Previous Article in Journal
Stability Toolkit for the Appraisal of Bio/Pharmaceuticals’ Level of Endurance (STABLE) as a Framework and Software to Evaluate the Stability of Pharmaceuticals
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Determination of Total Mercury and Mercury Thermospecies in Cement and Cement Raw Materials

by
Yolisa A. Lucwaba
and
Khakhathi L. Mandiwana
*
Department of Chemistry, Tshwane University of Technology, P.O. Box 56208, Arcadia, Pretoria 0007, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Analytica 2025, 6(3), 26; https://doi.org/10.3390/analytica6030026
Submission received: 29 July 2025 / Revised: 10 August 2025 / Accepted: 11 August 2025 / Published: 15 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Spectroscopy)

Abstract

Cement manufacturing is the second largest anthropogenic source of Hg emissions in the environment. Therefore, the establishment of analytical methodologies that can be utilized in the determination of Hg concentration from cement raw materials and cement is of great importance. The total Hg and Hg thermospecies in cement raw materials and cements were determined by thermal desorption techniques with a Zeeman Hg analyzer. No chemical pre-treatment of samples is required for this technique prior to analysis. An optimum single-stage temperature program was applied to determine total Hg at an optimum heating rate of approximately 5 °C s−1 while Hg thermospecies were determined over four stages at an optimum heating rate of approximately 0.2 °C s−1 per stage from ambient temperature to 720 °C. Total mercury concentrations in cement raw materials ranged between 2.19 ng g−1 and 395 ng g−1, while in cement, concentrations ranged between 1.32 ng g−1 and 31.0 ng g−1. The highest Hg contents were found in dust return (580 ng g−1 and 679 ng g−1). Hg thermospecies determination showed that cement raw materials and cements contain one Hg thermospecies that is released at 20–180 °C while dust return contained one to four Hg thermospecies that could be released at 20–180 °C, 180–360 °C, 360–540 °C, and/or 540–720 °C, thus indicating that new Hg compounds are formed during cement production.

1. Introduction

Mercury (Hg) is a hazardous element of major public health concern due to its high toxicity, high volatility, and long residence time in the environment [1,2,3]. It occurs naturally on the Earth’s crust and is emitted to the atmosphere through various anthropogenic sources associated with the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal combustion at electrical power stations, metal smelters, waste incineration, and cement production plants [4,5,6].
Cement production is the second largest source of anthropogenic Hg emissions in the environment worldwide, with Europe accounting for 11% of global anthropogenic Hg emissions [7]. Hg enters the cement manufacturing process as a trace element through raw materials (limestone, slag, and coal) that are utilized during cement production. Hg concentration in natural raw materials varies from deposit to deposit, depending on the origin and source [8,9,10,11]. A typical cement manufacturing process involves three fundamental stages, viz., preparation of feedstocks, clinker production, and cement production.
Feedstock preparation includes quarrying, crushing, and milling of raw materials. After milling and homogenization in a silo, the raw materials are transferred into the pre-heaters (kiln feed) before entering the kiln operating at maximum temperatures of 1450 °C, where they are burned to form cement clinker. Clinker is produced inside the kiln, and its nodules are then milled and mixed with other materials to produce cement. Hg desorption and emissions occur in the cement kiln due to its high heating temperature of approximately 1450 °C [12,13,14,15,16]. Due to Hg being very toxic and harmful to human life upon inhalation and ingestion, studies involving the quantification of Hg in cement-making industries are essential, as limited information on the actual concentrations from cement raw materials is available [17].
There are four official standard methods of solid sample analysis, viz., bomb combustion [18], acid extraction [19,20], wet oxidation [19], and thermal decomposition [21,22]. The main limitation of the first three methods is that sample preparation is long, taking up to 8 h, depending on the solid type, e.g., coal requires a longer digestion time to transfer Hg into solution. The US EPA method 7473 [22] is based on thermal decomposition with amalgamation of Hg vapours on golden wire and quantitative determination of Hg by AAS, but the reliability of the method is affected by interferences that occur due to the presence of SO2 and Cl ions (common constituents of most coals), thus affecting the precision and accuracy of the analysis results. Therefore, the applications of these recommended methods often result in contradictory results. This is why additional studies of the determination of Hg in solid matrices are necessary to eliminate the shortcomings of the recommended methods described above.
Pyrolysis technology coupled with atomic absorption spectrometry or atomic fluorescence spectrometry was used by researchers worldwide in the determination of Hg content in solid samples. Mercury removal from powdered samples by mild pyrolysis before combustion was originally proposed by Merriam et al. (1990) [23], and further studies were conducted by other researchers who assessed the effects of temperature, residence time, and volatile matter content on Hg removal [24,25,26,27,28,29]. Further development in the analytical methodology is necessary for the identification and quantification of mercury species as a function of volatility temperature in cement and cement raw materials to enhance the selection of cement raw materials and coal (fuel) suitable for combustion during cement production. The main objective of this study is to determine the total mercury concentration and mercury thermospecies in cement raw materials and cement after thermal decomposition by a Hg analyzer.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Instrumentation

A Model RA-915+ Zeeman Mercury analyzer (Lumex, St. Petersburg, Russia) with a PYRO-915 attachment was used for Hg measurements. The PYRO-915 attachment enables the determination of Hg in samples having complex matrices such as soils, sediments, oil products, and foodstuffs by utilizing the pyrolysis technique incorporated within the instrument [30,31,32].
The operation of the Hg analyzer is based on the release of Hg from solid samples during thermal decomposition. The concentration of Hg is measured by an atomic absorption spectrometer at a 253.7 nm Hg0 resonance line, and any background absorption is corrected using a Zeeman Effect correction system [30].

2.2. Calibration Standards

The RA-915+ Zeeman Mercury analyzer was calibrated using SARM 20 certified reference material of coal (Sasolburg) with a certified Hg value of 250 ± 30 ng g−1. The fish protein certified reference material for trace metals, DORM 3 (Industrial Analytical, Johannesburg, South Africa), with a certified Hg concentration of 0.382 ± 0.06 mg kg−1 covering the lower concentration range, and the dogfish liver certified reference material for trace metals, DOLT-4 (Industrial Analytical, South Africa), with a certified Hg value of 2.58 ± 0.22 mg kg−1 covering the higher concentration range, were used in the validation of the analytical methods.

2.3. Reagents and Solutions

South African standard reference materials of coal, SARM 20 (Council for Mineral Technology, MINTEK, Randburg, South Africa), with a certified Hg concentration of 250 ± 30 ng g−1, and DOLT-4 (Industrial Analytical, South Africa), with a certified Hg value of 2.58 ± 0.22 mg kg−1, together with fish protein certified reference material for trace metals, DORM 3 (Industrial Analytical, South Africa), with a certified Hg concentration of 0.382 ± 0.06 mg kg−1, NCSZC 78001 (coal fly ash, China, 39 ± 0.9 ng g−1), were either used for the calibration of the instrument or validation of the results.

2.4. Sampling of Raw Materials and Cement

Cement raw materials (limestone, fly ash, slag, and gypsum) were sampled from different Pretoria Portland Cement (PPC) plants, viz., PPC Jupiter, PPC Hercules, and PPC De Hoek, on different stockpiles over a period of three months ranging from January 2019 to March 2019. The final product (cement) was sampled from the storage silos of each plant. Proper personal protective equipment, like a dust mask, a work suit, safety shoes, goggles, and a helmet or hard hat, was always worn by the sampler during sampling to prevent injury.
Two types of cement, viz., CEM I 52.5N and CEM II 42.5N, were sampled at each PPC plant. The difference between these two cements is that CEM II 42.5N is extended with fly ash and slag or slag alone, depending on the plant preference, while in CEM I 52.5N, extenders are not added. The role of the added extenders is to reduce the amount of clinker used during cement production as a cost-saving intervention. Gypsum is added to both cements on the finish mill as a minor additional constituent (MAC) and acts as a setting time regulator and strength enhancer. It controls the hydration process and prevents rapid setting, allowing for proper mixing, transportation, and placement of the concrete. CEM II 42.5N produced at PPC De Hoek is extended with slag only, while CEM II 42.5N produced at PPC Hercules is manufactured with slag and fly ash as extenders, but synthetic ALI gypsum is used instead of natural gypsum, while PPC Jupiter uses OMV synthetic gypsum (phosphate waste product) that is supplied by the Oranje Mynbou en Vervoer (OMV) ready mix concrete plant.

2.5. Sample Preparation

Samples were first dried at 105 °C to remove moisture that might be present. A jaw crusher (model: Retsch GmbH; type: BB200 Mangan) was used to crush limestone and raw coal to a particle size of approximately 4.75 mm. Limestone, gypsum, and raw coal were further pulverized using the LM2 Lab pulverising mill to a smaller particle size of approximately 2.00 mm; then, all samples were ground to pass through a 212 µm sieve using a Siebtechnik TEMA mill.

2.6. Analysis of Samples

A sample weighing approximately 20 to 300 mg was transferred into a sample boat and recorded using the RAPID software of the instrument. The integration of the analytical cell was switched on, and the sample containing the boat was inserted into the PYRO 915+ attachment, which consists of two chambers that are heated to 750 °C and 800 °C, respectively. The Hg vapour produced was passed through the analytical cell, where Hg levels were processed, and a signal was produced and integrated to give the final Hg content in ng g−1. The background absorption signal was eliminated using a high-frequency Zeeman correction system [33]. Every sample was analyzed in triplicate, and the results were reported as the mean ± standard deviation of the mercury concentration.
The concentration of Hg in the sample was abstracted from the calibration curve plotted as the integrated analytical signal (arbitrary units) versus the absolute mass of Hg (ng) [34]. The integration was considered complete when the analytical signal declined to baseline. The absorption of 254 nm resonance radiation by mercury atoms was measured using the Zeeman correction for background absorption. The certified reference material SARM 20 was used to check the accuracy of the instrument, and blank samples were run after every ten samples and after samples with high values of Hg.

2.7. Determination of Hg Thermospecies by Zeeman Hg Analyzer

Samples ranging from 20 to 300 mg were weighed into sample boats, and each sample was inserted into the furnace of the Zeeman Hg analyzer. The atomizer furnace was gradually heated from ambient temperature to 720 °C at an optimized heating rate over five temperature stages to obtain thermoscanning peaks that represent Hg thermospecies in cement raw material samples and dust return based on volatility temperatures.

3. Results

3.1. Optimization of the Heating Rate in the Evaporation Chamber

The heating rate of the evaporation chamber was optimized to obtain well-separated analytical integrated absorbance peaks of Hg. The total Hg concentration was achieved by heating the raw material and cement samples from ambient temperature to 720 °C at a slower heating rate (Table 1).
The optimum heating rate ranges between 3.60 and 7.20 °C s−1 and takes approximately 150 s. To quantify Hg thermospecies, samples were heated from ambient temperature to 720 °C over four different stages, viz., 20–180 °C, 180–360 °C, 360–540 °C, and 540–720 °C, at the optimum heating rate of 0.144 °C s−1 stage−1, and this took approximately 1000 s (Table 1). Stage 6 involves the cooling of the evaporation chamber to ambient temperature in preparation for an analysis of the next sample.

3.2. Calibration of Zeeman Hg Analyzer

The calibration curve of Hg determination was generated as the absolute mass of Hg (ng) versus the atomic absorption peak area (peak area, arbitrary units). The absolute mass of Hg (mHg) was determined from the relationship between the certified value of Hg concentration (CHg) and the mass of the CRM (mCRM) subsamples taken for analysis:
m Hg ng C Hg ng   mg 1 × m CRM mg
A plot of Hg standard signals against absorbance was drawn to check whether the instrument is well optimized (Figure 1). The calibration curve with a correlation coefficient of approximately 1 was obtained, thus confirming a well-optimized instrument. Therefore, it can be concluded that sample matrices did not have any effect on the release of Hg and can be used for the creation of a single universal calibration curve for the determination of mercury. Such data is stored in the PC memory and used for the automatic calculation of Hg concentration during analysis.

3.3. Validation of Analytical Results

Certified reference materials (CRMs) were analyzed regularly to ensure the validity and reliability of the results. The accuracy of the applied method is confirmed when there is good agreement between the found and certified values. To check the validity of the applied analytical method, CRMs were analyzed. The choice of CRMs was based on including CRMs with lower Hg content (NCSZC 78001) and CRMs with higher Hg content (SARM 20) so that a wide range of Hg values were represented. The CRMs containing Hg content in the ranges of those found in cement and cement raw products were analyzed, viz., NCSZC 78001 (coal fly ash, China, 39 ± 0.9 ng g−1) and SARM 20 (MINTEK, South Africa, 250 ± 30 ng g−1), to check the validity of the method. The results of the analysis of reference materials indicated that the applied analytical method is reliable, as there was good agreement between the certified and found values at a 95% level of confidence using a two-tailed t-test (Table 2).

3.4. Results of the Determination of Total Hg in Cement Raw Materials

The results for the determination of total Hg (ng g−1) in cement raw materials and coals that are utilized during combustion are summarized in Table 3. The analyzed mined limestone utilized at PPC for cement production contained the lowest concentration of Hg (2.40 ± 0.28 ng g−1 − 3.02 ± 0.32 ng g−1, with a mean concentration of 2.54 ± 0.43 ng g−1), followed by natural gypsum (2.30 ± 0.33 ng g −1 − 5.75 ± 0.47 ng g−1, with a mean concentration of 3.63 ± 1.86 ng g−1) and coal (28.7 ± 2.63 ng g−1 − 142 ± 19 ng g−1, with a mean concentration of 86 ± 57 ng g−1). In contrast, the concentrations of Hg in fly ash (89 ± 25 − 160 ± 2.55 ng g−1, with a mean concentration of 124 ± 50 ng g−1), ALI synthetic gypsum (262 ± 7.38 ng g−1), and OMV synthetic gypsum (395 ± 4.83 ng g−1) were higher than those in naturally mined raw materials (limestone, gypsum, and coal).

3.5. Results of Total Hg Determination in Different Grades of Cements

The results for the determination of total Hg (ng g−1) in cements are shown in Table 4. CEM I 52.5N is the cement that has high early strength, while CEM II 42.5N is the cement that has low early strength. The results of Hg determination in cements showed that CEM I 52.5N contains less Hg concentration than CEM II 42.5N. The level of Hg is higher in CEM II 42.5N due to the utilization of both synthetic gypsum and fly ash during cement milling, as these materials are not added during CEM I 52.5N production.
Fly ash and slag are added in PPC Jupiter as extenders, and OMV gypsum is added as a minor additional constituent (MAC); hence, a high Hg concentration of 31 ± 4.14 ng g−1 is observed in CEM II 42.5N compared to cements produced in PPC De Hoek and PPC Hercules. Fly ash and slag are added in PPC Hercules as extenders, and ALI gypsum is added as MAC; hence, a lower concentration of Hg (8.13 ± 2.50 ng g−1) is observed than in PPC Jupiter. A lower Hg concentration is also observed in PPC De Hoek CEM II 42.5N cements because slag is added as an extender and natural gypsum is added as a MAC.

3.6. Results of Total Hg Determination in By-Product of Cement Production

The results for the determination of total Hg (ng g−1) in dust return are shown in Figure 2. Dust return is a by-product of combustion that is released from the raw meal material at the pre-heaters that operate at a temperature of up to 1000 °C and is captured at the dust collectors. Therefore, the components of the dust collectors also include the air blown from the clinker cooler through the pre-heaters.

3.7. Results of the Determination of Hg Thermospecies

Mercury thermospecies were determined on the raw materials utilized during cement production. Hg thermospecies are chemical forms of Hg that are released from materials at variable volatility temperatures. A summary of these results is shown in Table 5 and Table 6.
Results of the assessment of the presence of Hg thermospecies in materials utilized during cement production showed that synthetic gypsums, viz., OMV gypsum (200 ± 252 ng g−1) and ALI gypsum (228 ± 30 ng g−1), fly ash (108 ± 48 ng g−1), and coal (106 ± 22 ng g−1) contain one Hg thermospecies at the 20–180 °C range, as mercury was not detected above this temperature range (Table 5). This means that all Hg compounds in these materials are emitted and captured in dust return during cement production as the cement mill kilns operate at a maximum of 1450 °C.
Results of the analysis show that dust return may contain one to four Hg species as indicated by the number of Hg compounds detected over the full temperature range, viz., 20–180 °C, 180–360 °C, 360–540 °C, and 540–720 °C (Table 6). Sample DH15 collected from the PPC De Hoek plant contained four Hg thermospecies, viz., 71.4 ± 0.8 ng g−1 (20–180 °C), 12.9 ± 0.10 ng g−1 (180–360 °C), 20.9 ± 0.5 ng g−1 (360–540 °C), and 0.5 ± 0.02 ng g−1 (540–720 °C). These concentrations are associated with different chemical forms of Hg in the dust return sample. It can therefore be concluded from these results that only dust return samples contain more than one Hg thermospecies, thus indicating that new Hg compounds of higher volatility temperatures are formed during cement production.

4. Discussion

The results of the determination of Hg in CRMs show that the calibration curve of Hg has a regression equation of y = 324x + 402 and a correlation coefficient r2 = 0.9918, indicating that the calibration curve obtained was linear, as r2 was approximately 1 and is used for quantification of Hg in cement and its raw materials. Based on this correlation coefficient, it is certain that this thermal decomposition to determine Hg content on solid samples is more favourable than chemical decomposition methods, which are usually accompanied by analyte loss or contamination introduced through chemical pre-treatment, as it is more rapid and offers high efficiency.
ALI synthetic gypsum, also known as phospogypsum, is a by-product formed during the production of phosphoric acid from natural phosphate rock by the wet process [35,36,37]. Phospogypsum is mainly composed of gypsum but also contains a high level of impurities such as phosphates, fluorides, and sulphates, naturally occurring radionuclides, heavy metals, and other trace elements, and therefore, Hg in ALI gypsum may have originated from natural phosphate rock. Similarly, the presence of high Hg in OMV gypsum could be attributed to it being a phosphate waste product, as phosphate ores are known to contain trace amounts of metals including mercury. Hg in fly ash comes from coal as it is a by-product of coal combustion [38,39,40].
Slag contained low Hg content that ranged between 1.58 ± 0.19 ng g−1 and 3.23 ± 0.36 ng g−1, with the lowest average of Hg concentration detected at PPC Hercules. A possible reason for the low concentration in slag is that slag is the waste matter separated from metals during the smelting or refining of ore at a blast furnace operating at temperatures as high as 1650 °C, which volatilizes all Hg compounds; thus, mercury is emitted and therefore does not form part of the final product [41,42]. Results of the analysis of slag samples of different origins by Moreda-Piñeiro et al. (2001) also showed a lower concentration of Hg in slag (0.09 ± 0.003 − 0.13 ± 0.001 ng g−1), which is much lower than that established in this study [43].
Dust return shows a higher mercury content compared with all other materials that are utilized during cement production (Figure 2). A high concentration of Hg in dust return is due to the presence of Hg emitted from pre-heaters and kilns operated at 1000 °C and 1450 °C, respectively. This product poses environmental concerns due to its high Hg content if it must be disposed of into the environment, and because of that, it is reintroduced during the cement manufacturing process to minimize the amount of Hg that is released into the environment. Results of this study and others indicate that Hg compounds are released at 720 °C or at lower temperatures; thus, it can be concluded that all Hg compounds are released and captured by dust collectors during cement production with a higher degree of certainty at a 95% confidence level [34].
The identity of the Hg compounds in raw materials and cement is related to their temperature of decomposition. The compounds were identified as a function of volatility temperatures of their pure Hg compounds in others studies, viz., Hg2O (100 °C), HgCl2 (304 °C), Hg2Cl2 (383 °C), HgSO4 (450–500 °C), Hg2SO4 (335–500 °C), HgO (500 °C), HgS (544 °C), HgF2 (645 °C), and Hg2F2 (570 °C) [44,45,46]. It can therefore be concluded that mercury compounds are dominated by mercury compounds bound to oxygen. Mercury compounds that are formed in dust generated during cement production are chlorides, fluorides, sulphates, and sulphides.
The average total Hg concentration in fly ash in samples collected from PPC cement (149 ± 1.40 ng g−1) is much lower than the average Hg concentration reported by Du et al. (2018) of 550 ± 28.7 ng g−1 from different coal-fired power plants in China [47]. Mercury concentrations in limestone reported in the literature ranged between 4.70 ± 1.40 ng g−1 and 34.6 ± 19.5 ng g−1 [17,48,49,50]. These Hg concentrations are higher than those found in PPC plants (2.49 ± 0.50 ng g−1), thus indicating that limestone inputs utilized during cement production have low Hg content. The Hg concentrations of 4.7 ± 1.40 ng g−1 and 141 ± 6.70 ng g−1 found by Cui et al. (2021) in limestone and coal, respectively, are higher when compared to the average Hg concentration of 2.49 ± 0.5 ng g−1 and 121 ± 1.20 ng g−1 found at PPC cement plants [50].
The Hg concentration in gypsum from PPC cement (228 ± 30 ng g−1) is lower than that obtained by Kogut et al. (2021) of 265 ± 1.2 ng g−1 [17]. Coal, a fuel that is utilized for heating during PPC plant cement production, contained 121 ± 1.20 ng g−1, which falls within the range of 31.0 ± 5.60 ng g−1 to 158 ± 9.0 ng g−1 reported in [17,48,50,51].
The content of Hg in dust return or dust filter bags found in PPC plants (1663 ± 19.8 ng g−1) compares well to those established in other studies of 1690 ng g−1 ± 3.80 − 2448 ± 604 ng g−1 [17,49]. In general, PPC plant raw materials have lower Hg content than those utilized in other cement plants.
Hg thermospecies obtained from PPC cement coals were detected at a single temperature, as compared to those obtained from the literature. Coal from PPC shows that coal contains single Hg species at low temperatures, as compared to coal samples analyzed by Mathebula et al. (2020) and Mashyanov et al. (2017) [34,51]. Reports of Hg thermospecies content in dust return, cement, or raw materials were not found in studies in the literature.

5. Conclusions

Mined raw materials utilized in PPC plants showed low concentration of Hg (1.58 ± 0.19 − 5.75 ± 0.47 ng g−1) except for coal (28.7 ± 2.63 − 142 ± 19 ng g−1) when compared to synthetic gypsum (395 ± 4.83 ng g−1). The Hg concentration in CEM II 42.5N cement is higher when compared to CEM I 52.5N since synthetic gypsum and fly ash are added during cement milling. Dust return has the highest concentration of Hg as it contains Hg released from the combustion of materials in pre-heaters and kilns. Results of this study indicate that most Hg compounds are released at a temperature of 720 °C or lower. Therefore, it can be concluded that all Hg is released and captured by dust collectors during cement production. It was also found that dust return contains Hg thermospecies with volatility temperatures ranging from 20 °C to 720 °C, thus indicating that Hg compounds of high volatility temperatures are formed during cement production.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.A.L. and K.L.M.; methodology, Y.A.L.; software, Y.A.L.; validation, Y.A.L.; formal analysis, Y.A.L.; investigation, Y.A.L.; resources, K.L.M.; data curation, Y.A.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.A.L.; writing—review and editing, K.L.M.; visualization, K.L.M.; supervision, K.L.M.; project administration, K.L.M.; funding acquisition, K.L.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Pretoria Portland Cement Co Ltd. (PPC) for supplying us with the samples.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Substance Priority List. 2022. Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/programs/substance-priority-list.html (accessed on 13 July 2025).
  2. Wu, Y.S.; Osman, A.I.; Hosny, M.; Elgarahy, A.M.; Eltaweil, A.S.; Rooney, D.W.; Chen, Z.; Rahim, N.S.; Sekar, M.; Gopinath, S.C.B.; et al. The toxicity of mercury and its chemical compounds: Molecular mechanisms and environmental and human health implications: A comprehensive review. ACS Omega 2024, 9, 5100–5126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jomova, K.; Alomar, S.; Nepovimova, E.; Kuca, K.; Valko, M. Heavy metals: Toxicity and human health effects. Arch. Toxicol. 2025, 99, 153–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pacyna, E.G.; Pacyna, J.M.; Sundseth, K.; Munthe, J.; Kindbom, K.; Wilson, S.; Steenhuisen, F.; Maxson, P. Global emission of mercury to the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources in 2005 and projections to 2020. Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44, 2487–2499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pirrone, N.; Cinnirella, S.; Feng, X.; Finkelman, R.B.; Friedli, H.R.; Leaner, J. Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2010, 10, 5951–5964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Teng, H.; Altaf, A.R. Elemental mercury (Hg0) emission, hazards, and control: A brief review. J. Hazard. Mater. Adv. 2022, 5, 100049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nair, S.V.; Kotmic, J.; Gačnic, J.; Živkovic, I.; Koenig, A.M.; Mlakar, T.L.; Hovart, M. Dispersion of airborne mercury species emitted from the cement plant. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 312, 120057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Ozerova, N.A. Mercury in geological systems. In Global and Regional Mercury Cycles: Sources, Fluxes and Mass Balances; Baeyens, W., Ebinghaus, R., Vasiliev, O., Eds.; NATO ASI Series; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1996; Volume 21, pp. 463–474. [Google Scholar]
  9. Yudovich, Y.E.; Ketris, M.P. Mercury in coal: A review Part 1. Geochemistry. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2005, 62, 107–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yudovich, Y.E.; Ketris, M.P. Mercury in coal: A review Part 2. Coal use and environmental problems. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2005, 62, 135–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jia, W.; Chen, C.; Liu, S.; Cao, Y. New insight into the characteristics and mechanism of Hg0 removal by NaClO2 in limestone slurry. Energ. Fuel. 2021, 35, 11403–11414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mlakar, T.L.; Horvat, M.; Vuk, T.; Stergarsek, A.; Kotnik, J.; Tratnik, J.; Fajon, V. Mercury species, mass flows and processes in a cement plant. Fuel 2010, 89, 1936–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sikkema, J.K.; Alleman, J.E.; Ong, S.K.; Wheelock, T.D. Mercury regulation, fate, transport, transformation and abatement within cement manufacturing facilities: Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 4167–4178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zheng, Y.; Jensen, A.D.; Windelin, C.; Jensen, F. Dynamic measurement of mercury adsorption and oxidation on activated carbon in simulated cement kiln flue gas. Fuel 2012, 93, 649–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ghosh, S.K.; Parlikar, U.V.; Karstensen, K.H. Cement manufacturing-technology, practice and development. In Sustainable Management of Waste Through Co-Processing; Ghosh, S.K., Parlikar, U.V., Karstensen, K.H., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 73–90. [Google Scholar]
  16. Pang, D.; Mao, Y.; Jin, Y.; Song, Z.; Wang, X.; Li, J.; Wang, W. Review on the use of sludge in cement kilns: Mechanism, technical, and environmental evaluation. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2023, 172, 1072–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kogut, K.; Górecki, J.G.; Burmistrz, P. Opportunities for reducing mercury emissions in the cement industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. ASTM Method D3684; Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in Coal by the Oxygen Bomb Combustion/Atomic Absorption Method. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2006.
  19. ASTM Method D6414; Standard Test Methods for Total Mercury in Coal and Coal Combustion Residues by Acid Extraction or Wet Oxidation/Cold Vapour Atomic Absorption. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2006.
  20. US EPA Method 7471; Mercury in Solid or Semisolid Waste (Manual Cold-Vapour Technique). US EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  21. ASTM Method D6722; Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in Coal and Coal Combustion Residues by Direct Combustion Analysis. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2001.
  22. US EPA Method 7473; Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal Decomposition, Amalgamation and Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. US EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  23. Merriam, N.W.; Cha, C.Y.; Kang, T.W.; Vaillancourt, M.B. Development of an Advanced Continuous Mild Gasification Process for the Production of Coproducts. Task 4, Mild Gasification Tests. United States; 1990. Available online: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6133465 (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  24. Merdes, A.C.; Keener, T.C.; Khang, S.J.; Jenkins, R.G. Investigation into the fate of mercury in bituminous coal during mild pyrolysis. Fuel 1998, 77, 1783–1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, M.; Keener, T.C.; Khang, S.J. The effect of coal volatility on mercury removal from bituminous coal during mild pyrolysis. Fuel Process. Technol. 2000, 67, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Guffey, F.D.; Bland, A.E. Thermal pretreatment of low-ranked coal for control of mercury emissions. Fuel Process. Technol. 2004, 85, 521–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Xu, Z.; Lu, G.; Chan, O.Y. Fundamental study on mercury release characteristics during thermal upgrading of an Alberta sub-bituminous coal. Energ. Fuel. 2004, 18, 1855–1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Strezov, V.; Morrison, A.; Nelson, P.F. Pyrolytic mercury removal from coal and its adverse effect on coal swelling. Energ. Fuel. 2007, 21, 496–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, H.; Chang, L.; Liu, W.; Xiong, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, J. Advances in mercury removal from coal-fired flue gas by mineral adsorbents. J. Chem. Eng. 2020, 379, 122263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sholupov, S.; Pogarev, S.; Ryzhov, V.; Mashyanov, N.; Stroganov, A. Zeeman atomic absorption spectrometer RA-915+ for direct determination of mercury in air and complex matrix samples. Fuel Process. Technol. 2004, 85, 473–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Huang, R.J.; Zhuang, Z.X.; Wang, Y.R.; Huang, Z.Y.; Wang, X.R.; Lee, F.S.C. An analytical study of bioaccumulation and the binding forms of mercury in rat body using thermolysis coupled with atomic absorption spectrometry. Anal. Chim. Acta 2005, 538, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Panichev, N.A.; Panicheva, S.E. Determination of total mercury in fish and sea products by direct thermal decomposition atomic absorption spectrometry. Food Chem. 2015, 166, 432–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sholupov, S.; Ganeev, A. Zeeman atomic absorption spectrometry using high frequency modulated light polarization. Spectrochim. Acta Part B 1995, 50, 1227–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mathebula, M.W.; Panichev, N.; Mandiwana, K. Determination of mercury thermospecies in South African coals in the enhancement of mercury removal by pre-combustion technologies. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 19282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Carter, O.C.; Scheiner, B.J. Investigation of metal and non-metal migration through phosphogypsum. In Proceedings of the AIME Proceedings on the Symposium on Emerging Process Technologies for a Cleaner Environment, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 24–27 February 1992; AIME: San Ramon, CA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  36. Carbonell-Barrachina, A.; Delaune, R.D.; Jugsujinda, A. Phosphogypsum chemistry under highly anoxic conditions. J. Waste Manag. 2002, 22, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tayibi, H.; Choura, M.; Lopez, F.A.; Alguacil, F.J.; Lopez-Delgado, A. Environmental impact and management of phosphogypsum. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2377–2386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wei, Z.; Wu, G.; Su, R.; Li, C.; Liang, P. Mobility and contamination assessment of mercury in coal fly ash, atmospheric deposition, and soil collected from Tianjin, china. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2011, 30, 1997–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rompalski, P.; Smolinski, A.; Krzton, H.; Gazdowicz, J.; Howaniec, N.; Rog, L. Determination of mercury content in hard coal and fly ash using X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy coupled with chemical analysis. Arab. J. Chem. 2019, 12, 3927–3942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wu, J.; Wu, X.; Wang, J.; Wang, T.; Zhang, Y.; Pan, W.P. Speciation analysis of Hg, As, Pb, Cd, and Cr in fly ash at different ESP’s hoppers. Fuel 2020, 280, 118688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kumar, P.; Gogineni, A.; Ammarullah, M.I. Sustainable bioengineering approach to industrial waste management: LD slag as a cementitious material. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Aziz, I.H.; Abdullah, M.M.A.B.; Heah, C.Y.; Liew, Y.M. Behaviour changes of ground granulated blast furnace slag geopolymers at high temperature. Adv. Cem. Res. 2020, 32, 465–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Moreda-Piñeiro, J.; Beceiro-González, E.; Alonso-Rodríguez, E.; González-Soto, E.; López-Mahía, P.; Muniategui-Lorenzo, S.; Prada-Rodríguez, D. Use of low temperature ashing and microwave acid extraction procedures for As and Hg determination in coal, coal fly ash, and slag samples by cold vapor/hydride generation AAS. At. Spectrosc. 2001, 22, 422–428. [Google Scholar]
  44. Tariq, S.A.; Hill, J.O. Thermal analysis of mercury(I) sulfate and mercury(II) sulphate. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 1981, 21, 277–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lide, D.R. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 90th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 725–726. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sedlar, M.; Pavlin, M.; Popovic, A.; Hovart, M. Temperature stability of mercury compounds in solid substrates. Open Chem. 2015, 13, 404–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Du, W.; Zhang, C.; Kong, X.M.; Zhuo, Y.Q.; Zhu, Z.W. Mercury release from fly ashes and hydrated fly ash cement pastes. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 178, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Li, X.; Li, Z.; Wu, T.; Chen, J.; Fu, C.; Zhang, L.; Feng, X.; Fu, X.; Tang, L.; Wang, Z.; et al. Atmospheric mercury emissions from two pre-calciner cement plants in Southwest China. Atmos. Environ. 2019, 199, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Berisha, S.; Živković, I.; Kotnik, J.; Mlakar, T.L.; Hovart, M. Quantification of total mercury in samples from cement production processing with thermal decomposition coupled with AAS. Accred. Qual. Assur. 2020, 25, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cui, J.; He, J.; Xiao, Y.; Li, J.; Di, Y. Characterization of input materials to provide an estimate of mercury emissions related to China’s cement industry. Atmos. Environ. 2021, 246, 118133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mashyanov, N.; Pogarev, S.E.; Panova, E.G.; Panichev, N.; Ryzhov, V. Determination of mercury thermospecies in coal. Fuel 2017, 203, 973–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The calibration curve of Hg by the Zeeman Hg analyzer for Hg determination in cement and cement raw materials.
Figure 1. The calibration curve of Hg by the Zeeman Hg analyzer for Hg determination in cement and cement raw materials.
Analytica 06 00026 g001
Figure 2. Graph showing total mercury concentration on cement raw materials and dust return by-products.
Figure 2. Graph showing total mercury concentration on cement raw materials and dust return by-products.
Analytica 06 00026 g002
Table 1. Temperature program applied in the determination of Hg in samples.
Table 1. Temperature program applied in the determination of Hg in samples.
AnalyteHeating Stage Temperature Range
Total Hg determinationSingle Stage: Ambient T–720 °C
Stage 1: Ambient T–340 °C
Stage 2: 344–378 °C
Hg thermospeciesStage 3: 387–485 °C
Stage 4: 510–617 °C
Stage 5: 641–720 °C
Stage 6: 720 °C–Ambient T (Cooling)
Table 2. Results of Hg determination in standard and certified reference material (ng g−1).
Table 2. Results of Hg determination in standard and certified reference material (ng g−1).
SARM 20NCSZC 78001
InstrumentCertified ValueFound ValueCertified ValueFound Value
RA-915+250 ± 30247 ± 4.039 ± 0.938 ± 1.0
DMA-80250 ± 30251 ± 5.039 ± 0.938 ± 0.8
Table 3. Results of the determination of total Hg concentration (ng g−1) in cement raw materials.
Table 3. Results of the determination of total Hg concentration (ng g−1) in cement raw materials.
Raw MaterialsPPC Jupiter, ng g−1PPC De Hoek, ng g−1PPC Hercules, ng g−1
Limestone2.40 ± 0.283.02 ± 0.322.19 ± 0.32
Fly Ash160 ± 2.55N89 ± 25
Slag2.56 ± 0.413.23 ± 0.361.58 ± 0.19
Natural Gypsum5.75 ± 0.472.84 ± 1.192.30 ± 0.33
OMV Gypsum395 ± 4.83NN
ALI GypsumNN262 ± 7.38
Raw Coal28.7 ± 2.6387 ± 2.24142 ± 19
N: not added during cement production.
Table 4. Total Hg concentration in different grades of cement.
Table 4. Total Hg concentration in different grades of cement.
Cement PlantTotal Hg (ng g−1)
PPC Jupiter6.56 ± 0.72 a
31.0 ± 4.14 b
PPC De Hoek1.20 ± 0.020 a
2.93 ± 0.28 b
PPC Hercules1.32 ± 0.83 a
8.13 ± 2.50 b
a CEM I 52.5N; b CEM II 42.5N.
Table 5. Results of the determination of total Hg and Hg thermospecies in materials utilized during cement production.
Table 5. Results of the determination of total Hg and Hg thermospecies in materials utilized during cement production.
MaterialTotal Hg,
ng g−1
Hg Thermospecies Concentration, ng g−1
20–180 °C180–360 °C360–540 °C540–720 °C
OMV Gypsum208 ± 257200 ± 252---
ALI Gypsum262 ± 5.37228 ± 30---
Fly Ash126 ± 48108 ± 48---
Coal121 ± 26106 ± 22---
Table 6. Results of the determination of total Hg and Hg thermospecies in dust return.
Table 6. Results of the determination of total Hg and Hg thermospecies in dust return.
Cement PlantSample IDTotal Hg, ng g−1Hg Thermospecies, ng g−1
20–180 °C 180–360 °C360–540 °C540–720 °C
PPC De HoekDH14235 ± 6.7194 ± 4.0
DH15179 ± 1.871.4 ± 0.812.9 ± 0.1020.9 ± 0.50.5 ± 0.02
DH161663 ± 19.81223 ± 12390 ± 2.0
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lucwaba, Y.A.; Mandiwana, K.L. Determination of Total Mercury and Mercury Thermospecies in Cement and Cement Raw Materials. Analytica 2025, 6, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/analytica6030026

AMA Style

Lucwaba YA, Mandiwana KL. Determination of Total Mercury and Mercury Thermospecies in Cement and Cement Raw Materials. Analytica. 2025; 6(3):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/analytica6030026

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lucwaba, Yolisa A., and Khakhathi L. Mandiwana. 2025. "Determination of Total Mercury and Mercury Thermospecies in Cement and Cement Raw Materials" Analytica 6, no. 3: 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/analytica6030026

APA Style

Lucwaba, Y. A., & Mandiwana, K. L. (2025). Determination of Total Mercury and Mercury Thermospecies in Cement and Cement Raw Materials. Analytica, 6(3), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/analytica6030026

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop