Advertisement

Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp 1189–1195 | Cite as

Effect of modified fly ash with hydrogen bromide on the adsorption efficiency of elemental mercury

  • Na Song
  • Yang Teng
  • Jiawei Wang
  • Zhao Liu
  • William Orndorff
  • Wei-Ping Pan
Article

Abstract

Mercury is one of the most hazardous trace elements produced by coal-fired power plants. Mercury in the flue gas is predominately present as three different species: particulate mercury (Hgp), oxidized mercury (Hg2+), and elemental mercury (Hg0). Of these three, elemental mercury is the most difficult to remove from flue gas streams due to its low reactivity and low solubility in water. With increasing production costs associated with activated carbon materials, and increasing restrictions on mercury emissions, the development of an alternative low cost absorbent to capture elemental mercury by using fly ash modified with bromide compounds is highly desirable. Modified fly ash is usually injected into the flue gas stream after the air pre-heater system of a coal-fired power plant to oxidize and subsequently absorb elemental mercury. Research on the quantity and method of modifying the bromide amended fly ash is needed to obtain the most efficient mercury capture rate. This study utilized the impregnation method to prepare three different fly ashes with hydrogen bromide (HBr). Adsorption capabilities of the modified fly ashes were then examined using a fixed bed reactor. Thermogravimetric (TG) analysis was employed to quantify the amount of hydrogen bromide in the modified fly ash, which was subsequently compared to the water extraction method using ion chromatography. TG-MS was also utilized to evaluate the release of HBr from the modified fly ash and elucidate the mechanism for mercury capture.

Keywords

Hydrogen bromide Modified fly ash Ion chromatography Thermogravimetric analysis Elemental mercury adsorption 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the support by the National High Technology Research and Development (Program 863, No. 2013AA065501).

References

  1. 1.
    Galbreath KC, Zygarlicke CJ. Mercury transformations in coal combustion flue gas. Fuel Process Technol. 2000;65(66):289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cao Y, Cheng CM, Chen CW, Liu MC, Wang CW, Pan WP. Abatement of mercury emissions in the coal combustion process equipped with a Fabric Filter Baghouse. Fuel. 2008;87:3322–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheng CM, Lin HT, Wang Q, Chen CW, Wang CW, Liu MC, Chen CK, Pan WP. Experience in long term evaluation of mercury continuous emission monitoring systems. Energy Fuel. 2008;22:3040–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vidic RD, McLaughlin JB. Uptake of elemental mercury vapors by activated carbons. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 1996;46:241–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fan XP, Li CT, Zeng GM, Gao Z, Chen L, Zhang W, Gao HL. Removal of gas-phase element mercury by activated carbon fiber impregnated with CeO2. Energy Fuel. 2010;24:4250–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hua XY, Zhou JS, Li QK, Luo ZY, Cen KF. Gas-phase elemental mercury removal by CeO2 impregnated activated coke. Energy Fuels. 2010;24(10):5426–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghorishi SB, Singer CF, Sedman C. Preparation and evaluation of modified lime and silica-lime sorbents for mercury vapor emission control [C]. EPRI–EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution Control Symposium, 1999, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bylina IV, Tong S, Jia CQ. Thermal analysis of sulphur impregnated activated carbons with mercury adsorbed from the vapour phase. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2009;96:91–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rezaei BG, Saboury AA, Taherkhani A, Barzegar L, Mollaagazade A. Thermodynamic study on the binding of mercury and silver ions to urease. J Therm anal Calorim. 2011;105:1081–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cao Y, Gao Z, Zhu J, Wang Q, Huang Y, Chiu C, et al. Impacts of halogen additions on mercury oxidation, in a slipstream selective catalyst reduction (SCR), reactor when burning sub-bituminous coal. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42(1):256–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghorishi SB, Keeney RM. Development of a Cl-impregnated activated carbon for entrained-flow capture of elemental mercury Environ. Sci Technol. 2002;36(20):4454–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu Sh, Yan NQ, Liu ZR, Qu Z, Wang HP, Chang SG, Miller C. Using bromine gas to enhance mercury removal from flue gas of coal-fired power plants. Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41:1405–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cao Y, Wang QH, Li J, Cheng JC, Chan CC, Cohron M, Pan WP. Enhancement of mercury capture by the simultaneous addition of hydrogen bromide (HBr) and fly ashes in a slipstream facility. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43:2812–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sasmaz E, Kirchofer A, Jew AD, Saha A, Abram D, Jaramillo TF, et al. Mercury chemistry on brominated activated carbon. Fuel. 2012;99:188–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hutson ND, Attwood BC, Scheckel KG. XAS and XPS characterization of mercury biding on brominated activated carbon. Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41:1747–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhao YC, Zhang JY, Liu J, Diaz-Somoano M, Martinez-Tarazona MR, Zheng CG. Study on mechanism of mercury oxidation by fly ash from coal combustion. Chin Sci Bull. 2010;55(2):163–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassett DJ, Eylands KE. Mercury capture on coal combustion fly ash. Fuel. 1999;78:243–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Presto AA, Granite EJ. Survey of catalysts for oxidation of mercury in flue gas. Environ Sci Technol. 2006;40:5601–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Presto AA, Granite EJ, Karash A. Further investigation of the impact of sulfur oxides on mercury capture by activated carbon. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2007;46:8273–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Na Song
    • 1
  • Yang Teng
    • 1
  • Jiawei Wang
    • 1
  • Zhao Liu
    • 1
  • William Orndorff
    • 2
  • Wei-Ping Pan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Energy, Power and Mechanical EngineeringNorth China Electric Power UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Institute of Combustion Science and Environmental TechnologyWestern Kentucky UniversityBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations