Effect of sulfur impregnation method on activated carbon uptake of gas-phase mercury

被引:193
作者
Korpiel, JA [1 ]
Vidic, RD [1 ]
机构
[1] UNIV PITTSBURGH,DEPT CIVIL & ENVIRONM ENGN,PITTSBURGH,PA 15261
关键词
D O I
10.1021/es9609260
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The dynamics of granular activated carbon (GAG) adsorbers for the uptake of gas-phase mercury was evaluated as a function of temperature, influent mercury concentration, and empty bed contact time. Sulfur-impregnated carbons exhibited enhanced mercury removal efficiency over virgin carbon due to the formation of mercuric sulfide on the carbon surface. The effect of the sulfur impregnation method on mercury removal efficiency was examined through experiments conducted on commercially available sulfur-impregnated carbon (HGR) and carbon impregnated with sulfur in our laboratory (BPL-S). Although HGR and BPL-S possess similar sulfur contents, BPL-S is impregnated at a higher temperature, which promotes a more uniform distribution of sulfur in the GAC pore structure. At low influent mercury concentrations and low temperatures, HGR and BPL-S performed similarly in the removal of mercury gas. However, as the temperature was increased above the melting point of sulfur, the performance of HGR deteriorated significantly, while the performance of BPL-S slightly improved. At high influent mercury concentrations, HGR performed better than BPL-S, regardless of temperature. For both HGR and BPL-S, the observed dynamic mercury adsorptive capacities were far below the capacities predicted by the stoichiometry of mercuric sulfide formation. In HGR carbon the sulfur is very accessible, but agglomeration that occurs at high temperatures causes the sulfur to be relatively unreactive. In BPL-S carbon, on the other hand, the sulfur remains in a highly reactive form, but its location deep in the internal pores makes it relatively inaccessible and prone to blockage by HSS formation.
引用
收藏
页码:2319 / 2325
页数:7
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1968, ENCY CHEM ELEMENTS
[2]   MERCURY BALANCE ON A LARGE PULVERIZED COAL-FIRED FURNACE [J].
BILLINGS, CE ;
SACCO, AM ;
MATSON, WR ;
GRIFFIN, RM ;
CONIGLIO, WR ;
HARLEY, RA .
JOURNAL OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION, 1973, 23 (09) :773-777
[3]  
CHANG R, 1994, EPRI J JUL, P46
[4]  
CHANGE R, 1995, POWER ENG, V99, P51
[5]   MERCURY STACK EMISSIONS FROM US ELECTRIC UTILITY POWER-PLANTS [J].
CHU, P ;
PORCELLA, DB .
WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION, 1995, 80 (1-4) :135-144
[6]  
DAZA L, 1990, SOLID STATE IONICS, V42, P167
[7]   MERCURY ELIMINATION FROM GASEOUS STREAMS [J].
DAZA, L ;
MENDIOROZ, S ;
PAJARES, JA .
APPLIED CATALYSIS B-ENVIRONMENTAL, 1993, 2 (04) :277-287
[8]   MERCURY ADSORPTION BY SULFURIZED FIBROUS SILICATES [J].
DAZA, L ;
MENDIOROZ, S ;
PAJARES, JA .
CLAYS AND CLAY MINERALS, 1991, 39 (01) :14-21
[9]   VAPOR-PHASE CONCENTRATIONS OF ARSENIC, SELENIUM, BROMINE, IODINE, AND MERCURY IN THE STACK OF A COAL-FIRED POWER-PLANT [J].
GERMANI, MS ;
ZOLLER, WH .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 1988, 22 (09) :1079-1085
[10]  
Kaakinen JW, 1975, ENVIRON SCI TECHNOL, V9, P862, DOI [10.1021/es60107a012, DOI 10.1021/ES60107A012]