Articles & Issues

Language: English

Conflict of Interest: In relation to this article, we declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Publication history: Received August 31, 2006
Accepted November 24, 2006

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

All issues

Mercury speciation and its emissions from a 220MW pulverized coal-fired boiler power plant in flue gas

Xianghua Yang^{1 2} Yuqun Zhuo³ Yufeng Duan^1† Lei Chen³ Liguo Yang¹ Liang Zhang³ Yiman Jiang¹ Xuchang Xu³

¹Thermoenergy Engineering Research Institute, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210096, China ²Thermal Power Engineering Department, Hohai University, Changzhou, 213022, China ³Thermal Engineering Department, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China

Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, July 2007, 24(4), 711-715(5), 10.1007/s11814-007-0031-9

Download PDF

Abstract

Distributions of mercury speciation of Hg0, Hg2+ and HgP in flue gas and fly ash were sampled by using the Ontario Hydro Method in a 220MW pulverized coal-fired boiler power plant in China. The mercury speciation was varied greatly when flue gas going through the electrostatic precipitator (ESP). The mercury adsorbed on fly ashes was found strongly dependent on unburnt carbon content in fly ash and slightly on the particle sizes, which implies that the physical and chemical features of some elemental substances enriched to fly ash surface also have a non-ignored effect on the mercury adsorption. The concentration of chlorine in coal, oxygen and NOx in flue gas has a positive correlation with the formation of the oxidized mercury, but the sulfur in coal has a positive influence on the formation of elemental mercury.

Keywords

Coal-fired Boiler Mercury Speciation Mercury Emission Flue Gas Fly Ash

References

Schroeder WH, Munthe J, Lindqvist O, Water Air Soil Pollut., 48, 337 (1989)
Mason RP, Fizgerald WF, Moel FM, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 58, 3191 (1994)
US EPA Report 452 r R-97-00, Mercury study report to congress, December (1997)
Prestbo EM, Bloom NS, Water Air Soil Pollut., 80, 145 (1995)
Lindqvist O, Johnasson K, Water Air Soil Pollut., 55, 23 (1991)
FINKELMAN RB, Fuel Process. Technol., 39(1), 21 (1994)
DEVITO MS, ROSENDALE LW, CONRAD VB, Fuel Process. Technol., 39(1), 87 (1994)
Helble JJ, Fuel, 75, 931 (1996)
Yang HC, Kim JH, Seo YC, Kang Y, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 13(3), 261 (1996)
Yang HC, Yun JS, Kang MJ, Kim JH, Kang Y, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 16(5), 646 (1999)
Son BC, Park K, Song SH, Yoo YJ, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 21(6), 1168 (2004)
Guo X, Zheng CG, Liu YH, J. of Eng. Thermophysics, 22, 763 (2001)
Hall B, Schager P, Lindqvist O, Water Air Soil Pollut., 56, 3 (1991)
Ren JL, Zhou JS, Luo ZY, J. of Zhejiang Univ. (Eng. Sci.), 36, 397 (2002)
Pavlish JH, Sondreal EA, Fuel Process. Technol., 82, 89 (2003)
Senior CL, Sarofim AF, Zeng TF, Helble JJ, Mamani-Paco R, Fuel Process. Technol., 63(2), 197 (2000)
Guo X, Zheng CG, Jia XH, J. of Eng. Thermophysics, 25, 714 (2004)
Brown TD, Smith DN, J. of Air & Waste Management Assoc., 49, 628 (1999)
Wang QH, Qiu JR, Wu H, J. of Comb. Sci. and Tech., 9, 135 (2003)