4.8 Article

Enhancement of Mercury Capture by the Simultaneous Addition of Hydrogen Bromide (HBr) and Fly Ashes in a Slipstream Facility

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 43, 期 8, 页码 2812-2817

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es803410z

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low halogen content in tested Powder River Basin (PRB) coals and low loss of ignition content (LOI) in PRB-derived fly ash were likely responsible for higher elemental mercury content (averaging about 75%) in the flue gas and also lower mercury capture efficiency by electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and wet-FGD. To develop a cost-effective approach to mercury capture in a full-scale coal-fired utility boiler burning PRB coal, experiments were conducted adding hydrogen bromide (HBr) or simultaneously adding HBr and selected fly ashes in a slipstream reactor (0.152 x 0.152 m) under real flue gas conditions. The residence time of the flue gas inside the reactor was about 1.4 s. The average temperature of the slipstream reactor was controlled at about 155 degrees C. Tests were organized into two phases. In Phase 1, only HBr was added to the slipstream reactor, and in Phase 2, HBr and selected fly ash were added simultaneously. HBr injection was effective >90%) for mercury oxidation at a low temperature (155 degrees C) with an HBr addition concentration of about 4 ppm in the flue gas. Additionally, injected HBr enhanced mercury capture by PRB fly ash in the low-temperature range. The mercury capture efficiency, attesting conditions of the slipstream reactor, reached about 50% at an HBr injection concentration of 4 ppm in the flue gas. Compared to only the addition of HBr, simultaneously adding bituminous-derived fly ash in a minimum amount (30 lb/MMacf), together with HBr injection at 4 ppm, could increase mercury capture efficiency by 30%. Injection of lignite-derived fly ash at 30 lb/MMacf could achieve even higher mercury removal efficiency (an additional 35% mercury capture efficiency compared to HBr addition alone).

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

4.8
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