Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

, Volume 119, Issue 3, pp 1663–1672 | Cite as

Evaluation of elemental mercury adsorption by fly ash modified with ammonium bromide

  • Yongzheng Gu
  • Yongsheng ZhangEmail author
  • Lvrong Lin
  • Hong Xu
  • William Orndorff
  • Wei-Ping Pan


Coal-fired power plants are significant contributors to the anthropogenic emission of mercury. This study focus on evaluated the methods for modification and preparation of fly ash adsorbent which can be applied to adsorb mercury from power plants. Comparing with isometric impregnation and ion exchange method, it was found that the cost and preparation time of the mechanochemical method significantly reduced. Hg0 adsorption performances of NH4Br-modified fly ashes and subsequent effects of mechanical energy on modifying fly ash were investigated, and the results indicated that increasing mechanical force can make the distribution of bromides to be more uniform and increase the number of surface active sites and groups. Furthermore, Hg0 removal efficiency improved significantly with the increasing bromine loading at 150 °C. There is a positive correlation between mechanical energy on modifying fly ash and subsequently Hg0 adsorption performance. TG/MS analysis was utilized to determine the thermal stability and released material of different samples. Results demonstrated the release of ammonia, which from the modified fly ashes with mechanochemical method, most likely enhances the oxidation and subsequent adsorption of mercury in the 150–200 °C temperature range. All results revealed that the mechanochemical application method for adsorbent preparation on site is competitive on economy, practicability, and mercury removal efficiency.


Mercury adsorption Fly ash Ammonium bromide Mechanochemical method 



Financial support from the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (No. 2013AA065404), 111 Project (B12034) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (13ZD04) is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    Ozaki M, Uddin A, Sasaoka E, Wu S. Temperature programmed decomposition desorption of the mercury species over spent iron-based sorbents for mercury removal from coal derived fuel gas. Fuel. 2008;87:3610–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glodek A, Pacyna JM. Mercury emission from coal-fired power plants in Poland. Atmos Environ. 2009;43:5668–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pavlish JH, Sondreal EA, Mann MD, Olson ES, Galbreath KC, Laudal DL, Benson SA. Status review of mercury control options for coal-fired power plants. Fuel Process Technol. 2003;82:89–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Hower JC, Senior CL, Suuberg EM, et al. Mercury capture by native fly ash carbons in coal-fired power plants. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2010;36:510–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhao XL, Wang DY. Mercury in some chemical fertilizers and the effect of calcium superphosphate on mercury uptake by corn seedlings (Zea mays L.). J Environ Sci. 2010;22:1184–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morency J. Zeolite sorbent that effectively removes mercury from flue gases. Filtr Sep. 2002;39:24–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xu WQ, Wang HR, Zhu TY, Kuang JY, Jing PF. Mercury removal from coal combustion flue gas by modified fly ash. J Environ Sci. 2013;25:393–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dunhan GE, Dewall RA, Senior CL. Fixed-bed studies of the interactions between mercury and coal combustion fly ash. Fuel Process Technol. 2003;82:197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhong LC, Zhang YS, Liu Z, Sui ZF, Cao Y, Pan WP. Study of mercury adsorption by selected Chinese coal fly ashes. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2014;116:1197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bustard CJ, Durham M, Lindsey C, Starns T, Baldrey K, Martin C, Schlager R, Sjostrom S, Slye R, Renninger S, Monroe L, Miller R, Chang R. Full-scale evaluation of mercury control with sorbent injection and COHPAC at Alabama power E.C. Gaston. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2002;52:918–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu W, Lu SC. Mechano-chemical surface modification of calcium carbonate particles by polymer grafting. Powder Technol. 2003;137:41–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cai J, Shen BX, Li Z, Chen JH, He C. Removal of elemental mercury by clays impregnated with KI and KBr. Chem Eng J. 2014;241:19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dong YR, Ren XR, Wang MJ, et al. Effect of impregnation methods on sorbents made from lignite for desulfurization at middle temperature. J Energy Chem. 2013;22:783–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    James SL, Adams CJ, Bolm C, Braga D, Collier P, Friščić T, Grepioni F, Harris KDM, Hyett G, Jones W, Krebs A, Mack J, Maini L, Orpen AG, Parkin IP, Shearouse WC, Steed JW, Waddell DC. Mechanochemistry: opportunities for new and cleaner synthesis. Chem Soc Rev. 2012;41:413–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharma A, Srivastava K, Devra V, Rani A. Modification in properties of fly ash through mechanical and chemical activation. Am Chem Sci J. 2012;2:177–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ambrogi V, Gentile G, Ducati C, Oliva MC, Carfagna C. Multiwalled carbon nanotubes functionalized with maleated poly(propylene) by a dry mechano-chemical process. Polymer. 2012;53:291–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wen XF, Liu Y, Xu ZJ, Yang JX, Pi PH, Cai ZQ, Cheng J, Yang ZR. Mechano-chemical preparation and application of mulberry-like CaCo3/SiO2 composite particles in superhydrophobic films. Soft Mater. 2012;10:435–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hassett DJ, Eylands KE. Mercury capture on coal combustion fly ash. Fuel. 1999;78:243–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    López-Antón MA, Abad-Valle P, Díaz-Somoano M, Suárez-Ruiz I, Martínez-Tarazona MR. The influence of carbon particle type in fly ashes on mercury adsorption. Fuel. 2009;88:1194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Unites States Environmental Protection Agency. Code of federal regulations, protection of the environment. 1999; Title 4. CFR 261.24.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Song N, Teng Y, Wang JW, Liu Z, Orndorff W, Pan WP. Effect of modified fly ash with hydrogen bromide on the adsorption efficiency of elemental mercury. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2014;116:1189–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yilmaz G. Structural characterization of glass-ceramics made from fly ash containing SiO2–Al2O3–Fe2O3–CaO and analysis by FT-IR–XRD–SEM methods. J Mol Struct. 2012;1019:37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang YS, Duan W, Liu Z, Cao Y. Effects of modified fly ash on mercury adsorption ability in an entrained-flow reactor. Fuel. 2014;128:274–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kwon S, Borguet E, Vidic RD. Impact of surface heterogeneity on mercury uptake by carbonaceous sorbents under UHV and atmospheric pressure. Environ Sci Technol. 2002;36:4162–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sasmaz E, Kirchofer A, Jew AD, Saha A, Abram D, Jaramillo TF, Wilcox J. Mercury chemistry on brominated activated carbon. Fuel. 2012;99:188–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang SZ, Baxtera L, Fonseca F. Biomass fly ash in concrete: SEM, EDX and ESEM analysis. Fuel. 2008;87:372–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yang JP, Zhao YC, Zyryanov V, Zhang JY, Zheng CG. Physical–chemical characteristics and elements enrichment of magnetospheres from coal fly ashes. Fuel. 2014;135:15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee SS, Lee JY, Keener TC. Bench-scale studies of in-duct mercury capture using cupric chloride-impregnated carbons. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43:2957–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xie Y, Xie W, Pan WP, Riga A, Anderson K. A study of ash deposits on the heat exchange tubes using SDT/MS and XRD techniques. Thermochim Acta. 1998;324:123–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Glan I, Glasser FP, Andrade C. Calcium carbonate decomposition. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2013;111:1197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lu YQ, Rostam-Abadi M, Chang R, Richardson C, Paradis J. Characteristics of fly ashes from full-scale coal-fired power plants and their relationship to mercury adsorption. Energy Fuels. 2007;21:2112–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Presto AA, Granite EJ. Survey of catalysts for oxidation of mercury in flue gas. Environ Sci Technol. 2006;40:5601–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yongzheng Gu
    • 1
  • Yongsheng Zhang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lvrong Lin
    • 1
  • Hong Xu
    • 1
  • William Orndorff
    • 2
  • Wei-Ping Pan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Condition Monitoring and Control for Power Plant Equipment, Ministry of EducationNorth China Electric Power UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Institute of Combustion Science and Environmental TechnologyWestern Kentucky UniversityBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations