4.7 Article

Removal of gaseous elemental mercury over a CeO2-WO3/TiO2 nanocomposite in simulated coal-fired flue gas

Journal

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
Volume 170, Issue 2-3, Pages 512-517

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2010.11.060

Keywords

Ceria; Mercury removal; Adsorption; Flue gas

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [20937002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper discussed a recent study of elemental mercury removal by gaseous hydrogen chloride over novel CeO2-WO3/TiO2 catalysts under bench scale conditions. The performances of mercury removal over the catalysts were tested in simulated flue gas with 80-100 mu g m(-3) Hg-0, 8% O-2, 10 ppm HCl, 8% H2O, 800 ppm SO2 and balanced with N-2. Results indicated that about 95% of the Hg-0 could be removed by hydrogen chloride over the CeO2-WO3/TiO2 catalysts in the presence of O-2, and the HgO that formed was effectively converted to mercury chloride when hydrogen chloride was added to the system. The Hg-0 removal efficiency was found to be slightly but significantly affected by H2O and SO2 addition. Water vapor slightly inhibited the Hg-0 removal efficiency, due to the competitive adsorption. By contrast, SO2 promoted the oxidation reactions, resulting in higher Hg-0 removal efficiencies. The Hg-TPD and SO2-TPD results indicated that less negative effect of Hg adsorption with/without water vapor and less adsorption mass of SO2 might be responsible for the tolerance of the catalysts to H2O and SO2. From the characterization results, the BET surface areas had no significant influence on the catalytic performance. The XRD pattern indicated that cubic CeO2 crystallite was the crystalline form on the surface. The XPS and H-2-TPR results suggested that CO4+ oxide was the main form of Ce on the catalysts surfaces, which was beneficial for the Hg-0 removal reactions. Crown Copyright (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V. 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