Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 31, pp 31421–31426 | Cite as

Effects of coal blending in electrostatic precipitation efficiency—Inner Mongolia, China

  • Liqiang Qi
  • Jun Xu
  • Yuan Yao
  • Yajuan Zhang
Research Article
  • 330 Downloads

Abstract

Based on this study, the Al2O3 content of Jungar coal ash is over 45%, and the resistivity of high-Al2O3 ash in Jungar reaches up to 1012 Ω​·cm. These results seriously influenced the electric characteristics of fly ash, and the collection efficiency of electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) evidently decreased. To facilitate the effective collection of fine particle in the flue gas generated before and after coal blending via ESP, the fly ash obtained from a power plant electrostatic precipitation was analyzed in terms of resistivity, size distribution, and cohesive force through a portable dust electrical resistivity test instrument, Bahco centrifuge, and a cohesive force test apparatus invented by the researchers. The mixed ratio of else coal is higher than 50%, the resistivity of the fly ash in the flue gas was lowered to approximately two orders of magnitude, and the size distribution showed an evident decrease in the PM2.5 and PM10 content in fly ash. In addition, the adhesive force and efficiency increase from 95.9 to 99.5% in the electrostatic precipitation. Therefore, the combustion of blending coal is an effective approach to improve the efficiency of ESP used to collect high-Al2O3 fly ash.

Keywords

Coal blending Size distribution Resistivity Cohesive force ESP 

Notes

Funding information

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 21376072) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 2017MS140).

References

  1. Betal W (1976) Dust extraction technology: principles, methods, measurement technique. Technicopy Limited, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  2. National Bureau of Statistics (2011) China Energy Statistical Yearbook, Beijing, (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  3. National Bureau of Statistics (2014), China Energy Statistical Yearbook, Beijing, (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  4. Dalmon J, Tidy D (1992) The cohesive properties of fly ash in electrostatic precipitation. Atmos Environ 6:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fisher GL, Prentice BA, Siberman D et al (1978) Physical and morphological studies of size-classified coal fly ash. Environ Sci Technol 12:447–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Long Y, Gao J (1998) The effect of mineral matter of coal on LTS gasifying process. Clean Coal Technol 3:34–37Google Scholar
  7. Luo K, Ren D, Xu L, Dai S, Cao D, Feng F, Tan J’ (2004) Fluorine content and distribution pattern in Chinese coals. Int J Coal Geol 57:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Standardization administration of the People’s Republic of China (2002) National Standards of Peoples Republic of China: Methods of performance tests for electrostatic precipitators, GB/T 13931–2002Google Scholar
  9. Standardization administration of the People’s Republic of China (2007) National Standards of Peoples Republic of China: Test method for analysis of coal ash, GB/T 1574–2007Google Scholar
  10. Standardization administration of the People’s Republic of China (2008) National Standards of Peoples Republic of China: Method of dust character test-Part 9: Determination of cohesion-Normal pull rift method, GB/T16913.9–2008Google Scholar
  11. Qi LQ, Yuan YT (2011) Characteristics and the behavior in electrostatic precipitators of high-alumina coal fly ash from the Jungar power plant, Inner Mongolia, China. J Hazard Mater 192:222–225Google Scholar
  12. Qi LQ, Yuan YT (2013a) Influence of SO3 in flue gas on electrostatic precipitability of high-alumina coal fly ash from a power plant in China. Powder Technol 245:163–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Qi LQ, Yuan YT (2013b) Mechanism of the effect of alkali metal on the electrostatic precipitability of fly ash. Fuel 107:848–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Qi LQ, Zhang YJ (2013) Effects of water vapor on flue gas conditioning in the electric fields with corona discharge. J Hazard Mater 256:10–15Google Scholar
  15. Shah U, Zhang C, Zhu J (2006) Comparison of electrostatic fine powder coating and coarse powder coating by numerical simulations. J Electrost 64:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. US EPA Method (2000) US EPA Method 5: Determination of particulate matter emissions from stationary sourcesGoogle Scholar
  17. Yang YP, Yang ZP, Xu G (2013) Situation and prospect of energy consumption for China’s thermal power generation. Proc CSEE 33:1–11 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Yuan YT, Qi LQ (2006) A new type field test instrument for specific resistivity of fly ash. In: Proc. The 10th international conference on electrostatic precipitation, Cairns, Queensland, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  19. Zhang Y, Shi M, Wang J, Yao J, Cao Y, Romero CE, Pan WP (2016) Occurrence of uranium in Chinese coals and its emissions from coal-fired power plants. Fuel 166:404–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environment Science and EngineeringNorth China Electric Power UniversityBaodingChina

Personalised recommendations