Advertisement

Effect of additives on stabilization and inhibition of mercury re-emission in simulated desulphurization slurry

  • H. Wu
  • J. Sun
  • C. Zhou
  • H. YangEmail author
Original Paper
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

The introduction of additives into desulfurization slurry may inhibit the mercury re-emission from slurry and improve the stabilization of mercury in slurry. In this paper, the effect of common additives, such as sodium sulfide (Na2S), 2,4,6-trimercaptotriazine trisodium (TMT-18), sodium dithiocarbamate (DTCR-2) and Fenton reagent, on mercury distribution in gas–liquid–solid phase was investigated under typical operating conditions. Meanwhile, the effect of different additive dosages on the inhibition performance of mercury re-emission was studied. Furthermore, the inhibition mechanisms of different additives were also discussed. The experimental results showed that Na2S, TMT-18, DTCR-2 and Fenton reagent could inhibit the mercury re-emission from desulfurization slurry and some mercury that might reemit into the gas phase before would be restrained in the solid phase. For additives such as Na2S, TMT-18 and DTCR-2, with the increase in additive dosages, the inhibition performances of mercury re-emission were improved, but the enhancing effects tended to level off. More mercury could be restrained in the solid phase by forming HgS, Hg-TMT and Hg-DTCR. However, for additives such as Fenton reagent, the inhibition performance of mercury re-emission was first increased and then decreased with the proportion of Fe2+ and H2O2 in Fenton reagent increasing. There existed an optimal proportion. The oxygenated free radical generated by Fenton reagent with Fe2+ as catalysis was the main reason for the inhibition of mercury re-emission, and more mercury would be oxidized and then restrained in solid phase due to the formation of HgSO4 and Fe(OH)3.

Keywords

Additives Desulphurization slurry Inhibition Mercury re-emission 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51676101) and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu (No. BK20161558).

References

  1. Cao Y, Cheng CM, Chen CW, Liu MC, Wang CW, Pan WP (2008) Abatement of mercury emissions in the coal combustion process equipped with a fabric filter baghouse. Fuel 87:3322–3330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carpi A (1997) Mercury from combustion sources: a review of the chemical species emitted and their transport in the atmosphere. Water Air Soil Pollut 98(3–4):241–254Google Scholar
  3. Chang JCS, Ghorishi SB (2003) Simulation and evaluation of elemental mercury concentration increase in flue gas across a wet scrubber. Environ Sci Technol 37(24):5763–5766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng CM, Hack P, Chu P, Chang YN, Lin TY, Ko CS, Chiang PH, He CC, Lai YM, Pan WP (2009) Partitioning of mercury, arsenic, selenium, boron, and chloride in a full-scale coal combustion process equipped with selective catalytic reduction, electrostatic precipitation, and flue gas desulfurization systems. Energy Fuel 23:4805–4816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cordoba P, Font O, Izquierdo M, Querol X, Tobias A, Lopez-Anton MA, Ochoa-Gonzalez R, Diaz-Somoano M, Martinez-Tarazona MR, Ayora C, Leiva C, FernAndez C, GimEnez A (2011) Enrichment of inorganic trace pollutants in re-circulated water streams from a wet limestone flue gas desulphurisation system in two coal power plants. Fuel Process Technol 92(9):1764–1775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diaz-Somoano M, Unterberger S, Hein KRG (2007) Mercury emission control in coal-fired plants: the role of wet scrubbers. Fuel Process Technol 88(3):259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dranga BA, Lazar L, Koeser H (2012) Oxidation catalysts for elemental mercury in flue gases—a review. Catalysts 2(4):139–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feng XB, Li GH, Qiu GL (2006) A preliminary study on mercury contamination to the environment from artisanal zinc smelting using indigenous methods in Hezhang County, Guizhou, China: part 2. Mercury contaminations to soil and crop. Sci Total Environ 368(1):47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grcic I, Vujevic D, Sepcic J, Koprivanac N (2009) Minimization of organic content in simulated industrial wastewater by Fenton type processes: a case study. J Hazard Mater 170(2):954–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heebink LV, Hassett DJ (2005) Mercury release from FGD. Fuel 84(11):1372–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heidel B, Hilber M, Scheffknecht G (2014) Impact of additives for enhanced sulfur dioxide removal on re-emissions of mercury in wet flue gas desulfurization. Appl Energy 114:485–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hu YJ, Sheng TT, Xue XQ, Tan LS (2013) Research on low-level Hg(II) removal from water by the heavy metal capturing agent. Environ Sci 34(9):3486–3492Google Scholar
  13. Liu YX, Wang Y, Wang Q, Pan JF, Zhang YC, Zhou JF, Zhang J (2015) A study on removal of elemental mercury in flue gas using Fenton solution. J Hazard Mater 292:164–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Loon LV, Mader E, Scott SL (2000) Reduction of the aqueous mercuric ion by sulfite: UV spectrum of HgSO3 and its intramolecular redox reaction. J Phys Chem A 104:1621–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Matlock MM, Henke KR, Atwood DA (2002) Effectiveness of commercial reagents for heavy metal removal from water with new insights for future chelate designs. J Hazard Mater 92(2):129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mozaffarian D, Morris JS, Spiegelman D, Grandjean P, Siscovick DS, Willett WC, Rimm EB (2011) Mercury exposure and risk of cardiovascular disease in two U.S. cohorts. N Engl J Med 364(12):1116–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mukherjee AB, Zevenhoven R, Bhattacharya P, Sajwan KS, Kikuchi R (2008) Mercury flow via coal and coal utilization by-products: a global perspective. Resour Conserv Recycl 52:571–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neyens E, Baeyens J (2003) A review of classic Fenton’s peroxidation as an advanced oxidation technique. J Hazard Mater 98(1–3):33–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ochoa-Gonzalez R, Diaz-Somoano M, Martinez-Tarazona MR (2013) Control of Hg0 re-emission from gypsum slurries by means of additives in typical wet scrubber conditions. Fuel 105(1):112–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ochoa-Gonzalez R, Diaz-Somoano M, Martinez-Tarazona MR (2014) A comprehensive evaluation of the influence of air combustion and oxy-fuel combustion flue gas constituents on Hg0 re-emission in WFGD systems. J Hazard Mater 276:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Omine N, Romero CE, Kikkawa H, Wu S, Eswaran S (2012) Study of elemental mercury re-emission in a simulated wet scrubber. Fuel 91(1):93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pavlish JH, Sondreal EA, Mann MD, Olson ES, Galbreath KC, Laudal DL, Benson SA (2003) Status review of mercury control options for coal-fired power plants. Fuel Process Technol 82:89–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rumayor M, Svoboda K, Svehla J, Pohorely M, Syc M (2017) Mitigation of gaseous mercury emissions from waste-to-energy facilities: homogeneous and heterogeneous Hg-oxidation pathways in presence of fly ashes. J Environ Manag 206:276–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schuetze J, Kunth D, Weissbach S, Koser H (2012) Mercury vapor pressure of flue gas desulfurization scrubber suspensions: effects of pH level, gypsum, and iron. Environ Sci Technol 46(5):3008–3013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shen BX, Chen JH, Yue SJ (2015) Removal of elemental mercury by titanium pillared clay impregnated with potassium iodine. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 203:216–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sun M (2015) Speciation transformation characteristics stabilization of mercury in flue gas desulphurization (FGD) gypsum. Zhejiang University, ZhejiangGoogle Scholar
  27. Tang TM, Xu J, Lu RJ, Wo JJ, Xu XH (2010) Enhanced Hg2+ removal and Hg re-emission control from wet fuel gas desulfurization liquors with additives. Fuel 89(12):3613–3617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang QF (2015) Study on oxidized mercury reduction inhibition in wet FGD system and the stability of mercury in desulfurization gypsum. Zhejiang University, ZhejiangGoogle Scholar
  29. Xiang B, Liu YF, Li YJ, Ni YM (2003) Development in the research on DTC derivatives for heavy metal treatment. Electroplat Pollut Control 23:1–3Google Scholar
  30. Zhang L, Zhuo Y, Chen L, Xu X, Chen CH (2008) Mercury emissions from six coal-fired power plants in China. Fuel Process Technol 89(11):1033–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang W, Zhen GC, Chen L, Wang HH, Li Y, Ye XJ, Tong YD, Zhu Y, Wang XJ (2017) Economic evaluation of health benefits of mercury emission controls for China and the neighboring countries in East Asia. Energy Policy 106:579–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhou X, Zhang JZ, Qiu XK, Wang DY (2013) Removal of Hg in wastewater by zero-valent iron. Environ Sci 34(11):4304–4310Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Energy and Mechanical EngineeringNanjing Normal UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Engineering Laboratory of Energy System Process Conversion and Emission Reduction Technology of Jiangsu ProvinceNanjingChina
  3. 3.Jiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Materials Cycling and Pollution Control, School of Energy and Mechanical EngineeringNanjing Normal UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations