Comprehensive analysis for prediction of dust removal efficiency using twin-fluid atomization in a spray scrubber

A mechanistic explanation of the increase in particle scavenging in the ultrasonic scrubber

“…Accordingly, there is a range of d p falling between the inertially-dominant and diffusive-dominant regimes, where neither the inertial nor diffusive mechanisms are effective, resulting in a minimum in E, often referred to as the "Greenfield gap" (Greenfield, 1957). This minimum falls, again, within 0:1 μm≲d p ≲10 μm as reported by several researchers (Gemci & Ebert, 1992;Kim et al, 2001;Lai, Dayan & Kerker, 1978;Lim, Lee & Park, 2006;Raj Mohan et al, 2008). Summarizing, the micron scale particle diameters that are most harmful to human lungs are the least effectively removed by wet scrubbers.…”

“…While generally effective, experimental and theoretical studies of wet scrubbers show that they perform poorly in the removal of micron-scale particles (Gemci & Ebert, 1992, Raj Mohan, Jain & Meikap, 2008. Plots of E versus particle diameter d p for wet scrubbers typically show a minimum in the micron scale region.…”

A modeling and experimental study of flue gas desulfurization in a dense phase tower

“…However, in those cases where a high desulfurization ratio is required (e.g. desulfurization efficiency >95%, reported by Rajmohan et al [6][7][8] and Meikap et al [9,10]), a wet scrubber can be applied. Fig.…”

“…Among these, the wet FGD process is the main technology used for flue gas desulfurization, which has the advantages of high desulfurization efficiency, high utilization rate of desulfurization reagents, and a stable operating environment [3][4][5]. Rajmohan et al reported the removal of SO 2 , as well as particulate pollutants, with an almost 99.99% efficiency [6][7][8]. Meikap et al achieved 100% SO 2 removal efficiency when employing a modified multi-stage bubble column scrubber [9,10].…”

Selecting Particulate and Gaseous Pollution Control Device

“…These are critically discussed here for the broad interests of the future researchers in this chosen field of air pollution control. Particulate scrubbing in a countercurrent spray scrubber (Mohan, Biswas, et al 2008;Mohan, Jain, et al 2008), SO 2 scrubbing in a spray-cum-bubble column (Rajmohan et al 2008) and particulate scrubbing in a spray-cum-bubble column (Mohan and Meikap 2009) were reported that were questionable. On peer scrutiny of all these research studies revealed that these contained serious technical deficiencies coupled with language problems.…”