Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T21:41:28.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Thermal Treatment on Phase Transformation and Dissolubility of Aluminosilicate Phase in Red Mud

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2012

Nan Ye ,
Jing Zhu ,
Jianwen Liu ,
Yalin Li ,
Xinyuan Ke  and
Jiakuan Yang
Nan Ye
Affiliation:
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
Jing Zhu
Affiliation:
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
Jianwen Liu
Affiliation:
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
Yalin Li
Affiliation:
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
Xinyuan Ke
Affiliation:
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
Jiakuan Yang*
Affiliation:
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
*
*Correspondent author: Tel: 86+27+87792207, Fax: 86+27+87792101. E-mail: jkyang@mail.hust.edu.cn; yjiakuan@hotmail.com (Prof. Jiakuan Yang)
Get access

Abstract

Red mud is a solid waste residue from the caustic soda leaching of bauxite ores to produce alumina by the Bayer process. Red mud contains large quantity of alkali and aluminosilicate, so it is potentially available to prepare inorganic polymeric materials by geopolymerisation process. However, the activity or dissolubility of the aluminosilicate phases in red mud is significantly poor, which constraints the geopolymerisation process. Therefore, some pretreatment process for red mud is necessary to improve the adhesive property and dissolubility of Bayer red mud. In this study, mineral phase transformation and dissolubility of a typical red mud sample were studied under different thermal treatment processes. The thermal behavior of the red mud was studied by TG-DTA. The crystalline phases of the samples calcined at 200-1000 °C for different hours were determined by XRD, and the dissolubility was determined by alkaline leaching test. The TG-DTA pattern shows no obvious endothermic or exothermic peaks, and the weight loss increases continuously as the temperature rises, which indicates that the crystalline phases transform continuously as the temperature rises, consistent with the XRD results. As the calcination temperature rises from 200 to 800 °C, several kinds of crystalline phase in original red mud, including gibbsite, katoite, muscovite, natrodavyne disappeared in succession, accompanied with the formation of nepheline, gehlenite, sodium aluminum silicate, and some amorphous aluminosilicate. The calcined products are more likely to dissolve. But when it rises over than 800 °C, the content of gehlenite increases, and the phase of which is stable. As the calcination temperature rises from 200 to 1000 °C, the dissolubility of aluminosilicate in the red mud under high alkaline conditions increases firstly and then decreases after over 800 °C. Therefore, the optimum temperature of thermal treatment for red mud is about 800 °C. This study could contribute to the following preparation of geopolymeric material made from red mud, especially the pretreatment process of red mud.

Keywords

compositeadditivespolymer
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1488: Symposium 7B – Concrete with Smart Additives and Supplementary Cementitious Materials , 2012 , imrc12-1488-7b-055
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Power, G., Grafe, M. and Klauber, C., Hydrometallurgy, 108(1-2), 33–45 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hind, A. R., Bhargava, S. K. and Grocott, S. C., Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 146 (1-3), 359–374 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, R. U., Holmberg, J. and Andersson, B., MRS Bulletin, 26 (06), 477–480 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, M., Upadhayay, S. N. and Prasad, P. M., Waste Management, 16 (8), 665–670 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, M., Upadhayay, S. N. and Prasad, P. M., Cement and Concrete Research, 27 (7), 1037–1046 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontikes, Y., Nikolopoulos, P. and Angelopoulos, G. N., J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 27 (2), 1645–1649 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YalÁIn, N. and SevinÁ, V., Ceramics International, 26 (5), 485–493 (2000).Google Scholar
Sglavo, V. M., Maurina, S., Conci, A., and Salviati, A., J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 20 (3), 245–252 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappu, A., Saxena, M. and Asolekar, S. R., Building and Environment, 42 (6), 2311–2320(2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, W., Yang, J. and Xiao, B., Journal of hazardous materials, 161 (1), 474–478 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimas, D. D., Giannopoulou, I. P. and Panias, D., Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review, 30(3), 211–239 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidovits, J., in Geopolymer chemistry and applications, (Geopolymer Institute, Saint-Quentin, 2008) p. 3.Google Scholar
Provis, J. L., Modelling the formation of geopolymers, (The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 2006) p.1.Google Scholar