4.7 Article

Carbonaceous aerosols emission reduction by using red mud additive in coal briquette

Journal

FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
Volume 199, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2019.106290

Keywords

Clean coal briquettes; Red mud; Combustion; Emission reduction; PM2.5; Carbonaceous aerosols

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC0212205]
  2. National Project of Causes and Treatment of Heavy Air Pollution [DQGG0105-01]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province, China [2016ZDJC-22]
  4. SKLLQG, Chinese Academy of Sciences [SKLLQG1616]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Residential coal combustion is a major source of carbonaceous aerosol globally. Clean coal briquettes can be used for pollution emission control. In this study, red mud (RM), a high alkalinity byproduct generated from the Bayer process, was employed as additive in coal briquettes. Combustion tests of briquettes and raw coal were conducted to evaluate the emission reduction effects on PM2.5 and carbonaceous aerosols. The highest emission reduction rates of PM2.5, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC) for bituminous were 37.5%, 13.2%, 82.6% and for anthracite were 31.2%, 11.1%, 30.0%. Total carbon (TC)/PM2.5 remained stable between raw coal and briquettes while EC/OC was altered significantly (from 0.32 to 0.08 and 0.08 to 0.03 for bituminous and anthracite). Subfractions (in both OC, EC) showed a similar decreasing trend with the increase of RM content, while OC3 and OC4 reduction was not significantly compared to raw coal emission. Regression model showed that volatile matter and RM content are the two most significant (p < 0.01) fuel properties affecting the emission of PM2.5 and OC. Moisture and RM content influenced EC emission most significantly (p < 0.01). This study demonstrated that RM-added coal briquettes can effectively improve regional air quality.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available