1

Investigations on leaching behavior of EAF steel slags

M. Gelfi, G. Cornacchia, R. Roberti
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Industriale
Universit degli Studi di Brescia

Abstract

The chromium release of different types of EAF steel slags cooled in different conditions
was assessed by standard leaching test. The aim of this work was to relate these results
to the microstructure and phases composition of the samples, that were carefully
investigated by X-Ray Diffraction experiments and SEM-EDXS analyses. In particular,
EDXS measurements were performed on polished slag samples before and after
immersion in leaching test solution for 24 hours. The results showed that larnite and
gehlenite are the only phases of the slags to be strongly dissolved. Their content is very
high in slowly cooled slags which also produced the largest release of chromium.


Keywords

Slag, Electric Arc Furnace, chromium leaching, SEM-EDXS, XRD.


Introduction

Most of the steel produced in Italy and in Europe every year comes from electric-arc-
furnaces (EAF) which, together with blast furnaces, represents the main production system
used by steelworkers. European EAFs produces approximately 210 million tonnes of crude
steel per year and 2 million tons of waste per year. Apart from discharging waste into
dumps, a certain percentage of this material is manipulated, with respect to the
environmental standards in force, so that it could assume environmental features for
infrastructures use [1]. Conservation of resources and waste prevention are common goals
which can generate opportunities and profit while minimising environmental nuisance.
In most industrialized countries slag deriving from iron and steel production is considered a
potentially re-usable by-product, not a waste. In particular, the slag deriving from blast
furnaces is used in cement production and in cement conglomerates, while the slag
deriving from EAF is preferably proposed for uses in road construction. Nevertheless not
all the produced slag gets re-used, with great differences between recycling percentages
of the different kind of plants [2]. This is due to the lack of common rules and guidelines
regarding testing, assessing and using slag in Europe and to the general fear that the use
of some slags could be environmentally hazardous, for leaching of toxic elements [3].
The chemical composition of steelmaking slag and its derivates is made of calcium, iron,
aluminium, magnesium and siliceous oxides, which in a whole reach the 90% of the weight
of the material. In particular, some elements like Ca or Si, derive from raw materials added
to the bath (additives), others from the attack of the liquid bath to the firebricks of the
furnace (Mg) and some others are impurities connected with the quality of the ferrous
scrap (Cr, Ti, Cu, etc.). The steelwork slags are to be considered as igneous rocks which
are originated from volcanoes eruptions in fact, from a mineralogical point of view, the slag
is mainly made of larnite (2CaO-SiO
2
), brownmillerite, which is a solid solution of 2CaO-
Fe
2
O
3
-2CaO-2Al
2
O
3
-Fe
2
O
3
and wustite (solid solution with variable composition based on
2

FeO, CaO, MgO, MnO). Other compounds are anhydrous calcium silicates and silico-
aluminates, gehlenite, and bredigite, magnetite and magnesio-ferrite, and manganese
oxides [1].
An interesting aspect to consider in the optics to reduce the leaching of elements from
slags is rapid cooling, for example by water granulation, that can results in an amorphous
slag, encapsulating metals and oxides, and thereby lowering the solubility of the heavy
metals compared to rock material used for road making [4]. The cooling rate is also a very
important parameter in the formation of Cr
6+
because this cation develops at temperature
lower than that of EAF process (below 1228C) [5].
Slags with a basicity factor (CaO+MgO)/(SiO
2
+Al
2
O
3
) > 1 may form glass when cooled
rapidly, depending on their chemical analysis. However, the formation of glass in some
investigated granulated slag samples has not been sufficient to enclose the heavy metals
and prevent them from leaching [3].
Besides glass formation, controlling cooling conditions, can be a means of affecting
mineral transformation and consequently the solubility of elements like chromium; rapid
cooling, should result in the prevention of leaching of chromium. Chemical compounds
containing hexavalent chromium (Cr
6+
) are generally considered far more toxic than those
containing the trivalent form (Cr
3+
) [6, 7]. According to Lee and Nassaralla [4], Cr
6+
is
usually formed at lower temperatures and a rapid cooling reduces its formation by limiting
the reaction kinetics.
The effect of cooling rate on the leaching behavior of some different slags was
investigated by Tossavainen et al. [3]; the results obtained from the leaching test show that
the solubility of elements such as chromium, molybdenum and vanadium for the different
investigated slags is generally very low. For EAF slags controversial results have been
obtained for the leaching of chromium, which is not prevented by rapid cooling and
appears to be more influenced by the slag chemical composition.
In this panorama, the aim of this paper is to give a contribute for a better understanding of
the relations existing between composition, microstructure, cooling conditions and
chromium leachability of EAF slags.


Experimentals

Two samples of steel slag were obtained from different EAF steelmaking plants for the
production of low carbon steels:
- slag 1, from ultra high power (UHP) furnace;
- slag 2, from medium power (MP) furnace.
In order to evaluate the effect of different cooling conditions on the properties of slags, a
sample of the UHP furnace slag was picked up directly from the pouring spout of the
furnace during deslagging operations and put on a steel plate to cool it quickly. This
sample was named slag 3, to distinguish it from slag 1 and slag 2, which were collected
from slag pot, where the slag takes many hours to solidify and cooling down at room
temperature.
The overall chemical composition of the slags was analyzed by X-ray fluorescence
spectroscopy (XRF), while the crystalline phases were identified by X-ray powder
diffraction, carried out on a Philips X-Pert Pro diffractometer, set at voltage of 40 kV and at
a current of 40 mA.
All the samples were crushed to a particle-size less than 4 mm and leached according to
the 24 hours one-stage batch test prEN 12457-2 [8].
A LEO EVO 40 scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to perform a
microstructural examination of the slag samples, previously prepared by means of
3

standard metallographic grinding and polishing procedures. The energy dispersive X-ray
spectroscopy (EDXS) microprobe (Link Pentafet Oxford mod 7060) coupled to the SEM
permits to confirm the presence of the phases previously identified by XRD.
In particular, EDXS measurements were performed on polished slag samples before and
after immersion for 24 hours in solution test prEN 12457-2, in order to investigate if some
phases were preferentially corroded during leaching tests. On the same samples, some X-
ray diffraction experiments were also carried out. Considering the small size of polished
slag particles (< 4 mm), the measurements were performed by means of a D/max-RAPID
Rigaku microdiffractometer equipped with a cylindrical imaging plate (IP) detector. The
irradiated area can be chosen by collimators of diameters from 800 to 10 m. In these
experiments a collimator diameter of 300 m was used. The current and voltage were set
to 30 mA and 40 kV respectively.


Results

The chemical composition of the slags and the results of leaching tests, referring to
chromium release, are presented in table 1.
Despite the slags present similar chemical compositions and basicity indexes (IB
2
=
CaO/SiO
2
), the results of leaching test are completely different. The slow cooled slag 1
release the greatest quantity of Cr (721 ppb), well above the limit of 50 ppb fixed by Italian
regulations for the recovery of steel slags. The leaching of Cr is significantly smaller for
slow cooled slag 2 (46 ppb) and practically zero (< 5 ppb) for rapid cooled slag 3.
At a first rough analysis, the higher Cr leachability of slag 1 respect to the slag 2 could be
ascribed to its greater Cr
2
O
3
content. However the same hypothesis has no sense for the
slag 3, which presents the higher content of chromium oxide and the lowest Cr release. It
seems to be evident that the cooling rate affects significantly the leaching of Cr, modifying
the phases in the slags and their solubility, despite of the original slag Cr
2
O
3
content.
The diffraction patterns for the three slag samples are reported in Fig. 1. All the
investigated slag samples showed a very high crystalline nature, in according to Daugherty
et al. [9]. It was difficult to exactly identify their mineralogy, because the slags appear to be
very complex and some phases have varying contents of substituted ions. The oxides
which were detected are the following:
- FeO, wustite (W);
- Ca
2
SiO
4
, larnite (L);
- Ca
12
Al
14
O
33
, mayenite (M);
- Fe
3
O
4
, magnetite (O);
- Fe
2
SiO
4
, gehlenite (G).
With respect to peak intensity of some crystalline compounds, it is possible to observe
important differences between slag 1 and the other two.
Slag 1 shows the presence of a great amount of larnite, while in the other two slags the
wustite is the predominant phase.
This fact is probably due to the composition of the slag 1, which has a low FeO content:
32,77% against 41,53% of slag 2 and 37,66% of slag 3.
Moreover, it must be noted that in the fast cooled slag 3 there is no presence of gehlenite.
To study the shape and the distribution of these phases, the polished samples were
investigated by scanning electron microscopy, set in back-scattering mode, to put in
evidence the areas of the sample with different chemical composition.
The comparison of micrographic appearance of the three different slag samples collected
by SEM at low magnification are reported in Fig. 2. Slag 1 and especially slag 2 have a
4

coarser microstructure, probably as a consequence of their slow cooling rate, which allows
the growth of large crystals of crystalline phases.
To better analyse their microstructure the samples were observed at higher magnifications
as reported in Fig. 3. Slag 1 is mainly constituted by two components in form of large
particles: larnite and a wustite-type solid solution ((Fe, Mg, Mn)O), containing also small
amounts of Cr, afterwards simply called wustite.
Minor phases are represented by particles containing high quantity of Ca and Al, with a
chemical composition that is close to that of the mayenite phase, identified by X-ray
diffraction, small oxides rich in Ca, Al and Fe, and few large particles, angular shaped, rich
in Cr oxide, containing also minor percentages of MgO, FeO, Al
2
O
3
and MnO. There are
only few traces of gehlenite.
In the slag 2, it is evident that the main phase is the wustite, according with XRD results.
In fact, this phase is present not only as large isolated grains (clearly visible in Fig. 2), but
also as the component of a very fine eutectic structure, that can be resolved only at higher
magnifications. The second component of the eutectic is a Ca-Al oxide; its composition is
difficult to determine considering that its size is of few microns, lesser than the spatial
resolution of EDXS microprobe. Luckily, the Ca-Al oxide is sometimes present also as
isolated and bigger particles, where the analysis can be performed with better precision,
showing the composition of mayenite phase.
In the slag 2, larnite appears to be present in form of small isolated particles, embedded in
the eutectic structure, which probably solidified at lower temperatures filling the interstices
between silicates. This fact can be observed also in Fig. 2, at lower magnifications, where
the large larnite particles (often greater than 50 microns) are always surrounded by the
eutectic compound.
Regarding the minor phases, some isolated grain of Cr-rich oxide are still present, while
there are no traces of Ca-Al-Fe oxides.
In the slag 3, the microstructure is quite uniform and very fine. The wustite is still abundant
both in form of rounded particles, both as fine eutectic mixed with mayenite.
The larnite particles are small and isolated, surrounded by eutectic.
There are also many small grains of Cr-rich oxide, as a consequence of the high chromium
content of this slag (Cr
2
O
3
= 3,09%).
To understand if the mineralogical differences evidenced in the three samples of slag have
some influence on their different Cr-leaching behaviour, SEM-EDXS analyses were
performed on selected areas of polished slag samples, and the analysis was repeated in
the same points after the immersion in the leaching test solution for 24 hours.
The results for the three slags are reported in figures from 4 to 6. Every figure refers to a
different slag and shows, on the top, the image and the composition of the selected area
before the immersion test, on the bottom, it is reported the image and the composition of
the same area after the immersion test.
Considering the slag 1, it is evident that the test solution has strongly corroded the larnite
phase (Fig. 4). The areas occupied by larnite, after immersion, are completely dissolved,
replaced by deep holes, from which sometimes the EDXS signal cannot come out.
On the contrary the wustite phase, the Ca-Al-Fe oxide and the Cr-rich oxide seem to be
not significantly affected by test solution attack. At the end of the test on the corroded
surface it is possible to observe the presence of thin needles, with a composition close to
that of mayenite.
In the case of slag 2, the attack seems to be less strong. The areas occupied by larnite are
corroded only superficially, revealing under them, the presence of a more resistant phase
rich in FeO and SiO
2
, that was not detected by XRD and SEM-EDXS analyses. Maybe this
phase constitutes a sort of thin intrusion in the larnite grains, which can be clearly
evidenced only after corrosion.
5

Deeper attacks regard the contour of larnite phase and wustite particles, which often
appear to be removed from their original position.
On the contrary, the mayenite phase is immune to corrosion, and after immersion it
appears as the skeleton of the corroded slag.
Also wustite particles and Cr-rich oxide seem to be not strongly affected by solution attack,
as already observed for slag 1.
The slag 3 resists very well to the attack of test solution. The corrosion affect only the few
and small islands of larnite phase surrounded by the wustite-mayenite eutectic, that in this
sample appear to be extremely fine. Also at high magnifications, it is difficult to clearly
resolve the wustite from the mayenite particles, probably as a consequence of fast cooling.
The eutectic and the wustite particles form a compact and continuous structure, which is
not easily soluble in the acidified water solution.
To complete this study, some microdiffraction measurements were performed on polished
sample of slag 1 before and after the immersion test.
Fig. 7 shows, the diffraction images collected by the bidimensional X-ray detector and the
relate diffractographs obtained performing an integration in 2 direction. Debye rings are
not continuous but spotty, confirming the presence of few large crystallites in the small
irradiated area (less than 1 mm
2
).
The phase identification analysis was complicated by the low and irregular intensity of
diffraction peaks, anyway, it confirms that the original slag mainly contains larnite and
wustite phases, with less amount of magnetite, mayenite and gehlenite.
After the immersion, larnite and gehlenite peaks disappeared, while wustite, magnetite and
mayenite are still present, confirming the previous SEM-EDXS observations.

Further results are being included about:

a) the depth of the attach in slag 1 and 2 during leaching tests on metallographic
specimens

b) the effect of grain size on leaching behavior of different EAF slags







6

c) the relationship between leaching behavior, chemical composition and cooling rate
of different EAF slags (solid points present paper results) (L and H Low and
High cooling rate respectively)






Acknowledgments

The Authors are gratefully indebted with the researchers M. Brisotto and A. Zacco, from
the Chemistry for Technologies Laboratory of the University of Brescia, for carrying out the
X-ray diffraction experiments.

References

[1] M. Agostinacchio and S. Olita: Use of marginal materials in road constructions:
Electric-arc-furnace slag, Proc. of 3rd Int. SIIV Congress, Bari (Italy), Sept. 22-24, 2005
[2] D.R. Reinhart: Waste Manag. Res., 1993, vol. 11, pp. 257268.
[3] M. Tossavainen, F. Engstrom, Q. Yang, N. Menad, M. Lidstrom Larsson, and B.
Bjorkman: Waste Management, 2007, vol. 27, n. 10, pp. 13351344.
[4] M. Tossavainen and E. Forssberg: Steel Research, 2000, vol. 71, n. 11, pp. 442448.
[5] Y. Lee and C.L. Nassarella: Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, 1988, vol. 29B,
pp. 405410.
[6] E.R. Plunkett: Handbook of Industrial Toxicology, Chemical Publishing Co., New York,
NY, 1976, pp. 108109.
[7] M. Windholz (Ed.): The Merck Index. Merck, Rahway, NJ, 1976, pp. 976.
[8] CEN, 2002a. Final draft prEN 12457-2. Characterization of waste-leaching-compliance
test of leaching of granular waste material and sludges Part 2: one-stage batch test at a
liquid to solid ratio of 10 l/kg for materials with particle size below 4 mm (with or without
particle reduction).
[9] K.E.Daugherty, B. Saad, C. Weirich, and A. Eberendu: Silicates Industriels, 1983, vol.
4, n. 5, pp.107-110.
7

46 3.08 1.89 0.11 0.42 2.41 4.76 7.28 10.19 31.42 41.53 2
< 5 2.88 3.09 0.12 0.38 2.42 5.22 9.15 10.83 31.13 37.66 3
721 2.93 2.49 0.15 0.41 2.38 4.98 9.05 12.15 35.62 32.77 1
Leaching test
(ppb Cr)
Basicity
(IB
2
)
Cr
2
O
3
S P
2
O
5
MgO MnO Al
2
O
3
SiO
2
CaO FeO Slag
46 3.08 1.89 0.11 0.42 2.41 4.76 7.28 10.19 31.42 41.53 2
< 5 2.88 3.09 0.12 0.38 2.42 5.22 9.15 10.83 31.13 37.66 3
721 2.93 2.49 0.15 0.41 2.38 4.98 9.05 12.15 35.62 32.77 1
Leaching test
(ppb Cr)
Basicity
(IB
2
)
Cr
2
O
3
S P
2
O
5
MgO MnO Al
2
O
3
SiO
2
CaO FeO Slag


Table 1 Chemical composition of slag samples (wt%) and results of Cr-leaching tests
carried out according to prEN 12457-2.



15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2Theta ()
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2Theta ()
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2Theta ()
15 25 35 45 55 65 75
2Theta
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
a
.
u
.
)
SLAG 2
SLAG 3
LL
L
L
L L
W
W
W
W
M
M
O
M
G
M
O
O
O
G
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
M
M
M M
O
M O
O
O
L
W
M
G
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W W
M
M
M/O
M
G
M
O
O
O
G
L
W
SLAG 1
G
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2Theta ()
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2Theta ()
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
2Theta ()
15 25 35 45 55 65 75
2Theta
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
a
.
u
.
)
SLAG 2
SLAG 3
LL
L
L
L L
W
W
W
W
M
M
O
M
G
M
O
O
O
G
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
M
M
M M
O
M O
O
O
L
W
M
G
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W W
M
M
M/O
M
G
M
O
O
O
G
L
W
SLAG 1
G


Fig.1 X-ray diffraction patterns for slag samples.



8


SLAG 2
SLAG 3
SLAG 1 SLAG 2
SLAG 3
SLAG 1 SLAG 1

Fig. 2 Micrographic appearance of slag samples at low magnification.













9

1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Ti Cr Mn Fe
1 34.8 16.4 48.8
2 18.7 5.5 0.9 2.5 10.0 62.5
3 31.2 27.8 36.5 4.5
4 29.8 10.5 1.0 35.4 2.3 21.1
5 22.6 6.0 4.0 1.0 48.7 3.3 14.5
Analysis O Na Mg Al Si Ca Cr Mn Fe
1 39.2 0.9 0.4 17.4 41.3 0.8
2 32.6 2.3 7.4 16.4 5.8 35.5
3 36.3 0.8 15.5 4.3 25.8 2.4 15.0
4 36.8 3.1 26.9 0.8 30.3 2.1
5 36.2 1.3 9.2 0.8 32.8 4.2 12.2
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Cr Mn Fe
1 18.1 4.5 1.9 1.8 9.9 63.8
2 33.4 24.6 0.9 35.8 5.3
3 32.9 0.9 16.6 47.9 1.8
4 32.9 17.2 49.9
5 24.8 5.6 4.4 1.2 44.7 5.2 14.2
6 26.5 6.0 5.6 1.4 39.8 5.2 15.5
SLAG 2
SLAG 1
SLAG 3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Ti Cr Mn Fe
1 34.8 16.4 48.8
2 18.7 5.5 0.9 2.5 10.0 62.5
3 31.2 27.8 36.5 4.5
4 29.8 10.5 1.0 35.4 2.3 21.1
5 22.6 6.0 4.0 1.0 48.7 3.3 14.5
Analysis O Na Mg Al Si Ca Cr Mn Fe
1 39.2 0.9 0.4 17.4 41.3 0.8
2 32.6 2.3 7.4 16.4 5.8 35.5
3 36.3 0.8 15.5 4.3 25.8 2.4 15.0
4 36.8 3.1 26.9 0.8 30.3 2.1
5 36.2 1.3 9.2 0.8 32.8 4.2 12.2
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Cr Mn Fe
1 18.1 4.5 1.9 1.8 9.9 63.8
2 33.4 24.6 0.9 35.8 5.3
3 32.9 0.9 16.6 47.9 1.8
4 32.9 17.2 49.9
5 24.8 5.6 4.4 1.2 44.7 5.2 14.2
6 26.5 6.0 5.6 1.4 39.8 5.2 15.5
SLAG 2
SLAG 1
SLAG 3


Fig. 3 Micrographic appearance of slags at high magnifications and respective results of
EDXS analysis (wt%).






10

1
2
3
4
5
AFTER IMMERSION
BEFORE IMMERSION
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Ti Cr Mn Fe
1 24.4 5.6 1.2 8.0 60.9
2 34.6 16.6 47.1 1.7
3 27.6 1.9 8.5 23.2 2.3 3.3 1.6 31.6
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Ti Cr Mn Fe
1 19.7 5.3 0.7 0.7 1.5 7.8 64.2
2
3 23.4 1.1 6.8 0.5 22.3 2.0 1.2 2.8 39.9
4
5 41.0 22.2 4.1 25.4 7.2
No signal
No signal
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
AFTER IMMERSION
BEFORE IMMERSION
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Ti Cr Mn Fe
1 24.4 5.6 1.2 8.0 60.9
2 34.6 16.6 47.1 1.7
3 27.6 1.9 8.5 23.2 2.3 3.3 1.6 31.6
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Ti Cr Mn Fe
1 19.7 5.3 0.7 0.7 1.5 7.8 64.2
2
3 23.4 1.1 6.8 0.5 22.3 2.0 1.2 2.8 39.9
4
5 41.0 22.2 4.1 25.4 7.2
No signal
No signal
1
2
3


Fig. 4 - SEM-EDXS analysis (wt%) of slag 1, before and after immersion test.




11

4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
AFTER IMMERSION
BEFORE IMMERSION
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Ti Cr Mn Fe
1 28.5 27.9 39.6 4.0
2 40.9 16.4 42.7
3 14.7 7.3 2.0 2.3 12.1 61.6
4 22.7 4.2 1.4 34.8 17.3 19.7
Analysis O Mg Al Si P Ca Ti Cr Mn Fe
1 30.5 28.2 38.8 2.6
2 30.0 2.7 14.7 3.4 3.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 43.8
3 16.5 6.6 2.1 1.4 12.2 61.3
4 27.5 4.2 1.7 33.8 20.1 12.6
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
AFTER IMMERSION
BEFORE IMMERSION
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Ti Cr Mn Fe
1 28.5 27.9 39.6 4.0
2 40.9 16.4 42.7
3 14.7 7.3 2.0 2.3 12.1 61.6
4 22.7 4.2 1.4 34.8 17.3 19.7
Analysis O Mg Al Si P Ca Ti Cr Mn Fe
1 30.5 28.2 38.8 2.6
2 30.0 2.7 14.7 3.4 3.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 43.8
3 16.5 6.6 2.1 1.4 12.2 61.3
4 27.5 4.2 1.7 33.8 20.1 12.6


Fig. 5 SEM-EDXS analysis (wt%) of slag 2, before and after immersion test.






12

4
1
3
AFTER IMMERSION
BEFORE IMMERSION
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Cr Mn Fe
1 27.4 17.9 2.1 26.8 4.1 21.8
2 29.0 5.5 13.5 43.3 8.7
3 39.3 16.6 44.1
4 24.8 3.6 1.5 8.8 8.0 53.4
5 27.2 5.3 4.9 1.5 40.9 5.0 15.2
5
2
4
1
3
5
2
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Ti Cr Mn Fe
1 33.9 17.6 2.41 23.7 0.92 2.08 19.4
2 30.2 16.8 2.0 26.2 1.0 2.8 21.0
3 29.2 2.3 5.7 3.5 5.8 6.2 47.4
4 17.8 4.3 2.1 1.1 9.9 64.8
5 27.9 5.7 4.3 1.3 40.5 4.1 16.2
4
1
3
AFTER IMMERSION
BEFORE IMMERSION
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Cr Mn Fe
1 27.4 17.9 2.1 26.8 4.1 21.8
2 29.0 5.5 13.5 43.3 8.7
3 39.3 16.6 44.1
4 24.8 3.6 1.5 8.8 8.0 53.4
5 27.2 5.3 4.9 1.5 40.9 5.0 15.2
5
2
4
1
3
5
2
Analysis O Mg Al Si Ca Ti Cr Mn Fe
1 33.9 17.6 2.41 23.7 0.92 2.08 19.4
2 30.2 16.8 2.0 26.2 1.0 2.8 21.0
3 29.2 2.3 5.7 3.5 5.8 6.2 47.4
4 17.8 4.3 2.1 1.1 9.9 64.8
5 27.9 5.7 4.3 1.3 40.5 4.1 16.2


Fig. 6- SEM-EDXS analysis (wt%) of slag 3, before and after immersion test.




13

W
W
L
L
G
G L
L
M
L
L
L
O
O
W
W
W
M
M
O
O
O
AFTER IMMERSION
BEFORE IMMERSION
M
O
M
M
O
O
M
W
M
2Theta
2Theta
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
)
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
)
W
W
L
L
G
G L
L
M
L
L
L
O
O
W
W
W
M
M
O
O
O
AFTER IMMERSION
BEFORE IMMERSION
M
O
M
M
O
O
M
W
M
2Theta
2Theta
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
)
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
c
o
u
n
t
s
)


Fig. 7 2D diffraction images and integrated diffractographs collected from slag 1 before
and after the immersion test.