Advertisement

Plasma Chemistry and Plasma Processing

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 471–485 | Cite as

Removal of Elemental Mercury from Simulated Flue Gas by Combining Non-thermal Plasma with Calcium Oxide

  • Jun Zhang
  • Yufeng Duan
  • Weixin Zhao
  • Chun Zhu
  • Qiang Zhou
  • Min She
Review Article

Abstract

Mercury emission from coal combustion has been the fourth biggest pollutant in China, following the dusts, SO2 and NOX. The technology of non-thermal plasma has been widely studied for oxidizing gaseous elemental mercury at low temperature. In this paper, a new method of combining non-thermal plasma with calcium oxide was proposed to remove elemental mercury from simulated flue gas. The effects of non-thermal plasma, input energy, combination mode of plasma and calcium oxide on Hg0 removal were investigated in a wire-cylinder non-thermal plasma reactor, whose energy was supplied by a high voltage alternating current power. The peak voltage and energy of the non-thermal plasma were measured by an oscilloscope and a high voltage probe (1000:1). The results showed that most of Hg0 was converted to oxidized mercury in simulated flue gas by non-thermal plasma treatment. The Hg0 removal efficiency of CaO was improved remarkably strengthened by the non-thermal plasma, which was closely related to input energy, and the maximum mercury removal efficiency was about 80 % at an optimal input energy. Through temperature-programmed decomposition and desorption and energy dispersive spectroscopy analysis, the majority of mercury species on CaO surface were Hg2O and HgO3 rather than HgO. Therefore, it can be concluded that O3 plays an important role in Hg0 oxidation under the condition of non-thermal plasma.

Keywords

Non-thermal plasma Elemental mercury Calcium oxide sorbents Ozone Mercury oxidation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support for this work provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51376046, 51576044); the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Graduate Student Research and Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (KYLX_0184, CXZZ13_0093, KYLX_0115, KYLX15_0071); National Science and Technology Support Program of China (No. 2012BAA02B01); Jiangsu Province United Creative Subject (BY2013073-10).

References

  1. 1.
    Sorensen JA, Glass GE, Schmidt KW, Huber JK et al (1990) Airborne mercury deposition and watershed characteristics in relation to mercury concentration in water, sediments, plankton, and fish of eighty northern Minnesota lakes. Environ Sci Technol 24:1716–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jensen RR, Karki S, Salehfar H (2004) Artificial neural network-based estimation of mercury speciation in combustion flue gases. Fuel Process Technol 85:451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zheng Y, Jensen AD, Windelin C et al (2012) Review of technologies for mercury removal from flue gas from cement production processes. Prog Energy Combust Sci 38:599–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Streets DG, Hao J, Wu Y et al (2005) Anthropogenic mercury emissions in China. Atmos Environ 39:7789–7806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carpi A (1997) Mercury from combustion sources: a review of the chemical species emitted and their transport in the atmosphere. Water Air Soil Pollut 98:241–254Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang S, Zhang L, Li G et al (2010) Mercury emission and speciation of coal-fired power plants in China. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 10:1183–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Senior CL, Sarofim AF, Zeng T et al (2000) Gas-phase transformations of mercury in coal-fired power plants. Fuel Process Technol 63:197–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pavlish JH, Sondreal EA, Mann MD et al (2003) Status review of mercury control options for coal-fired power plants. Fuel Process Technol 82:89–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pacyna EG, Pacyna JM (2002) Global emission of mercury from anthropogenic sources in 1995. Water Air Soil Pollut 137:149–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Srivastava RK, Hutson N, Martin B et al (2006) Control of mercury emissions from coal-fired electric utility boilers. Environ Sci Technol 40:1385–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang HA, Wu JM, Livengood CD (1996) Development of dry control technology for emissions of mercury in flue gas. Hazard Waste Hazard Mater 13:107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee SJ, Seo YC, Jurng J et al (2004) Removal of gas-phase elemental mercury by iodine- and chlorine-impregnated activated carbons. Atmos Environ 38:4887–4893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghorishi SB, Keeney RM, Serre SD et al (2002) Development of a Cl-impregnated activated carbon for entrained-flow capture of elemental mercury. Environ Sci Technol 36:4454–4459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee SS, Lee JY, Keener TC (2009) Bench-scale studies of in-duct mercury capture using cupric chloride-impregnated carbons. Environ Sci Technol 43:2957–2962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hsi HC, Rood MJ, Rostam-Abadi M et al (2001) Effects of sulfur impregnation temperature on the properties and mercury adsorption capacities of activated carbon fibers (ACFs). Environ Sci Technol 35:2785–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Korpiel JA, Vidic D (1997) Effect of sulfur impregnation method on activated carbon uptake of gas-phase mercury. Environ Sci Technol 31:2319–2325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graydon JW, Zhang X, Kirk DW et al (2009) Sorption and stability of mercury on activated carbon for emission control. J Hazard Mater 168:978–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Senior C, Bustard CJ, Durham M et al (2004) Characterization of fly ash from full-scale demonstration of sorbent injection for mercury control on coal-fired power plants. Fuel Process Technol 85:601–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee SS, Lee JY, Keener TC (2008) Novel sorbents for mercury emissions control from coal-fired power plants. J Chin Inst Chem Eng 39:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghorishi SB, Singer CF, Jozewicz WS et al (2002) Simultaneous control of Hg0, SO2 and NOX by novel oxidized calcium-based sorbents. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 52:273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Obradović BM, Sretenović GB, Kuraica MM (2011) A dual-use of DBD plasma for simultaneous NOX and SO2 removal from coal-combustion flue gas. J Hazard Mater 185:1280–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moka YS, Nam IS (2002) Modeling of pulsed corona discharge process for the removal of nitric oxide and sulfur dioxide. Chem Eng J 85:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim YS, Paek MS, Yoo JS et al (2003) Development of demonstration plant using non-thermal plasma process to remove SO2 and NOX from flue gas. J Adv Oxid Technol 6:35–40Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen Z, Mannava DP, Mathur VK (2006) Mercury oxidization in dielectric barrier discharge plasma system. Ind Eng Chem Res 45:6050–6055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ko KB, Byun Y, Cho M et al (2008) Influence of gas components on the oxidation of elemental mercury by positive pulsed corona discharge. Main Group Chem 7:191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang MY, Zhu TL, Luo HP et al (2009) Oxidation of gaseous elemental mercury in a high voltage discharge reactor. J Environ Sci 21:1652–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Calvert JG, Lindberg SE (2005) Mechanism of mercury removal by O3 and OH in the atmosphere. Atmos Environ 39:3355–3367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang YJ, Duan YF (2011) Effect of manganese ions on the structure of Ca(OH)2 and mercury adsorption performance of Mnx+/Ca(OH)2 composites. Energy Fuels 25:1553–1558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Byun Y, Ko KB, Cho M et al (2008) Oxidation of elemental mercury using atmospheric pressure non-thermal plasma. Chemosphere 72:652–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guerra DL, Airoldi C, Viana RR (2008) Performance of modified montmorillonite clay in mercury adsorption process and thermodynamic studies. Inorg Chem Commun 11:20–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    An JT, Shang KF, Lu N et al (2014) Oxidation of elemental mercury by active species generated form a surface dielectric barrier discharge plasma reactor. Plasma Chem Plasma Process 34:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang ZH, Jiang SD, Zhu YQ et al (2010) In0vestigation on elemental mercury oxidation mechanism by non-thermal plasma treatment. Fuel Process Technol 91:1395–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jeong J, Jurng J (2007) Removal of gaseous elemental mercury by dielectric barrier discharge. Chemosphere 68:2007–2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ghorishi SB, Sedman CB (1998) Low concentration mercury sorption mechanisms and control by calcium-based sorbents: application in coal-fired processes. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 48:1191–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ghorishi SB, Singer CF, Jozewicz WS (2002) Simultaneous control of Hg0, SO2, and NOX by novel oxidized calcium-based sorbents. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 52:273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shepler BC, Peterson KA (2003) Mercury monoxide: a systematic investigation of its grounds electronic state. J Phys Chem A 107:1783–1787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yokoyama T, Asakura K, Matsuda H et al (2000) Mercury emissions from a coal fired power plant in Japan. Sci Total Environ 259:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Biester H, Scholz C (1997) Determination of mercury binding forms in contaminated soils: mercury pyrolysis versus sequential extractions. Environ Sci Technol 31:233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    L’vov BV (1999) Kinetics and mechanism of thermal decomposition of mercuric oxide. Thermochim Acta 333:21–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Filatov M, Cremer D (2004) Revision of the dissociation energies of mercury chalcogenides-unusual types of mercury bondinoshg. ChemPhysChem 5:1547–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Byun Y, Koh DJ, Shin DN (2011) Removal mechanism of elemental mercury by using non-thermal plasma. Chemosphere 83:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jun Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yufeng Duan
    • 1
  • Weixin Zhao
    • 1
  • Chun Zhu
    • 1
  • Qiang Zhou
    • 1
  • Min She
    • 1
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Energy Thermal Conversion and Control of Ministry of Education, School of Energy and EnvironmentSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.School of Chemistry and Material ScienceHuaibei Normal UniversityHuaibeiChina

Personalised recommendations