2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2019.05.024
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A wet packed-bed scrubber for removing tar from biomass producer gas

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…( 1), while the overall cleaning efficiency was calculated using Eq. ( 2) [8]: where C i, before Abs 1) is the mass concentration of PM before the absorber, C i, after Abs the mass concentration of PM after the absorber, and n the number of stages.…”
Section: Equipmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…( 1), while the overall cleaning efficiency was calculated using Eq. ( 2) [8]: where C i, before Abs 1) is the mass concentration of PM before the absorber, C i, after Abs the mass concentration of PM after the absorber, and n the number of stages.…”
Section: Equipmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the literature, when comparing the various gas purification methods, packed-bed wet scrubbers (chemical scrubbers and bio-scrubbers) have proven to be the most attractive technologies due to their low price, high efficiency, and ability to remove solid and liquid pollutants [8][9][10][11][12][13]. The conventional mechanism of the wet scrubber with a packed bed (the chemical scrubber) involves the capture of PM from flue gas by passing the gas stream through a column filled with packing material, with the absorption solution being supplied to the packing material [8]. However, removing the PM, which can be smaller than 1 mm, from the flue gas with the wet-scrubber method is complicated [14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among which, due to the high adaptability, low construction and operation costs, and relative simplicity, the use of wet scrubbers has proven to be a feasible tar removal method, especially for small-scale gasification. 13 The key issue in this method is the selection of the absorption medium ( Table 1 ). Water was initially investigated, but due to the large proportion of nonpolar 14 hydrophobic components in tar, it showed a poor removal efficiency of only 31.8%.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…11 Among which, due to the high adaptability, low construction and operation costs, and relative simplicity, the use of wet scrubbers has proven to be a feasible tar removal method, especially for small-scale gasification. 13 The key issue in this method is the selection of the absorption medium (Table 1).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This system removes high molecular weight aromatic compounds of tar with 90% efficiency (Lotfi et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%