Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 21, pp 21097–21105 | Cite as

Insight into elemental mercury (Hg0) removal from flue gas using UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation processes

  • Changsong Zhou
  • Zijian Song
  • Yang Hongmin 
  • Hao Wu
  • Ben Wang
  • Jie Yu
  • Lushi Sun
Research Article


Elemental mercury (Hg0) emitted from coal-fired power plants and municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators has caused great harm to the environment and human beings. The strong oxidized OH radicals produced by UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation processes were studied to investigate the performance of Hg0 removal from simulated flue gases. The results showed that when H2O2 concentration was 1.0 mol/L and the solution pH value was 4.1, the UV/H2O2 system had the highest Hg0 removal efficiency. The optimal reaction temperature was approximately 50 °C and Hg0 removal was inhibited when the temperature was higher or lower. The yield of OH radicals during UV/H2O2 reaction was studied by electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) analysis. UV radiation was the determining factor to remove Hg0 in UV/H2O2 system due to OH generation during H2O2 decomposition. SO2 had little influence on Hg0 removal whereas NO had an inhibitory effect on Hg0 removal. The detailed findings for Hg0 removal reactions over UV/H2O2 make it an attractive method for mercury control from flue gases.


UV/H2O2 Hg0 Flue gas Removal OH radical Mechanism 


Funding information

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Nos. 51676101), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2017 M621779), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (No. BK20161558), and the College Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (No. 17KJB470009).


  1. Ahn Y, Lee D, Kwon M, Choi I, Nam SN, Kang JW (2017) Characteristics and fate of natural organic matter during UV oxidation processes. Chemosphere 184:960–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alharbi SK, Kang J, Nghiem LD, van de Merwe JP, Leusch FDL, Price WE (2017) Photolysis and UV/H2O2 of diclofenac, sulfamethoxazole, carbamazepine, and trimethoprim: identification of their major degradation products by ESI-LC-MS and assessment of the toxicity of reaction mixtures. Process Saf Environ Prot 112:222–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baveja K, Rao DS, Sarkar M (1979) Kinetics of absorption of nitric oxide in hydrogen peroxide solutions. J Chem Eng Jap 12(4):322–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blint RJ, Newton MD (1973) Ab initio studies of interoxygen bonding in O2, HO2, H2O2, O3, HO3, and H2O3. J Chem Phy 59:6220–6228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolger PT, Szlag DC (2002) An electrochemical system for removing and recovering elemental mercury from a gas stream. Environ Sci Technol 36:4430–4435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Civerra MS, Ramos CG, Oliveira MLS, Kautzmann RM, Taffarel SR, Teixeira EC, Silva LFO (2016) Nano-mineralogy of suspended sediment during the beginning of coal rejects spill. Chemosphere 145:142–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper CD, Clausen CA III, Pettey L, Collins MM, Pozo de Fernandez M (2002) Investigation of exit light-enhanced H2O2 oxidation of NOx emissions. J Environ Eng 128(1):68–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dias C, Oliveira MLS, Hower JC, Taffarel SR, Kautzmann RM, Silva LFO (2014) Nanominerals and ultrafine particles from coal fires from Santa Catarina, South Brazil. Int J Coal Geol 122:50–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fang P, Cen C, Wang X, Tang Z, Tang Z, Chen D (2013) Simultaneous removal of SO2, NO and Hg0 by wet scrubbing using urea +KMnO4 solution. Fuel Process Technol 106:645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Granite EJ (2017) Comment on "mercury oxidation by UV irradiation: effect of contact time, UV wavelength, and moisture content". Ind Eng Chem Res 56:9408–9409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Granite EJ, Pennline HW (2002) Photochemical removal of mercury from flue gas. Ind Eng Chem Res 41:5470–5476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Granite EJ, Pennline HW, Hoffman JS (1999) Effects of photochemical formation of mercuric oxide. Ind Eng Chem Res 38:5034–5037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Granite EJ, Pennline HW, Hargis RA (2000) Novel sorbents for mercury removal from flue gas. Ind Eng Chem Res 39(4):1020–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Granite EJ, William PK, Dennis CS, Pennline HW (2008) The implications of mercury interactions with band-gap semiconductor oxides. Main Group Chem 7(3):227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heidel B, Rogge T, Scheffknecht G (2016) Controlled desorption of mercury in wet FGD waste water treatment. Appl Energy 162:1211–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jia L, Dureau R, Ko V, Anthony EJ (2010) Oxidation of mercury under ultraviolet (UV) irradiation. Energy Fuel 24:4351–4356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jo WK, Karthikeyan S, Isaacs MA, Lee AF, Wilson K, Shin SH, Lee J-H, Kim MK, Park BS, Sekaran G (2017) NiO/nanoporous carbon heterogeneous Fenton catalyst for aqueous microcystine-LR decomposition. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 74:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnc SC, Behroozghorishi S (2003) Simulation and evaluation of elemental mercury concentration increase in flue gas across a wet scrubber. Environ Sci Technol 37:5763–5766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karthikeyan S, Boopathy R, Gupta VK, Sekaran G (2013) Preparation, characterizations and its application of heterogeneous Fenton catalyst for the treatment of synthetic phenol solution. J Mol Liq 177:402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim JM, Metcalfe IS (2007) Investigation of the generation of hydroxyl radicals and their oxidation role in the presence of heterogeneous copper catalysts. Chemosphere 69:689–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kwan WP, Voelker BM (2002) Decomposition of hydrogen peroxide and organic compounds in the presence of dissolved iron and ferrihydrite. Environ Sci Technol 36(7):1467–1532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee SJ, Seo YC, Jurng J, Lee TG (2004) Removal of gas-phase elemental mercury by iodine-and chlorine-impregnated activated carbons. Atmos Environ 38:4887–4893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee M, Merle T, Rentsch D, Canonica S, von Gunten U (2016) Abatement of polychoro-1, 3-butadienes in aqueous solution by ozone, UV photolysis, and advanced oxidation processes (O3/H2O2 and UV/H2O2). Environ Sci Technol 51(1):497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li H, Li Y, Wu CY, Zhang J (2011) Oxidation and capture of elemental mercury over SiO2-TiO2-V2O5 catalysts in simulated low-rank coal combustion flue gas. Chem Eng J 169:186–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li H, Zhang W, Wang J, Yang Z, Li L, Shih K (2017a) Coexistence of enhanced Hg0 oxidation and induced Hg2+ reduction on CuO/TiO2 catalyst in the presence of NO and NH3. Chem Eng J 330:1248–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li H, Zhu L, Wang J, Li L, Lee PH, Feng Y, Shih K (2017b) Effect of nitrogen oxides on elemental mercury removal by nanosized mineral sulfide. Environ Sci Technol 51:8530–8536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Limvoranusorn P, Cooper CD, Dietz JD, Clausen CA, Pettey L, Collins MM (2005) Kinetic modeling of the gas-phase oxidation of nitric oxide using hydrogen peroxide. J Environ Eng 4:518–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lin C, Pehkonen SO (1997) Aqueous free radical chemistry of mercury in the presence of iron oxides and ambient aerosol. Atmos Environ 31(24):4125–4161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu Y, Zhang J (2011) Photochemical oxidation removal of NO and SO2 from simulated flue gas of coal-fired power plants by wet scrubbing using UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation process. Ind Eng Chem Res 50(7):3836–3841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu Y, Zhang J, Sheng C et al (2010a) Preliminary study on a new technique for wet removal of nitric oxide from simulated flue gas with an exit (UV)/H2O2 process. Energy Fuel 2(9):4925–4954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu Y, Zhang J, Sheng C, Zhang Y, Zhao L (2010b) Wet removal of sulfur dioxide and nitric oxide from simulated coal-fired flue gas by UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation process. Energy Fuel 24(9):4931–4936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu Y, Wang Q, Pan J (2016) Novel process of simultaneous removal of nitric oxide and sulfur dioxide using a vacuum ultraviolet (VUV)-activated O2/H2O/H2O2 system in a wet VUV-spraying reactor. Environ Sci Technol 50(23):12966–12975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lu D, Anthony EJ, Tan Y, Dureau R, Ko V, Douglas MA (2007) Mercury removal from coal combustion by Fenton reactions—part a: bench-scale tests. Fuel 86:2789–2797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marrugo-Negrete J, Enamorado-Montes G, Durango-Hernández J (2017) Removal of mercury from gold mine effluents using Limnocharis flava in constructed wetlands. Chemosphere 167:188–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McLarnon C, Granite EJ, Pennline HW (2005) The PCO process for photochemical removal of mercury from flue gas. Fuel Process Technol 87:85–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mendiara T, Izquierdo MT, Abad A, Gayán P, Labiano FG, Diego LF, Adánez J (2014) Mercury release and speciation in chemical looping combustion of coal. Energy Fuel 28(4):2786–2794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moon BR, Kim TK, Kim MK, Choi J, Zoh KD (2017) Degradation mechanisms of microcystin-LR during UV-B photolysis and UV/H2O2 processes: byproducts and pathways. Chemosphere 185:1039–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oliveira AG, Ribeiro JP, Oliveira JT, Keukeleire DD, Duarte MS, Nascimento RF (2014) Degradation of the pesticide chlorpyrifos in aqueous solutions with UV/H2O2: optimization and effect of interfering anions. J Adv Oxid Technol 17(1):133–138Google Scholar
  39. Owen MC, Szőri M, Csizmadia IG, Viskolcz B (2012) Conformation-dependent OH/H2O2 hydrogen abstraction reaction cycles of gly and ala residues: a comparative theoretical study. J Phys Chem B 116(3):1143–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Priyadharsan A, Vasanthakumar V, Karthikeyan S, Raj V, Shanavas S, Anbarasan PM (2017) Multi-functional properties of ternary CeO2/SnO2/rGO nanocomposites: visible light driven photocatalyst and heavy metal removal. J Photochem Photobiol A 346:32–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saeid S, Behnajady MA (2015) Photooxidative removal of phenazopyridine by UV/H2O2 process in a batch re-circulated annular photoreactor: influence of operational parameters. Orient J Chem 31(2):1211–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silvia FV, Ainara G, Kátiada B, Elba CT, Carlos HS, Juan MM, Luis FOS (2017) Nanominerals and potentially hazardous elements from coal cleaning rejects of abandoned mines: environmental impact and risk assessment. Chemosphere 169:725–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skodic L, Vajnhandl S, Valh JV, Željko T, Vončina B, Lobnik A (2017) Comparative study of reactive dyes oxidation by H2O2/UV, H2O2/UV/Fe2+ and H2O2/UV/Fe processes. Ozone Sci Eng 39(1):14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sommar J, Gardfeldt M, Stromberg D (2001) A kinetic study of the gas-pHase reaction between the hydroxyl radical and atomic mercury. Atmos Environ 35:3049–3054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Su S, Liu L, Wang L, Syed-Hassan SSA, Kong F, Hu S, Wang Y, Jiang L, Xu K, Zhang A, Xiang J (2017) Mass flow analysis of mercury transformation and effect of seawater FGD on mercury removal in a full-scale coal-fired power plant. Energy Fuel 31(10):11109–11116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sun S, Lemley A (2011) P-nitropHenol degradation by a heterogeneous Fenton-like reaction on nano-magnetite: process optimization, kinetics, and degradation pathways. J Mol Catal A Chem 349:71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tan Y, Lu D, Anthony EJ, Dureau R, Mortazavi R, Douglas MA (2007) Mercury removal from coal combustion by Fenton reactions. Paper B: Pilot-scale tests. Fuel 86:2798–2805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Uffalussy KJ, Granite EJ (2015) Novel capture technologies: non-carbon sorbents and photochemical oxidations. In Granite EJ, Henry WP, Connie S (ed) Mercury control for coal-derived gas streams. Wiley-VCH, pp 339–356Google Scholar
  49. Ulrike M, Jochen B (2001) Characterisation of the gas—liquid mass transfer in shaking bioreactors. Biochem Eng J 7(2):99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vaart R, Akkerhuis J, Feron P, Jansen B (2001) Removal of mercury from gas streams by oxidative membrane gas absorption. J Membr Sci 187:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang L, Ji Y, Lu J, Kong D, Yin X, Zhou Q (2017) Comparative study of the formation of brominated disinfection byproducts in UV/persulfate and UV/H2O2 oxidation processes in the presence of bromide. Environ Sci Pollut R 24(29):23219–23225Google Scholar
  52. Xu X, Ye Q, Tang T, Wang D (2008) Hg0 oxidative absorption by K2S2O8 solution catalyzed by Ag+ and Cu2+. J Hazard Mater 158:410–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yoon Y, Chung HJ, Di DYW et al (2017) Inactivation efficiency of plasmid-encoded antibiotic resistance genes during water treatment with chlorine, UV, and UV/H2O2. Water Res 123:783–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yuan Y, Zhang J, Li H, Li Y, Zhao Y, Zheng C (2012) Simultaneous removal of SO2, NO and mercury using TiO2-aluminum silicate fiber by photocatalysis. Chem Eng J 192:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang A, Zheng W, Song J, Hu S, Liu Z, Xiang J (2014) Cobalt manganese oxides modified titania catalysts for oxidation of elemental mercury at low flue gas temperature. Chem Eng J 236:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang A, Zhang L, Lu H, Chen G, Liu Z, Xiang J, Sun L (2016) Facile synthesis of ternary Ag/AgBr-Ag2CO3 hybrids with enhanced photocatalytic removal of elemental mercury driven by visible light. J Hazard Mater 314:78–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang Y, Yang J, Yu X, Sun P, Zhao Y, Zhang J, Chen G, Yao H, Zheng C (2017a) Migration and emission characteristics of hg in coal-fired power plant of China with ultra low emission air pollution control devices. Fuel Process Technol 158:272–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang A, Zhang L, Chen X, Zhu Q, Liu Z, Xiang J (2017b) Photocatalytic oxidation removal of Hg0 using ternary Ag/AgI-Ag2CO3 hybrids in wet scrubbing process under fluorescent light. Appl Surf Sci 392:1107–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Wang T, Lin JW, Romero CE, Pan W (2017c) Oxidation of elemental mercury with non-thermal plasma coupled with a wet process. Fuel 197:320–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang H, Zhao K, Gao Y, Tian Y, Liang P (2017d) Inhibitory effects of water vapor on elemental mercury removal performance over cerium-oxide-modified semi-coke. Chem Eng J 325:279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhao Y, Hao R, Zhang P, Zhou S (2014) An integrative process for Hg0 removal using vaporized H2O2/Na2S2O8. Fuel 136:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhou C, Sun L, Zhang A, Ma C, Wang B, Yu J, Su S, Hu S, Xiang J (2015) Elemental mercury (Hg0) removal from containing SO2/NO flue gas by magnetically separable Fe2.45Ti0.55O4/H2O2 advanced oxidation processes. Chem Eng J 273:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineering Laboratory of Energy System Process Conversion and Emission Reduction Technology of Jiangsu Province, School of Energy and Mechanical EngineeringNanjing Normal UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.School of Chemistry and Materials ScienceNanjing Normal UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.School of Energy and Mechanical EngineeringNanjing Normal UniversityNanjingChina
  4. 4.State Key Laboratory of Coal CombustionHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations