2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2003.11.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Full-scale evaluation of sorbent injection for mercury control on coal-fired power plants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…4 At 1 lb/MMacf, an average mercury control efficiency of 46% was achieved over a five-day period. However, since the completion of tests at Pleasant Prairie, improved sorbents have been developed, some of which were tested during this Phase II program.…”
Section: R27mentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…4 At 1 lb/MMacf, an average mercury control efficiency of 46% was achieved over a five-day period. However, since the completion of tests at Pleasant Prairie, improved sorbents have been developed, some of which were tested during this Phase II program.…”
Section: R27mentioning
confidence: 94%
“…1 These studies suggest that SO 2 and SO 3 reduce the equilibrium mercury capacity of activated carbon and fly ash because activated carbon tends to catalyze SO 2 to H 2 SO 4 . In turn, these sulfur compounds occupy surface sites on the carbon that normally are available to adsorb and oxidize mercury.…”
Section: Introduction Description Of Overall Programmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is a promising technology to remove both elemental and oxidized mercury (Bustard et al, 2004). The sorbent is injected downstream of the combustion chamber and the heat exchanger, but upstream of the particulate control devices-an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and a fabric filter (FF).…”
Section: Many Authors Have Studied Hg°or Hgmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An ESP or fabric filter collects the sorbents to which mercury is attached, along with the fly ash, reaching removal efficiencies of Ͼ90%. 7,8 The effectiveness of PAC injection in removing vapor-phase mercury depends on the composition of the burned materials, that of the flue gas, the temperature, mercury speciation, PAC properties and injection rate, and the operating conditions. 9 Equilibrium and kinetic studies have improved the understanding of adsorptive capacity and the mechanism of adsorption of vapor-phase mercury on activated carbons.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10 -13 Many bench-, pilot-, and full-scale tests have been conducted to examine the influences of the type of carbon, the structures of carbon, the surface characteristics of carbon, the injection method (dry or wet), the amount of carbon injected, and flue gas temperature on the removal of vapor-phase mercury. 6,8,9,14,15 In addition, the dynamics of the uptake of vapor-phase mercury by granular activated carbon have been evaluated as a function of operating parameters, including adsorption temperature, influent concentration of mercury, and emptybed residence time. 16 Nevertheless, very few studies have investigated the adsorption isotherms of HgCl 2 on activated carbons using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%