Toxicological Impact of Heavy Metals During Sustainable Brick Production from Bagasse and Fly Ash: A Review

Pratik Krishna; Santosh Verma

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14

Review Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Toxicological Impact of Heavy Metals During Sustainable Brick Production from Bagasse and Fly Ash: A Review

Pratik Krishna

, Santosh Verma^*

Published in American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering (Volume 9, Issue 4)

Received: 17 October 2025 Accepted: 30 October 2025 Published: 9 December 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The utilization of waste materials in the construction technology is today considered an important key to meet sustainability level goals and reduce carbon dioxide emissions through a minimum use of virgin production chains. Coal fly ash (CFA) and sugarcane bagasse ash (SBA) are the two types of waste byproducts for which there has been promising reuse in a sustainable brick. Both ashes are characterized by their high contents of silica and alumina that makes them of potential interest as partial substitutes for clay in fired bricks or as precursors in geopolymerization. But the trace amount of heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc in the materials may cause some toxicological threat to human health and ecosystem if it is not well immobilized during its fabrication as well as usage. This review summarises information on the chemical composition of CFA-, and SBA-brick constituents, i.e. raw materials used in bricks including those substituting conventional brick materials, methods by which heavy metals are sequestered in bricks, toxicological pathways following exposure to leachates from such bricks and leaching regulations and risk assessment specifications globally. It also presents the mitigation approaches to minimize metal toxicity, discusses analytical difficulties and finally outlines future research perspective necessary to elevate safe and sustainable ash masonry use.

Published in	American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering (Volume 9, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14
Page(s)	190-198
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Coal Fly Ash, Sugarcane Bagasse, Analytical Characterization, Soil, Cement

References

[1]	Jaishankar, M., Tseten, T., Anbalagan, N., Mathew, B. B., & Beeregowda, K. N. (2014). Toxicity, mechanism and health effects of some heavy metals. Interdisciplinary Toxicology, 7(2), 60-72. https://doi.org/10.2478/intox-2014-0009
[2]	Lu, X., Chen, Z., Li, W., Zhang, H., & Xu, W. (2022). Recycling of coal fly ash in building materials: A review. Minerals, 13(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13010025
[3]	Naz, A., Chowdhury, I., Gupta, A., & Kumar, R. (2024). Potentially toxic elements in fly ash bricks and associated environmental/health impacts. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1270(1), 012046. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1270/1/012046
[4]	Nguyen, H. N., Patel, R., & Singh, A. (2024). Reuse of biowaste for fired bricks: Leaching and performance assessment of sugarcane bagasse ash. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 150(7), 04024039. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0002189
[5]	Shi, Y., Zhang, W., & Chen, G. (2020). Environmental and human health risk evaluation of heavy metals in MSWI fly ash. Science of the Total Environment, 703, 135539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135539
[6]	Tian, Q., Qu, M., He, Z., Zhao, L., & Luo, Y. (2018). Distributions and leaching behaviors of toxic elements in coal combustion fly ash: A review. Fuel Processing Technology, 175, 80-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.02.002
[7]	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2019). Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) methods and guidance. Washington, DC: EPA/600/R-19/121.
[8]	Xu, P., Liu, Y., & Wu, H. (2019). Evaluation of heavy metal leaching behavior of MSWI fly ash added alkali-activated materials bricks using different leaching test methods. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 368, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.11.025
[9]	Ghannam, S., & El-Hoz, M. (2022). Human health risks associated with particulate matter and heavy metals exposure: A review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(12), 17321-17339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16942-8
[10]	Jadhav, S. V., Bhalerao, T. S., & Patil, S. M. (2021). Heavy metal contamination of groundwater: Human health risk assessment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 193(7), 421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-09156-1
[11]	Rahman, Z., Singh, V. P., & Kumar, R. (2020). Toxicity and health risks of heavy metals exposure: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 18(3), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-00901-6
[12]	Saha, J. C., & Sinha, S. (2018). Heavy metals in the environment: Pathways, effects and mitigation. Applied Water Science, 8(5), 141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-0790-1
[13]	Singh, R., Tripathi, R. D., Dwivedi, S., Kumar, A., Trivedi, P. K., & Chakrabarty, D. (2020). Lead bioavailability in the environment: Toxicity, biomarkers, and risk assessment. Environmental International, 145, 106125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106125
[14]	Ahmaruzzaman, M. (2010). A review on the utilization of fly ash. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 36(3), 327-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2009.11.003
[15]	ASTM C618. (2019). Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete. ASTM International.
[16]	Blissett, R. S., & Rowson, N. A. (2012). A review of the multi-component utilisation of coal fly ash. Fuel, 97, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.03.024
[17]	Mane, V., Shukla, A., & Ghosh, P. (2020). Characterization of sugarcane bagasse for sustainable construction applications. Construction and Building Materials, 260, 119701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119701
[18]	Singh, N. B., Das, S. S., & Bhattacharyya, S. K. (2018). Use of sugarcane bagasse ash as pozzolanic material in concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 128, 142-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.030
[19]	Yao, Z. T., Ji, X. S., Sarker, P. K., Tang, J. H., Ge, L. Q., Xia, M. S., & Xi, Y. Q. (2015). A comprehensive review on the applications of coal fly ash. Earth-Science Reviews, 141, 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.11.016
[20]	Clarkson, T. W., & Magos, L. (2006). The toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 36(8), 609-662. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408440600845619
[21]	Costa, M., Davidson, T. L., Chen, H., Ke, Q., Zhang, P., Yan, Y., & Huang, C. (2005). Nickel carcinogenesis: Epigenetics and hypoxia signaling. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, 592(1-2), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2005.06.012
[22]	Godt, J., Scheidig, F., Grosse-Siestrup, C., Esche, V., Brandenburg, P., Reich, A., & Groneberg, D. A. (2006). The toxicity of cadmium and resulting hazards for human health. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 1(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6673-1-22
[23]	Needleman, H. L. (2004). Lead poisoning. Annual Review of Medicine, 55, 209-222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.med.55.091902.103653
[24]	Smith, A. H., Lingas, E. O., & Rahman, M. (2002). Contamination of drinking-water by arsenic in Bangladesh: A public health emergency. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78(9), 1093-1103.
[25]	Cordeiro, G. C., Toledo Filho, R. D., Tavares, L. M., & Fairbairn, E. D. M. R. (2009). Ultrafine grinding of sugar cane bagasse for application as pozzolanic admixture in concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 39(2), 110-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.11.005
[26]	Dayan, A. D., & Paine, A. J. (2001). Mechanisms of chromium toxicity, carcinogenicity and allergenicity: Review of the literature from 1985 to 2000. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 20(9), 439-451. https://doi.org/10.1191/096032701682693062
[27]	Izquierdo, M., & Querol, X. (2012). Leaching behaviour of elements from coal combustion fly ash: An overview. International Journal of Coal Geology, 94, 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2011.10.006
[28]	Kosson, D. S., Van der Sloot, H. A., Sanchez, F., & Garrabrants, A. C. (2002). An integrated framework for evaluating leaching in waste management and utilization of secondary materials. Environmental Engineering Science, 19(3), 159-204. https://doi.org/10.1089/109287502760079188
[29]	Lorenzo, R., Querol, X., & Moreno, N. (2016). Immobilization of trace elements in fired bricks manufactured with fly ash and contaminated soils. Journal of Environmental Management, 167, 110-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.023
[30]	Querol, X., Alastuey, A., López-Soler, A., Plana, F., & Andres, J. M. (2001). Physico-chemical characterization and leaching of coal combustion ashes. Fuel, 80(6), 801-809. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361(00)00160-5
[31]	Wang, S., Ang, H. M., & Tade, M. O. (2008). Novel applications of red mud as coagulant, adsorbent and catalyst for environmentally benign processes. Chemosphere, 72(11), 1621-1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.05.013
[32]	Chakraborty, R., Mukherjee, A., & Saha, R. (2022). Human health risk assessment of heavy metals leaching from fly ash-based construction materials. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(10), 14762-14778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16793-5
[33]	Kumar, S., Singh, M., & Kumar, R. (2021). Human health risk evaluation of heavy metal exposure from fly ash utilization in construction. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 402, 123456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123456
[34]	Tchounwou, P. B., Yedjou, C. G., Patlolla, A. K., & Sutton, D. J. (2012). Heavy metal toxicity and the environment. EXS, 101, 133-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8340-4_6
[35]	USEPA. (1989). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
[36]	USEPA. (2004). Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
[37]	Wu, H., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., & Tang, Y. (2020). Human health risks of heavy metals in soil and food crops around a coal-fired power plant: A case study. Science of the Total Environment, 678, 125-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.125-133
[38]	Zhang, J., Wang, L., & Yang, Y. (2019). Health risk assessment of heavy metals via multiple exposure pathways in a coal mining area. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 169, 722-730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.11.074
[39]	ASTM. (2019). Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete (ASTM C618-19). ASTM International.
[40]	Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). (2020). Guidelines for management and handling of fly ash. Government of India.
[41]	European Commission. (2003). Council Decision 2003/33/EC establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills. Official Journal of the European Union.
[42]	Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). (2021). Fly Ash Notification. Government of India.
[43]	Sharma, R., & Saxena, R. (2020). Environmental and health impacts of fly ash utilization in developing countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(12), 13536-13548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07773-4
[44]	UNEP. (2011). Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. United Nations Environment Programme.
[45]	USEPA. (2015). Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Rule. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
[46]	WHO. (2017). Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality: Fourth edition incorporating the first addendum. World Health Organization.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Krishna, P., Verma, S. (2025). Toxicological Impact of Heavy Metals During Sustainable Brick Production from Bagasse and Fly Ash: A Review. American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, 9(4), 190-198. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Krishna, P.; Verma, S. Toxicological Impact of Heavy Metals During Sustainable Brick Production from Bagasse and Fly Ash: A Review. Am. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2025, 9(4), 190-198. doi: 10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Krishna P, Verma S. Toxicological Impact of Heavy Metals During Sustainable Brick Production from Bagasse and Fly Ash: A Review. Am J Environ Sci Eng. 2025;9(4):190-198. doi: 10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14,
  author = {Pratik Krishna and Santosh Verma},
  title = {Toxicological Impact of Heavy Metals During Sustainable Brick Production from Bagasse and Fly Ash: A Review},
  journal = {American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering},
  volume = {9},
  number = {4},
  pages = {190-198},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajese.20250904.14},
  abstract = {The utilization of waste materials in the construction technology is today considered an important key to meet sustainability level goals and reduce carbon dioxide emissions through a minimum use of virgin production chains. Coal fly ash (CFA) and sugarcane bagasse ash (SBA) are the two types of waste byproducts for which there has been promising reuse in a sustainable brick. Both ashes are characterized by their high contents of silica and alumina that makes them of potential interest as partial substitutes for clay in fired bricks or as precursors in geopolymerization. But the trace amount of heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc in the materials may cause some toxicological threat to human health and ecosystem if it is not well immobilized during its fabrication as well as usage. This review summarises information on the chemical composition of CFA-, and SBA-brick constituents, i.e. raw materials used in bricks including those substituting conventional brick materials, methods by which heavy metals are sequestered in bricks, toxicological pathways following exposure to leachates from such bricks and leaching regulations and risk assessment specifications globally. It also presents the mitigation approaches to minimize metal toxicity, discusses analytical difficulties and finally outlines future research perspective necessary to elevate safe and sustainable ash masonry use.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Toxicological Impact of Heavy Metals During Sustainable Brick Production from Bagasse and Fly Ash: A Review
AU  - Pratik Krishna
AU  - Santosh Verma
Y1  - 2025/12/09
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14
T2  - American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering
JF  - American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering
JO  - American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering
SP  - 190
EP  - 198
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-7993
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14
AB  - The utilization of waste materials in the construction technology is today considered an important key to meet sustainability level goals and reduce carbon dioxide emissions through a minimum use of virgin production chains. Coal fly ash (CFA) and sugarcane bagasse ash (SBA) are the two types of waste byproducts for which there has been promising reuse in a sustainable brick. Both ashes are characterized by their high contents of silica and alumina that makes them of potential interest as partial substitutes for clay in fired bricks or as precursors in geopolymerization. But the trace amount of heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc in the materials may cause some toxicological threat to human health and ecosystem if it is not well immobilized during its fabrication as well as usage. This review summarises information on the chemical composition of CFA-, and SBA-brick constituents, i.e. raw materials used in bricks including those substituting conventional brick materials, methods by which heavy metals are sequestered in bricks, toxicological pathways following exposure to leachates from such bricks and leaching regulations and risk assessment specifications globally. It also presents the mitigation approaches to minimize metal toxicity, discusses analytical difficulties and finally outlines future research perspective necessary to elevate safe and sustainable ash masonry use.
VL  - 9
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Pratik Krishna

Civil Engineering, G. H Raisoni College of Engineering & Management, Nagpur, India

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1833-1628
Santosh Verma

Civil Engineering, G. H Raisoni College of Engineering & Management, Nagpur, India

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6445-1255

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Krishna, P., Verma, S. (2025). Toxicological Impact of Heavy Metals During Sustainable Brick Production from Bagasse and Fly Ash: A Review. American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, 9(4), 190-198. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Krishna, P.; Verma, S. Toxicological Impact of Heavy Metals During Sustainable Brick Production from Bagasse and Fly Ash: A Review. Am. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2025, 9(4), 190-198. doi: 10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Krishna P, Verma S. Toxicological Impact of Heavy Metals During Sustainable Brick Production from Bagasse and Fly Ash: A Review. Am J Environ Sci Eng. 2025;9(4):190-198. doi: 10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14,
  author = {Pratik Krishna and Santosh Verma},
  title = {Toxicological Impact of Heavy Metals During Sustainable Brick Production from Bagasse and Fly Ash: A Review},
  journal = {American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering},
  volume = {9},
  number = {4},
  pages = {190-198},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajese.20250904.14},
  abstract = {The utilization of waste materials in the construction technology is today considered an important key to meet sustainability level goals and reduce carbon dioxide emissions through a minimum use of virgin production chains. Coal fly ash (CFA) and sugarcane bagasse ash (SBA) are the two types of waste byproducts for which there has been promising reuse in a sustainable brick. Both ashes are characterized by their high contents of silica and alumina that makes them of potential interest as partial substitutes for clay in fired bricks or as precursors in geopolymerization. But the trace amount of heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc in the materials may cause some toxicological threat to human health and ecosystem if it is not well immobilized during its fabrication as well as usage. This review summarises information on the chemical composition of CFA-, and SBA-brick constituents, i.e. raw materials used in bricks including those substituting conventional brick materials, methods by which heavy metals are sequestered in bricks, toxicological pathways following exposure to leachates from such bricks and leaching regulations and risk assessment specifications globally. It also presents the mitigation approaches to minimize metal toxicity, discusses analytical difficulties and finally outlines future research perspective necessary to elevate safe and sustainable ash masonry use.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Toxicological Impact of Heavy Metals During Sustainable Brick Production from Bagasse and Fly Ash: A Review
AU  - Pratik Krishna
AU  - Santosh Verma
Y1  - 2025/12/09
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14
T2  - American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering
JF  - American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering
JO  - American Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering
SP  - 190
EP  - 198
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-7993
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajese.20250904.14
AB  - The utilization of waste materials in the construction technology is today considered an important key to meet sustainability level goals and reduce carbon dioxide emissions through a minimum use of virgin production chains. Coal fly ash (CFA) and sugarcane bagasse ash (SBA) are the two types of waste byproducts for which there has been promising reuse in a sustainable brick. Both ashes are characterized by their high contents of silica and alumina that makes them of potential interest as partial substitutes for clay in fired bricks or as precursors in geopolymerization. But the trace amount of heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc in the materials may cause some toxicological threat to human health and ecosystem if it is not well immobilized during its fabrication as well as usage. This review summarises information on the chemical composition of CFA-, and SBA-brick constituents, i.e. raw materials used in bricks including those substituting conventional brick materials, methods by which heavy metals are sequestered in bricks, toxicological pathways following exposure to leachates from such bricks and leaching regulations and risk assessment specifications globally. It also presents the mitigation approaches to minimize metal toxicity, discusses analytical difficulties and finally outlines future research perspective necessary to elevate safe and sustainable ash masonry use.
VL  - 9
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download