Applied Thermal Engineering 93 (2016) 131–138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a p t h e r m e n g

Research Paper

Thermal treatment of soil co-contaminated with lube oil and heavy

metals in a low-temperature two-stage fluidized bed incinerator
Ukrit Samaksaman a, Tzu-Huan Peng a, Jia-Hong Kuo b, Chien-Hsing Lu a, Ming-Yen Wey a,*
a Department of Environmental Engineering, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung 402, Taiwan
b
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangdong 510006, China

H I G H L I G H T S

• Low-temperature two-stage fluidized bed incineration was applied for soil remediation.
• Co-firing of polyethylene with co-contaminated soil was studied.
• Co-firing of polyethylene in soil remediation can promote residue quality.
• The leachability of heavy metals passed the regulatory threshold values.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This study presents the application of a low-temperature two-stage fluidized bed incinerator to remediate
Received 22 May 2015 contaminants in the soil. The system was designed to control emissions of both gaseous pollutants and
Accepted 4 September 2015 heavy metals during combustion. Soil co-contaminated with lube oil and heavy metals such as cadmium,
Available online 9 October 2015
chromium, copper, and lead was examined. Experiments were conducted by estimating various param-
eters such as operating temperature in the first-stage reactor (500–700 °C), ratio of sand bed height/
Keywords:
diameter in the second-stage reactor (H/D: 3, 4, 6), and gas velocity (0.21–0.29 m/s). Heavy metal and
Co-contaminated soil
gaseous pollutant emissions were also investigated during contaminated soil co-firing with polyethyl-
Co-firing
Incineration ene. The experimental results indicated that the destruction and removal efficiency of lube oil in treated
Low-temperature two-stage fluidized bed soil products ranged from 98.27 to 99.93%. On the other hand, leaching tests of bottom ashes illustrated
Thermal treatment that heavy metals such as chromium, copper, and lead in leachates were complied with the regulations.
For gaseous emissions, carbon monoxide concentrations decreased apparently with increasing ratio of
sand bed height/diameter in the second-stage reactor. The increase of gas velocity had significant po-
tential to generate the lowest carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions. Nevertheless, during
co-firing with polyethylene, emissions of organic pollutants such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons decrease by using the low-temperature two-stage fluid-
ized bed incineration system.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Soils contaminated with hazardous chemicals such as petro-
leum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, herbicides, and
heavy metals pose a threat to the environment and can be a public
health issue [1–3]. The coexistence of high levels of petroleum hy-
drocarbons (heavy and light oils, e.g., crude oil, lubricants, fuel oil,
diesel, and gasoline) and heavy metals (arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd),
chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), and
zinc (Zn)) has been detected [3–8]. These contaminated soils are
found in areas affected by accident spills and leaks from gas stations
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 4 22840441 ext. 533; Fax: +886 4 22862587.
E-mail address: mywey@dragon.nchu.edu.tw (M.-Y. Wey).
and storage tanks, refinery wastes, industrialized zones, former train
stations and railroads, former landfills, and mining sites [9–12].
Although a number of soil remediation technologies have been
developed, thermal treatment is a feasible technology due to
common method and effectively removes contaminants [10,13].
Thermal treatment technologies such as thermal desorption, in-
cineration, pyrolysis, gasification, vitrification, supercritical water
oxidation, and wet-air oxidation have been used for soil remediation
[14–16]. Application of incineration technology can effectively
destroy hazardous organic substances and immobilize heavy metals
[17–19]. Fluidized bed incinerators are considered as a beneficial
treatment of low-calorific value materials such as sewage sludge
and contaminated soil [20–22]. The high degree of heat and mass
transfers in fluidized bed is associated with rapid solid mixing and
uniform combustion [23,24]. Fluidized bed combustor can also be

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.09.024
1359-4311/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
132 U. Samaksaman et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 93 (2016) 131–138

used for mono-firing or co-firing of oil-sludge [25,26]. However, some Table 1

studies have been done in combustion of oil sludge or oil residues The chemical composition of the soil.

and it could results in pollutant emissions [23–27]. Those un- Element (wt. %) Value Composition (%) Value
wanted pollutants including gaseous pollutants, heavy metals, trace Si 36.9 SiO2 79.1
elements, and particulate matter emitted from the combustion Al 3.25 Al2O3 6.1
process must be properly controlled [28–31]. Ca 0.22 CaO 0.3
In general, thermal treatment of contaminated soils requires ex- Fe 1.66 Fe2O3 2.4
Na 0.72 Na2O 0.6
ternal heat sources from electricity or fuels, to maintain the operating Mg 0.32 MgO 0.5
temperature. Bethge et al. [32] reports that soils contaminated with S ND K2O 1.6
petroleum hydrocarbons could be economically utilized through co- K 1.29 Other 9.4
firing (co-combustion) with coal in a heating power plant. In this P ND Total 100.0
Ti 0.29
regard, co-firing of contaminated soils with municipal solid waste
(MSW) in an incineration plant is a relatively new technology. Thus, ND = Not detected.
co-firing can be interesting in this field and requires further study.
Heat from combustion of MSW can provide sufficient energy to vola-
tilize organic substances and release inorganic substances without 2. Materials and methods
using auxiliary fuels [33–36]. Nevertheless, when applied to the co-
existence of high levels of hazardous chemicals contaminated soil 2.1. Preparation of artificial CCS and PE/CCS
or co-contaminated soil (CCS), with respected to the co-firing of CCS
and MSW, handling of the released pollutant emissions is limited. The soil (sandy–clay–loam soil) from an area in Taichung city,
A low-temperature two-stage fluidized bed (LTTSFB) incinera- Taiwan, was used in this study. After air drying at room tempera-
tion was developed and used to control emission of unwanted ture, coarse-sized gravels and unwanted materials such as plants
gaseous pollutants and heavy metals during thermal treatment. and debris were removed. The soil was crushed, homogenized, and
Peng et al. [37] reports that the LTTSFB system could operate at sized-fractioned. The soil particle sizes were selected in range of
low combustion temperatures varied from 400 to 700 °C. The results 53–300 μm and 75 μm of their average (investigated by sieve anal-
showed that the sand bed effectively controlled heavy metals emis- ysis). The soil was artificially contaminated with a binary mixture
sion in the low-temperature environment of the first-stage reactor. of lube oil (Yamaha SAE 85W-140 G-130) and nitrates of Cd (II), Cr
Although the amount of organic pollutants and carbon monoxide (III), Cu (II), and Pb (II). These four heavy metals (0.15 wt. %, by weight
(CO) was significantly increased, they were destroyed and reduced of soil) were diluted in 250 mL of deionized water. Under a fume
by high-temperatures (800–1000 °C) at the secondary-stage of com- hood, 1 kg of soil was added to the mixture. The heavy metals con-
bustion zone, respectively. Moreover, previous studies indicated taminated soil was dried in a vacuum drying oven at 110 °C for 48 h.
that the effects of experimental parameters such as operating tem- Subsequently, lube oil (5 wt. %) was diluted in dichloromethane
perature in the first-stage reactor, gas velocity, the particle size of (DCM) in a 5:1 ratio, mixed with heavy metals-contaminated soil,
the sand bed, and the height of the sand bed in the second-stage and dried overnight in a vacuum drying oven at 75 °C. The CCS was
reactor can affect pollutant emissions [38,39]. In addition, emis- kept in an enclosed plastic bag for 2 weeks prior to the tests. CCS
sions of organic and inorganic pollutants could be reduced in the sample contains on average 1435 mg/kg of Cd, 1326 mg/kg of Cr,
LTTSFB system compared with that in the typical high-temperature 1212 mg/kg of Cr, and 1256 mg/kg of Pb and approximately 50 g/kg
one-stage fluidized bed reactor [37]. Remediation of CCS using a of lube oil. PE/CCS was prepared by enclosing 1.5 g of the CCS in a
traditional fluidized bed combustor has been reported [40]. Al- PE bag (0.28 g) and was covered with a PE tape (0.1 g).
though this process could promote the destruction and removal
efficiency of petroleum hydrocarbons (lube oil) in treated soils, 2.2. Properties of materials
but emissions of organic pollutants (e.g. BTEX, PAHs), particulate
matter, and heavy metals may not be considerably reduced. Ac- The chemical composition of soil sample was examined by in-
cordingly, the use of LTTSFB incinerator for remediating contaminated ductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (Jarrell ash
soils might achieve many objectives such as high efficiency of ICAP 9000). The results are shown in Table 1. An elemental ana-
combustion, heavy metal immobilization in ash matrix, and lower lyzer (Elementar vario EL III) was used to identify elements in the
emissions. materials such as carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O),
In this study, the proposed procedure can be applied for soil and sulfur (S). Results from ultimate and proximate analyses of ma-
remediation through thermal treatment based on the feasibility of terials are shown in Table 2. Thermogravimetric analysis/differential
co-firing with general wastes. The use of an LTTSFB incinerator is scanning calorimeter (TGA/DSC) (PerkinElmer STA-600) was
believed to be a feasible treatment strategy. Accordingly, this study
aimed to remediate soil polluted with lube oil and heavy metals (Cd,
Table 2
Cr, Cu, and Pb) using a pilot-scale LTTSFB incinerator. Parameters The results of ultimate and proximate analyses of CCS, PE, and PE/CCS.
evaluated included operating temperature in the first-stage reactor,
Properties CCSa PE PE/CCS
ratio of sand bed height/diameter (H/D) in the second-stage reactor,
and gas velocity. Plastic waste was used as a supplement fuel in co- Ultimate analysis (wt. %)
C 5.18 85.60 25.24
firing. Polyethylene (PE) was used as artificial plastic waste in blends
N 0.34 0.90 0.22
of PE and CCS (PE/CCS). Emissions of particulate matter, CO, BTEX, H 0.65 13.02 3.96
and PAHs during combustion were also in consideration. The de- O 3.93 0.48 3.43
struction and removal efficiency (DRE) of lube oil from the treated S ND ND ND
Proximate analysis (%)
soil was studied through the loss on ignition (LOI) analysis. More-
Moisture 0.2 0.08 0.1
over, the leachability of heavy metals in bottom ash and particulate Volatile matter 7.4 99.9 21.4
matter was further investigated. The experimental results of the ap- Fixed carbon 0.3 ND 1.3
plication of LTTSFB for soil thermal treatment can be used as Ash 92.1 0.02 77.2
references for those studying about the operation of fluidized bed ND = Not detected.
combustors. a The results referred from a previous study [40].
 U. Samaksaman et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 93 (2016) 131–138 133

The particle size of the sand bed used in FBR1 and FBR2 were 545
and 920 μm, respectively. In addition, a gas velocity of 0.21 m/s was
set as the minimum fluidization velocity (Umf) which defined by cal-
culation and referred by the experiments.
Thermal treatment of CCS was made under different operating
temperatures of 500, 600, and 700 °C in the FBR1. The FBR2 was fixed
at a constant temperature of 800 °C. In addition, the tests of PE/
CCS co-firing process were fixed at constant temperatures of 600
and 800 °C (in FBR1 and FBR2), respectively. The study was con-
ducted by estimating different ratios of H/D of 3, 4, and 6 (sand bed
weights: 550, 660, and 990 g, respectively) in FBR2. Gas velocities
were at 0.21, 0.24, 0.27, and 0.29 m/s. For thermal treatment of CCS,
the feeding rate of CCS was 6 g/min while PE/CCS co-firing process
was 1.5 g/min for PE and 6 g/min for the CCS. Details of the exper-
iment are shown in Table 3. CO was monitored online via multi-
gas analyzers (Horiba PG-250). The operating time was 40 min. The
experiment was performed in duplicate to ensure reproducibility
of the tests. Bottom ash (including sand bed and treated soil) samples
from both FBR1 and FBR2 were collected when reactors were cooled
to room temperature.

2.4. Sampling and analysis

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a low-temperature two-stage fluidized bed (LTTSFB)
incinerator; (1) PID controller, (2) blower, (3) flow meter, (4) thermocouple, (5) pres-
sure transducer, (6) first-stage reactor, (7) second-stage reactor, (8) cooling jacket,
(9) feeding valve, (10) ash sampler, (11) gas sampler, (12) data acquisition system,
(13) monitor and data recorder.
employed to evaluate the effect of temperature. CCS, PE, and PE/
CCS samples were analyzed under the following temperature
program. It was increased from 105 to 800 °C at 15 °C/min under
atmospheric air at a flow rate of 20 mL/min.
2.3. LTTSFB incinerator and experimental procedure
Fig. 1 is a schematic illustration of the LTTSFB incinerator used
in this study. The incinerator consists of a first-stage fluidized bed
reactor (FBR1) and a second-stage fluidized bed reactor (FBR2). The
corresponding heights of FBR1 and FBR2 were 670 and 1400 mm
while their internal diameter was 60 mm. Both reactors were
equipped with electric heaters. Distributors were installed at the
bottom of reactors. Thermocouples were used to measure the tem-
peratures of the sand bed and freeboard. A proportional integral
derivative (PID) controller was setup to control the setting temper-
ature. Pressure detectors and pressure transmitters (Huba Control
692) were connected. Pressure signals were recorded using the data
acquisition system (ADVANTECH PC LabCard PCL-711S and VisiDAQ
Professional Version 3.1). Sand with a density of 2600 kg/m3 was
selected. The sand bed weight in FBR1 was 330 g for all experiments.
Particle and gaseous pollutant emissions were collected from
exhaust pipes of the two reactors using an isokinetic sampling pro-
cedure. Glass microfiber filters (Whatman GF/A 47 mm) were used
for collecting fly ash particles which were sampled every 10 min.
Masses of the filters were measured before and after the tests. The
heavy metal sampling trains were connected according to the U.S.
EPA method 5 [41]. Gas-phase BTEX and PAH emissions (sampled
every 10 min) were obtained using an Amberlite XAD-4 absor-
bent (Fluka) following the U.S. EPA modified method 5 [42]. After
sampling, the XAD-4 samples were stored in a low-temperature en-
vironment (~4 °C). The XAD-4 and bottom ash were extracted using
a Soxhlet extraction procedure which comprised a mixture of
hexane:DCM (1:1, v/v) and was concentrated using a Kuderna–
Denish apparatus. Gas chromatography with a flame ionization
detector (Agilent 6890N) was used to quantify BTEX and PAHs.
Details of sampling and analysis methods could be referred to pre-
vious studies [40,43,44].
The toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) was per-
formed to evaluate the leachability of heavy metals from bottom
ash and particulate matter (fly ash) samples. Ash samples were mixed
with 0.1 N acetic acid solution at a dilution ratio of 1 g of sample
weight to 20 mL of solution. The sample was shaken for 24 h and a
cellulose nitrate filter was used for filtration. The TCLP solutions were
analyzed using flame atomic absorption spectroscopy (PerkinElmer
AAnalyst 100). The calibration curves of Cd, Cr, Cu, and Pb were de-
termined using five concentrations of metal nitrate solution (J.T.
Baker). The coefficients of determination (R2) ranged from 0.995 to

Table 3
Operating parameters and the results of CO emission and the DRE of lube oil.

Test Temperature (°C) H/D ratio Gas velocity (m/s) CCS (g/min) PE (g/min) CO (ppm) LOIa (%) DRE (%)

FBR1 FBR2 FBR1 FBR2 FBR1 FBR2

1 500 800 2 4 0.27 6 0 1133 6 0.033 99.40

2 600 800 2 4 0.27 6 0 262 2 0.019 99.65
3 700 800 2 4 0.27 6 0 185 2 0.008 99.85
4 600 800 2 3 0.27 6 1.5 >5000 995 0.095 98.27
5 600 800 2 4 0.27 6 1.5 >5000 326 0.038 99.31
6 600 800 2 6 0.27 6 1.5 4015 32 0.028 99.49
7 600 800 2 6 0.21 6 1.5 >5000 142 0.022 99.60
8 600 800 2 6 0.24 6 1.5 >5000 10 0.004 99.93
9 600 800 2 6 0.27 6 1.5 4015 32 0.028 99.49
10 600 800 2 6 0.29 6 1.5 3057 181 0.029 99.47
a Total organic carbon was studied trough the loss on ignition (LOI) analysis.
134 U. Samaksaman et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 93 (2016) 131–138

0.999. In addition, LOI method was conducted at 600 °C for 4 h under
ambient condition to investigate total organic material remaining
in the treated soil and residues. Total organic carbon content (TOC)
was determined using a previously described procedure [45]. DRE
of lube oil was calculated as follows: DRE (%) = ((TOCCCS − TOCBA)/
TOCCCS) × 100%, where TOCCCS is the total organic carbon of CCS and
TOCBA is the total organic carbon of bottom ash.
devolatilization of organic substances and lube oil. Above 450 °C,
a gradually change in the weight loss caused by PE destruction was
observed. Fig. 2(b), two points of derivative weight loss changed ap-
parently within a curve of thermal analysis of the blended PE/CCS.
3.2. Emission of organic pollutants (BTEX and PAH) during thermal
treatment in a LTTSFB

3. Results and discussion
3.1. Thermal analysis of artificial wastes by TGA/DSC
Fig. 2 illustrates the effect of temperature on weight loss and de-
rivative weight loss among CCS, PE, and PE/CCS. Fig. 2(a), the CCS
curve gradually decreased from 145 °C due to organic substances
in soil [46,47] while lube oil (hydrocarbons) was devolatilized from
the soil matrix at temperatures higher than 360 °C. The final tem-
perature reached a stable level after 500 °C. The temperature profile
of PE demonstrated that degradation started from 350 to 425 °C.
Devolatilization of the PE structure during thermal cracking re-
vealed that the ignition temperature significantly changed the curve
(the vertical axis shows a nearly 100% slope). The ignition temper-
ature was found to be in range of 450–475 °C. The curve remained
constant after the final temperature of 500 °C. In addition, the tem-
perature profile of the blended PE/CCS was similar to those of
CCS and PE. Initially, the gradually changed curve indicated
Fig. 3(a), the experimental results demonstrated that concen-
trations of BTEX and PAHs in the gaseous phase were lower in PE/
CCS co-firing than in CCS thermal treatment. The addition of PE
influences combustion efficiency which results a reduction of emis-
sion concentration of organic pollutants. Moreover, Fig. 3(b) indicates
that PAH concentration in bottom ash decreased when PE was added
whereas BTEX concentration slightly increased. The estimated con-
centrations of BTEX and PAHs generated from both gaseous phase
and bottom ash in the PE/CCS co-firing were lower than those under
thermal treatment of CCS. Fig. 4(a) confirms that BTEX and PAHs
in the gaseous phase significantly decreased in the FBR2 (at a con-
stant temperature of 800 °C). The destruction efficiency of BTEX and
PAHs was 88.78 and 87.51%, respectively. Similar observations were
found in a previous study, in which the destruction efficiency of BTEX
and PAHs in the gaseous phase was controlled within the range of
70–76% [39]. In order to evaluate organic pollutants remained in
bottom ash, concentrations of BTEX and PAHs were examined.
Fig. 4(b), the experimental results indicated that remaining organic

Fig. 2. TGA/DSC profiles of CCS, PE, and PE/CCS: (a) weight loss and (b) derivative weight loss.

Fig. 3. BTEX and PAH emitted from thermal treatment of CCS and co-firing of PE/CCS; (a) gaseous phase and (b) bottom ash.
 U. Samaksaman et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 93 (2016) 131–138 135

Fig. 4. BTEX and PAH emitted from FBR1 and FBR2; (a) gaseous phase and (b) bottom ash.

pollutants in bottom ashes were low in both FBR1 and FBR2. Con- CO was possibly involved in the complete combustion. Moreover,
centrations of BTEX and PAHs were 0.26 and 0.78 mg/kg of FBR1 particulate matter may be captured by sand bed in the FBR2. The
while results of FBR2 were 0.18 and 0.19 mg/kg, respectively. collection mechanisms involved many factors, such as intercep-
tion, internal impaction, diffusion, gravitational settling, electrostatic
3.3. Effect of operating temperature on thermal treatment of CCS attraction, and thermophoretic force [48,49]. The results of partic-
ulate matter emission are shown in Fig. 6(a). In this study, the
Table 3 (tests 1–3) presents the results of thermal treatment of collected ashes were presented in average values of 1.10–1.27 g/Nm3
CCS in the LTTSFB system. Incineration tests were performed re- in the FBR2. The effect of H/D influenced fluidization behavior due
spectively at H/D ratios of 2 (weight 330 g) in the FBR1 and 4 (weight to the amount and height of sand beds are changed. It affected not
660 g) in the FBR2 at a constant gas velocity of 0.27 m/s under various only the hydrodynamics fluidization behaviors but also the gener-
operating temperatures (500, 600, and 700 °C) in the FBR1. CO con- ation of pollutants. A constant gas velocity of 0.27 m/s was used.
centrations decreased from 1183 to 185 ppm when the operating Thus, the study results suggested that gas velocity could be a cor-
temperature of the FBR1 increased from 500 to 700 °C. CO concen- related factor that should be carefully considered in future
trations were relatively stable with average values of 2–6 ppm after experiments.
passing through the FBR2. These findings indicated that the oper-
ating temperature for thermal treatment of CCS slightly affected CO
emission in the FBR1 while the FBR2 could remarkably reduce CO
emission. The DRE of lube oil in the treated soil products (tests 1–3)
decreased the percentage of LOI under various operating tempera-
tures. The corresponding results of the DRE of lube oil increased
from 99.40 to 99.85% compared with the LOI results from a previ-
ous study in which the DRE of lube oil ranged from 87.95 to 92.16%
[40]. Fig. 5 illustrates the results of particulate matter emitted from
the FBR1 and FBR2. Particulate matter emitted from the FBR1 de-
creased when the operating temperature increased while those
emitted from the FBR2 did not change significantly. In addition, the
emission of particulate matter from thermal treatment (1.14 g/Nm3)
of CCS was higher than that of MSW (0.07 g/Nm3) as reported in a
previous study on the use of LTTSFB incineration [39].

3.4. Effect of H/D ratio on co-firing of PE/CCS

Table 3 (tests 4–6) shows CO concentrations from PE/CCS co-

firing. CO concentrations generated at the FBR1 exhaust pipe ranged
from 4015 to >5000 ppm. The amount of CO in gaseous phase pro-
duced by co-firing of PE/CCS was higher than that obtained by
thermal treatment of CCS, even under similar operating condi-
tions. In the FBR2, the effect of H/D ratio on controlling CO emission
was determined. Results indicated that the increase in H/D ratio from
3 (550 g) to 6 (990 g) influenced CO emission in the FBR2 while the
CO concentrations decreased from 995 to 32 ppm. The increase in
H/D ratio enhanced the residence time of gases in the FBR2. Thus, Fig. 5. Particulate matter (fly ash) emitted from thermal treatment of CCS.
136 U. Samaksaman et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 93 (2016) 131–138

Fig. 6. Particulate matter (fly ash) emitted from co-firing of PE/CCS; (a) effect of H/D ratio in the FBR2 and (b) effect of gas velocity.

3.5. Effect of gas velocity on co-firing of PE/CCS
As gas velocity is a direct factor that reveals the hydrodynamics
behaviors of the sand bed in the LTTSFB system. The effect of gas
velocity on flue gas and particulate matter emissions from the LTTSFB
reactor during co-firing of PE/CCS was evaluated. Table 3 (tests 7–10)
lists the results of CO concentrations under various gas velocity con-
ditions (0.21, 0.24, 0.27, and 0.29 m/s). In fact, the range of gas velocity
from 0.24 to 0.27 m/s was adequate for regimes of fluidization and
combustion in the LTTSFB system which generated low emissions.
Under Umf condition (0.21 m/s), the presence of less sand bed mo-
tivation in reactors resulted in the highest CO emission in exhaust
pipe of the FBR1. A low degree of mass and heat transfers occurred
in both reactors with low pressure drops which were observed
through monitoring with the data acquisition system. Moreover, black
particles, soot, and char were observed on the glass-filters of the
sampling train. The operation of a fluidized bed reactor at Umf was
with soil particles and particle aggregation [51,52]. There was no
significant change in the Cr concentration of both thermally treated
CCS and co-fired PE/CCS. The Cr leachate was not detected during
the experiments because of its low water solubility [53]. Hence,
leaching rates of heavy metals (Cr, Cu, and Pb) were within the reg-
ulatory threshold except for Cd. The TCLP results of particulate matter
(Ash2) from the FBR2 showed that Cd leaching rate was signifi-
cantly high in both thermally treated CCS (2.12–4.42 mg/L) and co-
fired PE/CCS (0.99–4.71 mg/L) as shown in Table 5. However, the Cr
leachate of fly ash was not detected during the experiments. For
co-fired PE/CCS, the amounts of Cu and Pb leachates were lower than
those in thermally treated CCS. The addition of PE possibly enhanced
Table 4
The contamination and leachability of heavy metals from soils and the regulatory
threshold values.

reported to generate high flue gas and unwanted pollutants (emis- Item Contamination (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L)
sions) during combustion of artificial MSW [50]. On the other hand, Cd Cr Cu Pb Cd Cr Cu Pb
Fig. 6(b) illustrates particulates emitted from the FBR1 and FBR2 under a
Limitation 10 175 200 1000 1 5 15 5
various gas velocities. Particulate matter in the FBR1 decreased from Soil ND 40.67 13.25 32.47 ND ND ND ND
4.09 to 2.60 g/Nm3 when the gas velocity increased. Particulate matter CCS 1435 1326 1212 1256 94.86 10.25 74.74 47.11
in the FBR2 showed the lowest value (0.35 g/Nm3) at a gas velocity
ND = Not detected.
of 0.24 m/s. General, the lowest CO concentration and particulate a
The limit values set by Taiwan-EPA guidelines.
emissions, as well as the LOI test corresponding with the DRE of
lube oil, were optimized at a gas velocity of 0.24 m/s with H/D ratios
of 2 and 6 in the FBR1 and FBR2, respectively. Table 5
Summary of heavy metals leachability in bottom ash and particulate samples.

3.6. Leaching characteristics of ash samples Test TCLP (mg/L)

Cd Cr Cu Pb
In this study, the TCLP was used as a reference method to eval-
Ash1a Ash2b Ash1 Ash2 Ash1 Ash2 Ash1 Ash2
uate the leachability of heavy metals. Cd, Cr, Cu, and Pb contents
in the leachates obtained from the soil and untreated CCS, as well 1 3.79 2.73 ND ND 1.93 ND 2.38 1.25
2 5.26 2.12 ND ND 1.89 ND 4.06 0.88
as the limitation values established by the Taiwan Environmental
3 3.77 4.42 ND ND 1.12 0.45 2.42 1.62
Protection Administration (EPA) regulations are given in Table 4. The 4 2.81 4.71 ND ND 0.76 0.27 2.70 ND
amount of Cd, Cr, Cu, and Pb leached from the untreated CCS were 5 3.32 0.99 ND ND 1.71 ND 3.61 ND
94.86, 10.25, 74.74, and 47.11 mg/L, respectively. The values ex- 6 2.63 1.74 ND ND 1.60 ND 1.72 ND
7 3.15 2.03 ND ND 1.83 0.19 3.06 ND
ceeded regulatory thresholds. In Table 5 (tests 1–3 and 4–10), thermal
8 3.53 2.08 ND ND 1.37 ND 2.31 ND
treatment of CCS and co-firing of PE/CCS were compared. For bottom 9 2.63 1.74 ND ND 1.60 ND 1.72 ND
ash samples (Ash1), the TCLP results showed that leaching rates of 10 2.91 2.50 ND ND 1.86 0.51 2.09 ND
Cd, Cu, and Pb were slightly decreased when PE was added. Results ND = Not detected.
indicated that PE co-firing with CCS enhanced the immobilization a
Bottom ash collected from the FBR1.
of heavy metals which was revealed in the bed material sintered b Particulate matter (fly ash) collected from the FBR2.
 U. Samaksaman et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 93 (2016) 131–138
the combustion, which governs the transformation of Cu and Pb to
stable species [54]. Yao and Naruse [55] reported that addition of
kaolin (kaolinite; Al2Si2O5(OH4)) played a role in particle size dis-
tribution of ash. The shift from fine-particle to large-particle
sizes was influenced by chemical absorption of Cd and Pb as
aluminosilicate-metal oxides: CdO–Al2O3–2SiO2 and PbO–Al2O3–
2SiO2 that the eutectics dominated heavy metal immobility [56–58].
In this study, the presence of SiO2 and Al2O3 from a portion of clay
(fine-particle size) in the soil sample may have played important
roles in Cd and Pb capture in particulate surfactants.
4. Conclusions
This work demonstrated the application of an LTTSFB inciner-
ator for thermal treatment of CCS and co-firing of PE/CCS. Operating
temperatures of 600 and 800 °C in the FBR1 and FBR2, respective-
ly, were adequate for combustion process in the LTTSFB system.
Parameters such as gas velocity and H/D ratio could control emis-
sions of CO and particulate matter. Most results of DRE for inlet
materials were in range of 98.27–99.93%, thus indicating that only
a small amount of organic species could be detected. In addition,
concentrations of BTEX and PAHs from co-firing of PE/CCS yielded
lower than those evaluated in thermal treatment of CCS. The ad-
dition of PE reduced concentrations of BTEX and PAHs, but increased
CO concentration in gaseous emission. However, the FBR2 effec-
tively destroyed these pollutants by converted to carbon dioxide (CO2)
and contributed to particulates capturing. Moreover, leachability of
heavy metals such as Cr, Cu, and Pb (except Cd) in the bottom ash
was in accordance with the regulatory threshold values. These find-
ings indicated that the use of an LTTSFB incinerator and co-firing
of PE/CCS are alternative techniques for remediating complex haz-
ardous contaminants in soils.
References
[1] S. Roy, S. Labelle, P. Mehta, A. Mihoc, N. Fortin, C. Masson, et al.,
Phytoremediation of heavy metal and PAH-contaminated brownfield sites, Plant
Soil 272 (2005) 277–290.
[2] S.A. Cormier, S. Lomnicki, W. Backes, B. Dellinger, Origin and health impacts
of emissions of toxic by-products and fine particles from combustion and
thermal treatment of hazardous wastes and materials, Environ. Health Perspect.
114 (2006) 810–817.
[3] M.F. Ali, S. Abbas, A review of methods for the demetallization of residual fuel
oils, Fuel Process. Technol. 87 (2006) 573–584.
[4] H.-Y. Lai, Z.-Y. Hseu, T.-C. Chen, B.-C. Chen, H.-Y. Guo, Z.-S. Chen, Health risk-based
assessment and management of heavy metals-contaminated soil sites in Taiwan,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 7 (2010) 3595–3614.
[5] C. Alisi, R. Musella, F. Tasso, C. Ubaldi, S. Manzo, C. Cremisini, et al.,
Bioremediation of diesel oil in a co-contaminated soil by bioaugmentation with
a microbial formula tailored with native strains selected for heavy metals
resistance, Sci. Total Environ. 407 (2009) 3024–3032.
[6] H. Atagana, Bioremediation of co-contamination of crude oil and heavy metals
in soil by phytoremediation using chromolaena odorata (L) King & H.E. Robinson,
Water Air Soil Poll. 215 (2011) 261–271.
[7] R. Almeida, A. Mucha, C. Teixeira, A. Bordalo, C.M. Almeida, Biodegradation of
petroleum hydrocarbons in estuarine sediments: metal influence,
Biodegradation 24 (2013) 111–123.
[8] Z.-Y. Dong, W.-H. Huang, D.-F. Xing, H.-F. Zhang, Remediation of soil co-
contaminated with petroleum and heavy metals by the integration of
electrokinetics and biostimulation, J. Hazard. Mater. 260 (2013) 399–408.
[9] B. Wiłkomirski, B. Sudnik-Wójcikowska, H. Galera, M. Wierzbicka, M. Malawska,
Railway transportation as a serious source of organic and inorganic pollution,
Water Air Soil Pollut. 218 (2011) 333–345.
[10] G. Hu, J. Li, G. Zeng, Recent development in the treatment of oily sludge from
petroleum industry: a review, J. Hazard. Mater. 261 (2013) 470–490.
[11] A.A. Adeniyi, J.A. Afolabi, Determination of total petroleum hydrocarbons and
heavy metals in soils within the vicinity of facilities handling refined petroleum
products in Lagos metropolis, Environ. Int. 28 (2002) 79–82.
[12] O.P. Abioye, P. Agamuthu, A.R. Abdul Aziz, Phytotreatment of soil contaminated
with used lubricating oil using Hibiscus cannabinus, Biodegradation 23 (2012)
277–286.
[13] Y.-T. Huang, Z.-Y. Hseu, H.-C. Hsi, Influences of thermal decontamination on
mercury removal, soil properties, and repartitioning of coexisting heavy metals,
Chemosphere 84 (2011) 1244–1249.
137
[14] A.L. dela Cruz, R.L. Cook, S.M. Lomnicki, B. Dellinger, Effect of low temperature
thermal treatment on soils contaminated with pentachlorophenol and
environmentally persistent free radicals, Environ. Sci. Techol. 46 (2012)
5971–5978.
[15] F.I. Khan, T. Husain, R. Hejazi, An overview and analysis of site remediation
technologies, J. Environ. Manage. 71 (2004) 95–122.
[16] D.M. Hamby, Site remediation techniques supporting environmental restoration
activities – a review, Sci. Total Environ. 191 (1996) 203–224.
[17] K.K. Rink, F.S. Larsen, J.A. Kozinski, J.S. Lighty, G.D. Silcox, D.W. Pershing, Thermal
treatment of hazardous wastes: a comparison of fluidized bed and rotary kiln
incineration, Energy Fuels 7 (1993) 803–813.
[18] D. Marani, C.M. Braguglia, G. Mininni, F. Maccioni, Behaviour of Cd, Cr, Mn, Ni,
Pb, and Zn in sewage sludge incineration by fluidised bed furnace, Waste Manag.
23 (2003) 117–124.
[19] D.L. Desai, E.J. Anthony, J. Wang, A pilot-plant study for destruction of PCBs in
contaminated soils using fluidized bed combustion technology, J. Environ.
Manage. 84 (2007) 299–304.
[20] J.M. Toledo, J. Corella, L.M. Corella, The partitioning of heavy metals in
incineration of sludges and waste in a bubbling fluidized bed: 2. Interpretation
of results with a conceptual model, J. Hazard. Mater. 126 (2005) 158–168.
[21] B. Leckner, Fluidized bed combustion: mixing and pollutant limitation, Prog.
Energ. Comb. Sci. 24 (1998) 31–61.
[22] N. Skoglund, A. Grimm, M. Öhman, D. Boström, Effects on ash chemistry when
co-firing municipal sewage sludge and wheat straw in a fluidized bed: influence
on the ash chemistry by fuel mixing, Energy Fuels 27 (2013) 5725–5732.
[23] T. Shimizu, M. Toyono, H. Ohsawa, Emissions of NOx and N2O during co-
combustion of dried sewage sludge with coal in a bubbling fluidized bed
combustor, Fuel 86 (2007) 957–964.
[24] B. Du, L.-S. Fan, F. Wei, W. Warsito, Gas and solids mixing in a turbulent fluidized
bed, AIChE J. 48 (2002) 1896–1909.
[25] J. Liu, X. Jiang, L. Zhou, H. Wang, X. Han, Co-firing of oil sludge with coal–water
slurry in an industrial internal circulating fluidized bed boiler, J. Hazard. Mater.
167 (2009) 817–823.
[26] J. Shao, R. Yan, H. Chen, H. Yang, D.H. Lee, D.T. Liang, Emission characteristics
of heavy metals and organic pollutants from the combustion of sewage sludge
in a fluidized bed combustor, Energy Fuels 22 (2008) 2278–2283.
[27] H. Lopes, T. Trindade, I. Gulyurtlu, I. Cabrita, Characterisation of FBC ashes from
co-combustion of coal with oily residues, Fuel 80 (2001) 785–793.
[28] M.F. Gómez-Rico, I. Martín-Gullón, A. Fullana, J.A. Conesa, R. Font, Pyrolysis and
combustion kinetics and emissions of waste lube oils, J. Analyt. Appl. Pyrol.
68–69 (2003) 527–546.
[29] C.J. Pope, W.A. Peters, J.B. Howard, Thermodynamic driving forces for PAH
isomerization and growth during thermal treatment of polluted soils, J. Hazard.
Mater. 79 (2000) 189–208.
[30] M.J. Fuentes, R. Font, M.F. Gómez-Rico, I. Martín-Gullón, Pyrolysis and
combustion of waste lubricant oil from diesel cars: decomposition and
pollutants, J. Analyt. Appl. Pyrol. 79 (2007) 215–226.
[31] W.P. Linak, J.O.L. Wendt, Toxic metal emissions from incineration: mechanisms
and control, Prog. Energ. Comb. Sci. 19 (1993) 145–185.
[32] F. Bethge, G. Manss, O. Geisler, K. Wilbrand, Thermal treatment and utilization
of soils contaminated with hydrocarbons by co-combustion in the circulating
fluidized bed, Fuel Energ. Abstr. 40 (1999) 409.
[33] J. Werther, T. Ogada, Sewage sludge combustion, Prog. Energ. Comb. Sci. 25
(1999) 55–116.
[34] C.-T. Li, W.-J. Lee, H.-H. Mi, C.-C. Su, PAH emission from the incineration of waste
oily sludge and PE plastic mixtures, Sci. Total Environ. 170 (1995) 171–183.
[35] W.T. Tsai, Y.H. Chou, An overview of renewable energy utilization from municipal
solid waste (MSW) incineration in Taiwan, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 10 (2006)
491–502.
[36] J. Van Caneghem, A. Brems, P. Lievens, C. Block, P. Billen, I. Vermeulen, et al.,
Fluidized bed waste incinerators: design, operational and environmental issues,
Prog. Energ. Comb. Sci. 38 (2012) 551–582.
[37] T.-H. Peng, C.-L. Lin, M.-Y. Wey, Development of a low-temperature two-stage
fluidized bed incinerator for controlling heavy-metal emission in flue gases,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 62 (2014) 706–713.
[38] T.-H. Peng, C.-L. Lin, Influence of various chlorine additives on the partitioning
of heavy metals during low-temperature two-stage fluidized bed incineration,
J. Environ. Manage. 146 (2014) 362–368.
[39] T.-H. Peng, C.-L. Lin, M.-Y. Wey, Study of the low-temperature two-stage fluidized
bed incineration: influence of the second-stage sand bed operating conditions
on pollutant emission, Appl. Therm. Eng. 75 (2015) 592–599.
[40] U. Samaksaman, J. Kuo, T. Peng, M. Wey, Determination of emission
characteristics during thermal treatment of lube oil and heavy metal co-
contaminated soil by fluidized bed combustion, J. Environ. Eng. (New York)
(2015) 04015024.
[41] M.-Y. Wey, C.-Y. Chao, M.-C. Wei, L.-J. Yu, Z.-S. Liu, The influence of heavy metals
on partitioning of PAHs during incineration, J. Hazard. Mater. 77 (2000) 77–87.
[42] M.-Y. Wey, J.-C. Chen, H.-Y. Wu, W.-J. Yu, T.-H. Tsai, Formations and controls
of HCl and PAHs by different additives during waste incineration, Fuel 85 (2006)
755–763.
[43] H.H. Tseng, M.Y. Wey, J.C. Chen, C.Y. Lu, The adsorption of PAHs, BTEX, and heavy
metals on surfactant-modified desulfurization sorbents in a dry scrubber, Fuel
81 (2002) 2407–2416.
[44] J. Chou, M. Wey, S. Chang, Study on Pb and PAHs emission levels of heavy
metals- and PAHs-contaminated soil during thermal treatment process, J.
Environ. Eng. (New York) 136 (2010) 112–118.
138 U. Samaksaman et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 93 (2016) 131–138
[45] C. Piccini, A. Marchetti, R. Francaviglia, Estimation of soil organic matter by
geostatistical methods: use of auxiliary information in agricultural and
environmental assessment, Ecol. Indic. 36 (2014) 301–314.
[46] R. Pallasser, B. Minasny, A.B. McBratney, Soil carbon determination by
thermogravimetrics, PeerJ 1 (2013) e6.
[47] A.F. Plante, J.M. Fernández, J. Leifeld, Application of thermal analysis techniques
in soil science, Geoderma 153 (2009) 1–10.
[48] K.-Y. Liu, M.-Y. Wey, Filtration of fly ash using fluidized bed at 300–500°C, Fuel
86 (2007) 161–168.
[49] M.-Y. Wey, K.-H. Chen, K.-Y. Liu, The effect of ash and filter media characteristics
on particle filtration efficiency in fluidized bed, J. Hazard. Mater. 121 (2005)
175–181.
[50] J.-H. Kuo, C.-L. Lin, M.-Y. Wey, Mechanisms of particle agglomeration and
inhibition approach in the existence of heavy metals during fluidized bed
incineration, Chem. Eng. Sci. 65 (2010) 4955–4966.
[51] C.-L. Lin, M.-Y. Wey, The effect of mineral compositions of waste and operating
conditions on particle agglomeration/defluidization during incineration, Fuel
83 (2004) 2335–2343.
[52] Y.-L. Wei, Y.-W. Yang, N. Cheng, Study of thermally immobilized Cu in analogue
minerals of contaminated soils, Environ. Sci. Techol. 35 (2000) 416–421.
[53] S.R. Mallampati, Y. Mitoma, T. Okuda, S. Sakita, M. Kakeda, Enhanced heavy
metal immobilization in soil by grinding with addition of nanometallic Ca/CaO
dispersion mixture, Chemosphere 89 (2012) 717–723.
[54] M.B. Folgueras, R.M. Díaz, J. Xiberta, M. Alonso, Effect of inorganic matter on
trace element behavior during combustion of coal−sewage sludge blends, Energy
Fuels 21 (2007) 744–755.
[55] H. Yao, I. Naruse, Combustion characteristics of dried sewage sludge and control
of trace-metal emission, Energy Fuels 19 (2005) 2298–2303.
[56] C.-L. Lin, T.-H. Peng, Evaluation of heavy metal distribution and biological toxicity
in agglomeration bed material during artificial waste incineration in fluidized
bed, Korean J. Chem. Eng. 29 (2012) 627–635.
[57] G. Xu, M. Liu, G. Li, Stabilization of heavy metals in lightweight aggregate made
from sewage sludge and river sediment, J. Hazard. Mater. 260 (2013) 74–81.
[58] F. Eldabbagh, A. Ramesh, J. Hawari, W. Hutny, J.A. Kozinski, Particle–metal
interactions during combustion of pulp and paper biomass in a fluidized bed
combustor, Comb. Flame 142 (2005) 249–257.