4.8 Article

Effects of Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization and Wet Electrostatic Precipitators on Emission Characteristics of Particulate Matter and Its Ionic Compositions from Four 300 MW Level Ultralow Coal-Fired Power Plants

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 52, Issue 23, Pages 14015-14026

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b03656

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Trail Special Program of Research on the Cause and Control Technology of Air Pollution under the National Key Research and Development Plan of China [2016YFC0201501]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21777008, 21377012, 21177012]
  3. National Key Scientific and Technological Project on Formation Mechanism and Control of Heavily Air Pollution [DQGG0209]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To achieve ultralow-emission (ULE) standards, wet electrostatic precipitators (WESP) installed downstream from wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD) have been widely used in Chinese coal-fired power plants (CFPPs). We conducted a comprehensive field test study at four 300 MW level ULE CFPPs, to explore the impact of wet clean processing (WFGD and WESP) on emission characteristics of three size fractions of particulate matter (PM: PM2.5, and PM10-2.5,) and their ionic compositions. All these CFPPs are installed with limestone-based/magnesium-based WFGD and followed by WESP as the end control device. Our results indicate that particle size distribution, mass concentration of PM, and ionic compositions in flue gas change significantly after passing WFGD and WESP. PM mass concentrations through WFGD are significantly affected by the relative strength between desulfur slurry scouring and flue gas carrying effects. Concentrations of ions in PM increase greatly after passing WFGD; especially, SO42-in PM2.5, PM10-2.5, and PM>10 increase on average by about 1.4, 3.9, and 8.3 times, respectively. However, WESP before the stack can effectively reduce final PM emissions and their major ionic compositions. Furthermore, emission factors (kg/(t of coal)) of PM for different combinations of air pollution control devices are presented and discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available