Comparison of Mercury Retention by Fly Ashes Using Different Experimental Devices

To study mercury (Hg) retention in solid sorbents, researchers generally employ similar laboratory-scale devices. However, despite their similarities, these devices are generally used under different experimental conditions. The Hg concentration in the gas phase, gas flow, and sorbent-bed characteristics are variables that influence the contact time, mass transfer, and kinetics and may greatly modify the quantities of Hg retained when the same sorbents are compared. These differences in the experimental conditions do not impede an evaluation of the sorbents as long as the results obtained points toward the same qualitative conclusions. However, the extent of variation needs to be defined to avoid misinterpretation. To illustrate the range of interpretations, the results of a preliminary approach using four experimental devices in two laboratories have been compared in this work. All the experiments were carried out under a nitrogen atmosphere and Hg0 in the gas phase. The same sorbents were employed in al...

[1]  Andrew P. Jones,et al.  An update on DOE's Phase II and Phase III mercury control technology R&D program , 2009 .

[2]  M. A. López-Antón,et al.  The influence of carbon particle type in fly ashes on mercury adsorption , 2009 .

[3]  A. Presto,et al.  Noble Metal Catalysts for Mercury Oxidation in Utility Flue Gas: Gold, Palladium and Platinum Formulations , 2008 .

[4]  Chang-Yu Wu,et al.  Removal of elemental mercury from simulated coal-combustion flue gas using a SiO2–TiO2 nanocomposite , 2008 .

[5]  M. Uddin,et al.  Development of iron-based sorbents for Hg0 removal from coal derived fuel gas: Effect of hydrogen chloride , 2008 .

[6]  T. Keener,et al.  Novel sorbents for mercury emissions control from coal-fired power plants , 2008 .

[7]  P. He,et al.  Evaluation of mercury sorbents in a lab-scale multiphase flow reactor, a pilot-scale slipstream reactor and full-scale power plant , 2008 .

[8]  G. Alptekin,et al.  Non-carbon sorbents for mercury removal from flue gases , 2008 .

[9]  Evan J Granite,et al.  The thief process for mercury removal from flue gas. , 2007, Journal of environmental management.

[10]  G. Sakellaropoulos,et al.  Enhanced mercury adsorption in activated carbons from biomass materials and waste tires , 2007 .

[11]  Chen Lei,et al.  Mercury transformation across particulate control devices in six power plants of China: The co-effect of chlorine and ash composition , 2007 .

[12]  M. A. López-Antón,et al.  Mercury Retention by Fly Ashes from Coal Combustion: Influence of the Unburned Carbon Content , 2007 .

[13]  M. A. López-Antón,et al.  Retention of Elemental Mercury in Fly Ashes in Different Atmospheres , 2007 .

[14]  Michael T. Rossler,et al.  The Clean Air Mercury Rule , 2005 .

[15]  M. P. Ketris,et al.  Mercury in coal: a review Part 2. Coal use and environmental problems , 2005 .

[16]  Steven A. Benson,et al.  Status review of mercury control options for coal-fired power plants , 2003 .

[17]  G. A. Norton,et al.  EFFECTS OF FLY ASH ON MERCURY OXIDATION DURING POST COMBUSTION CONDITIONS , 2002 .

[18]  G. Silcox,et al.  Adsorption of Elemental Mercury on the Residual Carbon in Coal Fly Ash , 2000 .

[19]  E. Granite,et al.  Novel Sorbents For Mercury Removal From Flue Gas , 2000 .

[20]  K. Felsvang,et al.  Activated carbon injection in spray dryer/ESP/FF for mercury and toxics control , 1994 .

[21]  M. Tsamados,et al.  INFLUENCE OF , 2014 .

[22]  M. Maroto-Valer,et al.  Effect of porous structure and surface functionality on the mercury capacity of a fly ash carbon and its activated sample , 2005 .

[23]  Grinding Facility,et al.  Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards , 1976 .