Advertisement

Desulfurization performance of sulfur dioxide and product characteristics in semi-batch bubble column and foam-bed contactor

  • Avanish KumarEmail author
Original Paper
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Two calcium-based absorbents, hydrated lime and calcium carbonate slurries, were employed for studies on absorption of SO2 from simulated flue gases in semi-batch bubble column and foam-bed slurry reactors. The concentration of SO2 at the inlet to, and exit from, the reactor was measured using a ZRJFAY36, Fuji, Japan make infrared SO2 analyzer. Different surface-active agents were used for studies of performance of the foam-bed reactor for the desulfurization operation. With the bubble column reactor, the maximum value of the transient SO2 removal efficiency obtained was 99.4% with hydrated lime slurry, while with the use of calcium carbonate slurry this value was 97.7%. In the foam-bed reactor, the maximum removal efficiencies were found to reduce, more with lime slurry: 91% with each of Triton X-100 and Tween 80, but to 95.2% and 96%, respectively, when calcium carbonate was used as the absorbent. The products obtained from the desulfurization operation were characterized using FT-IR and TGA analyses. Calcium sulfate hemihydrate was obtained for all the combinations of absorbents without and with the surfactant additives, except in the case where Teepol was added to the hydrated lime slurry and gypsum was obtained as the FGD product.

Graphic abstract

Highlights

  • Hydrated lime and calcium carbonate slurries were employed for absorption of SO2 from simulated flue gases in semi-batch bubble column and foam-bed slurry reactors.

  • With the bubble column reactor, the maximum value of the transient SO2 removal efficiency obtained was 99.4% with hydrated lime slurry and 97.7% for calcium carbonate slurry.

  • In the foam-bed reactor, the maximum removal efficiencies were found to be 91% with each of Triton X-100 and Tween 80, but 95.2% and 96%, respectively, when calcium carbonate was used as the absorbent.

  • The products obtained from the desulfurization operation were characterized using FT-IR and TGA analyses.

  • Calcium sulfate hemihydrate was obtained for all the combinations of absorbents without and with the surfactant additives except in the case of adding Teepol to the hydrated lime slurry when gypsum was obtained as the FGD product.

Keywords

SO2 absorption Bubble column slurry reactor Foam-bed reactor Surfactant 

Nomenclature

\( {\text{C}}_{{{\text{SO}}_{ 2} }} \)

Initial concentration of SO2 in inlet gas, ppm

uG

Superficial velocity of gas, m s−1

Vsl

Volume of slurry, m3

CA, out

Outlet SO2 gas concentration, ppm

\( m_{B}^{T} (0) \)

Initial solid loading

CNaOH

Concentration of NaOH in distilled water

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the Department of Chemical Engineering and Material Research Centre, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur for providing the laboratory support and Prof. S.K. Jana, Department of Chemical Engineering, MNIT, Jaipur, for his help during the experimentation.

References

  1. Alvarez-Ayuso E, Querol X, Tomas A (2006) Environmental impact of a coal combustion-desulphurisation plant: abatement capacity of desulphurisation process and environmental characterisation of combustion by-products. Chemosphere 65:2009–2017.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.06.070 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashrit S, Banerjee PK, Chatti RV et al (2015) Characterization of gypsum synthesized from LD slag fines generated at a waste recycling plant of a steel plant. New J Chem 39:4128–4134.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C4NJ02023E CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asolekar SR, Desai D, Deshpande PK, Kumar R (1985) Effect of surface resistance on gas absorption accompanied by a chemical reaction in a gas–liquid contactor. Can J Chem Eng 63:336–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandyopadhyay A, Biswas MN (2006) SO2 scrubbing in a tapered bubble column scrubber. Chem Eng Commun 193:1562–1580.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00986440600584466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belo I, García-abuín A, Gómez-díaz D (2011) Effect of Tween 80 on bubble size and mass transfer in a bubble contactor. Chem Eng Technol 80:1790–1796.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201100140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biswas J, Kumar R (1981) mass transfer with chemical reaction in a froth bed reactor. Chem Eng Commun 178:103–127.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00986440008912178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dagaonkar MV, Beenackers AACM, Pangarkar VG (2001) Enhancement of gas–liquid mass transfer by small reactive particles at realistically high mass transfer coefficients: absorption of sulfur dioxide into aqueous slurries of Ca(OH)2 and Mg(OH)2 particles. Chem Eng J 81:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dou B, Pan W, Jin Q et al (2009) Prediction of SO2 removal efficiency for wet flue gas desulfurization. Energy Convers Manag 50:2547–2553.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2009.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. García-abuín A, Gómez-díaz D, Navaza JM (2015) Influence of surfactant upon SO2 absorption with and without chemical reaction. Indian J Chem Technol 22:171–173Google Scholar
  10. Guan B, Jiang G, Wu Z et al (2011a) Preparation of α-calcium sulfate hemihydrate from calcium sulfate dihydrate in methanol-water solution under mild conditions. J Am Ceram Soc 94:3261–3266.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2011.04470.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guan B, Yang L, Fu H et al (2011b) α-Calcium sulfate hemihydrate preparation from FGD gypsum in recycling mixed salt solutions. Chem Eng J 174:296–303.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.09.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huang K, Le Chen Y, Zhang XM et al (2014) SO2 absorption in acid salt ionic liquids/sulfolane binary mixtures: experimental study and thermodynamic analysis. Chem Eng J 237:478–486.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.10.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jana SK, Bhaskarwar AN (2011) Gas absorption accompanied by chemical reaction in a system of three-phase slurry-foam reactors in series. Chem Eng Res Des 89:793–810.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2010.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kairies CL, Schroeder KT, Cardone CR (2006) Mercury in gypsum produced from flue gas desulfurization. Fuel 85:2530–2536.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2006.04.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Khatib JM, Wright L, Mangat PS (2013) Effect of fly ash-gypsum blend on porosity and pore size distribution of cement pastes. Adv Appl Ceram 112:197–201.  https://doi.org/10.1179/1743676112Y.0000000032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lu Z, Streets DG, Zhang Q et al (2010) Sulfur dioxide emissions in China and sulfur trends in east Asia since 2000. Atmos Chem Phys 10:6311–6331.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-6311-2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lu Z, Zhang Q, Streets DG (2011) Sulfur dioxide and primary carbonaceous aerosol emissions in China and India, 1996–2010. Atmos Chem Phys 11:9839–9864.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-9839-2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lu Z, Streets DG, de Foy B et al (2013) Ozone Monitoring Instrument observations of interannual increases in SO2 emissions from Indian coal-fired power plants during 2005–2012. Environ Sci Technol 47:13993–14000.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es4039648 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Miao M, Feng X, Wang G et al (2015) Direct transformation of FGD gypsum to calcium sulfate hemihydrate whiskers: preparation, simulations, and process analysis. Particuology 19:53–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2014.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mondal MK, Chelluboyana VR (2013) New experimental results of combined SO2 and NO removal from simulated gas stream by NaClO as low-cost absorbent. Chem Eng J 217:48–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nosov VN, Frolova NG, Kamyshov VF (1976) IR spectra of calcium sulfate semihydrates. J Appl Spectrosc 24:509–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pan Z, Lou Y, Yang G et al (2013) Preparation of calcium sulfate dihydrate and calcium sulfate hemihydrate with controllable crystal morphology by using ethanol additive. Ceram Int 39:5495–5502.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2012.12.061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rashad MM, Mahmoud MHH, Ibrahim IA, Abdel-Aal EA (2004) Crystallization of calcium sulfate dihydrate under simulated conditions of phosphoric acid production in the presence of aluminum and magnesium ions. J Cryst Growth 267:372–379.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2004.03.060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shah PS, Mahalingam R (1984) Mass transfer with chemical reaction in. AIChE J 30:924–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shih WY, Rahardianto A, Lee RW et al (2005) Morphometric characterization of calcium sulfate dihydrate (gypsum) scale on reverseosmosis membranes. J Membr Sci 252:253–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2004.12.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Song X, Zhang L, Zhao J et al (2011) Preparation of calcium sulfate whiskers using waste calcium chloride by reactive crystallization. Cryst Res Technol 46:166–172.  https://doi.org/10.1002/crat.201000420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sun Z, Zhao Y, Gao H, Hu G (2010) Removal of SO2 from flue gas by sodium humate solution. Energy Fuels 24:1013–1019.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ef901052r CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang X, Yang L, Zhu X, Yang J (2014) Preparation of calcium sulfate whiskers from FGD gypsum via hydrothermal crystallization in the H2SO4–NaCl–H2O system. Particuology 17:42–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2013.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Chemistry, Slovak Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringJaipur National UniversityJaipurIndia

Personalised recommendations