This paper presents an overview of research related to mercury control technology for coal-fired power plants and identifies areas requiring additional research and development. It critically reviews measured mercury emissions; the chemistry of mercury transformation and control; progress in the development of promising control technologies: sorbent injection, control in wet scrubbers, and coal cleaning; and projects costs for mercury control. Currently, there is no single best technology that can be broadly applied. Combinations of available control methods may be able to provide up to 90% control for some plants but not others.
In August 2000, the National Research Council completed a study that determined that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) conservative exposure reference dose of 0.1 μg mercury/kg body weight/day was scientifically justified to protect against harmful neurological effects during fetal development and early childhood. Subsequently, in December 2000, EPA made its regulatory decision that mercury emissions from coal-fired electric generating plants will need to be controlled on a schedule that calls for a proposed rule by December 2003, a final rule by December 2004, and full compliance by the end of 2007.
Coal-fired utility boilers are currently the largest single-known source of mercury emissions in the United States. EPA's Information Collection Request (ICR) to coal-burning utilities indicated that there were 75 tons of mercury in the 900 million tons of coal used in U.S. power plants during 1999. Estimates of total mercury emissions from coal-fired plants based on ICR data range from 40 to 52 tons. On average, about 40% of the mercury entering a coal-fired power plant is captured and 60% emitted.
Percentage emissions of mercury for individual plants tested under the ICR varied widely depending on coal type and emission control equipment. Western subbituminous coals on average contain only about half as much mercury as Appalachian bituminous coals, but the higher chlorine content of the latter promotes mercury oxidation and results in a higher percentage of mercury capture. Some iron minerals found in coal also catalyze mercury oxidation, whereas calcium and sulfur tend to impede oxidation.
Review of ICR data on mercury capture in boilers and existing control devices indicates very little mercury removal within a pulverized coal-fired boiler, and the level of mercury oxidation at the exit of the boiler was increased for higher coal chlorine contents and lower exit temperatures. Mercury removals across cold-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) averaged 27%, compared to 4% for hot-side ESPs. Removals for fabric filters (FFs) were higher, averaging 58%, owing to additional gas–solid contact time for oxidation. Both wet and dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems removed 80% to 90% of the gaseous mercury(II), but elemental mercury (Hg0) was not affected. High mercury removals, averaging 86%, in fluidized-bed combustors with FFs were attributed to mercury capture on high-carbon fly ash. Tests on the two coal-fired integrated gasification combined-cycle plants in the United States suggest that about half of the coal mercury was emitted predominantly in elemental form. ICR tests on selective catalytic reduction and selective noncatalytic reduction used for NOx control were inconclusive, and additional full-scale tests are in progress.
The mechanisms responsible for varied levels of mercury oxidation and capture are beginning to be understood. Mercury in coal occurs in association with pyrite and other sulfide minerals and may also be organically bound. Coal mercury is converted to gaseous Hg0 in the combustion flame and is subsequently partially oxidized (35% to 95%) as the combustion gases cool. Mercury oxidation in boiler systems is kinetically controlled; homogeneous oxidation reactions are promoted by chlorine and atomic chlorine, and heterogeneous oxidation is promoted by fly ash and sorbents. Acid gases critically influence the heterogeneous oxidation of mercury, particularly as it affects capture on sorbents. HCl, NO, and NO2 all promote oxidation and capture both individually and in combination. However, the combination of SO2 with NO2 greatly reduces capture of Hg0 on activated carbon, whereas oxidation continues on the solid surface.
Mass transfer of gaseous mercury by diffusion from the bulk gas to the solid surface can also limit heterogeneous oxidation and capture of mercury, but diffusion within a porous sorbent is not believed to be rate-limiting. Reducing the size of the sorbent particles and increasing their dispersion can greatly enhance control where mass transfer is limiting. To achieve 90% control of a mercury concentration of 10 μg/scm in 2-s residence time by activated carbon injection requires a minimum carbon-to-mercury (C/Hg) mass ratio of about 3000:1 for 4-μm particles compared to 18,000:1 for 10-μm particles. Mercury removals in some tests performed to characterize sorbents have been mass transfer-limited by the large particle size of the sorbents used.
Mercury sorption capacities between about 200 and 5000 μg Hg/g C have been reported for conditions applying to coal combustion. However, higher measured capacities do not always correlate with higher removal levels in practice because of the effect of other variables. What is important is that several of the activated carbons tested have sufficient capacity to capture mercury at carbon injection rates below a C/Hg mass ratio of 10,000, based on both laboratory and field sorption tests. Since capacity is defined in reference to an assumed sorption equilibrium, the equilibrium capacity of a sorbent determined over a period of hours in the laboratory may have limited relevance to the amount of mercury captured in a few seconds' time of flight or in minutes of contact time on an FF. Laboratory tests that are more representative of the conditions in an actual control device are needed to determine more useful capacity factors.
Injection of activated carbon upstream of either an ESP or an FF baghouse is a retrofit control technology that has potential application to 75% of all coal-fired power plants in the United States that are not equipped with FGD scrubbers. Field and pilot-scale tests on activated carbon injection for mercury control have resulted in mercury removals between about 25% and 95% over the range of 2000–15,000 C/Hg mass ratio. The mercury removal data from some tests could be correlated with carbon injection rates by assuming that the removal was mass transfer-limited, whereas in tests on other coals, removals appeared to be controlled by catalytic oxidation and capture on fly ash. Mercury capture on sorbents, therefore, depends on the properties of the coal being burned, and pilot-scale tests on particular coals should be performed before a full-scale sorbent injection system is designed. Development of low-cost, ultrafine sorbents with high effective sorption capacities and rapid reaction kinetics would revolutionize injection technology. Engineering development is also needed to improve sorbent dispersion and to optimize gas–solid contact time.
Wet FGD units currently installed on about 25% of the U.S. coal-fired utility boilers remove nearly 90% of the mercury(II) entering but essentially none of the Hg0. Research to enhance mercury removal in scrubbers focuses on converting Hg0 to an oxidized form in or ahead of the scrubber using proprietary reagents. Palladium and carbon-based catalysts have shown the most promise for oxidizing Hg0.
Mercury removals from near 0% to about 60% are reported for the physical washing methods of the type that are widely used to remove pyritic sulfur and ash from 77% of all bituminous coal used in the United States. Advanced cleaning methods and hydrothermal treatment offer higher removals, but no coal-cleaning method is likely to reliably meet a 70% or greater removal requirement. Coal cleaning could, however, contribute to overall mercury control under a cap-and-trade form of mercury regulation.
Concerns over the release of mercury from coal combustion by-products by leaching or atmospheric reemission will be heightened with the installation of mercury control technologies. Concentrations of mercury in leachates from fly ashes, FGD materials, and activated carbon saturated with mercury are very low and usually below detection limits. Essentially, no mercury emission from these materials into air has been measured at ambient temperature. However, mercury is released from saturated sorbents upon heating above 135 °C. Preliminary results on the stability of mercury on fly ash, FGD materials, and saturated carbons are encouraging, but more testing is needed before the concerns are fully resolved.
[1]
R. Dams.
A critical review of nuclear activation techniques for the determination of trace elements in atmospheric aerosols, particulates and sludge samples (Technical Report)
,
1992
.
[2]
M. Richardson,et al.
ENHANCED CONTROL OF MERCURY BY WET FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION SYSTEMS
,
2001
.
[3]
J. Morency,et al.
Interactions between vapor-phase mercury and coal fly ash under simulated utility power plant flue gas conditions
,
1998
.
[4]
P. Walker,et al.
Removal of Mercury by Sulfurized Carbons
,
1972
.
[5]
Hideyoshi Morita,et al.
Atomic fluorescence spectrometry of mercury: principles and developments
,
1995
.
[6]
C. Livengood,et al.
A new method for oxidation of gaseous, elemental mercury.
,
1999
.
[7]
C. M. Lillemoen,et al.
The Effect of Coal Combustion Flue Gas Components on Low-Level Chlorine Speciation Using EPA Method 26A
,
2000,
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.
[8]
D. J. Hassett,et al.
Mercury Release from Coal Combustion By-Products to the Environment
,
1999
.
[9]
W. Mojtahedi.
Trace Metals Volatilisation in Fluidised-Bed Combustion and Gasification of Coal
,
1989
.
[10]
Lars Håkanson,et al.
Mercury in the Swedish environment — Recent research on causes, consequences and corrective methods
,
1991
.
[11]
Martha W. Schaefer,et al.
Mineral spectroscopy : a tribute to Roger G. Burns
,
1996
.
[12]
A. Sarofim,et al.
Inorganic aerosols and their role in catalyzing sulfuric acid production in furnaces.
,
1998,
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.
[13]
B. Hall.
The Gas Phase Oxidation of Elemental Mercury by Ozone
,
1995
.
[14]
B. Gullett,et al.
Sorption of elemental mercury by activated carbons.
,
1994,
Environmental science & technology.
[15]
Robert B. Finkelman,et al.
Reliability and reproducibility of leaching procedures to estimate the modes of occurrence of trace elements in coal
,
1994
.
[16]
P. Biswas,et al.
Kinetics of heterogeneous mercury reactions with sorbent particles: In situ capture methodologies
,
1999
.
[17]
Oliver Lindqvist,et al.
Chemical reactions of mercury in combustion flue gases
,
1991
.
[18]
Stanley J. Miller,et al.
Evaluation of activated carbon for control of mercury from coal-fired boilers
,
1995
.
[19]
D. J. Hassett,et al.
Mercury capture on coal combustion fly ash
,
1999
.
[20]
O. Lindqvist,et al.
Mercury chemistry in simulated flue gases related to waste incineration conditions
,
1990
.
[21]
A. Mehta,et al.
The fate of coal mercury during combustion
,
2000
.
[22]
Jeff Johnson.
POWER PLANTS TO LIMIT MERCURY: EPA tells coal-fired utilities to cut mercury emissions, but how is unclear and when may be a long time off
,
2001
.
[23]
R. Chang,et al.
Mercury removal from combustion flue gas by activated carbon injection: Mass transfer effects
,
1996
.
[24]
Domy C. Adriano,et al.
Environmental impacts of coal combustion residues
,
1993
.
[25]
Wojciech Jozewicz,et al.
Mercury control in municipal waste combustors and coal‐fired utilities
,
1997
.
[26]
C. D. Livengood,et al.
Development of mercury control techniques for utility boilers
,
1995
.
[27]
T. D. Brown,et al.
Mercury Measurement and Its Control: What We Know, Have Learned, and Need to Further Investigate.
,
1999,
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.
[28]
Sharma,et al.
Catalytic effects of carbon sorbents for mercury capture
,
2000,
Journal of hazardous materials.
[29]
E. A. Sondreal,et al.
Status of research on air quality: mercury, trace elements, and particulate matter
,
2000
.
[30]
J. W. Robinson.
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
,
1966
.
[31]
Jost O.L. Wendt,et al.
Trace metal transformation mechanisms during coal combustion
,
1994
.
[32]
John Munthe,et al.
Atmospheric mercury—An overview
,
1998
.
[33]
Adel F. Sarofim,et al.
Gas-phase transformations of mercury in coal-fired power plants
,
2000
.
[34]
R. Vidic,et al.
Uptake of Elemental Mercury Vapors by Activated Carbons.
,
1996,
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.
[35]
W. Seiler,et al.
Distribution, speciation, and budget of atmospheric mercury
,
1985
.
[36]
Thomas D. Brown,et al.
Controlling mechanisms that determine mercury sorbent effectiveness
,
1999
.
[37]
W. J. Price.
Spectrochemical Analysis by Atomic Absorption
,
1979
.
[38]
T. R. Carey,et al.
Factors Affecting Mercury Control in Utility Flue Gas Using Activated Carbon.
,
1998,
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.
[39]
D. J. Akers.
Coal cleaning controls HAP emissions
,
1996
.
[40]
Dalway J. Swaine,et al.
Trace Elements in Coal
,
1990
.
[41]
Z. Li,et al.
Mercury distribution in fly ash components
,
1997
.
[42]
T. D. Brown,et al.
Optimization of Sulfur Impregnation Protocol for Fixed-Bed Application of Activated Carbon-Based Sorbents for Gas-Phase Mercury Removal
,
1998
.
[43]
N. Shah,et al.
Speciation of arsenic and chromium in coal and combustion ash by XAFS spectroscopy
,
1994
.
[44]
S. Niksa,et al.
Kinetic modeling of homogeneous mercury oxidation: the importance of NO and H2O in predicting oxidation in coal-derived systems.
,
2001,
Environmental science & technology.
[45]
R. Yoon,et al.
An evaluation of coal preparation technologies for controlling trace element emissions
,
2000
.
[46]
H. Nishino,et al.
Removal of mercury vapor from air with sulfur-impregnated adsorbents
,
1988
.
[47]
Sorption of mercury species by activated carbons and calcium-based sorbents: effect of temperature, mercury concentration and acid gases
,
1998
.
[48]
T. D. Brown,et al.
Flue gas effects on a carbon-based mercury sorbent
,
2000
.
[49]
Walter Slavin,et al.
Atomic absorption spectroscopy
,
1968
.
[50]
Pratim Biswas,et al.
An equilibrium analysis to determine the speciation of metals in an incinerator
,
1993
.
[51]
T. Tsotsis,et al.
Process for Converting Hydrogen Chloride to Chlorine
,
1994
.
[52]
W. Seeker,et al.
Predictions of metals emissions and partitioning in coal-fired combustion systems
,
1994
.
[53]
J. Morency,et al.
Interactions between vapor-phase mercury compounds and coal char in synthetic flue gas
,
2000
.
[54]
Kim Dam-Johansen,et al.
Trace elements from combustion and gasification of coal—An equilibrium approach
,
1994
.
[55]
A M Ure,et al.
The determination of mercury by non-flame atomic absorption and fluorescence spectrometry.
,
1975,
Analytica chimica acta.
[56]
P. Louie,et al.
Organic sulfur and hap removal from coal using hydrothermal treatment
,
2001
.
[57]
Christopher J. Zygarlicke,et al.
Mercury transformations in coal combustion flue gas
,
2000
.
[58]
G. A. Norton,et al.
Trace Element Removal During Physical and Chemical Coal Cleaning
,
1989
.
[59]
Jost O.L. Wendt,et al.
Toxic metal emissions from incineration: Mechanisms and control
,
1993
.
[60]
T. Panagiotou.
LABORATORY DUCT INJECTION OF A ZEOLITE-BASED MERCURY SORBENT
,
2000
.
[61]
X. Querol,et al.
Trace elements in coal and their behaviour during combustion in a large power station
,
1995
.
[62]
Gunnar Eriksson,et al.
Thermodynamic behavior of metal chlorides and sulfates under the conditions of incineration furnaces
,
1996
.
[63]
T. D. Brown,et al.
Mercury speciation methods for utility flue gas
,
1997
.
[64]
C. Senior,et al.
IDENTIFICATION OF MERCURY SPECIES IN UNBURNED CARBON FROM PULVERIZED COAL COMBUSTION
,
1999
.
[65]
Modeling Powdered Activated Carbon Injection for the Uptake of Elemental Mercury Vapors.
,
1998,
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.
[66]
D. Akers,et al.
Role of coal cleaning in control of air toxics
,
1994
.
[67]
E. Granite,et al.
Photochemical Removal of Mercury from Flue Gas
,
2002
.
[68]
M. Maroto-Valer,et al.
Mercury capture by distinct fly ash carbon forms
,
2000
.
[69]
J. Pavlish,et al.
Trace Element Partitioning and Transformations During Combustion of Bituminous and Subbituminous U. S. Coals In a 7-kW Combustion System
,
2000
.
[70]
R. Finkelman.
Modes of occurrence of potentially hazardous elements in coal: levels of confidence
,
1994
.