Abstract
This paper presents the application techniques in the fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) to reduce the SO2 emissions based on the maximum limit value of 550 mg/Nm3 put forward by European environmental regulations. Under normal operating conditions, the FCCU generates 2800 mg/Nm3 SO2 when it processes a heavy feed that contains up to 1.92 wt.% sulfur. The SO2 emissions produced in the FCCU regenerator was monitored and evaluated using a wet scrubbing system (WSS) in which NaOH or other scrubbing liquids consumption is requisite. SOx reduction additives were incorporated in the WSS to reduce the caustic consumption by the wet gas scrubber for overall reduction of refinery operational expenses (OPEX). Utilization of WSS was able to reach up to 96.4% SO2 reduction. From the industrial testing, it was demonstrated that the addition of 5.3 wt.% SOx additive into the FCC fresh catalyst decreased the SO2 by 45%, up to 1525 mg/Nm3. Consequently, the WSS caustic consumption was reduced by 2390 kg/day, representing a 45% reduction in initial consumption. Based on the industrial results, a model was proposed to assist refineries evaluate the economic benefits of incorporating WSS and SOx additive technologies for exhaust gas emission reduction. The model demonstrates an overall OPEX reduction of up to 495,000 USD/year, depending on the market price for NaOH, additives and sulfur.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bai P, Etim UJ, Yan Z, Mintova S, Zhang Z, Zhang Z, Gao X (2018) Fluid catalytic cracking technology: current status and recent discoveries on catalyst contamination. Catal Rev 61:335–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/01614940.2018.1549011
Cheng WC, Kim G, Peters AW, Zhao X, Rajagopalan K, Ziebarth MS, Pereira CJ (1998) Environmental fluid catalytic cracking technology. Catal Rev Sci Eng 40(1–2):39–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/01614949808007105
Clough M, Cha K (2019) Additive innovation. Hydrocarb Eng 22:30–34
Clough M, Popea JC, Tan L, Lin X, Komvokis V, Pan S, Yilmaz B (2017) Nanoporous materials forge a path forward to enable sustainable growth: technology advancements in fluid catalytic cracking. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 254:45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2017.03.063
Corma A, Palomares AE, Rey F (1994) Optimization of SOx additives of FCC catalysts based on MgO-A1203 mixed oxides produced from hydrotalcites. Appl Catal B Environ 4:29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-3373(94)00007-7
Enache F, Danulescu D, Bolocan I, Cursaru D (2022) The reduction of FCCU afterburning through process optimization and regenerator revamping. Chem Ind Chem Eng Q 28(2):115–126. https://doi.org/10.2298/CICEQ210430023E
Evans M, Fletcher R, Sawyer J, Lakhani H, Schuttenberg K, McRae L (2009) FCC flue gas scrubber alternatives: part I. PTQ Q3. https://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000314/fcc-flue-gas-scrubber-alternatives-part-i#.Ybrv8DNByM8
Fletcher R (2013) Best practices for SOx emission control. PTQ Catal 18(2):29–39
García GJ, López RA, Yescas RM (2011) The fluidized-bed catalytic cracking unit building its future environment. Fuel 90:3531–6541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.03.045
Grace D (1996) Guide to fluid catalytic cracking. In: Part two. J.W. Boarman Co., Baltimore, Maryland, pp 158–163
Harding RH, Peters AW, Nee JRD (2001) New developments in FCC catalyst technology. Appl Catal A Gen 221:389–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-860X(01)00814-6
Jiang L, Wei M, Xu X, Lin Y, Lu Z, Song J, Duan X (2011) SOx oxidation and adsorption by CeO2/MgO: synergistic effect between CeO2 and MgO in the fluid catalytic cracking process. Ind Eng Chem Res 50:4398–4404. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie102243y
Kang MS, Shin J, Yu TU, Hwang J (2020) Simultaneous removal of gaseous NOx and SO2 by gas-phase oxidation with ozone and wet scrubbing with sodium hydroxide. Chem Eng J 381:122601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.122601
Magnabosco LM (2007) Principles of the SOx reduction technology in fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCUs). In: Occelli M (ed) Fluid catalytic cracking VII: materials methods and process innovations, vol 166. Elsevier, USA, pp 253–305
Mathieu Y, Tzanis L, Soulard M, Patarin J, Vierling M, Molière M (2013) Adsorption of SOx by oxide materials: a review. Fuel Process Technol 114:81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2013.03.019
Meikap BC, Kundu G, Biswas MN (2002) Modeling of a novel multi-stage bubble column scrubber for flue gas desulfurization. Chem Eng J 86:331–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1385-8947(01)00226-1
Pereira HB, Polato CMS, Monteiro JLF, Henriques CA (2010) Mn/Mg/Al-spinels as catalysts for SOx abatement Influence of CeO2 incorporation and catalytic stability. Catal Today 149:309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2009.06.006
Polato CMS, Henriques CA, Neto AA, Monteiro JLF (2005) Synthesis, characterization and evaluation of CeO2/Mg, Al-mixed oxides as catalysts for SOx removal. J Mol Catal A 241:184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcata.2005.07.006
Polato CMS, Rodrigues ACC, Monteiro JLF, Henriques CA (2010) High surface area Mn, Mg, Al-spinels as catalyst additives for SOx abatement in fluid catalytic cracking units. Ind Eng Chem Res 49:1252–1258. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie900931t
Sadeghbeigi R (2012) Fluid catalytic cracking handbook, 3rd edn. Elsevier, pp 298–301
Sexton JA (2010) FCC emission reduction technologies through consent decree: implementation FCC SOx emissions and controls. In: Occeli ML (ed) Advances in fluid catalytic cracking: testing, characterization and environmental regulations. CRC Press, pp 291–314
Silva TC, Pereira EB, Santos RP, Louis B, Tessonnier JP, Pereira MM (2013) Synthesis and characterization of vanadium species coated on alumina, magnesium oxide and hydrotalcite supports to SOx removal. Appl Catal A Gen 462–463:46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2013.04.028
Weaver E, Confuorto N (2013) Wet scrubbing modification to reduce emissions. PTQ Revamps, pp 49–57. https://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000856/wet-scrubbing-modifications-to-reduce-emissions#.Yf0W6epBxPY
Wilcox JR (2010) Troubleshooting complex FCCU issues. In: Occeli ML (ed) Advances in fluid catalytic cracking: testing, characterization and environmental regulations. CRC Press, pp 101–118
Wu Q, Gua M, Dub Y, State HZ (2019) Chemical composition and morphology of particles emitted from a wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD) system. Process Saf Environ Prot 124:196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.02.013
Yoo JS, Bhattacharyya AA, Radlowski CA, Karch JA (1992) Advanced De-SOx catalyst: mixed solid solution spinels with cerium oxide. Appl Catal B 1:169–189
Funding
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Enache, F., Cursaru, D. & Danulescu, D. Integration of wet scrubbing system and SOx additive technologies to reduce the SO2 emissions generated in FCCU. Chem. Pap. 76, 6537–6549 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11696-022-02335-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11696-022-02335-5