4.7 Article

Characteristics of aerosol by-products generated from sulfur hexafluoride treatment using ionizing energy

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 159, Issue -, Pages 281-289

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.047

Keywords

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6); Hydrogen fluoride (HF); By-product; Irradiation; Global warming gas

Funding

  1. Nuclear R&D program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Decomposition of SF6 and its by-products by ionizing radiation were investigated. The SF6 concentration was decreased as the ionizing radiation intensity increased. When the initial concentration of SF6 increased, the removal efficiency of SF6 was decreased. As a result, the ionizing radiation intensity and initial concentration were the influencing factor in the treatment process. The deposited particles and aerosol particles on effluent pipeline and HEPA filters were characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with the energy dispersion spectrum analysis (EDS), attenuated total reflectance/Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR-ATR) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). The amount of aerosol particles in the HEPA filter was influenced by the ionizing radiation intensity. The detected species in the HEPA filter are S-S, SF5, SOF2, SF4, SO2F2, S=0 and SOF4 by FTIR-ATR. This means that the SFx compounds formed by ionizing irradiation still existed. When we compared with results of removal characteristics using plasma, the input energy of ionizing radiation process was 3-37 times higher than that of plasma. However, the required energy of ionizing radiation process for 1 g of SF6 removal was 16-160 times lower than the other processes. It is evident that the ionizing radiation process was more efficient process than that of plasma. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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