 2.17 0.30 1.81 84.342401 0.03 0.02 2.46 15.50 1.95 0.24 12.40 106.342402 0.03 0.17 3.80 21.0 2.96 1.40 28.0 204.842403 0.02 0.10 0.30 19.23 1.46 0.82 2.07 34.742404 0.02 0.09 4.40 8.74 1.04 1.94 0.75 74.243401 0.02 <0.005 0.43 1.62 0.54 0.04 34.9 4.2443402 0.01 0.01 1.39 6.94 1.24 0.04 0.06 6.9343403 0.02 <0.005 5.37 1.47 0.75 0.36 8.17 13.0643404 0.02 <0.005 3.75 2.44 0.87 0.05 0.91 37.661401 0.07 0.01 0.23 1.04 1.02 0.12 2.27 5.061402 0.18 0.01 0.34 2.78 18.49 0.39 2.88 15.161403 0.05 0.01 2.06 1.13 3.92 0.21 4.93 43.061404 0.06 0.05 4.99 5.75 1.06 0.13 2.86 6.971401 0.03 <0.005 1.18 32.7 0.88 0.52 9.78 5.0571402 0.03 0.01 1.15 5.40 1.30 0.40 0.04 8.6471403 0.03 <0.005 1.34 3.61 0.85 0.41 4.44 5.7771404 0.03 0.05 3.44 2.60 2.18 0.10 0.42 30.181401 0.02 <0.005 0.29 0.76 0.79 0.20 0.20 6.881402 0.04 <0.005 1.91 0.30 7.04 0.17 1.89 47.881403 0.02 <0.005 1.47 0.17 0.91 0.15 0.80 24.581404 0.03 <0.005 1.67 0.13 4.54 0.13 1.36 36.382401 0.02 <0.005 2.33 0.58 0.68 0.22 0.45 8.382402 0.02 0.01 7.64 2.23 0.53 0.29 15.32 5.382403 0.02 0.01 0.58 5.60 0.58 0.24 0.41 5.982404 0.03 0.01 3.27 1.79 0.69 0.17 2.21 11.915491-401 0.03 <0.005 1.50 0,14 0.36 0.36 0.16 12.591402 0.03 <0.005 0.94 0.82 0.48 0.32 1.85 10.7591-403 0.03 <0.005 1.56 1.59 0.54 0.18 0.39 52.291-404 0.02 <0.005 1.26 1.14 0.50 0.27 1.12 27.392-401 0.02 0.01 0.30 0.80 0.34 0.04 0.01 1.892-402 0.02 <0.005 0.51 1.13 0.27 0.04 0.11 20.792-403 0.02 <0.005 0.21 2.64 0.47 0.09 0.06 1.9292-404 0.02 <0.005 0.24 1.38 0.45 0.03 0.05 1.9111-401 0.06 0.02 2.54 7.70 1.92 0.50 1.31 17.5111-402 0.04 0.03 0.74 1.08 1.01 0.12 0.87 11.0111-403 0.07 0.03 0.49 5.26 1.66 0.14 0.22 12.7111-404 0.04 <0.005 1.12 2.24 1.48 0.21 0.90 12.2121401 0.04 0.01 0.14 2.19 0.96 0.01 0.14 4.0121-402 0.03 0.02 <0.005 2,85 0.98 0.27 0.30 33.8121-403 0.02 0.02 1.47 5.11 1.88 0.06 0.32 16.1121404 0.04 <0.005 0.33 3.78 1.19 0.45 0.39 19.2Fraction 2. (2.36mm <Particle Size <4.75 mm)Sample No. Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn11-501 0.08 0.01 1.97 0.12 3.11 0.19 33.2 22.711-502 0.09 <0.005 1.61 0.01 4.73 0.11 7.24 14.411-503 0.09 0.01 0.87 0.05 3.08 0.04 4.19 16.311-504 0.10 0.01 1.37 <0.005 3.48 0.22 3.25 48.912-501 0.42 0.21 3.01 6.22 7.67 0.76 13.04 79.312-502 0.22 0.15 2.79 4.92 5.18 0.29 55.2 49.312-503 0.25 0.13 2.63 3.66 3.57 0.09 43.5 45.512-504 0.70 0.10 2.12 9.66 3.89 0.45 27.2 49.713-501 0.11 0.08 2.47 0.51 5.04 0.12 4.62 46.113-502 0.15 0.03 1.35 0.17 47.8 0.09 2.77 81.913-503 0.11 0.04 1.49 0.16 13.50 0.04 1.06 46.313-504 0.15 0.04 1.93 0.23 3.69 0.35 1.81 30.721-501 0.14 0.20 4.28 34.5 11.19 0.42 10.81 66.921-502 0.11 0.12 1.89 0.14 2.42 2.42 7.37 46.621-503 0.18 0.10 1.40 0.02 7.63 0.54 2.84 47.521-504 0.27 0.11 2.23 0.18 29.5 0.92 8.93 48.222-501 <0.05 <0.05 2.9 11.7 23.0 0.6 36.0 7422-502 0.1 <0.05 2.2 8.6 11.1 0.5 15.0 9222-503 <0.05 <0.05 2.5 7.4 3.3 0.1 33.0 4622-504 0.1 <0.05 1.2 4.4 5.9 0.5 14.3 4131-501 0.11 0.01 3.13 0.44 82.9 0.50 2.08 2.4731-502 0.15 0.05 3.29 2.23 15.06 0.33 7.53 35.831-503 0.10 0.04 3.21 1.43 42.8 0.21 5.11 66.731-504 0.10 0.04 3.18 1.06 57.3 0.48 3.95 85.532-501 0.04 0.16 2.20 7.62 2.28 0.61 4.06 50.632-502 0.08 0.13 4.20 6.86 62.4 0.24 12.20 50.532-503 0.08 0.19 16.30 4.85 2.38 0.40 15.08 23.132-504 0.09 0.17 31.5 2.34 2.79 0.10 1.58 27.341-501 0.05 0.20 3.65 13.93 2.44 0.66 3.31 104.441-502 0.05 0.17 2.38 13.93 17.68 0.60 52.8 79.641-503 0.10 0.19 1.87 11.38 3.58 0.39 1.76 38.241-504 0.06 0.16 2.38 25.0 3.51 0.50 6.46 58.342-501 0.09 0.21 6.10 17.98 4.58 1.28 2.44 51.042-502 0.07 0.20 13.40 25.0 9.68 0.86 16.74 86.242-503 0.02 0.11 6.10 10.83 23.5 1.33 22.4 66.442-504 0.13 0.18 2.70 21.0 2.58 2.59 22.0 52.143-501 0.03 0.04 2.89 6.99 1.08 0.96 4.71 19.1643-502 0.03 0,03 2.06 1.10 65.3 0.10 4.07 12.4643-503 0.06 0.05 5.80 2.78 1.56 0.11 4.57 22.043-504 0.04 0.03 2.53 2.88 1.74 0.18 4.21 18.0661-501 0.11 0.03 1,94 0.40 1.96 0.37 41.2 11.615561-502 0.21 0.05 3.98 3.53 10.85 0.43 83.0 45.161-503 0.11 0.03 3.67 91.0 7.52 0.49 52.9 44.961-504 0.11 0.03 2.30 3.41 1.70 0.39 70.8 40.971-501 0.06 0.04 4.93 6.44 1.35 0.69 71.4 38.871-502 0.09 0.03 3.37 3.54 1.51 0.33 57.7 58.271-503 0.13 0.03 2.71 4.22 19.93 0.73 36.5 55.071-504 0.08 0.05 6.25 5.96 32.4 0.53 21.9 55.981-501 0.07 0.04 6.73 0.92 1.67 0.24 0.98 18.681-502 0.09 0.06 2.65 0,76 81.8 0.20 23.4 145.681-503 0.05 0.01 3.95 0.37 34.2 0.20 9.66 9981-504 0.03 0.01 2.07 1.94 2.40 0.18 1.27 49.782-501 0.08 0.03 3.22 5.50 3.22 0.69 1.29 49.282-502 0.06 0.06 2.32 8.30 2.52 0.66 25 76.282-503 0.11 0.02 1.75 0.66 1.46 1.07 10.07 35.582-504 0.06 0.03 1.03 0.76 6.26 0.55 2.25 16.391-501 0.06 0.02 2.73 3.53 1.36 0.49 7.86 57.291-502 0.05 0.04 1.21 8.17 2.03 0.65 3.01 8.991-503 0.04 0.02 1.76 1.86 1.25 0.38 6.23 27.191-504 0.05 0.03 0.67 1.32 2.92 1.16 6.29 11.3892-501 0.04 0.02 2.59 1.50 2.14 0.17 2.33 16.392-502 0.05 0.02 2.99 2.36 0.85 0.11 4.67 8.4492-503 0.06 0.02 2.40 2.52 2.73 0.15 1.39 20.692-504 0.03 <0.005 2.74 1.43 1.60 0.14 3.17 12.4111-501 0.13 0.14 2.80 31.1 3.97 0.37 45.3 47.4111-502 0.06 0.16 2.09 5.37 2.50 0.27 2.61 26.9111-503 0.14 0.21 1.93 9.62 7.56 0.34 9.30 55.5111-504 0.07 0.03 2.16 9.27 4.14 0.10 10.82 43.2121-501 0.06 0.05 2.41 13.07 2.62 0.74 2.48 25.7121-502 0.09 0.04 2.82 17.90 3.11 0.62 4.06 65.1121-503 0.07 0.05 2.29 12.24 4.08 0.71 20.7 82.9121-504 0.16 0.06 1.69 17.00 3.02 0.42 7.55 40.9Fraction 3. (Particle Size <2.36mm)Sample No. Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn11-601 0.11 0.03 3.41 0.59 5.27 0.18 41.6 49.011-602 0.07 0.01 3.38 0.04 4.84 0.09 15.63 32.911-603 0.10 0.02 1.55 0.09 3.97 0.03 36.4 26.911-604 0.11 0.02 3.35 0.13 3.54 0.19 11.33 23.712-601 0.46 0.06 1.26 3.42 4.34 0.33 28.2 73.612-602 0.33 0.15 3.61 35.0 4.55 0.38 184.0 125.412-603 0.36 0.14 2.77 12.34 16.34 0.38 58.6 101.612-604 0.46 0.04 2.08 7.24 10.44 0.41 35.5 87.913-601 0.33 0.03 2.13 0.17 3.74 0.22 24.9 70.513-602 0.23 0.03 1.22 0.15 4.83 0.11 4.33 54.713-603 0.17 0.04 2.75 0.25 5.41 0.17 5.16 50.113-604 3.59 0.05 2.76 0.45 35.4 0.16 25.6 93.121-601 0.1 <0.05 1.4 7.1 27.0 0.5 30.0 16521-602 0.5 <0.05 1.7 0.7 10.0 0.7 10.5 6821-603 0.1 <0.05 1.3 0.2 7.9 0.4 2.2 5221-604 <0.05 <0.05 0.3 <0.05 2.3 0.1 0.9 2221-605 <0.05 <0.05 0.5 <0.05 2.2 0.3 0.4 2621-606 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.1 2.6 2.8 1.7 4321-607 0.2 <0.05 0.5 0.1 4.0 0.3 2.0 4421-608 0.3 <0.05 0.8 0.1 3.3 0.3 3.2 4521-609 0.1 <0.05 0.7 <0.05 3.8 1.1 7.4 5621-610 0.3 <0.05 0.6 <0.05 3.2 0.3 1.4 5722-601 0.1 <0.05 1.1 0.3 21.0 0.5 5.9 10022-602 <0.05 0.1 1.0 3.8 6.1 0.6 12.7 6522-603 0.1 <0.05 1.2 1.3 3.7 0.6 8.0 4722-604 0.1 <0.05 1.1 <0.05 6.7 0.5 4.7 5115631-601 0.21 0.06 1.10 <0.005 4.94 0.12 0.74 27,931-602 0.09 0.12 1.70 <0.005 10.75 0.28 0.75 52.731-603 0.20 0.03 1.64 0.07 14.01 0.29 1.29 57.531-604 0.16 0.05 1.58 0.10 14.50 0.34 0.87 53.332-601 0.08 0.10 <0.005 <0.005 2.89 0.07 0.29 22.132-602 0.12 0.08 1.30 <0.005 9.87 0.08 0.05 34.732-603 0.07 0.09 2.05 <0.005 2.58 <0.005 0.94 13.0132-604 0.13 0.09 2.00 <0.005 2.13 0.04 <0.005 8.1441-601 0.07 0.15 0.89 <0.005 2.62 0.33 0.39 66.741-602 0.08 0.17 1.72 3.17 20.5 0.71 35.1 71.941-603 3.20 0.11 0.90 <0.005 3.67 0.31 0.36 35.341-604 0.08 0.14 1.04 <0.005 5.31 0.37 0.53 41.042-601 0.08 0.08 1.90 <0.005 6.81 0.74 1.08 64.242-602 0.11 0.10 4.40 1.48 8.13 1.32 21.8 82.342-603 0.14 0.05 3.10 <0.005 32.0 0.99 1.52 74.242-604 0.10 0.13 3.80 <0.005 5.73 1.38 11.73 92.943-601 0.37 0.05 4.89 <0.005 3.46 0.47 7.81 54.543-602 0.09 0.09 5.71 0.59 93.5 0.19 18.37 56.143-603 0.26 0.06 4.85 0.32 38.9 0.42 11.57 53.343-604 0.07 0.05 2.68 0.02 4.37 0.18 1.67 34.461-601 0.32 0.12 2.47 0.33 3.37 0.67 54.5 58.861-602 0.41 0.12 4.91 2.15 6.02 0.63 72.2 61.061-603 0.22 0.08 3.97 0.44 12.47 0.61 51.2 68.061-604 0.23 0.09 3.13 0.59 4.28 0.56 30.8 61.771-601 0.19 0.10 9.73 0.41 2.96 0.80 65.9 72.171-602 0.32 0.08 5.83 0.36 2.94 0.70 25.8 78.371-603 0.61 0.06 3.63 0.12 3.84 1.16 26.9 52.271-604 0.16 0.06 3.41 0.06 21.0 0.67 7.52 76.481-601 0.19 0.05 2.23 0.10 2.78 0.40 1.03 46.581-602 0.16 0.04 1.47 0.11 18.10 0.20 4.63 155.281-603 0.18 0.05 2.21 0.13 18.90 0.29 1.16 13081-604 0.13 0.04 1.80 0.16 9.97 0.26 0.94 78.582-601 0.15 0.06 1.72 0.01 2.89 0.89 2.99 43.882-602 0.21 0.03 1.55 0.09 2.87 0.21 4.51 4982-603 0.32 0.05 1.55 0.03 2.81 0.96 7.93 5682-604 0.26 0.03 1.55 0.09 2.86 0.21 6.04 52.491-601 0.12 0.03 2.78 0.13 2.59 0.72 7.24 53.291-602 0.15 0.02 1.45 0.13 3.73 0.60 0.71 31.891-603 0.13 0.03 1.49 0.10 3.65 0.68 1.51 46.691-604 0.12 0.03 1.14 0.13 2.14 0.82 0.47 24.492-601 0.14 0.01 2.64 0.12 3.97 0.26 1.53 36.492-602 0.17 0.04 3.16 0.20 2.75 0.27 2.39 37.792-603 0.17 0.03 2.04 0.21 5.54 0.19 1.23 37.492-604 0.14 0.03 2.26 0.13 5.02 0.28 1.09 35.0111-601 0.20 0.06 2.19 0.63 6.83 0.66 50.6 104.0111-602 0.17 0.11 1.37 0.03 6.37 0.48 0.57 28.1111-603 0.34 0.12 1.25 0.13 8.50 0.54 3.04 51.2111-604 0.16 0.03 1.36 0.28 7.21 0.31 9.22 49.1121-601 0.25 0.03 0.91 0.20 3.85 0.64 0.85 20.6121-602 0.14 0.04 0.79 0.20 4.64 0.51 0.70 12.6121-603 0.26 0.05 1.02 0.20 7.72 0.68 3.19 54.0121-604 0.17 0.05 0.90 0.18 5.81 0.51 0.70 27.5157APPENDIX 4. RAW DATA- LEACHABLE MErAL CONCENTRATIONS OF THE WASHING-OFF FROMTHE COARSE BOTFOM ASH FRACTIONS WITH PARTICLE SIZEGREATER THAN THE 9.5 mm DIAMETERS (mgIL)DATE Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn112191 0.20 0.04 1.47 0.10 5.38 0.20 1.15 20.611/14/91 0.23 <0.005 1.30 0.08 5.54 0.22 1.85 21.651/22/91 0.11 0.01 0.94 0.09 6.78 0.14 0.71 27.662/4/91 0.09 0.04 0.91 0.10 5.00 0.42 0.67 23.882/18/91 0.11 <0.005 1.66 0.11 5.97 0.41 0.39 34.043/6/91 0.12 0.03 1.09 0.12 19.84 0.29 0.37 27.113/30/91 0.12 0.05 10.57 0.16 5.49 0.29 0.26 24.874/12/91 0.15 0.05 2.63 4.27 5.33 0.61 0.61 35.174/21191 0.17 <0.005 1.81 0.28 7.15 0.71 0.46 36.274/29/91 0.14 0.02 2.44 2.28 15.00 0.29 3.15 29.186/6/91 0.26 0.03 1.57 3.81 4.29 0.27 3.63 35,47711/91 0.13 0.03 1.79 0.28 79.9 0.70 0.31 42.088/10/91 0.21 0.01 14.17 3.84 67.0 0.47 75.8 300.08/30/91 0.21 0.03 1.01 0.32 9.60 0.56 0.55 33.6991113/91 0.51 0.03 1.65 0.07 78.1 1.05 0.29 85.859/26/91 0.14 0.03 1.96 0.07 27.6 0.33 0.12 393.811/16191 0.11 0.02 0.62 0.16 6.13 0.32 0.34 22.3112/17/91 0.15 0.02 1.96 1.91 5.70 0.45 0.28 39.76158APPENDIX 5. RAW DATA - FIXED (NON-LEACHABLE) METAL LEVELS IN THE BOTh)MASH FRACTIONS FROM BURNABY MSW INCINERATOR (mg/kg)Fraction 2.Sample No.11-50412-50113-50121-50422-5013 1-50132-50341-50342-50343-50361-50271-50181-50282-50391-50192-502111-50312 1-503Fe4.7 65 999 456507.7 94 2685 714506.3 142 2260 749505.1 140 3760 520504.4 100 6680 576504.0 148 3255 958002.6 132 554 1020003.5 134 6975 832502.2 106 4.445 798004.0 118 1543 754003.9 121 2107 926502.8 121 1179 833507.9 113 2117 723006.4 150 1367 603502.8 149 2022 897003.6 109 1861 980003.7 109 2880 1052004.4 115 1345 88400Mn Ni Pb639 73 16037100 196 5152123 183 438664 452 1790538 69 22651584 84 882322 25 208753 139 790816 441 758576 44 480671 85 1295714 100 805983 110 2013718 285 703681 141 1665746 89 317777 72 493870 498 480Mn Ni Pb665 136 36581011 152 34001242 112 14601645 710 2875846 229 31451679 140 923721 161 1052916 255 1263744 107 1438654 91 1523937 135 8775781 224 14984200 161 9373755 227 3660864 320 1318780 147 1463856 110 1663852 246 3030Zn1700107015205801685241051510559208554475126571657201174110019751284Zn286018452705326514853545650170017701225130013801657520901540113017752440Fraction 1. 4.75 mm <PARTICLE SIZE <9.5mmSample No, Cd Cr Cu Fe11-401 1.8 71 2905 5465012-401 4.1 75 1408 6495013-402 1.4 50 862 4785021-403 2.2 95 664 6700022-401 7.3 55 5000 4235031-402 3.1 130 1089 10060032-404 0.7 43 2545 3740041-402 3.4 131 2575 10695042-403 2.6 151 1305 10800043-404 3.1 93 1714 8885061-403 2.0 90 1120 8205071-403 4.4 87 4020 8105081-402 2.1 144 2305 6640082-403 1.5 315 1199 6095091-401 3.4 119 697 8070092-403 2.6 113 1125 76800111-403 8.3 102 2024 130700121-403 3.1 95 2569 1070502.36mm <PARTICLE SIZE <4.75mmCd Cr CuFraction 3. PARTICLE SIZE <2.36mmSample No. Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn11-602 5.4 101 3225 79250 1016 81 10255 180512-601 17.5 126 3220 80850 1039 236 6505 284013-603 8.6 534 4825 108650 1356 469 3388 228021-604 6.7 119 5100 61850 873 408 10105 351522-604 5.1 119 16210 53300 994 344 5598 385031-601 29.9 151 3255 93800 878 274 3653 173532-602 7.2 93 4105 70150 1714 97 2238 334541-602 10.3 178 4685 73450 938 391 4228 190542-603 6.5 127 3300 72200 1390 198 2338 386043-601 6.7 88 1635 63600 788 171 1733 166561-604 5.6 304 5180 79450 882 417 7230 439571-601 4.7 131 2575 68350 788 212 3018 170581-602 9.4 100 1956 62400 3000 140 7960 402082-603 7.6 171 5250 53550 996 249 2748 324091-601 5.7 202 2569 68600 831 586 2977 228492-602 5.6 128 1873 52750 871 283 1205 1960111-603 7.8 95 2824 80150 1438 232 7397 2784121-603 8.0 107 5600 80450 1158 156 5505 4215159APPENDIX 6. RAW DATA - SELECTED LEP LEACHABLE METAL CONCENTRAT[ONS INTHE BOflOM ASH FRACTIONS FROM BURNABY MSW INCINERATOR (mg/kg)Fraction 1. 4.75mm <PARTICLE SIZE <9.5mmSample No. Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn11401 1 0.2 133 3.8 73.4 2.5 78.0 96812-401 4.4 1 51.0 130 2110 85.6 106 49813402 1 0.6 37.2 3.2 171 6.7 13 133821403 2 3.8 49.8 254.6 36.4 51,2 85.2 46322401 <1 <1 <1 334 146 6.0 1540 62031402 1 0.2 18 0.2 389.6 1 43.4 110632404 0.2 2.6 530 336.4 28.8 8.0 40.4 88241402 0.4 2.2 116 60.0 48.8 3.4 70.2 31242403 0.4 2.0 6.0 384.6 29.2 16 41.4 69443404 0.4 <0.1 75.0 48.8 17 0.9 18 75161403 1 0.2 41.2 22.6 78.4 4.2 98.6 86071403 0.6 <0.1 26.8 72.2 17 8.3 88.8 11581402 0.7 <0.1 38.2 6.0 141 3.4 37.8 95682403 0.4 0.2 12 112 12 4.8 8.2 11891401 0.5 <0.1 30.0 2.8 7.2 7.2 3.2 25092403 0.4 <0.1 4.2 52.8 9.4 2 1 38.4111-403 1 0.6 9.8 105 33.2 2.8 4.4 254121-403 0.4 0.4 29.4 102 37.6 1 6.4 322Fraction 2. 2.36mm <PARTICLE SIZE <4. 75 mmSample No. Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn11-504 1.9 0.2 27.4 <0.1 69.6 4.4 65.0 97812-501 8.4 4.2 60.2 124 153 15 260.8 158613-501 2.1 1.6 49.4 10.2 101 2.3 92.4 92221-504 5.4 2.2 44.6 3.6 590 18 179 96522-501 <1 <1 58 234 460 12 720 148031-501 2.2 0.2 62.6 8.8 1658 10 41.6 49.432-503 2 3.8 326.0 97.0 47.6 8.0 301.6 46241-503 2.0 3.8 37.4 227.6 71.6 7.8 35.2 76442-503 0.4 2.2 122 216.6 470 26.6 447 132843-503 1.2 1.0 116 55.6 31.2 2.2 91.4 43961-502 4.3 1.0 79.6 70.6 217.0 8.6 1660 90271-501 1 0.8 98.6 129 27.0 14 1428 77681-502 2 1.2 53.0 15 1636 3.9 467 291282-503 2.2 0.4 35.0 13 29.2 21.4 201.4 71091-501 1 0.4 54.6 70.6 27.2 9.8 157 114492-502 0.9 0.4 59.8 47.2 17 2.2 93.4 169111-503 2.7 4.2 38.6 192 151 6.7 186 1110121-503 1 1.0 45.8 244.8 81.6 14 414 1658Fraction 3. PARTICLE SIZE <2.36mmSample No. Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn11-602 1 0.2 67.6 0.8 96.8 2 312.6 65812-601 9.2 1 25.2 68.4 86.8 6.6 564 147213-603 3.4 0.8 55.0 5.0 108 3.4 103 100221-604 <1 <1 6 <1 46 2 18 44022-604 2 <1 22 <1 134 10 94 102031-601 4.2 1 22.0 <0.1 98.8 2.3 15 55732-602 2.4 2 26.0 <0.1 197 2 1 69441-602 2 3.4 34.4 63.4 409 14 701 143842-603 2.8 1 62.0 <0.1 640 20 30.4 148443-601 7.4 1 97.8 <0.1 69.2 9.4 156 108961-604 4.6 2 62.6 12 85.6 11 616 123471-601 3.9 2 195 8.2 59.2 16 1318 144281-602 3.2 0.8 29.4 2.2 362.0 4.0 92.6 310482-603 6.3 1 31.0 0.6 56.2 19 159 112091-601 2.3 1 55.6 2.6 51.8 14 145 106492-602 3.5 1 63.2 4.0 55.0 5.4 47.8 754111-603 6.8 2.4 25.0 2.6 170 11 60.8 1024121-603 5.1 1 20.4 4.0 154 14 63.8 1080APPENDIX 7. TOTAL METAL RESULTS IN THE BOTTOM ASH FRACTIONS PROMBURNABY MSW INCINERATOR (mg/kg)160Fraction 1. 4.75mm < PARTICLE SIZE <9.5mmSample No. Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn11-401 2.9 71 3038 54654 712 76 1681 266812-401 8.5 76 1459 65080 9210 282 621 156813-402 2.8 51 899 47853 2294 190 451 285821-403 3.8 99 714 67255 700 503 1875 104322-401 7.3 55 5000 42684 684 75 3805 230531-402 4.3 130 1107 100600 1974 85 925 351632-404 0.9 46 3075 37736 351 33 248 139741-402 3.8 133 2691 107010 802 142 860 136742-403 3.0 153 1311 108385 845 457 799 161443-404 3.5 93 1789 88899 593 45 498 160661-403 3.1 90 1161 82073 749 89 1394 533571-403 5.0 87 4047 81122 731 108 894 138081-402 2.8 144 2343 66406 1124 113 2051 812182-403 1.9 315 1211 61062 730 290 711 83891-401 3.9 119 727 80703 688 148 1668 142492-403 3.0 113 1129 76853 755 91 318 1138111-403 9.7 103 2034 130805 810 75 497 2229121-403 3.5 95 2598 107152 908 499 486 1606Fraction 2. 2.36mm < PARTICLE SIZE <4.75mmSample No. Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn11-504 6.6 65 1026 45650 735 140 3723 383812-501 16.1 98 2745 71574 1164 167 3661 343113-501 8.4 144 2309 74960 1343 114 1552 362721-504 10.5 142 3805 52054 2235 728 3054 423022-501 4.4 100 6738 57884 1306 241 3865 296531-501 6.2 148 3318 95809 3337 150 965 359432-503 4.2 136 880 102097 769 169 1354 111241-503 5.5 138 7012 83478 988 263 1298 246442-503 2.6 108 4567 80017 1214 134 1885 309843-503 5,2 119 1659 75456 685 93 1614 166461-502 8.2 122 2187 92721 1154 144 10435 220271-501 4.0 122 1278 83479 808 238 2926 215681-502 9.7 114 2170 72315 5836 165 9840 1948782-503 8.6 150 1402 60363 784 248 3861 280091-501 4.0 149 2077 89771 891 330 1475 268492-502 4.5 109 1921 98047 797 149 1556 1299111-503 6.4 113 2919 105392 1007 117 1849 2885121-503 5.9 116 1391 88645 934 260 3444 4098Fraction 3. PARTICLE SIZE <2.36mmSample No. Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn11-602 6.8 101 3293 79251 1113 83 10568 246312-601 26.7 127 3245 80918 1126 243 7069 431213-603 12.0 535 4880 108655 1464 472 3491 328221-604 6.7 119 5106 61850 919 410 10123 395522-604 7.1 119 16232 53300 1128 354 5692 487031-601 34.1 152 3277 93800 977 276 3668 229232-602 9.6 95 4131 70150 1911 99 2239 403941-602 11.9 181 4719 73513 1347 405 4929 334342-603 9.3 128 3362 72200 2030 218 2368 534443-601 14.1 89 1733 63600 857 180 1889 275461-604 10.2 306 5243 79462 968 428 7846 562971-601 8.6 133 2770 68358 847 228 4336 314781-602 12.6 101 1985 62402 3362 144 8053 712482-603 13.9 172 5281 53551 1052 268 2907 436091-601 8.0 203 2625 68603 883 600 3122 334892-602 9.1 129 1936 52754 926 288 1253 2714111-603 14.6 97 2849 80153 1608 243 7458 3808121-603 13.1 108 5620 80454 1312 170 5569 5295161Fraction 3. PARTICLE SIZE <2.36mmSample No. Cd Cr11-602 79.6 99.812-601 65.5 99.113-603 71.4 99.921-604 100.0 100.022-604 71.8 100.031-601 87.7 99.232-602 75.0 98.341-602 86.6 98.142-603 69.9 99.243-601 47.5 98.961-604 54.8 99.471-601 54.8 98.581-602 74.5 99.282-603 54.7 99.491-601 71.3 99.792-602 61.7 99.4111-603 53.5 97.5121-603 61.1 99.1Average 69.0 99.1Mn Ni Pb91.3 97.8 97.092.3 97.3 92.092.6 99.3 97.095.0 99.5 99.888.1 97.2 98.389.9 99.2 99.689.7 98.4 100.069.6 96.5 85.868.5 90.9 98.791.9 94.8 91.791.2 97.4 92.193.0 93.0 69.689.2 97.2 98.994.7 92.9 94.594.1 97.6 95.494.1 98.1 96.289.4 95.6 99.288.2 92.0 98.989.0 96.4 94.7Zn73.365.969.588.979.175.782.857.072.260.578.154.256.474.368.272.273.179.671.2APPENDIX 8. THE FIXED METAL LEVELS AS PERCENTAGES OF THE TOATL METALLEVELS IN BOTI’OM ASH FRACTIONS FROM BURNABY MSW INCINERATOR(PERCENTAGE ON WEIGHT BASIS)Fraction 1. 4.75mm <PARTICLE SIZE <9.5mmSample No. Cd Cr Cu Mn Ni Pb Zn11-401 62.1 99.7 95.6 89.7 96.6 95.4 63.712-401 48.2 98.2 96.5 77.1 69.6 82.9 68.213-402 49.6 98.8 95.9 92.5 96.5 97.2 53.221-403 57.9 96.2 93.0 94.8 89.8 95.5 55.622-401 100.0 100.0 100.0 78.7 92.0 59.5 73.131-402 71.8 99.8 98.4 80.3 98.3 95.3 68.532-404 77.8 94.3 82.8 91.8 75.8 83.7 36.941-402 89.5 98.3 95.7 93.9 97.6 91.8 77.242-403 86.7 98.7 99.5 96.5 96.4 94.8 57.043-404 88.6 100.0 95.8 97.1 98.0 96.3 53.261-403 64.9 99.8 96.5 89.5 95.2 92.9 83.971-403 87.6 100.0 99.3 97.7 92.4 90.1 91.681-402 75.0 100.0 98.4 87.5 97.0 98.2 88.282-403 78.1 99.9 99.0 98.4 98.3 98.8 85.991-401 87.2 100.0 95.9 99.0 95.1 99.8 82.492-403 86.7 100.0 99.6 98.8 98.1 99.6 96.6111-403 85.4 99.4 99.5 95.9 96.3 99.1 88.6121-403 88.6 99.6 98.9 95.9 99.7 98.7 80.0Average 77.0 99.0 96.7 91.9 93.5 92.8 72.4Fraction 2. 2.36mm <PARTICLE SIZE <4.75mmSample No. Cd11-504 70.812-501 47.813-501 75.021-504 48.622-501 100.031-501 64.532-503 61.941-503 63.642-503 84.643-503 76.961-502 47.771-501 70.081-502 81.682-503 74.691-501 70.092-502 79.6111-503 57.6121-503 74.8Average 69.4Cr99.795.798.998.5100.099.997.297.298.099.299.299.398.999.799.799.696.399.198.7Fe100.099.8100.099.699.2100.099.199.999.699.9100.099.9100.099.8100.099.999.999.999.8Fe100.099.8100.0100.099.6100.099.999.799.799.999.999.8100.0100.099.9100.099.899.799.9Fe100.099.9100.0100.0100.0100.0100.099.9100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0Mn Ni90.5 96.986.8 90.992.5 98.073.6 97.564.8 95.050.3 93.393.8 95.392.8 97.061.3 80.195.4 97.781.2 94.096.7 94.272.0 97.696.3 91.496.9 97.097.9 98.585.0 94.391.3 94.584.4 94.6Pb Zn98.3 74.592.9 53.894.0 74.694.2 77.281.4 50.195.7 98.677.7 58.597.3 69.076.3 57.194.3 73.684.1 59.051.2 64.095.3 85.194.8 74.689.3 57.494.0 87.089.9 61.588.0 59.588.3 68.6Cu97.397.897.998.899.198.163.099.597.393.096.492.397.697.597.496.998.796.795.3Cu97,999.298.999.999.999.399.499.398.294.498.893.098.599.497.996.799.199.698.3162APPENDIX 9. RAW DATA- METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE BOTTOM ASHRINSE WAThR (mg/L)Fraction 1. 25mm <PARTICLE SIZE <50mmSample No. Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn11-101 0.006 <0.005 0.12 0.26 0.01 <0.005 0.21 0.0411-102 0.012 <0.005 0.16 0.14 0.02 <0005 0.29 0.0211-103 0.008 0.01 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.0311-104 0.006 <0,005 0.14 0.13 0.03 <0.005 0.07 0.0312-101 0.100 0.01 0.26 1.44 0.08 <0.005 0.29 0.1612-102 <0.001 0.01 0.17 0.28 0.02 <0.005 0.35 0.0212-103 0.005 <0.005 0.45 0.10 0.02 <0.005 0.22 0.0312-104 0.010 <0.005 0.31 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.22 0.0213-101 0.012 <0.005 0.04 <0.005 0.01 <0.005 0.30 <0.00513-102 0.016 <0.005 0.08 <0.005 0.14 <0.005 0.26 0.0113-103 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 0.01 0.01 <0.005 0.09 <0.00513-104 0.022 <0.005 0.02 0.01 0.09 <0.005 0.14 <0.00521-101 0.004 <0.005 0.06 0.20 0.02 <0.005 0.17 <0.00521-102 0.001 <0.005 0.Q5 0.34 0.01 0.01 0.20 <0.00521-103 0.003 <0.005 0.17 0.08 0.02 <0.005 0.10 <0.00521-104 <0.001 <0.005 0.03 0.16 <0005 <0.005 0.22 0.0122-101 <0.001 <0.005 0.05 0.09 <0.005 0.01 0.10 0.0122-102 <0.001 <0.005 0.12 0.10 0.03 <0.005 0.17 0.0322-103 0.003 <0.005 0.50 1.07 0.01 <0.005 0.18 0.0622-104 0.005 <0.005 0.09 0.16 0.01 <0.005 0.12 0.0331-101 0.003 <0.005 <0.005 0.03 0.01 <0.005 0.16 <0.00531-102 0.004 <0.005 0.04 0.03 0.01 <0.005 0.09 <0.00531-103 <0.001 <0.005 0.03 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.15 <0.00531-104 0.003 <0.005 0.09 0.27 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.0432-101 <0.001 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 <0.005 0.17 0.0132-102 0.002 <0.005 0.07 0.01 <0.005 <0.005 0.22 0.0132-103 0.001 0.01 3.14 0.29 <0.005 <0.005 0.12 0.0132-104 0.002 0.01 0.44 0.04 0.02 <0.005 0.18 0.0141-101 <0.001 <0.005 0.10 0.02 <0.005 <0.005 0.16 0.0241-102 0.001 <0.005 0.08 0.10 0.02 <0.005 0.09 0.0241-103 <0.001 0.01 0.05 <0.005 0.01 <0.005 0.10 0.0241-104 0.003 <0.005 0.13 0.02 <0.005 <0.005 0.09 0.0142-101 0.015 0.01 0.01 0.17 <0.005 <0.005 0.10 0.0242-102 0.011 0.01 0.01 0.28 <0.005 <0.005 0.08 0.0242-103 0.011 <0.005 <0.005 0.14 0.01 <0.005 0.04 0.0142-104 0.003 <0.005 0.01 0.12 <0.005 <0.005 0.10 0.0143-101 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 0.08 <0.005 <0.005 0.17 0.0143-102 0.007 <0.005 0.01 0.08 <0.005 <0.005 0.07 0.0143-103 0.014 0.01 0.01 0.03 <0.005 0.01 0.07 <0.00543-104 0.011 <0.005 0.04 0.04 0.01 <0.005 0.15 0.0161-101 0.010 0.01 0.06 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.16 <0.00561-102 0.026 0.02 0.03 0.03 <0.005 <0.005 0.09 0.0161-103 0.007 <0.005 0.01 0.02 <0.005 <0.005 0.01 0.0161-104 0.016 <0.005 0.01 0.03 <0.005 0.01 0.06 <0.00571-101 <0.001 <0.005 0.04 0.22 <0.005 <0.005 0.16 0.0371-102 <0.001 <0.005 0.02 0.13 <0.005 0.01 0.11 0.0171-103 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 0.01 <0.005 <0.005 0.12 <0.00571-104 <0.001 <0.005 0.03 0.14 <0.005 <0.005 0.11 0.0281-101 <0.001 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 <0.005 0.21 <0.00581-102 0.012 <0.005 <0.005 0.06 2.98 0.01 0.23 1.7581-103 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 0.03 1.69 <0.005 0.17 0.0981-104 0.005 <0.005 0.02 0.01 0.04 <0.005 0.12 0.0282-101 <0.001 <0.005 0.03 0.32 <0.005 <0.005 0.16 0.0282-102 <0.001 <0.005 0.03 0.12 <0.005 <0.005 0.13 0.0382-103 <0.001 0.01 0.02 0.05 <0.005 <0.005 0.11 <0.00582-104 <0.001 <0.005 0.17 0.22 0.01 <0.005 0.23 0.1616391-101 <0.001 0.01 0.02 0.15 <0.005 <0.005 0.10 0.0291-102 <0.001 0.01 0.03 0.12 <0.005 <0.005 0.10 0.0591-103 <0.001 0.01 0.01 0.15 <0.005 0.01 0.14 <0.00591-104 <0.001 0.01 0.06 0.09 <0.005 <0.005 0.05 0.0192-101 0.001 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.01 <0.005 0.16 0.0892-102 <0.001 0.01 0.32 0.27 0.06 <0.005 0.22 0.9792-103 <0.001 0.01 0.04 0.11 <0.005 <0.005 0.13 0.0392-104 <0.001 0.01 0.06 0.10 <0.005 0.01 0.11 0.04111-101 <0.001 <0.005 0.09 0.29 0.01 <0.005 0.19 0.02111-102 <0.001 <0.005 0.01 0.15 <0.005 0.01 0.17 <0.005111-103 <0.001 0.01 0.03 0.14 <0.005 <0.005 0.19 0.01111-104 0,001 0.01 0.05 0.08 <0.005 <0.005 0.16 0.01121-101 0.002 <0.005 0.03 0.17 <0.005 <0.005 0.05 <0.005121-102 0.001 <0.005 0.03 0.08 <0.005 0.01 0.13 0.01121-103 0.010 <0.005 0.01 0.02 <0.005 <0.005 0.10 <0.005121-104 <0.001 0.01 0.01 0.02 <0.005 <0.005 0.07 <0.005Fraction 2. 12.5mm <PARTICLE SIZE <25mmSample No. Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn11-201 0.008 0.01 0.30 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.27 0.0411-202 <0.001 0.01 1.37 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.09 <0.00511-203 <0.001 <0.005 0.60 0.08 0.02 <0.005 0.40 <0.00511-204 0.017 0.01 0.65 0.07 0.01 <0.005 0.23 0.0212-201 0.010 <0.005 0.29 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.27 0.0112-202 0.021 0.03 0.40 0.06 0.02 <0.005 0.33 0.0312-203 0.012 0.01 1.47 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.26 0.0212-204 0.004 <0.005 1.07 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.20 0.0113-201 0.008 0.02 0.32 0.06 0.04 <0.005 0.24 0.0113-202 0.009 0.02 0.35 0.01 0.05 <0.005 0.25 0.0113-203 0.011 0.05 0.22 0.08 0.06 <0.005 0.21 0.0113-204 0.020 0.03 0.35 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.29 <0.00521-201 0.003 <0.005 0.04 0.05 0.02 <0.005 0.24 0.0421-202 0.001 <0.005 0.07 0.02 <0.005 0.01 0.07 <0.00521-203 0.004 <0.005 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.08 <0.00521-204 0.003 <0.005 0.01 0.04 0.03 <0.005 0.11 <0.00522-201 0.001 <0.005 0.41 0.04 0.04 <0.005 0.16 0.0122-202 <0.001 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.18 <0.00522-203 0.009 <0.005 0.28 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.14 0.0122-204 0.008 0.01 0.21 0.03 0.02 <0.005 0.17 0.0131-201 0.008 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.02 <0.005 0.21 <0.00531-202 0.010 <0.005 0.37 0.02 0.08 <0.005 0.11 0.0231-203 0.012 <0.005 0.14 <0.005 0.02 <0.005 0.13 0.0131-204 0.019 0.02 0.10 <0.005 <0.005 0.01 0.12 0.0132-201 0.002 0.03 0.10 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.10 <0.00532-202 0.008 0.01 0.11 <0.005 0.08 <0.005 0.12 0.0132-203 0.010 <0.005 0.21 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.13 <0.00532-204 0.007 <0.005 0.21 0.05 0.06 <0.005 0.10 0.0141-201 0.006 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.16 <0.00541-202 0.004 <0.005 0.17 0.02 0.01 <0.005 0.10 0.0141-203 0.003 0.01 0.10 0.03 <0.005 <0.005 0.18 0.0141-204 0.002 <0.005 0.50 0.02 0.01 <0.005 0.12 0.0142-201 <0.001 0.02 0.02 <0.005 0.01 0.02 0.18 <0.00542-202 0.010 0.02 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.0142-203 0.003 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.01 <0.005 0.09 0.0142-204 0.007 <0.005 0.27 0.11 0.02 <0.005 0.07 0.0143-201 0.007 <0.005 <0.005 0.03 <0.005 <0.005 0.14 0.0143-202 0.014 <0.005 0.05 0.03 0.01 <0.005 0.13 <0.00543-203 0.008 <0.005 0.10 0.16 <0.005 0.01 0.15 0.0143-204 <0.001 <0.005 0.06 0.16 <0.005 0.01 0.14 0.0161-201 0.005 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.02 <0.005 0.15 0.0116461-202 0.023 0.02 0.11 0.04 0.03 <0005 0.21 0.0161-203 0.016 0.01 0.13 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.0161-204 0.003 <0.005 0.06 <0,005 0.01 <0.005 0.22 <0.00571-201 0.004 <0.005 0.02 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.00571-202 <0.001 <0.005 0.04 0.09 0.01 <0.005 0.04 0.0171-203 <0.001 <0.005 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.0271-204 <0.001 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16 <0.00581-201 <0.001 0.02 0.10 0.09 <0.005 <0.005 0.19 0.0281-202 <0.001 <0.005 0.02 <0.005 0.03 <0.005 0.22 <0.00581-203 0.003 0.01 0.12 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.0181-204 0.002 <0.005 0.08 0.05 0.01 <0.005 0.22 <0.00582-201 0.001 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.01 <0.005 0.16 0.0182-202 <0.001 0.01 0.02 0.07 <0.005 <0.005 0.21 0.0182-203 0.003 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.0582-204 0.002 <0.005 0.13 0.16 0.01 <0.005 0.17 0.0191-201 0.002 0.03 0.07 0.04 <0.005 0.01 0.22 0.0191-202 <0.001 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 <0.005 0.16 0.0191-203 0.004 0.06 0.10 0.01 <0.005 <0.005 0.15 0.0191-204 0.001 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.01 <0.005 0.14 <0.00592-201 0.003 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.0192-202 0.001 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.0292-203 0.002 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.01 <0.005 0.21 0.0192-204 0.002 0.02 91.0 0.07 0.01 <0.005 0.18 0.01111-201 0.005 0.02 0.10 0.05 <0.005 0.01 0.12 0.01111-202 0.008 <0.005 0.05 0.08 0.02 <0.005 0.17 <0.005111-203 0.005 <0.005 0.05 0.03 0.01 <0.005 0.23 <0.005111-204 0.009 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.01121-201 0.001 0.01 0.05 0.01 <0.005 <0.005 0.13 0.01121-202 0.002 0.02 0.10 0.03 0.01 <0.005 0.16 <0.005121-203 0.004 0.02 0.06 0.02 <0.005 <0.005 0.19 <0.005121-204 <0.001 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.18 <0.005Fraction 3. 9.5mm <PARTICLE SIZE <12.5mmSample No. Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn11-301 0.016 0.01 0.20 0.04 0.03 <0.005 0.19 0.0411-302 0.011 <0.005 0.67 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.0211-303 0.012 0.01 0.52 0.07 0.04 <0.005 0.22 0.0111-304 0.010 <0.005 0.43 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.27 0.0212-301 0.017 0.02 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.16 0.24 0.0312-302 0.012 <0.005 0.64 0.04 0.01 <0.005 0.26 0.0112-303 0.022 0.03 0.71 0.07 0.05 <0.005 0.46 0.0212-304 0.015 0.01 0.76 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.0113-301 0.033 0.05 0.87 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.40 0.0213-302 0.021 0.04 0.59 0.08 0.01 <0.005 0.40 0.0213-303 0.015 0.04 0.30 0.06 0.02 <0.005 0.26 0.0113-304 0.020 0.01 0.74 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.33 0.0221-301 0.002 <0.005 1.50 0.04 0.01 <0.005 0.16 0.0221-302 0.002 0.01 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.18 0.0121-303 0.013 0.01 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.0121-304 0.004 <0.005 0.08 0.06 0.03 <0.005 0.25 0.0122-301 0.009 0.02 0.55 0.05 0.01 <0.005 0.23 0.0122-302 0.012 0.01 0.43 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.0222-303 0.008 0.02 0.11 0.04 0.01 <0.005 0.21 <0.00522-304 0.012 0.01 0.46 0.11 0.03 <0.005 0.24 0.013 1-301 0.008 0.01 0.25 0.09 <0.005 0.01 0.26 0.0131-302 0.014 0.02 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.0131-303 0.009 0.01 0.19 0.02 <0.005 <0.005 0.21 <0.00531-304 0.010 0.01 0.97 0.03 <0.005 0.02 0.21 0.0132-301 0.008 0.04 0.28 <0.005 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.0132-302 0.008 0.02 0.22 0.02 0.07 <0.005 0.21 0.0116532-303 0.012 0.03 4.00 0.01 0.08 0,01 0.17 0.0132-304 0.011 0.02 0.30 <0.005 0.02 <0.005 0.21 0.0141-301 0.009 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.12 <0005 0.18 0.0141-302 0.006 0.01 1.26 <0.005 0.03 <0.005 0.20 0.0141-303 0.013 0.01 0.43 0.06 0.02 <0.005 0.22 0.0241-304 0.010 0.01 0.97 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.0342-301 0.012 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.01 <0.005 0.23 <0.00542-302 0.009 0.03 0.06 <0.005 0.01 <0.005 0.25 0.0142-303 0.012 0.01 0.10 0.42 0.07 <0.005 0.20 0.1442-304 0.013 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.01 <0.005 0.13 <0.00543-301 0.022 <0.005 0.04 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.0143-302 0.008 <0.005 0.12 0.01 <0.005 0.01 0.19 0.0143-303 0.005 <0.005 0.14 0.02 <0.005 <0.005 0.19 <0.00543-304 0.004 <0.005 0.15 0.12 0.01 <0.005 0.08 0.0161-301 0.013 0.04 0.27 0.05 0.02 <0.005 0.32 0.0261-302 0.013 0.04 0.18 <0.005 0.01 <0.005 0.35 0.0261-303 0.006 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.01 <0.005 0.22 0.0161-304 0.008 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.0171-301 <0.001 <0.005 0.03 0.01 0.01 <0.005 0.09 0.0171-302 0.006 0.01 0.09 0.01 <0.005 0.01 0.14 0.0171-303 0.003 <0.005 0.04 0.03 0.01 <0.005 0.10 0.017 1-304 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.02 <0.005 0.06 <0.00581-301 0.005 0.02 0.16 0.03 0.02 <0.005 0.27 0.0181-302 0.004 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.23 <0.00581-303 0.008 0.01 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.0181-304 0.006 0.01 0.18 0.02 0.01 <0.005 0.28 <0.00582-301 0.005 <0.005 0.15 0.03 <0.005 0.02 0.19 0.0282-302 0.011 0.01 0.34 0.02 0.04 <0.005 0.24 0.0182-303 0.007 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.01 <0.005 0.13 0.0282-304 0.008 0.01 0.36 0.06 0.01 <0.005 0.14 0.0291-301 0.011 0.07 0.49 0.01 0.01 <0.005 0.29 0.0191-302 0.009 0.04 0.13 0.01 <0.005 <0.005 0.23 0.0191-303 0.012 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.0291-304 0.005 0.03 0.22 0.04 <0.005 <0.005 0.20 0.0192-301 0.006 0.03 0.25 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.0192-302 0.003 0.02 0.13 0.01 <0.005 <0.005 0.20 0.0192-303 0.008 0.02 0.16 0.03 0.01 <0.005 0.26 0.0192-304 0.005 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.01111-301 0.012 0.06 0.30 0.04 <0.005 <0.005 0.20 0.01111-302 0.005 <0.005 0.03 0.03 0.01 <0.005 0.17 0.01111-303 0.012 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.02 <0.005 0.17 0.01111-304 0.002 0.03 0.17 0.03 <0.005 0.01 0.12 <0.005121-301 0.003 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.01 <0.005 0.19 0.01121-302 0.006 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.01121-303 0.010 0.02 0.11 0.04 <0.005 0.02 0.21 <0.005121-304 0.002 0.01 0.28 0.06 <0.005 <0.005 0.16 0.01

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0050407/manifest

Comment

Related Items