1 2 3 TS=6% 25 g/l ph ph 6 ph 6 ph 6 ph 6 ph ph : (TCLP) (1-4) (5) (6-15)
2-1 2-1-1 2.5 100 S/L (g/l) 25 1N HNO 3 ph(12-1) ph ph 2-1-2 ph 50 (NIEA W449.00B) 2-1-3 (NIEA S321.63B) (NIEA W303.51A) (NIEA W305.51A) 2-2 2-2-1 夲 1 7 0.84~2.00mm 82.93% 0.42mm~0.84mm 16.03% 0.25~0.42mm 0.79% 0.25~0.149mm 0.13% 4.76mm 0% 0.149 0.1% 2.00~4.76mm 0.02% 2 (AtomicAbsorption) (Pb) (Cr) (Cu) (Zn) (Cd) (Pb) (Cr) (Cu) (Zn) 50 (Cd) 10
1 (mm) g 4.76 0 0 0 100 2.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 99.98 0.84 82.7 82.93 82.95 17.03 0.42 15.99 16.03 98.98 1.02 0.25 0.79 0.79 99.77 0.23 0.149 0.13 0.13 99.9 0.1 <0.149 0.1 0.1 100 0 Total 99.73 100 2 (mm) (Pb) (Cr) (Cu) (Zn) (Cd) 0.84 66.67 1557.66 722.57 188.10 2.67 0.42 33.34 1657.67 623.40 167.35 4.67 0.25 41.67 1726.84 685.07 208.27 5.00 <0.149 83.34 2114.38 689.24 160.52 1.17 50 50 50 50 10 2-2-2 夲 3 7 4.76~2.00mm 50.67% 2.00mm~0.84mm 24.11% 2.00~0.84mm 10.02% 0.84~0.42mm 5.3%0.42~0.25mm 3.15%0.25~0.149mm 5.22% 0.149 mm 1.34% 4 aa (Pb) (Cr) (Cu) (Zn) (Cd), (Pb) (Cr) (Cu) (Zn) (Cd)
(mm) 3 g 4.76 50.66 50.67 50.67 49.33 2.00 24.11 24.11 74.78 25.22 0.84 10.20 10.20 84.99 15.01 0.42 5.30 5.30 90.29 9.71 0.25 3.15 3.15 93.44 6.56 0.149 5.22 5.22 98.66 1.34 <0.149 1.34 1.34 100.00 0.00 Total 99.98 4 (mg/kg) Cu Cd Zn Pb Cr <0.149 mm 566.3185 749.884 7018.364 1991.879 177.316 0.149 mm 579.5975 907.6715 6953.296 1937.2 157.007 0.25 mm 560.0695 888.1435 6214.583 1757.54 87.4865 0.42 mm 459.3035 1002.97 6210.443 1780.974 46.0865 0.84 mm 440.5565 986.5655 5459.388 1491.956 62.4905 2.00 mm 512.4205 1037.339 6860.342 2030.935 180.441 4.76 mm 544.447 954.5395 6481.885 1788.785 84.362 3-1 1 3 ph 6-10 ph ph 10-12 ph 1 2 1 2 35 C ph ph6-10 ph 10-12 ph 12-11.7 L/S ph 7 ph
1 2 35 3
3.2 4 9 ph 6.8-7.2 1000 mgcaco 3 /L 4000mgCaCO 3 /L 6 ph 6.8-7.2 200 mgcaco 3 /L 9 ph 6.8-7.2 10000 mgcaco 3 /L 2 4 2.5 100 ph ph 5 2.5 100 ph
ph Alkalinity as CaCO3, mg/l 6 5 200 ph ph Alkalinity as CaCO3, mg/l 7 2.5 100 ph ph Alkalinity as CaCO3, mg/l 8 2.5 100 ph
ph Alkalinity as CaCO3, mg/l 9 2.5 200 ph 3.3 10 ph 12 8 ph 8 2 ph 2 > > ph6.8-7.2, 10
11 ph8-2 ph 12-11.7 L/S ph 7 ph ph 12, 11 (g/l) ph ph ph ph 6 ph 6 ph 6 ph 6 ph ph : (1) (2) (3)
1. 1992 2. 2000 3. - 4. (1997) 5. http://www.epa.gov.tw 6. Diamadopoulos, E., Characterization and Treatment of Recirculation-Stabilized Leachate, Water Research, Vol.28,No.12,pp.2439-2445(1994) 7. Welander, U., T. Henrysson and T. Welander, Biological Nitrogen Removal from Municipal Landfill Leachate in a Pilot Scale Suspended Carrier Biofilm Process, Water Research, Vol.32, No.15, pp.1564-1570(1998) 8. Visvanathan, C., S. Muttamara and S. Babel, Treatment of Landfill Leachate bycrossflow Microfiltration and Ozonation, Separation Science and Technology, Vol.29,No.3,pp.315-332(1994) 9. Calace, N. and B. M. Petronio, Characterization of High Molecular Weight Organic Compounds in Landfill Leachate: Humic Substances, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, Vol.32, No.8,pp.2229-2244(1997) 10. American Public Health Association; American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation (1995): Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 19 th edition. 11. Banks, C. J. and H. M. Lo. 2003. Assessing the effects of municipal solid waste incinerator bottom ash on the decomposition of biodegradable waste using a completely mixed anaerobic reactor. Waste Management & Research, 21(3), 225-234. 12. Fujii, T., Sugino, H., Rouse, J.D., Furukawa, K., 2002, Characterization of the microbial community in an anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing biofilm cultured on a nonwoven biomass carrier. Journal Bioscience and Bioengineering, 94(5): 412-418. 13. Lee, B., 2003, Review of the present status of optical fiber sensors. Optical Fiber Technology, 9: 57-79. 14. Lo, Huang-Mu, 2000, PhD thesis, The impact of increasing the incinerator bottom ash content on landfill site biostabilisation. University of Southampton, United Kingdom. 15. Poly, F., Gros, R., Jocteur-Monrozier, L., Perrodin, Y., 2002, Short-term changes in bacterial community fingerprints and potential activities in an Alfisol supplemented with solid waste leachates. Environmental Science and Technology, 36(22): 4729-4734.
Abstract MSWI fly ash and steel refinery bottom ash were used to assess their potential release of all kinds of ions which might show the inhibitory or stimulatory effects on the refuse decomposition in landfill. Different weights of ash were added into three medium such as deionized water, leachate and refuse substrate (TS6%) to measure their phs and alkalinity. ph and alkalinity were assumed to be the source of acids neutralizing capacity (ANC). However, the ions specifically the heavy metals and alkali metals that might show the positive or negative effects on refuse biodegradation were concerned. The results showed that the ANC order was leachate>deionized water>refuse substrate below ph 6 whilst the ANC order was leachate>refuse substrate>deionized water as ph higher than 6. Further, the results of ash/deionized water and ash/refuse substrate ratios showed that a higher amount of refuse substrate than deionized water was needed to provide the same phs. This implied that the released ions were absorbed much more by the refuse substrate than by deionized water that might affect the ANC offer. Key words: MSWI fly ash, Steel refinery bottom ash, Landfill, ANC