Skip to main content
Log in

Multi-method mercury specification from lignite-fired power plants

  • Presented at the 7th Korea-China Clean Energy Technology Symposium
  • Published:
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mercury concentration and speciation partitioning, including total mercury, elemental mercury and oxidized mercury from a lignite-fired power plant under different operating conditions, was studied by Ontario hydro method (OHM), two kinds of continuous mercury monitors (semi-continuous emission monitor (SCEM) and continuous mercury monitor (CMM)), and the sorbent trap method. The effects of boiler load, fuel blending ratio, electrostatic precipitator, flue gas desulphurization, flue gas bypassing the FGD ratio, and mercury measuring methods on mercury emission were analyzed. The results indicated that mercury data from OHM, SCEM and CMM presented a good consistency throughout the entire testing period within ±20% acceptable range; however, the results from Appendix K provided bigger discrepancies than the results of OHM and SCEM due to the interferences of higher selenium content in the flue gas. The particulate-bound mercury removal efficiencies of ESP were determined to be 16–35%. The percentages of elemental mercury emitted from two lignite-fired power plants were in the higher ranges of 43.9–74.2%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. US EPA. Report 453/R-98-004a, A study of hazardous air pollutions from electric utility steam generating units: final report to congress (1998).

  2. US EPA Report 452/R-97-003, Mercury study report to congress (1997).

  3. R. Yan, D. T. Liang and J. H. Tay, Environ. Sci. Pollut., 10, 399 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. US EPA, Clean air mercury rule, Available from: http://www.epa.gov/mercuryrule (2005).

  5. X. Yang, Y. Zhuo, Y. Duan, L. Chen, L. Yang, L. Zhang, Y. Jiang and X. Xu, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 24, 711 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. K. C. Galbreath and C. J. Zygarlicke, Fuel Processing Tech., 65–66, 289 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. A. Kolker, C. L. Senior and J. C. Quick, Applied Geochemistry, 21, 1821 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. S. Kellie, Y. Duan, Y. Cao, P. Chu, A. Mehta, R. Carty, K. Liu, W. Pan and J. T. Riley, Fuel Processing Tech., 85, 487 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. ASTM, Standard test method for elemental, oxidized, particlebound, and total mercury in flue gas generated from coal-fired stationary source (Ontario Hydro Method), Designation: D 6784-6702.

  10. D. L. Laudal, MEC2 2 nd Iinternational expert’s workshop, Ottawa, Canada (2005).

  11. US EPA. Electronic code of federal regulations Title 40-Protection of environment, Part 75: Appendix K, Available from: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.

  12. Y. E. Yudovich and M. P. Ketris, International Journal of Coal Geology, 62, 135 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ping Lu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lu, P., Wu, J. & Pan, Wp. Multi-method mercury specification from lignite-fired power plants. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 26, 542–547 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-009-0092-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-009-0092-z

Key words

Navigation