Influence of the elemental composition of individual fly ash particles on the efficiency of the electrostatic precipitators

Nanomaterial disposal by incineration

“…84 However, electrostatic precipitator collection efficiency cannot be generalized because collection efficiency is dependent upon particle composition, which can vary by fuel and incinerator type. 94 Fabric lters, or baghouses, force the ue gas through lter media to remove particles. Buonanno et al 82,86 have investigated the efficiency of fabric lters for nanoscale particle removal from several different waste-to-energy plants (grate type incinerators) and found that particle emissions were highest during removal of the particle cake that builds up on the lter media over time.…”

Field Measurements on the Emission and Removal of PM2.5 from Coal-Fired Power Stations: 3. Direct Comparison on the PM Removal Efficiency of Electrostatic Precipitators and Fabric Filters

“…ESPs are the most widely used dust collectors in power stations, being standard equipment in the coal-fired power stations which account for over 80% of the total capacity in China. ,,− In an ESP, PM is first charged in an electrostatic field and then separated from flue gas via an electrostatic force. , Its performance is related to the properties of both particle and flue gas, as well as the design and operation of the precipitator. ,− The particle size and specific resistivity of the PM significantly affect their charging ability. For example, PM in the size range 0.1–1 μm has poor charging ability because these particles are in the transition zone between diffusion charging and field charging, and thereby are more difficult to be captured. , Ash particles of high specific resistivity, which depend strongly on their chemical composition, would lead to back corona, while PM of low specific resistivity would cause the re-entrainment of the collected particles on the collection plate. ,,,, In our previous field study, decreasing flue gas temperature by ∼40 °C led to the PM 2.5 collection efficiency of the ESPs increasing from 99.24%–99.48% to 99.79%–99.86% as the resistivity of the ash particles decreased. , The particle size distribution of the PM may be changed by various devices (e.g., low-pressure economizer, acoustic agglomeration devices, and aerodynamic agglomeration devices) ahead of the ESPs, which would also affect their performance. − Moreover, the mass concentration of the PM would also significantly affect their removal in the ESP. ,,, Therefore, at least the size distribution, concentration, and chemical composition of ash particles should be considered when analyzing and evaluating the particle removal characteristics of ESPs.…”

Structural Analysis of Coal Fly Ash Particles by means of Focused-Ion-Beam Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry

“…It is known that an acid-treatment is an essential pretreatment for the solvent extraction of organic compounds from fly ash particles [6] because particles without acidtreatment frequently exhibit poor extraction efficiencies and reproducibility. In the first experiment, the surfaces of fly ash particles without and with acid-treatment were analyzed in relation to surface composition.…”

“…However, they cannot be applied to individual particles and reveal its internal structures. Microscopic analytical techniques, such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM) [4] or particle-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) [6], have been applied to fly ash particles so far. These microscopic observations clarified only the surface morphologies and surface inorganic constituents, respectively.…”