Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1027–1036

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Review

Waste foundry sand and its leachate characteristics

Rafat Siddique a,∗ , Gurdeep Kaur b , Anita Rajor b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Thapar University, Patiala (Punjab)–147004, India
b
Department of Biotechnology & Environmental Sciences, Thapar University, Patiala (Punjab)–147004, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Solid waste management has become one of the global environmental issues, as there is continuous
Received 25 January 2010 increase in industrial by-products and waste materials. Due to lack of land filling space and its ever
Received in revised form 21 April 2010 increasing cost, utilization of waste material and by-products has become an attractive alternative to
Accepted 21 April 2010
disposal. Waste foundry sand (WFS) is one of such industrial by-product which could be used in vari-
ous applications including construction materials such as Controlled Low-Strength Material (CLSM) and
Keywords:
concrete. The beneficial use of such by-products in construction materials results in reducing the cost of
Waste foundry sand
construction materials’ ingredients and also helps in reducing disposal problem. The leachate obtained
Leachate
Leaching test methods
from such materials may contain hazardous compounds, which may possibly effect the environment. So,
it is important to know the characteristics of leachate obtained from waste foundry sand.
Understanding the leachate characteristics of WFS is essential in its disposal, environmental impact, and
potential development for beneficial utilization towards solid waste management. This paper describes
the physical, chemical properties of WFS, various leachate test methods, and research published on
leachate characteristics of waste foundry sand.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Waste foundry sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027

1.1. Types of foundry sands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028
1.2. Physical properties of WFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028
1.3. Chemical composition of WFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
1.4. Applications of waste foundry sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
2. Leachate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
2.1. Generation of leachate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
2.2. Composition of leachate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
2.3. Leachate test method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
2.3.1. Batch methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
2.3.2. Column methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
2.3.3. Monolithic and bulk methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
2.3.4. Combined methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
2.4. Leachate analysis of waste foundry sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035

1. Waste foundry sand aluminum, brass) metal castings. Foundries use high-quality size-
specific silica sands for use in their molding and casting operations.
Waste foundry sand (WFS) consists primarily of, uniformly The raw sand is normally of a higher quality than the typical bank
sized, high-quality silica sand or lake sand that is bonded to run or natural sands used in fill construction sites.
form molds for ferrous (iron and steel) and nonferrous (copper, In the casting process, molding sands are recycled and reused
multiple times. Eventually, however, the recycled sand degrades
to the point that it can no longer be reused in the casting process.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 175 2393207; fax: +91 175 2393005. When it is not possible to further reuse in the foundry it is removed
E-mail address: siddique 66@yahoo.com (R. Siddique). from the foundry and termed as waste foundry sand. The automo-

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.006
1028 R. Siddique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1027–1036

Table 1
Typical physical properties of waste foundry sand (Javed and Lovell, 1994).
Physical properties Values
Specific gravity 2.39–2.55
Bulk relative density (kg/m3 ) 2589
Moisture content (%) 0.1–10.1
Coefficient of permeability (cm/s) 10−3 to 10−6
Plastic limit Non-plastic
tive industry and its parts suppliers are the major generators of
foundry sand. The physical and chemical characteristics of foundry
sand will depend in great part on the type of casting process and
the industry sector from which it originates.
1.1. Types of foundry sands
Classification of foundry sands depends upon the type of binder
systems used in metal casting. Two types of binder systems are gen-
erally used, and on the basis of that foundry sands are categorized
as: clay-bonded sand (green sand) and chemically bonded sand. The
most common casting process used in the foundry industry is the
sand cast system. Virtually all sand cast molds for ferrous castings
are of the green sand type. Clay-bonded (Green) sand is composed
of naturally occurring materials, which are blended together such
as high-quality silica sand (85–95%), bentonite clay (4–10%) as a
binder, a carbonaceous additive (2–10%) to improve the casting
surface finish and water (2–5%). It is black in color due to carbon
content.
Green sand is the most commonly used molding media by
foundries. Silica sand is the bulk medium that resists high temper-
atures while the coating of clay binds the sand together. The water
adds plasticity. The carbonaceous additives prevent the “burn-on”
or fusing of sand onto the casting surface. Green sand also contains
trace chemicals such as MgO, K2 O, and TiO2 .
Chemically-bonded sand is used both in core making where high
strength is necessary to withstand the heat of molten metal, and
in mold making. These systems involve the use of one or more
organic binders in conjunction with catalysts and different harden-
ing/setting procedures. Chemically bonded sand consists of 93–99%
silica and 1–3% chemical binder. Chemically bonded sands are gen-
erally light in color and in texture than clay-bonded sands.
1.2. Physical properties of WFS
Waste foundry sand is generally sub-angular to round in shape.
Green sand is generally black or gray and chemically bonded sand
is typically of medium tan or off-white color. The grain size dis-
tribution of Waste foundry sand is uniform, with 85–95% of the
material between 0.6 mm and 0.15 mm, 5–12% of foundry sand can
be smaller than 0.075 mm (Javed and Lovell, 1994). Dayton et al.
(2010) mentioned that sand (0.05–2 mm) was the dominant size
fraction in the 39 spent foundry sands ranging from 76.6% to 100%,
with a median of 90.3%. The specific gravity of foundry sand varies
between 2.39 and 2.55. Waste foundry sand has low absorption
capacity and is non-plastic (Table 1).
Carey and Sturtz (1995) suggested that physical properties of
WFS help to recognize its workability and suitability in flowable fill:
Particle gradation, grain shape, fine contents, density, absorption
and specific gravity, bleeding, setting time, hydraulic conductivity
and leaching characteristics. Particle gradation, grain fineness num-
ber (GFN) and grain shape is important determinants of flowability,
compacted density and strength of a WFS mixture. The greater the
GFN, the finer the average grains. Absorption indicates the process
by which a liquid is drawn into the WFS matrix and fills pore space.
Deng and Tikalsky (2008) determined the physical properties
including density, particle gradation, absorption, grain shape and
fine content. Table 2 summarizes the test results of WFS sam-
ples from steel based foundries. WFS samples from steel-based
foundries (WFS 16 and WFS 17) had GFNs ranging from 49 to 55.
WFS samples from non-ferrous foundries (WFS 10 to WFS 12 and
WFS 14) had the widest GFN ranges. Pure clay-based WFS samples
have moisture contents of 1.02–4.08%. Less than 1% water content
occurred in organic-based samples (0.29% for WFS 02 and 0.64%
for WFS 12). Clay-based system sands require approximately 10%
water content to “activate” bentonite binding; nevertheless, 2–3%
water is needed as a solvent or catalyst to activate organic binders
in the organic based system sands (Winkler and Bol’shakov, 2000).
Thus, relatively more water remains in clay-based WFS than in
organic-based WFS. It is also shown that round and sub angular
grains prevail and occupy the middle size segments. The predomi-
nant grain shapes of all samples are tabulated in Table 2. Generally,
prevalent grain shapes of WFS were round and sub angular. Grain
shape is important with respect to flowability, compaction and
strength development. Round grains provide superior flowabil-
ity and compaction yet lower strength yield compared to angular
grains.
The variation in the density (1052–1554 kg/m3 ), specific grav-
ity (2.38–2.72) and absorption (0.38–4.15%) measurements may
be attributed to the variation in sand mineralogy, particle grada-
tion, grain shapes and fine contents. Good gradation and round
shape lead to a compact structure and high density. The highest
absorption (4.15%) is found associated with sample WFS 14, which

Table 2
Physical properties of WFS samples (Deng and Tikalsky, 2008).

Sample GNF Moisture content Grain shape Sieving Less than 75 ␮m Density (oven dry) Specific gravity Absorption (%)

WFS 01 50 1.73 SA 0.48 1289 2.50 3.03

WFS 02 49 0.29 RD, SA 0.08 1382 2.72 0.38
WFS 03 52 3.17 SA, RD 0.17 1285 2.43 2.31
WFS 04 77 1.42 SA 1.19 1423 2.38 2.94
WFS 05 61 1.96 SA 0.49 1370 2.41 1.69
WFS 06 42 1.7 CP 0.00 1095 2.55 1.81
WFS 07 60 0 SA, RD 0.66 1303 2.55 1.56
WFS 08 56 2.03 SA, RD 0.50 1289 2.39 3.39
WFS 09 59 1.62 SA, RD 0.52 1429 2.59 1.09
WFS 10 57 3.5 SA, RD 1.35 1448 2.63 0.59
WFS 11 47 4.08 SA, CP 0.08 1329 2.59 0.86
WFS 12 70 0.64 RD, SA 0.37 1505 2.69 0.79
WFS 13 52 0 SA, RD 0.52 1522 2.64 0.72
WFS 14 90 0.14 SA 9.21 1390 2.48 4.15
WFS 15 46 4.08 SA, CP 0.41 1052 2.38 3.83
WFS 16 55 1.02 RD 0.73 1163 2.52 3.09
WFS 17 49 4.85 RD 0.93 1554 2.64 1.17

AG: angular, RD: round, SA: sub angular, CP: compound.

 R. Siddique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1027–1036 1029

Table 3 surface. Depending on the binder and type of metal cast, the pH
Physical properties of sand (Naik et al., 2001).
value of waste foundry sand can vary between 4 and 8 (Johnson,
Parameter ASTM Sand 1 Sand 2 Sand 3 1981).
Moisture content C 566 0.39 0.19 0.25 It has been reported that some waste foundry sands can be cor-
Unit weight (kg/m3 ) R 29 1840 1730 1784 rosive to metals (MNR, 1992) due to the presence of phenols in
Bulk specific gravity C 128 2.43 2.38 2.44 foundry sand. There is some concern that precipitation percolating
Bulk specific gravity, SSD C 128 2.47 2.50 2.57 through stockpiles could mobilize leachable fractions, resulting in
Apparent specific gravity C 128 2.52 2.70 2.79
phenol discharges into surface or ground water supplies. Foundry
SSD absorption (%) C 128 1.0 4.9 5.0
Void (%) C 29 25.0 33.8 34.8 sand sources and stockpiles must be monitored to assess the need
Fineness modulus C 136 3.57 2.33 2.42 to establish controls for potential phenol discharges (MOEE, 1993;
Soundness of aggregate (%) C 88 10.0 10.5 54.9 Johnson, 1981).
Material finer than (75 ␮m) sieve C 117 1.40 0.17 1.08
Federal Highway Administration (2004) has mentioned that
Sand 1 = regular concrete sand, sand 2 = clean foundry sand, sand 3 = used foundry foundry sand maximum bulk phenol content in foundry sand
sand. should be less than 2 mg/kg (2 ppm). Depending on the binder and
type of metal cast, the pH of spent foundry sand can vary from
was obtained from a copper/aluminum based facility. Correlation approximately 4–8 has been reported that some spent foundry
of absorption with fine content and grain size can be interpreted by sands can be corrosive to metal.
the law that a finer particle leads to a higher specific surface area,
which favors the absorption of water (Deng and Tikalsky, 2008). 1.4. Applications of waste foundry sand
Naik et al. (2001) determined the physical properties of regu-
lar concrete sand, clean foundry sand and used foundry sand by Metal casting foundries in the US disposed of approximately
using appropriate ASTM standard. However, a modified ASTM C88 9 million metric tons of waste foundry sand in landfills in 2000
was used to measure soundness of the foundry sands. In accor- (Winkler and Bol’shakov, 2000). Given the national average landfill
dance with the ASTM C88 test standard, the test samples shall be tipping fee of foundry byproducts of US $15–75 per ton inclusive
such that it contains 100 grams of all materials retained on each of storage, transportation and labor costs (Winkler et al., 1999),
of the 4.75 mm, 2.36 mm, 1.18 mm, 600 ␮m and 300 ␮m. Since the annual cost of WFS disposal was around US$ 135–675 million.
foundry sand is finer than 600 ␮m, only about 0.2–2.1% of clean The considerable disposal expense has made the current practice of
and used foundry sands was retained on the 4.75–600 ␮m. There- WFS disposal in landfills less favorable. Besides the financial burden
fore the ASTM sample requirement was modified to evaluate the to the foundries, landfilling WFS also makes them liable for future
soundness of the foundry sands for this investigation. The physical environmental costs, remediation problems, and regulation restrict
properties data for the regular concrete sand and the two foundry ions. This issue is increasingly addressed by alternate scenarios of
sands are shown in Table 3. The material finer than the 75 ␮m sieve beneficially reusing WFS.
were slightly higher for the used foundry sand relative to the clean Beneficial reuses of WFS span a variety of applications related
foundry sand. This difference in the result was probably due to the to infrastructure engineering and rehabilitation works, e.g., high
presence of binders in the used foundry sand. The results for the way embankment construction (Ham et al., 1990; Javed and Lovell,
used sand showed low values than the allowable limit. However, 1994; Mast and Fox, 1998; Kleven et al., 2000; Abichou et al., 2004),
the used foundry sand had the highest value of all the sands tested. ground improvement (Vipulanandan et al., 2000), hydraulic barrier
This is primarily due to the presence of bentonite clay binders in or liner (Abichou et al., 2004; Goodhue et al., 2001). These alter-
the used foundry sand during the soaking in the water for 24 h and nate applications offer cost savings for both foundries and user
was washed away when sieved in accordance with ASTM C142. industries, and an environmental benefit at the local and national
level.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has issued a
1.3. Chemical composition of WFS
report, “User Guidelines for Waste and By-Product Materials in
Pavement Construction,” which covers in detail the use of foundry
Chemical composition of the Waste foundry sand depends on
sand (and fly ash) in CLSM and provides guidelines for its proper
the type of metal molded at the foundry, type of binder and com-
usage (Federal Highway Administration, 1998). The U.S. Environ-
bustible used. The chemical composition of the foundry sand may
mental Protection Agency (EPA) has also recognized foundry sand,
influence its performance. Waste foundry sand consists primarily of
along with fly ash, as suitable materials for controlled low-strength
silica sand, coated with a thin film of burnt carbon, residual binder
materials (CLSM). An issue of concern with using foundry sand in
(bentonite, sea coal, resins/chemicals) and dust. Table 4 lists the
CLSM is the potential for environmental impact caused by leach-
chemical composition of a typical sample of waste foundry sand.
ing of heavy metals present in the foundry sand. Ferrous foundry
Silica sand is hydrophilic and consequently attracts water to its
sands are more commonly used in CLSM because there are concerns
about the heavy metals content of non-ferrous foundry sands. The
Table 4 EPA does not recommend the use of non-ferrous foundry sand in
Typical Chemical composition of foundry sand (1). CLSM because of concerns over the potential leaching of phenols
Constituent Value (%) and heavy metals, such as cadmium, lead, copper, nickel, and zinc
(Environmental Protection Agency, 1998).
SiO2 87.91
Al2 O3 4.70 Foundry sand has been studied and used successfully in CLSM
Fe2 O3 0.94 and its use has increased in recent years (Bhat and Lovell, 1996).
CaO 0.14 It is becoming a more viable candidate for use in Controlled Low
MgO 0.30 Strength Materials because of its lower cost, increasing availabil-
SO3 0.09
Na2 O 0.19
ity, and satisfactory performance. It is estimated that for every
K2 O 0.25 ton of metal castings produced and shipped that a typical foundry
TiO2 0.15 generates approximately one ton of waste sand. The most com-
Mn2 O3 0.02 monly used waste foundry sand in CLSM is “green sand,” a term
SrO 0.03
applied when the original sand is treated with a bonding agent
1030 R. Siddique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1027–1036
Table 5
Green and after firing density of the ceramic bodies (Braganca et al., 2006).
Density (g cm−3 ) Green 1100 ◦ C
FP 1.83 1.94
15F 1.81 1.85
35F 1.82 1.96
15AF 1.81 1.99
35AF 1.83 1.89
45AF 1.79 1.84
(usually clay) to optimize the efficiency of the sand in the mold-
ing process. After molding is completed, the sand is discarded and
generally land-filled. The cost of land-filling may vary from country
to country. These costs are generally more in developed countries
in comparison to developing and under-developed countries. Bhat
and Lovell (1996) have reported that in United States of America,
cost of land-filling varies between $20 and 40 per ton.
Use of spent foundry sand in concrete related products like
bricks, blocks and paving stones has been reported by Khatib and
Ellis (2001), Naik et al. (2003, 2004), Fiore and Zanetti (2007), and
Siddique et al. (2007).
Khatib and Ellis (2001) investigated the compressive strength
(up to the age of 90 days) of concrete made with three types of
foundry sand as a partial replacement of fine aggregate. The stan-
dard sand (Class M) was partially replaced by (0, 25, 50, 75 and
100%) these types of sand. Based on the results they concluded that
(i) with the increase in the replacement level of standard sand with
foundry sand, the strength of concrete decreased; (ii) presence of
high percentage of blended sand in the concrete mixture caused
a reduction in strength as compared with concrete incorporating
white sand or spent sand; and (iii) increase in strength was not
observed at low replacement levels (less than 50%);
Naik et al. (2003) studied the influence of spent foundry sand
on the compressive strength of bricks, blocks, and paving stones.
Replacement rates, by mass, for sand with either spent foundry
sand were 25 and 35%. For brick and paving stone, compressive
strength was measure at the ages of 5, 28, 56, 91 and 288 days
whereas for blocks, it was done at the ages of 7, 14, 28, and 91
days. They concluded that (i) partial replacement of sand with SFS
in paving stones caused considerable reduction in strength. Overall,
none of the paving stones met the compressive strength require-
ment of ASTM C 936 for solid concrete paving units (55 MPa); and
(iii) all the block mixtures except the one exceeded minimum com-
pressive strength requirement of ASTM C 90 (13 MPa); and (ii) up
to 25% of sand in blocks could be replaced with either BA or SFS in
cold regions; and up to 35% of sand in bricks and blocks could be
replaced with either BA or SFS for use where frost action is not a
concern.
Naik et al. (2004) reported the compressive strength of wet-
cast concrete bricks and paving stones made with spent foundry
sand. They concluded that (i) wet-cast bricks that meet the min-
imum compressive strength requirement of ASTM C 55 for Grade
N (min. strength 24 MPa) could be produced with concrete (having
strength as low as 14 MPa cylindrical strength) containing spent
foundry sand; and (ii) wet-cast paving stone that meet the mini-
mum strength requirement of ASTM C 936 (min. strength 55 MPa)
could be produced with concrete (having strength as low as 40 MPa
cylindrical strength) containing spent foundry sand.
Bakis et al. (2006) investigated the use of waste foundry sand
in asphalt concrete. Results showed that the strength of asphalt
concrete mixtures indicated a linear decrease as the percentage of
WFS was decreased, yielding values from 1.39 MPa with 0% WFS to
0.94 MPa with 20% WFS.
Siddique et al. (2007) investigated the effects of spent foundry
sand as partial replacement of fine aggregate on the compressive
strength of concrete. Based on the test results, it was concluded
1150 ◦ C 1200 ◦ C 1250 ◦ C 1275 ◦ C 1300 ◦ C
1.99 2.08 2.19 1.59 1.19
1.95 2.09 2.21 2.08 1.71
2.05 2.17 2.08 1.76 1.59
2.07 2.08 2.13 1.63 1.19
1.93 2.10 2.22 1.87 1.48
1.98 2.19 2.19 2.10 1.97
that compressive strength of concrete mixes with 10%, 20% and 30%
fine aggregate replacement with foundry sand was higher than the
control mix in all ages which indicated that foundry sand could be
successfully used in making concrete as partial replacement of fine
aggregate.
Braganca et al. (2006) evaluated the production feasibility of tri-
axial white-ware using sand from cast iron molds as a raw material
instead of silica and also concluded that (i) it is possible to produce
white ware bodies with formulations containing white firing clay,
glass waste and foundry sand; (ii) There was no significant variation
in the density of the formulations with the foundry sand contents,
which can be as high as 45% in the triaxial ceramic mass; (iii) The
higher densification after firing was achieved for firing tempera-
tures between 1200 and 1250 ◦ C, and the amount of added flux was
more important than the variation in the foundry sand content. It
should be noted that it was possible to add up to 45% of foundry
sand to the triaxial ceramic mass without compromising the den-
sification of the final product. The maximum density (2.19 g cm−3 )
was achieved in the temperature of 1200–1250 ◦ C (Table 5).
Waste foundry sand often demonstrate soil like qualities mak-
ing them potentially attractive components in manufactured soils
and useful for enhancing soil blend, physical and chemical proper-
ties. It contains plant nutrients, organic carbon and clay. Dayton et
al. (2010) collected waste foundry sand from 11 foundries and eval-
uated WFS as plant growth media for lettuce seeds. Results showed
a range in germination relative to the control of from 56.3% to 125%
with a medium of 96.9%. Eighty five percent of WFS germination
was between 80% and 120% relative to control blends. So, WFS at
varying rated with other materials will sallow tailoring of manu-
factured soil chemical and physical properties to meet the specific
growing needs. Dungan and Dees (2009) studied that total metal
concentrations in the molding sands were similar to those of found
in agricultural soils in which the leaching of metals were assessed
by TCLP, SPLP and ASTM water leach test. It was found that the total
metal concentration of majority of waste sands was at the low end
of the range measured in agricultural soils.
2. Leachate
Leachate is the liquid that drains or ‘leaches’ from a landfill. It
varies widely in composition regarding the age of the landfill and
the type of waste that it contains (Henry and Heinke, 1996). It can
usually contain both dissolved and suspended material. Once it
comes in contact with environment, ground water gets contami-
nated and cause harmful effects on environment.
2.1. Generation of leachate
The generation of leachate is caused principally by precip-
itation percolating through waste deposited in a landfill. Once
in contact with decomposing solid waste, the percolating water
becomes contaminated and if it flows out of the waste material it
is termed leachate. Additional leachate volume is produced dur-
ing this decomposition of carbonaceous material producing a wide
range of other materials including methane, carbon dioxide and a
complex mixture of organic acids, aldehydes, alcohols and simple
 R. Siddique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1027–1036
sugars. Ji et al. (2001) summarized that leachate generated from
WFS monofills consists of various organic compounds and pol-
yaromatic compounds (PAH) in which naphthalene is 30%. It also
includes phenols, Formaldehyde, metals and mineral oils.
The risks of leachate generation can be mitigated by properly
designed and engineered landfill sites, such as sites that are con-
structed on geologically impermeable materials or sites that use
impermeable liners made of geotextiles or engineered clay. In addi-
tion, most toxic and difficult materials are specifically excluded
from landfilling. However, despite much stricter statutory controls
leachates from modern sites are found to contain a range of con-
taminants that may either be associated with some level of illegal
activity or may reflect the ubiquitous use of a range of difficult
materials in household and domestic products which enter the
waste stream legally.
2.2. Composition of leachate
The physical appearance of leachate when it emerges from a
typical landfill site is a strongly-odoured yellow colored liquid. The
smell is acidic and offensive and may be very pervasive because of
hydrogen, nitrogen and sulfur rich organic species such as mercap-
tans. Leachate may be characterized as a water-based solution of
four groups of contaminants; dissolved organic matter (alcohols,
acids, aldehydes, short chain sugars, etc.), inorganic macro compo-
nents (common cations and anions including sulfate, chloride, Iron,
aluminum, zinc and ammonia), heavy metals (Pb, Ni, Cu, Hg) and
xenobiotic organic compounds such as halogenated organics.
When water percolates through the waste, it promotes and
assists process of decomposition by bacteria and fungi. These pro-
cesses in turn release by-products of decomposition and rapidly
use up any available oxygen which creates an anoxic environment.
In actively decomposing waste the temperature rises and the pH
falls rapidly and many metal ions which are relatively insoluble at
neutral pH can become dissolved in the developing leachate. The
decomposition processes them release further water which adds to
the volume of leachate.
Leachate also reacts with materials that are not themselves
prone to decomposition such as fire ash and cement based building
materials changing the chemical composition. In sites with large
volumes of building waste, especially those containing gypsum
plaster, the reaction of leachate with the gypsum can generate large
volumes of hydrogen sulfide which may be released in the leachate
and may also form a large component of the landfill gas.Han et
al. (2009) performed a detailed characterization on the humic sub-
stances present in landfill leachate derived from the older (10-year)
and younger (6-month) municipal landfill. However, the humic acid
extracted from the younger leachate showed characteristics more
similar with fulvic acids, indicating that the younger humic acid
was at the initial stage of humification. Kjeldensen et al. (2002)
analyzed dissolved organic compounds (DOC) in leachate is com-
posed of organic acid and humic or fulvic like substances.Based on
molecular weight, elemental composition, and acidity, the fulvic
acid fraction and the hydrophilic fraction resembled fulvic acids
from other origins, whereas the humic acid had rather low molec-
ular weight. So, concluded that DOC was rather similar with respect
to the features of importance to complexation of metals. Calcium,
magnesium, iron and manganese are inorganic macro components,
which present in lesser volumes due to high pH and lower dissolved
organic compounds (humic or fulvic), which may form complexes
with cations.
2.3. Leachate test method
Leaching methods are often categorized by whether the leach-
ing fluid is a single addition (static extraction tests) or is renewed
1031
(dynamic tests). Methods can also be classified as batch leaching
in which the sample is placed in a given volume of leachant solu-
tion, as column or flow through systems, and as bulk or flow around
systems for monolithic samples. Results are generally reported as
a concentration, sometimes as the concentration in the leachant
solution (mg/L) or as the leached concentration from the solid
(mg/kg). In many methods, the liquid to solid ratio (L/S) is used
to quantify the volume of leachant with respect to the amount of
solid sample, usually as mL/g or L/kg.
2.3.1. Batch methods
Batch leaching methods are those in which a sample is placed in
a given volume of leachant solution for a set period of time. Most
of these methods require some type of agitation to ensure constant
contact between the sample and the leachant. At the end of the
leaching period, the liquid is removed and analyzed. The most com-
monly used batch leaching methods are the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP), Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Pro-
cedure (SPLP), and Standard Test Method for Shake Extraction of
Solid Waste with Water (ASTM D3987).
2.3.1.1. Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure. A commonly
used test to determine the leaching characteristics is toxicity char-
acteristic leaching procedure. The TCLP test is the USEPA leaching
procedure for determining the characteristics of hazardous waste.
Many state regulatory agencies have adopted the TCLP for char-
acterization of solid wastes which are not federally regulated.
This test was designed to simulate leaching in a sanitary land-
fill under co-disposal conditions. The TCLP involves end-over-end
agitation, a 20:1 liquid-to-solid ratio, and an 18 hour equili-
bration time. This test involves two leaching solutions. Alkaline
materials use a solution that has a pH of 2.88 which is buffered
using acetic acid and less alkaline materials use a solution with
a pH of 4.93 which is buffered using sodium hydroxide (Douglas,
2003).
A sample of at least 100 g is extracted for 18 h with one of the
two fluids. Fluid 1 is 0.1N acetic acid, which has been adjusted with
NaOH to a pH of 4.93. Fluid 2, used for alkaline wastes, is 0.1N acetic
acid, which has a pH of 2.88.The ratio of extracting fluid to sample
is 20:1. After tumbling for 18 h, the extracts are separated from
the solids using a glass fiber filter. The extracts were analyzed by
ICP/OES and ICP/mass spectroscopy.
2.3.1.2. Synthetic precipitation leaching procedure. The Synthetic
Precipitation Leaching Procedure is a method designed to evalu-
ate the impact of contaminated soils on groundwater (Hageman
and Briggs, 2000). The extraction fluid consists of slightly acidified
de-ionized water that is formulated to simulate natural precipita-
tion. A mixture of 60/40 H2 SO4 /HNO3 (by weight) is used to achieve
the appropriate pH for the extraction fluid. The SPLP extraction
method for 100% solids and no volatiles was utilized for this study.
A sample that is 100% solids requires reduction of particle size to
<1 cm and extracting the solid at a 20:1 ratio on rotary agitator for
18 h.
The solid/liquid slurry is then filtered through a 0.7 ␮m borosil-
icate glass fiber filter utilizing a pressure filtration unit. Clean
extraction vessels were rinsed twice with 10 mL to extract solution
(pH 4.2). 100 g of each sample was weighed and placed in an extrac-
tor vessel, two liters of extraction solution (pH 4.2) was slowly
added to the vessel. The extractor vessels were secured in an Ana-
lytical Testing Rotary Agitator and rotated end-over-end for 18 h at
28 revolutions per minute. Following extraction, the samples were
filtered through a 0.7 ␮m borosilicate glass fiber filter. Filters were
placed in position and acid washed with 1 L of 1N HNO3 followed by
three water rinses with one liter de-ionized prior to filtration of the
samples. A small aliquot of the unfiltered leachate was taken for pH
1032 R. Siddique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1027–1036

Table 6
TCLP resultsa for untreated waste foundry sand and for mixtures (by weight) of waste sand with various additives extracted with Fluid 1 (Douglas, 2003).

Sampleb Copper (mg/L) Lead (mg/L) Zinc (mg/L) Iron (mg/L) Final pH

WFS (n = 3) 122 48 141 0.3 5.18

WFS with 10% iron (n = 4) 0.4 0.4 132 213 5.29
WFS with 3.4% HFO (as Fe2 O3 ) (n = 4) 68 4.4 141 <0.2 5.15
WFS with 10% dried HFO (n = 3) 75 9.0 137 <0.2 5.07
WFS with 10% Fe2 O3 (n = 4) 92 40 124 <1 5.09
WFS with 10% zinc (n = 4) <0.1 <0.1 695 21 5.67
Waste from bore2, 0–2.4 m (n = 1) 9.9 5.3 69 184 5.28
Waste from bore3, compositec (n = 1) 37 4.2 75 118 5.12
Waste from bore4, 0.6–1.5 m (n = 1) 164 11 146 15 5.19
Waste from bore4, 4.6–6.1 m (n = 1) 13 12 117 212 4.29
Waste from bore 5, composited (n = 1) 0.8 2.8 113 489 5.52
a
Average value with 95% confidence limits.
b
n is the number of replicates for each type of sample.
c
Composite of 0.8–1.1 m (81 wt%) and 4.6–6.1 m (19%).
d
Composite of 1.1–1.5 m (54%) and 3.0–4.6 m (46%).

and specific conductivity measurements. After filtration, aliquots of
filtrate were preserved for analysis.
2.3.1.3. Synthetic ground-water leaching procedure. The Synthetic
Groundwater Leaching Procedure (SGLP) test is particularly ade-
quate for one-stage leaching (Hassett, 1994). In this procedure, 5 g
of sample was mixed with 100 mL water of 18.2 MW cm2 1 type
Milli Q Plus (1:20) in a high density polyethylene bottle and shaken
on a rotary shaker for 18 hours at room temperature. The pH of
the leachate was 11.9. Leachate was decanted and filtered through
membrane filters (Millipore GS of 0.22 lm). Finally, aliquots of fil-
tered solution with 1% HNO3 (v/v) and 10 mg/mL of indium as the
internal standard were prepared.
2.3.1.4. Shake extraction of solid waste with water. In this method,
an extract of each by-product materials were obtained. Each test
samples, weighing about 70 g, were prepared by adding to a 2 L con-
tainer having a watertight closure. A volume of test water equal to
20 times the weight of the waste sample was added to the container.
The container was continuously agitated for 18 h at about 20 ◦ C. The
samples were then allowed to settle for 5 min and the bulk of the
aqueous phase was separated from the solid by filtration through a
coarse filter paper. The liquid was filtered through 0.45 mm filter.
The resulting extract was analyzed for various constituents using
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Approach
(Naik et al., 2001).
2.3.2. Column methods
Column leaching tests are designed to simulate the flow of per-
colating groundwater through a porous bed of granular material.
The flow of the leaching solution may be in either down-flow or
up-flow direction, and continuous or intermittent. The flow rate is
generally accelerated when compared to natural flow conditions.
However, it should be slow enough to allow leaching reactions to
occur. A basic assumption in column leaching is that the distribu-
tion of the leaching solution is uniform and that all particles are
exposed equally to the leachate solution. Precipitation or sorption
within the column may affect the results.
Column experiments can be conducted in both saturated
and unsaturated conditions. Unsaturated conditions are usually
intended to mimic vadose zone placement. Intermittent addition
of a given volume of leachant solution at the top of the column
can provide uniform distribution of the fluid and approximate a
constant fluid front moving through the unsaturated column. Sat-
urated columns are obtained by a constant fluid flux, and allowing
the fluid to pond at the top of the column.
The Standard Test Method for Leaching Solid Material in a
Column Apparatus (ASTM D4874) is intended to maximize the
leaching of metallic species from a solid. The aqueous fluid passes
through particles of known mass in a saturated up-flow mode.
The Dutch Standard Column Test (NEN 7343) is also an up-flow
application, and the Nordtest Column Method (NORD TEST, 1995)
is similar to the Dutch Column test, except that column dimen-
sions are optional. The up-flow column procedures are designed to
insure that the leachant solution is equally distributed throughout
the column.
2.3.3. Monolithic and bulk methods
Monolithic leaching methods are used to evaluate the release
of elements from a material that normally exists as massive solid,
cement for example, and are frequently used to characterize the
release of pollutants from stabilized waste materials. The release
of an element is a function of the exposed surface area as opposed
to the mass. Flow around systems relates solubility to the surface
area of a particular volume. Flow-through systems also consider
the internal pore surface. And some systems take into account the
rate of diffusion of the leachant solution into the pores.
The flow through leaching test is used to characterize leaching
from a waste that is more permeable than the surrounding material
(Poon et al., 2001). The solid sample is placed in a flexible wall per-
meameter, and in this method, the leaching solution is deionized
water at a mean flow rate of .0166 mL/min at a pressure of 400 kPa.
Bulk leaching generally refers to leaching large samples, either in a
large column or in heaps. They are either hydro-metallurgical sys-
tems or are used in a research setting to leach a non homogeneous
sample with a large particle size (Dalverny et al., 1996).
2.3.4. Combined methods
The International Ash Working Group (IAWG) has designed a
combined leaching protocol to quickly determine the total leach-
able elements in a material and to estimate metal release in a
normal environmental setting (Van der Sloot, 1998). It combines
the sequential batch availability test (NEN 7341) with a serial batch
extraction using water. A two-step availability test of fine-grained
material, at L/S of 50 and controlled at pH of 4 and 8, is used to
determine leachability at the upper and lower pH limits found in
natural environments. From the total acid consumption, the acid
neutralization capacity of the material is estimated. Total elemen-
tal release as a function of time is estimated by leaching at several
L/S values between 1 and 100 in a serial batch test with water.
The release of contaminants is usually expressed in mg/kg leached
against the L/S ratio.
 R. Siddique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1027–1036 1033

Table 7
Leachate analysis by ASTM D3987 of CLSM ingredients (Naik et al., 2001).

Parameter Clean foundry sand, FS1 (mg/L) Spent foundry sand, FS2 (mg/L) Drinking water standards (mg/L) GWQSa

Max (mg/L) Min (mg/L)

Iron 0.02 0.93 – 0.30b 0.15b

Barium 0.013 0.053 1.0 2.0 0.4b
Manganese <0.01 0.01 – 0.05b 0.025b
Zinc <0.01 0.03 – 5b 2.5b
Arsenic <0.01 0.001 0.05 0.05 0.005
Chromium <0.001 0.011 0.05 0.10 0.01
Lead <0.001 0.015 0.05 0.015 0.0015
Selenium <0.001 <0.001 0.01 0.05 0.01
Cadmium <0.0002 0.0002 0.01 0.005 0.0005
Mercury <0.0002 <0.0002 – 0.002 0.0002
Chloride <1.8 3 – 250b 125b
a
GWQS is related to ground water quality standard.
b
GWQS is related to public welfare.

2.4. Leachate analysis of waste foundry sand
Leachate analysis is routinely conducted in an effort to charac-
terize the mobile phase of water or stockpiled material. Thus, data
obtained from detailed leachate analysis are then used to classify
the waste or to estimate ground water or surface water contamina-
tion. Presently there are a number of alternative leachate analyses
available, each designed specifically to deal with various waste
types and stockpiling applications.
Fero et al. (1986) determined the concentration of organic com-
pounds in ground water leached from an iron foundry landfill. Test
samples derived from all monitoring wells showed all measured
organics were below their respective detection limits. Engroff et
al. (1989) evaluated the leachate characteristics of foundry sand
derived from nine common core binder systems using the toxi-
city characteristic leaching procedure test method. The test data
showed the presence of a wide range of organic compounds, but
their concentrations were low.
Douglas (2003) examined the TCLP extractions on waste sand
obtained directly from the foundry and on mixtures of waste sand
with various additives. Results showed that TCLP extracts of used
foundry sand without any additives contain high concentrations of
copper, lead and zinc lead well over the regulatory limits for haz-
ardous waste of 5 mg/L. the results of treatments shown in Table 6
were compared with the untreated results using a two sample t-
test. The difference between copper and lead results for each of
the treated sands and the untreated sands were statistically sig-
nificant (p < 0.01). Adding iron to the TCLP extraction of foundry
sand decreases the copper and lead concentrations in the extract
because of reduction by iron.
Naik et al. (2001) conducted tests on various samples to deter-
mine the leachability of CLSM mixtures. For this purpose, shake
extraction of solid waste with water (ASTM D3987), leaching
method was selected. They concluded that: (i) these materials con-
tained very little organics; leachate derived from each material
was analyzed for inorganic constituents in accordance with WDNR
requirements (Table 7); (ii) clean foundry sand met both the WDNR
preventive action limits (PAL) and the enforcement standards (ES)
of Ground Water Quality Standards (GWQS); (iii) spent foundry
sand met all parameters of ES, but it exceeds the PAL for lead and
chromium.
On the contrary, results shown by Deng and Tikalsky (2006)
indicated that waste foundry sand is not hazardous with high
confidence per metallic elements, and a leaching program is not

Table 8
Number of element observations (Deng and Tikalsky, 2006).

Elements Bulk TCLP leachates SPLP leachates ASTM D3987 leachates

Sand Dust Slag Sand Dust Slag Sand Dust Slag Sand Dust Slag

Ag 107 43 39 203 175 73 – – – – – –

Al 9 40 39 58 29 26 80 42 43 71 – 20
As 116 43 41 223 182 79 59 – – 74 – 23
B 50 40 35 – – – 48 42 35 – – –
Ba 111 43 40 232 184 80 59 27 30 72 – 22
Be 58 40 37 – – – – – – – – –
Ca 53 41 30 – – – – – – – – –
Cd 107 43 39 224 181 79 – – – 74 – 24
Cr 111 43 40 224 181 79 59 – 30 74 – 23
Cu 103 40 39 80 36 14 119 126 46 77 – 19
Fe 105 41 40 55 15 4 150 125 53 79 16 23
Hg 107 41 – 210 166 70 – – – 74 – 23
Mg 49 40 35 – – – – – – – – –
Mn 107 41 40 57 15 4 150 126 53 82 16 23
Mo 50 40 35 – – – 48 42 – – – –
Na – – – – – – – – – 12 – –
Ni 104 40 39 56 20 – 151 125 54 58 – –
Pb 109 43 40 224 183 79 59 – 30 68 – 23
Sb 55 40 36 – – – – – – – – –
Se 107 41 39 221 168 70 – – – 74 – 23
Si 18 12 12 – – – – – – – – –
Ti 55 40 36 – – – – – – – – –
V – – – – – – – – – 63 – 18
Zn 104 40 39 79 36 14 151 126 54 82 – 19
1034 R. Siddique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1027–1036

Table 9 istic of mean concentration regarding environmental monitoring

Concentration of barium in sand leachates by TCLP (Deng and Tikalsky, 2006).
data sets containing censored data impedes proper environmen-
Original observations (mg/L) Observed substitutions (mg/L) tal audit. In this case, if the regulated hazardous threshold for Ba
were 1.0 mg/L, it is not sound to assess average level of Barium
Quantified Censored To calculate upper To calculate lower
boundary boundary either hazardous or nonhazardous. They concluded that dust and
slag are more contaminated with most reported metallic elements
1.8 10 1.8 1.8
1.62 10 1.62 1.62 than sand. Metallic elements including B, Cd, Cu, Fe, Pb, and Zn in
0.7 1 0.7 0.7 dust have factors over 10 versus those in sand. Metallic elements
0.54 0.3 0.54 0.54 including Ba, Be, Mn, and Ti in slag have factors over 10 versus those
0.39 0.2 0.39 0.36 in sand. Fe in dust at average mass ratio of 16.7%, and Fe, Al, and
0.36 0.2 0.33 0.33
0.33 0.2 0.32 0.32
Mg in slag at average mass ratios of 9.99, 1.18, and 1.04%, respec-
0.32 – 0.31 0.31 tively, are relatively highly concentrated and thus to be considered
0.31 – 0.185 0.185 reclaimable.
0.185 – 0.115 0.115 Although dust and slag are more metallically contaminated than
0.115 – 0.0783 0.0783
sand, these three waste streams have similar levels of most metal-
0.0783 – 0.0251 0.0251
0.0251 – 10 0 lic elements in their leachates by TCLP, SPLP, and ASTM D3987,
– – 10 0 respectively. It is found, regarding mean concentrations of metallic
– – 1 0 elements, that leachates of sand, dust, and slag by three leach-
– – 0.3 0 ing protocols contain generally less than 1% of the concentrations
– – 0.2 0
measured in corresponding bulk waste streams, which indicates
– – 0.2 0
– – 0.2 0 that only a fraction of metallic elements can be extracted from
– – 0.2 0 as-received waste streams.
Ji et al. (2001) presented the chemical analysis and leaching
characteristics of waste foundry sand of four sand types (Green
mandatory in assessing whether sand is hazardous or not regarding sands, Furan/acid sand, Phenolic sands and silicate sands). It was
metallic elements. They collected and assessed one thousand one found that all spent/waste foundry sands contain PAH (poly aro-
hundred eighty two data sets addressing bulk and leaching charac- matic hydrocarbon) compounds. The PAHs in green sands are much
terization of up to 24 metallic elements in sand, dust, and slag using higher than those in chemical binder spent sands, even though
statistical methodologies. Only a fraction of metallic elements are phenolic/ester sands have higher PAHs than furan/acid and silicate
extracted from as-received waste streams. Through comparisons of sands (Table 10). The leached metals were very low in all waste
statistical parameters including estimated means, 95th percentiles foundry sands. The leached Cr increases with increasing pH of the
and data distributions, sand is found less contaminated by most eluted solution, which can be used in practice of shortening the
metallic elements than dust and slag, but metallic elements in sand leaching time of the waste foundry sands (Table 11).
leachate are in the similar levels as those in dust and slag leachates. Deng (2009) analyzed the leaching characteristics of WFS by
Fe, Zn, and Al are highly concentrated in dust and slag on average, three leaching protocols, namely, TCLP, SPLP and ASTM D3987. The
which suggests their potential reclamations. In this study, three estimations of mean, median and the 95th percentile of final pH
leaching protocols are involved across collected data sets including values and metallic chemicals in the WFS leachates are presented
TCLP, synthetic precipitation leaching procedure SPLP, and stan- in Table 12. TCLP and SPLP leachates are on average moderate
dard test method for shake extraction of solid waste with water acid, with final pH values between 5 and 7. According to the 95th
ASTM D3987. The number of element observations is provided percentiles, upper boundary indicators, all leachate streams had
in Table 8. An obstacle to using collected characterization data regulated metallic chemicals (Ag, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb and Se) well
sets is incompleteness of observations, or occurrence of censored below TCLP toxicity thresholds. According to the mean and median
data. Censored data represent those observations below instrument in Table 12, middle levels or most metallic chemicals in TCLP
reporting limits, and reported as limits. For example, in a series leachates are higher than those in SPLP or ASTM D3987 leachates by
of observations from aluminum-based facilities of Barium in sand varying factors up to 50, which was thought associated with TCLP
leachates by TCLP (Table 9), both quantified and censored data exist. was more aggressive than other two protocols.
There are seven censored observations reported in mg/L: 10, 10, 1, Dungan and Dees (2009) studied total metal concentrations in
0.3, 0.2, 0.2, and 0.2, below which actual concentrations exist. Using molding sands and the leached metals were assessed via TCLP, SPLP
the substitutions, the upper and lower boundaries of mean concen- and ASTM water leach test. They used TCLP to assess the leachability
tration of Barium in TCLP sand leachate are calculated as 1.7337 of other metals including Be, Cu, Ni, Sb and Zn. The vast majority of
and 0.3387 mg/L, respectively, while no point value but a range of molding sands were found to leach these metals at the levels below
mean concentration is determined. The unquantifiable character- the metal detection limits if 0.01, 0.10, 0.14, 0.02 and 0.41 mg/L,

Table 10
The chemical analysis results for different spent sand samples (mg/kg) (Ji et al., 2001).

Parameters Sand types

Green sands Furan/acid sands Phenolic/ester sands Silicate sands

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

pH 9.5 9.7 9.8 4.4 4.9 3.2 7.8 9.2 9.3 9.7 10.1
Free phenol 7 12 3 0.5 1.1 0.7 5 10 3 0.8 <0.05
Free formaldehyde <2 <2 <2 <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10 <1
PAHs 9.36 28.7 18.2 0.22 0.68 0.24 1.47 2.44 1.23 1.99 0.36
Diphenylmethanediisocyanate <1 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1 <1 <1 <1 NA
Isoforonediisocyanate <1 <1 <1 NA NA NA <1 <1 <1 <1 NA

NA—Not available.
 R. Siddique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1027–1036 1035

Table 11
The concentrations of leached metals in selected spent sands (mg/L) (Ji et al., 2001).

Sample number Sand type Silicate sands

Green sands Furan/acid sands Phenolic/ester sands 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

As 0.013 0.01 0.02 0.010 0.020 0.042 0.023 0.061 0.020 0.10 0.003
Ba 0.062 0.28 0.3 0.002 0.003 0.630 0.006 0.033 0.030 0.87 0.078
Cd 0.051 0.18 0.06 0.004 0.004 0.026 0.001 0.054 0.060 0.04 0.071
Cr 0.154 0.20 0.05 0.113 0.070 0.025 0.073 0.056 0.012 0.73 0.580
Pb 0.056 0.04 0.1 0.032 0.018 0.156 0.066 0.003 0.056 104 0.005
Hg (␮g/L) 0.189 0.10 0.2 0.219 0.200 0.520 0.154 0.434 0.200 0.01 0.320
Se 0.042 0.02 0.1 0.033 0.002 0.410 0.054 0.050 0.170 0.10 0.023
Ag 0.064 0.03 0.01 0.059 0.010 0.031 0.038 0.010 0.010 0.10 0.043
Cu 0.057 0.06 251 0.053 0.002 0.080 0.083 0.020 0.100 NA 0.070
Zn 0.084 0.10 0.21 0.074 0.140 0.542 0.034 0.040 0.200 75.00 0.004

NA—Not available.

Table 12
Estimation of mean, median and 95th percentile of final pH and metallic chemicals in WFS leachates (Deng, 2009).

Chemicals Mean (mg/L) Median (mg/L) 95 percentile (mg/L) TCLP toxicity

threshold (mg/L)
TCLP SPLP ASTM D3987 TCLP SPLP ASTM D3987 TCLP SPLP ASTM D3987

pH 6.48 6.24 8.27 5.1 6.1 8.9 4.7 2.4 4.6 –

Ag 0.004 – – 0.0006 – – 0.008 – – 5
Al 1.785 2.698 2.094 0.62 0.205 0.33 4.51 12 6.6 –
As 0.031 0.001 0.003 0.0572 – – 0.07 0.002 0.005 5
Ba 0.639 0.388 0.173 0.31 0.17 0.044 2.4 1.9 0.6 100
Cd 0.004 – 0.0003 0.018 – 0.0002 0.018 – 0.0004 1
Cr 0.042 0.002 0.0007 0.11 – 0.001 0.11 0.003 0.018 5
Cu 0.521 0.006 0.087 0.01 0.005 0.004 0.4 0.18 0.033 –
Fe 61.78 6.095 1.245 1.1 0.689 0.292 5750 30 5.02 –
Hg 0.0002 – 0.0002 – – 0.0002 0.00004 – 0.0003 0.2
Mn 1.009 0.215 0.061 0.095 0.009 0.0042 5.72 0.928 0.19 –
Na – – 15.043 – – 1.3 – – 56.3 –
Ni 0.183 0.029 0.006 0.025 0.06 0.0011 0.875 0.06 0.026 –
Pb 0.222 0.009 0.008 0.006 – 0.0037 0.66 0.02 0.018 5
Se 0.041 – 0.002 0.006 – 0.001 0.1 – 0.0026 1
Zn 1.006 0.264 0.177 0.28 0.06 0.03 5.29 084 0.41 –

respectively. In this study it was concluded that total metal con-
centrations in the majority of the waste molding sands were at the
low end of range measured in the agricultural soils. With the excep-
tions of few sands, only Co, Cu and Ni were above the range found
in the soils.
3. Conclusions
1. Waste foundry sand is waste material from foundries which
exhibits lower unit weight, higher water absorption and higher
percentage of void compared to regular sand.
2. Waste foundry sand could be conveniently used in making good
quality concrete, white ware bodies, construction materials, soil
amendments, flowable fills and embankment. Strength proper-
ties of concrete mixtures increase with the increase in foundry
sand content.
3. Waste foundry sand often demonstrate soil like qualities making
them potentially attractive components in manufactured soils
and useful for enhancing soil blend, physical and chemical prop-
erties.
4. Leachate is the liquid that drains or ‘leaches’ from industrial
waste or by-products which contain both dissolved and sus-
pended material. It may be characterized as a water-based
solution of four groups of contaminants; dissolved organic mat-
ter (alcohols, acids, aldehydes, short chain sugars, etc.), inorganic
macro components (common cations and anions including sul-
fate, chloride, Iron, aluminum, zinc and ammonia), heavy metals
(Pb, Ni, Cu and Hg) and xenobiotic organic compounds such as
halogenated organics.
5. Leachate can be analyzed by various leaching methods i.e. TCLP,
SPLP, shake extraction method (ASTM D3987), NEN 7343, NORD
TEST, 1995 and NEN 7341. TCLP is more aggressive leaching pro-
tocol and tends to yield more metallic chemicals than SPLP and
ASTM D3987 as results shown by Deng (2009).
6. It was found that all spent/waste foundry sands contain PAH
(poly aromatic hydrocarbon) compounds. The PAHs in green
sands are much higher than those in chemical binder spent
sands, even though phenolic/ester sands have higher PAHs than
furan/acid and silicate sands.
7. Results showed that TCLP extracts of used foundry sand without
any additives contain high concentrations of copper, lead and
zinc lead well over the regulatory limits for hazardous waste of
5 mg/L.
8. It also concluded that WFS contains little organics; leachate
derived from each material was analyzed for inorganic con-
stituents in accordance with WDNR requirements. Clean foundry
sand met both the WDNR preventive action limits and the
enforcement standards of Ground Water Quality Standards
(GWQS but spent foundry sand met all parameters of ES, but
it exceeds the PAL for lead and chromium.
References
ASTM D-4874. Standard test method for leaching solid in a column apparatus. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards; 1995. 11.04.
p. 78–84.
Abichou T, Edil TB, Benson CH, Bahia H. Beneficial use of foundry by-products in
highway construction. In: Geotechnical Engineering for transportation projects.
Geotechnical Special Publications, ASCE, Reston, vol. 126; 2004. p. 715–22.
1036 R. Siddique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1027–1036
American Foundry men’s Society. Alternative utilization of foundry waste sand. Fin
Report (Phase I) prepared by American Foundry men’s Society Inc. for Illinois
Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, Des Plaines, Illinois; 1991.
Bakis R, Koyuncu H, Demirbas A. An investigation of waste foundry sand in asphalt
concrete mixtures. Waste Management Research 2006;24:269–74.
Bhat ST, Lovell S C.W. Design of flowable fill: waste foundry sand as a fine aggregate.
Transportation Research Record 1996;1546:70–8.
Braganca SR, Vicenzi J, Guerino K, Bergmann CP. Recyling of iron foundry sand and
glass waste as raw material for production of whiteware. Waste Management
2006;24:60–6.
Carey PR, Sturtz G. Sand binder systems part IV urethane binders. Foundry Manage-
ment and Technology 1995;123:25–9.
Dalverny LE, Chaiken RF, Kim AG, Manns CR. Pyrite leaching from coal and coal waste,
vol. 9629. U.S. Department of Energy; 1996. p. 31, Report of Investigations.
Dayton EA, Whitacre SD, Dungan RS, Basta NT. Characterization of physical and
chemical properties of spent foundry sands pertinent to beneficial use in man-
ufactured soils. Plant Soil 2010;329:27–33.
Deng A, Tikalsky PJ. Metallic characterization of foundry by-products per
waste streams and leaching protocols. Journal of Environmental Engineering
2006;136(6):586–96.
Deng A, Tikalsky PJ. Geotechnical leaching properties of flowable fill incorporating
waste foundry sand. Waste Management 2008;28:2161–70.
Deng A. Contaminants in waste foundry sand and its leachate. Internatinal Jounal of
Environment and Pollution 2009.
Douglas SK. Toxicity charactristic leaching procedure and iron treatment of brass
foundry waste. Environmental Science and Technology 2003;37:367–71.
Dungan RS, Dees NH. The characterization of total and leachable metals in foundry
sands. Journal of Environmental Management 2009;90:539–48.
Engroff EC, Fero EL, Ham, RK, Boyle WC. Laboratory leachings of organic compounds in
ferrous foundry process waste. Final Report to American Foundry men’s Society,
Des Plaines, Ill, USA; 1989.
Environmental Protection Agency. Back document for proposed CPG III and draft RMAN
III. EPA Report EPA530-R-98-003; 1998.
Fero RL, Ham RK, Boyle WC. An investigation of ground water contamination by organic
compounds leached from iron foundry solid wastes. Final Report to American
Foundrymen’s Society, Des Plaines, Ill, USA; 1986.
Fiore S, Zanetti MC. Foundry wastes reuse and recycling in concrete production.
American Journal of Environmental Sciences 2007;3(3):135–42.
Federal Highway Administration. User guidelines for waste and by-product materi-
als in pavement construction. Federal Highway Administration, Turner-Fairbank
Highway Research Center; 1998.
FHA, Federal Highway Administration. United States Department of Transportation,
Foundry Sand facts for Civil Engineers, Report No. FHWA-IF-04-004, USA, 80;
2004.
Goodhue MJ, Edil TB, Benson CH. Interaction of foundry sands with geosynthetics.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2001;127:353–62.
Hageman PL, Briggs PH. A simple field leach for rapid screening and qualitative
characterization of mine-waste dump material on abandoned mine lands. In:
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, vol. 2;
2000. p. 1463–76.
Ham RK, Boyle WC, Blaha FJ. Comparison of leachate quality in foundry waste land-
fills to leach test abstracts. Journal of Hazardous and Industrial Solid Waste
Testing and Disposal 1990;6:29–44.
Han YS, Lee JY, Miller CJ, Franklin L. Characterization of humic substances in landfill
leachate and impact on the hydraulic conductivity of geosynthetic clay liners.
Waste Management & Research 2009;27(3):233–41.
Hassett DJ. Scientifically valid leaching of coal conversion of solid residues to predict
environmental impact. Fuel Processing Technology 1994;39:445–59.
Henry J, Heinke G. Environmental science and engineering. Prentice Hall; 1996, ISBN
0-13-120650-8.
Javed S, Lovell CW. Use of foundry sand in highway construction. Joint Highway Report
No. C-36-50N. Indiana, USA: Department of Civil Engineering, Purdue Univer-
sity; 1994.
Ji S, Wan L, Fan Z. The toxic compounds and leaching characteristics of spent foundry
sands. Water Air and Soil Pollution 2001;132:347–64.
Johnson CK. Phenols in foundry waste sand modern casting. American Foundrymen’s
Society; 1981.
Khatib JM, Ellis DJ. Mechanical properties of concrete containing foundry sand. ACI
Special Publication, vol. 200; 2001. p. 733–48.
Kjeldensen P, Barlaz MA, Rooker AP, Baun A, Ledin A, Christensen TH. Present and
long term composition of MSW leachate—a review. Critical Reviews in Environ-
mental Science and Technology 2002;32(4):297–336.
Kleven JR, Edil TB, Benson CH. Evaluation of excess foundry system sands for use as
sub-base material. Transportation Research Record 2000;1714:40–8.
Mast DG, Fox PJ. Geotechnical performance of a highway embankment contructed
using waste foundry sand. In: Recycled materials in geotechnical applications.
Geotechnical Special Publications. ASCE, Reston, vol. 79; 1998. p. 66–85.
MNR, Mineral aggregate conservation. Reuse and recycling. Report prepared by
John Emery Geotechnical Engineering Limited for Aggregate and Petroleum
Resources Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen’s Printer for
Ontario; 1992.
MOEE, Spent foundry sand. Alternative uses study. Report prepared by John Emery
Geotechnical Engineering Limited for Ontario Ministry of the Environment and
Energy and the Canadian Foundry Association, Queen’s Printer for Ontario; 1993.
Naik TR, Singh SS, Ramme WB. Performance and leaching assessment of flowable
slurry. Journal of Environmental Engineering 2001;127(4):359–68.
Naik TR, Kraus RN, Chun YM, Ramme WB, Singh SS. Properties of field manufactured
cast-concrete products utilizing recycled materials. Journals of Materials in Civil
Engineering 2003;15(4):400–7.
Naik TR, Kraus RN, Chun YM, Ramme WB, Siddique. Precast concrete products using
industrial by-products. ACI Materials Journal 2004;101(3):199–206.
NEN 7343. Leaching characteristics of building and solid waste material, leaching tests,
determination of the leaching of inorganic components from granular materials with
the column test. Netherlands Normalization Institute: Delft; 1995.
NORD TEST. Solid Waste, Granular Inorganic Material: Column Test. Nordtest Method
NT ENVIR 002, Espoo, Finland; 1995.
NEN 7341. Determination of the leaching behavior of granular materials: availability
test. Delft: Netherlands Normalization Institute; 1993.
Poon CS, Chen ZQ, Wai OWH. The effect of flow-through leaching on the diffusivity
of heavy metals in stabilized/solidified wastes. Journal of Hazardous Materials
2001;81:179–92.
Siddique R, Gupta R, Kaur I. Effect of spent foundry sand as partial replacement of
fine aggregate on the properties of concrete. In: 22nd International Conference
on Solid Waste Technology and Management; 2007.
Van der Sloot HA. Quick techniques for evaluating the leaching properties of waste
materials: their relation to decisions on utilization and disposal. Trends in Ana-
lytical Chemistry 1998;17:298–310.
Vipulanandan C, Weng Y, Zhang C. Designing flowable grout mixes using foundry
sand, clay and fly ash. Advances in Grouting Modification, Geotechnical Special
Publications. ASCE, vol. 104, Reston; 2000. p. 215–33.
Winkler ES, Kosanovic B, Genovese T, Roth I. A survey of foundry participation in
the Massachusetts beneficial use determination process. MA: Chelsea Centre
for Recycling and Economic Development, University of Massachusetts; 1999.
Winkler ES, Bol’shakov AA. Characterization of foundry sand waste. MA: Chelsea
Centre for Recycling and Economic Development, University of Massachusetts;
2000.