Co-Valorization of Electroplating Sludge and Water-Washed MSWI Fly Ash for the Preparation of Black Ceramic Glaze
Highlights
- Dual hazardous wastes—electroplating sludge (ES, abundant in CuO, NiO, Cr2O3 and Fe2O3) and water-washed municipal solid waste incineration fly ash (WFA, dominated by SiO2, CaO and Al2O3)—are synergistically blended with red clay and shale to satisfy the compositional demands of ceramic-colored glazes, simultaneously acting as primary feedstocks, functional colorants and fluxes.
- The optimized formulation (26.1 wt% WFA, 30.4 wt% ES, 26.1 wt% red clay, and 17.4 wt% shale) and firing regime (1280 °C, 90 min, redox atmosphere) are identified, producing defect-free pure black glazes featuring smooth, homogeneous surfaces free of pinholes and cracks.
- Heavy metal species (Cr, Cu, Ni, and Fe) are efficiently immobilized within the glaze matrix through coupled mechanisms of physical encapsulation, lattice substitution and silicate glass network linkage. Their leaching concentrations are substantially lower than the thresholds specified in Chinese national standards, eliminating secondary contamination hazards.
- This work establishes a high-value, harmless co-valorization route for two typical hazardous solid wastes (ES and WFA), mitigating landfill occupation and environmental hazards induced by heavy metal leaching.
- The proposed technique fully substitutes natural mineral feedstocks and synthetic inorganic colorants for ceramic glazes, cutting manufacturing costs and broadening the raw material library for low-environmental-risk ceramic production.
- This research elucidates the coupled color generation and heavy metal immobilization mechanisms of solid waste-derived glazes, delivering theoretical guidance and technical references for the scaled utilization of industrial solid wastes in ceramic manufacturing.
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Raw Materials and Equipment
2.2. Experimental Methods
- Scheme Design: Referring to the experimental framework proposed by Zhang et al. [12], together with a comprehensive literature review and pre-exploration tests, a series of raw material mass ratios were designed for follow-up single-factor experiments.
- Preparation of Biscuit-Fired Body: Gypsum molds with fixed geometric shapes were prefabricated. Homogenized fine ceramic slip was poured into the gypsum molds for slip casting. Owing to the water-absorbing property of gypsum, the slip was gradually deposited and condensed on the inner mold surface to form a uniform green body shell with controlled thickness. Once the target shell thickness was achieved, the residual excess slip was drained. The green bodies were naturally air-dried inside the molds for shrinkage shaping, followed by demolding, surface trimming and complete oven dehydration to acquire standard experimental green bodies.
- Glaze Preparation: Following the glaze preparation protocol reported by Wang [13], WFA, ES, red clay and shale were pulverized with a mortar and pestle until all powders could pass through a 250-mesh standard sieve. Subsequently, the mixed powders were transferred to a mixing vessel, mixed with a fixed dosage of deionized water, and stirred to form a homogeneous glaze slip.
- Glazing: During glazing via dipping or spraying methods, standardized personal protective equipment (disposable dust masks and latex gloves) was worn for laboratory safety. Prior to glazing, the surface of dry green bodies was lightly wiped with a damp sponge to eliminate surface dust. The glaze slip was then uniformly coated to guarantee consistent absorption by the biscuit matrix and to acquire ideal glaze layers. Subsequently, all glazed green bodies were oven-dried at 70 °C for 2 h to remove free water.
- Kiln Firing: Fully dried glazed samples were transferred to an electric furnace for high-temperature sintering. The sintering temperature, holding duration and kiln atmosphere were precisely regulated to guarantee stable densification and the mechanical performance of the ceramic specimens.
- Determination of the Optimal Raw Material Formula: After sintering, all glaze specimens were visually evaluated in terms of surface gloss and flatness. During the evaluation, surface defects and experimental data were comprehensively recorded for subsequent comparative analysis and formula optimization to screen out the optimal raw material mass ratio.
2.3. Formula and Process Design
3. Results
3.1. Composition Analysis of Water-Washed MSWI Fly Ash and Electroplating Sludge
3.1.1. Composition Analysis of Electroplating Sludge
3.1.2. Composition Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Water-Washed MSWI FLY Ash
3.1.3. Coloring Mechanism of Black Glaze Based on Electroplating Sludge and Water-Washed MSWI Fly Ash
3.1.4. The Real Innovation in This Research
3.2. Effects of Raw Material Content and Temperature on Glaze Effect
3.2.1. Effect of Water-Washed MSWI Fly Ash Content on Glaze Surface Effect
3.2.2. Effect of Electroplating Sludge Content on Glaze Surface Effect
3.2.3. Optimal Glaze Formula and Seger Formula
3.2.4. Effect of Temperature on Glaze Surface Effect
3.3. Microstructure and Leaching Toxicity Analysis
3.3.1. XRD Phase Analysis of the Glaze Layer
3.3.2. SEM + EDS Micromorphology and Composition Analysis
3.3.3. Leaching Toxicity Test
3.3.4. Solidification Mechanism
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- Multidimensional experimental data validate the feasibility of fabricating artistic black glazes via the co-utilization of electroplating sludge (ES) and water-washed MSWI fly ash (WFA). Table 2 shows that ES supplies silicate skeletons, flux components and high concentrations of transition metal oxides for black coloration. Table 3 and Table 4 prove that washed WFA, with a chlorine removal efficiency of 90.64%, provides abundant CaO as a flux and supplementary Si-Al phases to eliminate firing defects, while Table 1 confirms that red clay and shale strengthen the structural stability of the glaze. Single-factor tests (Table 5 and Table 6) prove that neither waste alone can form intact black glazes, whereas the optimized ratio (30.4 wt% ES, 26.1 wt% WFA, 26.1 wt% red clay, and 17.4 wt% shale), sintered at 1280 °C for 90 min under a weak reduction, yields smooth, defect-free black glazes. XRD and SEM-EDS (Figure 5 and Figure 6) verify that heavy metals are stably embedded within spinel and silicate lattices rather than existing as free oxides. The medium-temperature firing regime (Table 9) matches standard ceramic production lines. Overall, ES, WFA, red clay and shale exert complementary synergistic effects, and the two hazardous wastes can fully substitute conventional glaze minerals and synthetic colorants for eco-friendly glaze production.
- Through systematic single-factor experimental screening, the optimal mass ratio for this composite raw material system was finalized: 30.4 wt% ES, 26.1 wt% WFA, 17.4 wt% shale and 26.1 wt% red clay. This formula has a simple firing process and low raw material cost. The prepared glaze is flat and smooth with good gloss, no obvious pinholes or cracking defects, and excellent thermal stability. This solid waste-based glaze is only suitable for the one-time firing of static decorative ceramic ornaments and cannot be used for tableware or other food-contact ceramic products. Moreover, the process does not involve the secondary reuse of waste glaze, thus avoiding the risk of heavy metal accumulation.
- Microscopic characterization and toxicity detection analyses show that heavy metal elements such as copper, nickel and chromium in the waste residues fully participate in the solid phase reaction of the glaze during high-temperature firing and are dissolved in the glass and crystal phase structures of the glaze. The leaching toxicity test results of the finished glaze meet the requirements of GB 5085.3-2007 Identification Standards for Hazardous Wastes–Identification for Leaching Toxicity. It has a stable heavy metal solidification effect, and after process optimization, the secondary pollution release potential of this solid waste glaze production system is greatly reduced.
- Experimental data comprehensively reveal the remarkable environmental, economic and social advantages of reusing electroplating sludge (ES) and water-washed MSWI fly ash (WFA) for glaze manufacturing. The leaching toxicity results presented in Table 10 indicate that the leaching concentrations of Cr, Ni, Cu, Pb and other heavy metals in the optimized glaze account for only 0.17%, 0.61%, 0.02% and 2.57% of the thresholds specified in GB 5085.3-2007, respectively. Combined with XRD and SEM-EDS characterization, heavy metals are firmly stabilized through physical encapsulation, isomorphic lattice substitution and silicate glass network bonding, which fundamentally eliminates the secondary pollution risks of raw hazardous wastes. The formulated glaze contains 30.4 wt% ES and 26.1 wt% WFA, achieving large-volume co-disposal of two refractory hazardous solid wastes and greatly lowering landfill demand and associated environmental hazards. In terms of economic performance, ES provides transition metal colorants while WFA acts as a calcium-rich flux, completely replacing expensive natural mineral raw materials and synthetic inorganic pigments for traditional colored glazes. The firing temperature of 1280 °C (Table 9) is a universal medium-temperature condition for ceramics, requiring no additional kiln renovation and restraining extra production energy consumption. From a social perspective, this technique reduces over-extraction of natural glaze ores and establishes a high-value recycling route for industrial electroplating residues and municipal incineration fly ash, which is highly consistent with the development trend of the green low-carbon ceramic industry and solid waste resource recovery.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| XRD | X-ray Diffraction |
| SEM | Scanning Electron Microscopy |
| EDS | Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry |
| IL | Ignition Loss |
References
- Li, H.Y. Analysis of Potential Risks of Heavy Metal Pollution from Electroplating Waste Residue on Soil Environment. Leather Manuf. Environ. Technol. 2024, 5, 102–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, R.; Brito, D.J.; Lynn, C. Environmental impacts of the use of bottom ashes from municipal solid waste incineration: A review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 140, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azam, M.; Jahromy, S.S.; Raza, W.; Raza, N.; Lee, S.S.; Kim, K.H.; Winter, F. Status, characterization, and potential utilization of municipal solid waste as renewable energy source: Lahore case study in Pakistan. Environ. Int. 2020, 134, 105291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Milanez, K.; Kuhnen, N.; Riella, G.H.; Kniess, C. Obtaining of the Ceramics Pigments (Fe, Zn)Cr2O4 Using Waste of Electroplating as Raw Material. Mater. Sci. Forum 2005, 498–499, 654–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, K.H.C.; Ip, M.W.A.; Barford, P.J. Use of Incineration MSW Ash: A Review. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1943–1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Ghouti, M.A.; Khan, M.; Nasser, M.S.; Al-Saad, K.; Heng, O.E. Recent advances and applications of municipal solid wastes bottom and fly ashes: Insights into sustainable management and conservation of resources. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 21, 101267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, D.Y.; Yoon, Y.S. Structural Performance of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete Beams with Different Steel Fibers. Eng. Struct. 2015, 102, 409–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponsot, I.; Bernardo, E.; Bontempi, E. Recycling of pre-stabilized municipal waste incinerator fly ash and soda-lime glass into sintered glass-ceramics. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 89, 224–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amran, M.; Murali, G.; Makul, N.; Tang, W.; Alluqmani, A.E. Sustainable Development of Eco-Friendly Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC): Cost, Carbon Emission, and Structural Ductility. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 398, 132477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbieri, L.; Corradi, A.; Lancellotti, I.; Manfredini, T. Use of municipal incinerator bottom ash as sintering promoter in industrial ceramics. Waste Manag. 2002, 22, 859–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feng, D.L.; Wang, J.; Chen, D.Y.; Hou, W.; Liang, S. Experimental Study on Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Fly Ash as a Component of Coal Gangue Geopolymer and the Feasibility of Making Geopolymer Mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 409, 133862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.J.; Cheng, Y.; Wu, H.Y.; Zhu, H.; Tong, Z. Experimental Study on the Preparation of Ceramic Tile Adhesive Using Water Washed Fly Ash. China Ceram. 2024, 60, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Cheng, Y.; Xiao, Z.M. Preparation of Black Glaze Using Electroplating Waste Residue, Red Clay and Shale. China Ceram. 2010, 46, 60–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Q.Y.; Yan, Y.F.; Zhao, Z.H.; Zhang, A.; Guan, Q.; He, Y. Research Progress on Influencing Factors of Heavy Metal Solidification Effect and Product Performance of Solid Waste-Based Ceramsite. Bull. Chin. Ceram. Soc. 2025, 44, 515–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HJ/T 300-2007; Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. Solid Waste—Extraction Procedure for Leaching Toxicity—Acetic Acid Buffer Solution Method. China Environmental Science Press: Beijing, China, 2007.
- Zhang, Z.; Zou, L.D.; Wang, Y.K.; Wang, Y.; Luo, Z.; Wang, W. Study on the Leaching Behavior of Heavy Metals from Solidified/Stabilized Fly Ash in Acidic Environment. Environ. Sanit. Eng. 2022, 30, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.J.; Li, Y.; Xiao, H.P.; Wang, M.; Yan, D.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Wang, S. Migration Characteristics of Zn and Cr in the Test of Co-disposal of Electroplating Sludge in Ceramsite Kiln. Res. Environ. Sci. 2022, 35, 1056–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, N.; Peng, S.X.; Lu, C.L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, F. Preparation of Iron Oxide Red from Titanium Industry Solid Waste and Its Application in Ceramic Black Pigments. Bull. Chin. Ceram. Soc. 2024, 43, 4532–4544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, W.; Yang, J.; Zhang, H.; Wu, D.; Zeng, L.; Zheng, M.; Lan, X.; Zhu, S. Recycling of Heavy Metals-Rich Spinel from Electroplating Sludge: Enrichment Performance and Environmental Application. J. Environ. Sci. 2025, 156, 699–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Q.; Chen, W.L.; Wang, K.H.; Zhang, Y.; He, C. Optimization of Process Parameters for Water Washing Dechlorination of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Fly Ash. Non Met. Mines 2025, 48, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ohbuchi, A.; Kitano, M.; Nakamura, T. Powder briquette/x-ray fluorescence analysis of major and minor elements in alkali-washed fly ash of municipal solid waste. X Ray Spectrom. 2008, 37, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tachibana, Y.; Thanos, C.A.B.; Kikuchi, S.; Themelis, N.J. Using Waste-to-Energy Fine-Combined Ash as Sand or Cement Substitute in Cement Mortar. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2023, 35, 04023438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, J.; Steenari, B. Leaching optimization of municipal solid waste incineration ash for resource recovery: A case study of Cu, Zn, Pb and Cd. Waste Manag. 2016, 48, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keulen, N.; Esquivel, T.B.M.; Rasmussen, B.M. Composition of fly ash from a grate firing municipal solid waste incineration plant with a focus on the composition and distribution of zinc-bearing minerals. Waste Manag. 2026, 222, 115626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lu, N.; Ran, X.; Pan, Z.; Korayem, A.H. Use of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Fly Ash in Geopolymer Masonry Mortar Manufacturing. Materials 2022, 15, 8689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fedje, K.K.; Ekberg, C.; Skarnemark, G. Removal of hazardous metals from MSW fly ash—An evaluation of ash leaching methods. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 173, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jiao, F.; Zhang, L.; Dong, Z. Study on the species of heavy metals in MSW incineration fly ash and their leaching behavior. Fuel Process. Technol. 2016, 152, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, J.P.; Yoon, H.; Cha, J.Y. A Study on the Changing Properties of Iron Oxides in Black Glazes using Raman Microscope. J. Conserv. Sci. 2019, 35, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.M.; Li, H.Y.; Huang, X.C.; Zhan, H.; Wang, C.; Luo, Z. Coloration Mechanism and Photothermal Conversion Performance of Iron-Based Black Glaze. J. Chin. Ceram. Soc. 2025, 53, 3702–3710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Q.; Ye, W.; Wu, Y.; Lu, L.; Fu, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, M.; Wang, J.; Xing, F. CaO-activated municipal solid waste incineration fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag for heavy metal immobilization. Chem. Eng. J. Green Sustain. 2026, 1, 100019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, M.; Guo, X.; Shi, H.; Wu, K.; Zhang, X. Utilizing Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSWI) Fly Ash as a Calcium Source to Prepare Al-Substituted Tobermorite. CE Pap. 2018, 2, 451–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, Y.; Liang, Q.; Wang, H.; Liu, X.; Sun, Y. Electroplating sludge valorization into ceramic pigments: Directed transformation of chromium species. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2026, 109, e70503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marieta, C.; Martín-Garin, A.; Leon, I.; Guerrero, A. Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Fly Ash: From Waste to Cement Manufacturing Resource. Materials 2023, 16, 2538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, H.Y.; Zhao, Y.C.; Qi, J.Y. Study on Influence of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSWI) Fly Ash on Sintering of Ceramic Brick. Chin. J. Environ. Eng. 2010, 4, 2865–2869. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.R.; Liu, R.Q.; Tang, B.M.; Zhang, D.; Feng, J.; Wang, H.; Zhao, M. Use of Detoxified MSWI Fly Ash for Cement Stabilized Macadam Mixture: Mechanism, Mechanical and Environmental Considerations. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2023, 25, 1581–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, M.J.; Xu, L.H.; Yan, M. Research Progress on Solidification-Stabilization Technology of Heavy Metals in Sludge. Guangzhou Chem. Ind. 2018, 46, 11–13. [Google Scholar]
- Caterina, C.; Enrico, D.; Linda, P. MSWI Fly Ash Multiple Washing: Kinetics of Dissolution in Water, as Function of Time, Temperature and Dilution. Minerals 2022, 12, 742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assi, A.; Bilo, F.; Federici, S.; Zacco, A.; Depero, L.E.; Bontempi, E. Bottom ash derived from municipal solid waste and sewage sludge co-incineration: First results about characterization and reuse. Waste Manag. 2020, 116, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, S.C.; Wei, Z.C.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, F.H. A Research on the Leaching Toxicity of the Solid Waste of a Pb-Zn Mine. J. Residuals Sci. Amp Technol. 2015, 12, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guerrero, A.; Fernández, E.; Macías, A.; Goñi, S. Hydrothermal treatment of fly ash from municipal solid waste incineration. Waste Manag. 2000, 11, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Yan, X.; Wan, M.; Fan, L.; Hu, J.; Liang, Z.; Liu, J.; Xing, F. Optimization of municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash geopolymer with granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS): Microstructural development and heavy metal solidification mechanism. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2025, 22, e04423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, N.Q.; Ji, Y.S.; Ji, L.Q. Study on Solidification of Heavy Metals and Resource Utilization of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Fly Ash. China High Tech. 2019, 1, 78–80. [Google Scholar]
- Ahmed, T.; Chowdhury, R.; Rahman, M. Stabilization of Medical Waste Incineration Fly Ash in Cement Mortar Matrix. Bangladesh J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2020, 55, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eliche-Quesada, D.; Sandalio-Pérez, J.; Martínez-Martínez, S.; Pérez-Villarejo, L.; Sánchez-Soto, P.J. Investigation of Use of Coal Fly Ash in Eco-Friendly Construction Materials: Fired Clay Bricks and Silica-Calcareous Non Fired Bricks. Ceram. Int. 2018, 44, 4400–4412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shao, Y.Y.; Shao, Y.Q.; Zhang, W.Y.; Zhu, Y.; Dou, T.; Chu, L.; Liu, Z. Preparation of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Fly Ash-Based Ceramsite and Its Mechanisms of Heavy Metal Immobilization. Waste Manag. 2022, 143, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]






| Name | SiO2 | Al2O3 | Fe2O3 | CaO | MgO | K2O | Na2O | IL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Red clay | 63.26 | 18.50 | 7.23 | 0.75 | 0.95 | 2.04 | 0.27 | 6.94 |
| Shale | 65.76 | 17.46 | 6.52 | 0.36 | 0.98 | 2.86 | 0.91 | 4.83 |
| Raw clay slurry | 62.66 | 24.38 | 0.56 | 2.56 | 0.63 | 2.78 | 1.24 | 4.15 |
| No. | Name | Content (%) | No. | Name | Content (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SiO2 | 5.93 | 12 | NiO | 5.28 |
| 2 | Al2O3 | 14.32 | 13 | CuO | 22.61 |
| 3 | TFe2O3 | 3.36 | 14 | ZnO | 0.38 |
| 4 | CaO | 3.96 | 15 | Co3O4 | 0.13 |
| 5 | MgO | 0.97 | 16 | Cr2O3 | 4.50 |
| 6 | K2O | 0.14 | 17 | V2O5 | 0.05 |
| 7 | Na2O | 1.05 | 18 | PbO | 0.09 |
| 8 | P2O5 | 4.05 | 19 | ZrO2 | 0.03 |
| 9 | SO3 | 3.34 | 20 | MoO3 | 0.07 |
| 10 | MnO | 0.09 | 21 | Cl | 0.33 |
| 11 | TiO2 | 0.48 | 22 | IL (ignition lost) | 28.87 |
| No. | Name | Content (%) | No. | Name | Content (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SiO2 | 15.95 | 12 | SrO | 0.03 |
| 2 | Al2O3 | 5.56 | 13 | NiO | 0 |
| 3 | Fe2O3 | 2.24 | 14 | CuO | 0.07 |
| 4 | CaO | 40.86 | 15 | ZrO2 | 0.07 |
| 5 | MgO | 5.51 | 16 | Cr2O3 | 0.01 |
| 6 | K2O | 0.62 | 17 | ZnO | 0.86 |
| 7 | Na2O | 1.12 | 18 | BaO | 0 |
| 8 | P2O5 | 1.24 | 19 | PbO | 0.13 |
| 9 | SO3 | 8.53 | 20 | Cl | 0.76 |
| 10 | MnO | 0.07 | 21 | IL (ignition lost) | 15.38 |
| 11 | TiO2 | 0.84 | 22 | — | — |
| Solid–Liquid Ratio of 1:8 | Loss 43% | Washing Removal Amount | Removal Rate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XRF | Before washing | After washing | Previous measurements | Wash data × 0.57 | Washed g/100 g fly ash | |
| SiO2 | 4.32 | 8.36 | 4.08 | 4.77 | −0.4452 | −10.31% |
| Al2O3 | 1.08 | 2.17 | 0.88 | 1.24 | −0.1569 | −14.53% |
| Fe2O3 | 0.49 | 1.03 | 0.6 | 0.59 | −0.0971 | −19.82% |
| CaO | 31.27 | 45.6 | 31.36 | 25.99 | 5.278 | 16.88% |
| MgO | 0.99 | 1.88 | 0.95 | 1.07 | −0.0816 | −8.24% |
| K2O | 5.84 | 0.83 | 5.8 | 0.47 | 5.3669 | 91.90% |
| Na2O | 7.32 | 1.29 | 7.23 | 0.74 | 6.5847 | 89.95% |
| P2O5 | 0.41 | 0.77 | 0.37 | 0.44 | −0.0289 | −7.05% |
| SO3 | 5.08 | 7.13 | 5.9 | 4.06 | 1.0159 | 20.00% |
| TiO2 | 0.22 | 0.39 | 0.2 | 0.22 | −0.0023 | −1.05% |
| SrO | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.0072 | 24.00% |
| ZnO | 0.33 | 0.65 | 0.31 | 0.37 | −0.0405 | −12.27% |
| CuO | 0.14 | 0.3 | 0.13 | 0.17 | −0.031 | −22.14% |
| PbO | 0.08 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.0002 | 0.25% |
| MnO/CdO | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.0229 | 57.25% | |
| Cl | 14 | 2.3 | 14.87 | 1.31 | 12.689 | 90.64% |
| ignition lost | 28.35 | 27.08 | 27.22 | 15.44 | 12.9144 | 45.55% |
| pH | 11.2 | 9.3 | 99.28% | |||
| No. | Water-Washed MSWI Fly Ash/g | Red Clay/g | Shale/g | Electroplating Sludge/g |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 7.5 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 15.0 |
| A2 | 10.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 15.0 |
| A3 | 12.5 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 15.0 |
| A4 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 15.0 |
| No. | Water-Washed MSWI Fly Ash/g | Red Clay/g | Shale/g | Electroplating Sludge/g |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| B2 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 12.5 |
| B3 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 15.0 |
| B4 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 17.5 |
| Name | Content (%) |
|---|---|
| Electroplating sludge | 30.4 |
| WFA | 26.1 |
| Red clay | 26.1 |
| Shale | 17.4 |
| No. | Water-Washed MSWI Fly Ash/g | Red Clay/g | Shale/g | Electroplating Sludge/g | Temperature/°C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 17.5 | 1200 |
| C2 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 17.5 | 1220 |
| C3 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 17.5 | 1250 |
| C4 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 17.5 | 1280 |
| Temperature (°C) | Time (min) |
|---|---|
| 20–450 | 150 |
| 450–600 | 30 |
| 600–1280 | 120 |
| 1280–1280 | 90 |
| 1280–20 | Natural cooling |
| Project | Cr | Ni | Cu | Zn | Cd | Sb | Pb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enamel leaching concentration (mg/L) | 0.0259 | 0.0303 | 0.0210 | 0.1215 | 0.0020 | 0.0024 | 0.1283 |
| Parallel sample standard deviation SD | 0.0012 | 0.0015 | 0.0009 | 0.0041 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0038 |
| Instrument detection limit (mg/L) | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.0001 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Standard concentration Limit (mg/L) | 15 | 5 | 100 | 100 | 1 | 5 | 5 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Jiang, J.; Zhang, R.; Wang, Z.; Fan, Y.; Deng, S.; Zhao, W.; Cheng, Y. Co-Valorization of Electroplating Sludge and Water-Washed MSWI Fly Ash for the Preparation of Black Ceramic Glaze. Coatings 2026, 16, 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings16070818
Jiang J, Zhang R, Wang Z, Fan Y, Deng S, Zhao W, Cheng Y. Co-Valorization of Electroplating Sludge and Water-Washed MSWI Fly Ash for the Preparation of Black Ceramic Glaze. Coatings. 2026; 16(7):818. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings16070818
Chicago/Turabian StyleJiang, Jiaxiang, Ruirui Zhang, Zikun Wang, Yunye Fan, Shutong Deng, Wenli Zhao, and Yue Cheng. 2026. "Co-Valorization of Electroplating Sludge and Water-Washed MSWI Fly Ash for the Preparation of Black Ceramic Glaze" Coatings 16, no. 7: 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings16070818
APA StyleJiang, J., Zhang, R., Wang, Z., Fan, Y., Deng, S., Zhao, W., & Cheng, Y. (2026). Co-Valorization of Electroplating Sludge and Water-Washed MSWI Fly Ash for the Preparation of Black Ceramic Glaze. Coatings, 16(7), 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings16070818
