4.7 Article

Co-combustion of Shenmu coal and pickling sludge in a pilot scale drop-tube furnace: Pollutants emissions in flue gas and fly ash

期刊

FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
卷 184, 期 -, 页码 57-64

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.11.009

关键词

Co-combustion; Pickling sludge; Gaseous pollutant emission; Heavy metal leaching

资金

  1. Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [51621005]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51676172]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018FZA4010, 2016FZA4010]
  4. Special Fund for the National Environmental Protection Public Welfare Program [201209023-4]
  5. Program of Introducing Talents of Discipline to University [B08026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Co-combustion of Shenmu coal and pickling sludge was carried out in a pilot scale drop-tube furnace. The effect of different pickling sludge amounts on the NOx, SO2, HCl, HF, PCDD/Fs and gaseous heavy metals emissions and fly ash behaviors was studied. The burnout section furnace temperature was 1250 degrees C, and the pickling sludge amount ranged from 0 to 20 wt%. The result indicates that the co-combustion of < 20 wt% pickling sludge did not reduce the combustion efficiency. With increasing pickling sludge amount in the blended fuels, NOx and HCl emission concentrations were basically stable; however, those of SO2 and HF increased obviously. The total TEQ of PCDD/Fs emission was basically positively correlated to the sludge amount in the blended fuels, and the gaseous heavy metals emissions also increased obviously with the addition of sludge. To meet the national standard (GB18484-2001) on heavy metals emissions, the pickling sludge amount used in co-combustion must be < 10 wt%. According to national standard (GB 16889-2008), because of the high leaching concentrations of heavy metals Cr, Ni, Cu and Pb, the co-combustion fly ash needs further treatment before being landfilled disposal as common waste.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据