A real-time monitoring system for soluble gas pollutants and it’s application for determining the control efficiency of packed towers

Honeycomb Wet Scrubber For Acidic Gas Control: Modeling And Long-term Test Results 

“…The lab-scale HWS operated at a flow rate of 1.0 CMM and an L/G ratio of 18 L m -3 in the previous study [14] while the present scale-up, actual HWS device operated at a higher flow rate of 100 CMM, a higher L/G ratio of 26 L m -3 , and the same retention time of 0.5 s. Although the removal efficiencies of HF, HCl, and CH3COOH for the present HWS are not as high as those in the previous study, which are about 99% for HF and HCl and nearly 100% for CH3COOH, the long-term test results…”

“…However, this packing material requires a time-consuming and meticulous procedure for preparation and assembly with a precise gap of 3 mm. The pilot-scale 1.0 CMM WS with the honeycomb module (HWS) was further developed with the removal efficiency as high as the PPWS and the packing module is easy to fabricate [14]. The HWS showed nearly 100% for HF (Cin = 0.1-0.4 ppmv) and 99% for HCl (Cin = 3.4-10.8 ppmv) and CH3COOH (Cin = 0.7-6.5 ppmv) at an optoelectronic factory.…”

“…Among all operating parameters, the inlet concentration was found to be the most important parameter affecting the removal efficiency of the packed WS. The removal efficiency of a conventional packed WS increased with the increasing inlet concentration at low inlet concentration (Cin) and approached a constant value until Cin reached a certain value for HF, HCl, HNO3, HNO2, and CH3COOH [14]. For example, the removal efficiency of a multistage dual-flow sieve plate WS was 93.8% as Cin was as high as 100-300 ppmv for HCl [15] while a packed tower was found to have a removal efficiency of less than 90% when Cin was lower than 1.0 ppmv for HF and HCl [9,14].…”

“…The removal efficiency of a conventional packed WS increased with the increasing inlet concentration at low inlet concentration (Cin) and approached a constant value until Cin reached a certain value for HF, HCl, HNO3, HNO2, and CH3COOH [14]. For example, the removal efficiency of a multistage dual-flow sieve plate WS was 93.8% as Cin was as high as 100-300 ppmv for HCl [15] while a packed tower was found to have a removal efficiency of less than 90% when Cin was lower than 1.0 ppmv for HF and HCl [9,14]. The WSs normally have high pressure drop resulting in high power consumption and operation cost [13,16].…”

Honeycomb wet scrubber for acidic gas control: modeling and long-term test results

“…Among all operating parameters, the inlet concentration was found to be the most important parameter affecting the RE of the packed WS. The RE of a conventional packed WS increased with increasing inlet concentration at low inlet concentration (C in ) and approached a constant value until C in reached a certain value for HF, HCl, HNO 3, HNO 2 , and CH 3 COOH [14]. For example, the RE of a multistage dual-flow sieve plate WS was 93.8% as C in was as high as 100-300 ppmv for HCl [15] while a packed tower was found to have a RE of less than 90% when C in was lower than 1.0 ppmv for HF and HCl [9,14].…”