-
Something wrong with this record ?
Possibilities of mercury removal in the dry flue gas cleaning lines of solid waste incineration units
K. Svoboda, M. Hartman, M. Šyc, M. Pohořelý, P. Kameníková, M. Jeremiáš, T. Durda,
Language English Country England, Great Britain
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Review
- MeSH
- Adsorption MeSH
- Catalysis MeSH
- Environmental Pollutants analysis chemistry MeSH
- Waste Management methods MeSH
- Oxidation-Reduction MeSH
- Coal Ash chemistry MeSH
- Mercury analysis chemistry MeSH
- Sulfur chemistry MeSH
- Incineration * MeSH
- Sulfides chemistry MeSH
- Thermodynamics MeSH
- Solid Waste * MeSH
- Coal MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Review MeSH
Dry methods of the flue gas cleaning (for HCl and SO2 removal) are useful particularly in smaller solid waste incineration units. The amount and forms of mercury emissions depend on waste (fuel) composition, content of mercury and chlorine and on the entire process of the flue gas cleaning. In the case of high HCl/total Hg molar ratio in the flue gas, the majority (usually 70-90%) of mercury is present in the form of HgCl2 and a smaller amount in the form of mercury vapors at higher temperatures. Removal of both main forms of mercury from the flue gas is dependent on chemical reactions and sorption processes at the temperatures below approx. 340 °C. Significant part of HgCl2 and a small part of elemental Hg vapors can be adsorbed on fly ash and solid particle in the air pollution control (APC) processes, which are removed in dust filters. Injection of non-impregnated active carbon (AC) or activated lignite coke particles is able to remove mainly the oxidized Hg(2+) compounds. Vapors of metallic Hg(o) are adsorbed relatively weakly. Much better chemisorption of Hg(o) together with higher sorbent capacity is achieved by AC-based sorbents impregnated with sulfur, alkali poly-sulfides, ferric chloride, etc. Inorganic sorbents with the same or similar chemical impregnation are also applicable for deeper Hg(o) removal (over 85%). SCR catalysts convert part of Hg(o) into oxidized compounds (HgO, HgCl2, etc.) contributing to more efficient Hg removal, but excess of NH3 has a negative effect. Both forms, elemental Hg(o) and HgCl2, can be converted into HgS particles by reacting with droplets/aerosol of poly-sulfides solutions/solids in flue gas. Mercury captured in the form of water insoluble HgS is more advantageous in the disposal of solid waste from APC processes. Four selected options of the dry flue gas cleaning with mercury removal are analyzed, assessed and compared (in terms of efficiency of Hg-emission reduction and costs) with wet methods and retrofits for more efficient Hg-removal. Overall mercury removal efficiencies from flue gas can attain 80-95%, depending on sorbent type/impregnation, sorbent surplus and operating conditions.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc16027935
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20161025094813.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 161005s2016 enk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.001 $2 doi
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.001 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)26588812
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a enk
- 100 1_
- $a Svoboda, Karel $u Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the CAS, v. v. i., Rozvojová 135, 165 02 Praha 6, Czech Republic; Faculty of the Environment, University of Jan Evangelista Purkyně, Králova Výšina 7, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic. Electronic address: svoboda@icpf.cas.cz.
- 245 10
- $a Possibilities of mercury removal in the dry flue gas cleaning lines of solid waste incineration units / $c K. Svoboda, M. Hartman, M. Šyc, M. Pohořelý, P. Kameníková, M. Jeremiáš, T. Durda,
- 520 9_
- $a Dry methods of the flue gas cleaning (for HCl and SO2 removal) are useful particularly in smaller solid waste incineration units. The amount and forms of mercury emissions depend on waste (fuel) composition, content of mercury and chlorine and on the entire process of the flue gas cleaning. In the case of high HCl/total Hg molar ratio in the flue gas, the majority (usually 70-90%) of mercury is present in the form of HgCl2 and a smaller amount in the form of mercury vapors at higher temperatures. Removal of both main forms of mercury from the flue gas is dependent on chemical reactions and sorption processes at the temperatures below approx. 340 °C. Significant part of HgCl2 and a small part of elemental Hg vapors can be adsorbed on fly ash and solid particle in the air pollution control (APC) processes, which are removed in dust filters. Injection of non-impregnated active carbon (AC) or activated lignite coke particles is able to remove mainly the oxidized Hg(2+) compounds. Vapors of metallic Hg(o) are adsorbed relatively weakly. Much better chemisorption of Hg(o) together with higher sorbent capacity is achieved by AC-based sorbents impregnated with sulfur, alkali poly-sulfides, ferric chloride, etc. Inorganic sorbents with the same or similar chemical impregnation are also applicable for deeper Hg(o) removal (over 85%). SCR catalysts convert part of Hg(o) into oxidized compounds (HgO, HgCl2, etc.) contributing to more efficient Hg removal, but excess of NH3 has a negative effect. Both forms, elemental Hg(o) and HgCl2, can be converted into HgS particles by reacting with droplets/aerosol of poly-sulfides solutions/solids in flue gas. Mercury captured in the form of water insoluble HgS is more advantageous in the disposal of solid waste from APC processes. Four selected options of the dry flue gas cleaning with mercury removal are analyzed, assessed and compared (in terms of efficiency of Hg-emission reduction and costs) with wet methods and retrofits for more efficient Hg-removal. Overall mercury removal efficiencies from flue gas can attain 80-95%, depending on sorbent type/impregnation, sorbent surplus and operating conditions.
- 650 _2
- $a adsorpce $7 D000327
- 650 _2
- $a katalýza $7 D002384
- 650 _2
- $a uhlí $7 D003031
- 650 _2
- $a popel uhelný $x chemie $7 D060729
- 650 _2
- $a látky znečišťující životní prostředí $x analýza $x chemie $7 D004785
- 650 12
- $a spalování odpadů $7 D017745
- 650 _2
- $a rtuť $x analýza $x chemie $7 D008628
- 650 _2
- $a oxidace-redukce $7 D010084
- 650 12
- $a tuhý odpad $7 D062611
- 650 _2
- $a sulfidy $x chemie $7 D013440
- 650 _2
- $a síra $x chemie $7 D013455
- 650 _2
- $a termodynamika $7 D013816
- 650 _2
- $a nakládání s odpady $x metody $7 D018505
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 655 _2
- $a přehledy $7 D016454
- 700 1_
- $a Hartman, Miloslav $u Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the CAS, v. v. i., Rozvojová 135, 165 02 Praha 6, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Šyc, Michal $u Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the CAS, v. v. i., Rozvojová 135, 165 02 Praha 6, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Pohořelý, Michael $u Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the CAS, v. v. i., Rozvojová 135, 165 02 Praha 6, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Kameníková, Petra $u Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the CAS, v. v. i., Rozvojová 135, 165 02 Praha 6, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Jeremiáš, Michal $u Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the CAS, v. v. i., Rozvojová 135, 165 02 Praha 6, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Durda, Tomáš $u Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the CAS, v. v. i., Rozvojová 135, 165 02 Praha 6, Czech Republic.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00002657 $t Journal of environmental management $x 1095-8630 $g Roč. 166, č. - (2016), s. 499-511
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26588812 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20161005 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20161025095227 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1166249 $s 952565
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2016 $b 166 $c - $d 499-511 $e 20151114 $i 1095-8630 $m Journal of environmental management $n J Environ Manage $x MED00002657
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20161005