Subscriber access provided by BOSTON COLLEGE
Interfaces: Adsorption, Reactions, Films, Forces, Measurement Techniques, Charge Transfer, Electrochemistry, Electrocatalysis, Energy Production and Storage
Multiform sulfur adsorption centers and copperterminated active sites of Nano-CuS for efficient elemental mercury capture from coal combustion flue gas Zequn Yang, Hailong Li, Shihao Feng, Pu Li, Chen Liao, Xi Liu, Jiexia Zhao, Jianping Yang, Po Heng Lee, and Kaimin Shih Langmuir, Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01181 • Publication Date (Web): 08 Jul 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on July 13, 2018
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Langmuir
Multiform Sulfur Adsorption Centers and Copper-terminated Active Sites of Nano-CuS for Efficient Elemental Mercury Capture from Coal Combustion Flue Gas Zequn Yanga, Hailong Lia,b*, Shihao Fengb, Pu Lia, Chen Liaob, Xi Liub, Jiexia Zhaob, Jianping Yangb, Po-Heng Leec, Kaimin Shiha** a. Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China b. School of Energy Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, 410083, China c. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
Revision submitted to Langmuir
*To whom correspondence should be addressed: TEL: +86-18670016725 E-mail:
[email protected] **To whom correspondence should be addressed: TEL: +852-2859-2973 Email:
[email protected] 1
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Langmuir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
1
ABSTRACT: Nanostructured copper sulfide synthesized with the assistance of surfactant with
2
nano-scale particle size and high Brunauer-Emmett-Teller surface area was for the first time applied
3
for the capture of elemental mercury (Hg0) from coal combustion flue gas. The optimal operation
4
temperature of Nano-CuS for Hg0 adsorption is 75 °C, which indicates that injection of the sorbent
5
between the wet flue gas desulfurization and the wet electrostatic precipitator systems is feasible.
6
This assures that the sorbent is free of the adverse influence of nitrogen oxides. Oxygen (O2) and
7
sulfur dioxide exerted a slight influence on Hg0 adsorption over the Nano-CuS. Water vapor was
8
shown to moderately suppress Hg0 capture efficiency via competitive adsorption. The simulated
9
adsorption capacities of Nano-CuS for Hg0 under pure nitrogen (N2), N2 plus 4% O2, and simulated
10
flue gas reached 122.40, 112.06, and 89.43 mg Hg0/g Nano-CuS, respectively. Compared with that
11
of traditional commercial activated carbons and metal sulfides, the simulated adsorption capacities
12
of Hg0 over the Nano-CuS are at least an order of magnitude higher. Moreover, with only 5 mg
13
loaded in a fixed-bed reactor, the Hg0 adsorption rate reached 11.93-13.56 mg/g·min over
14
Nano-CuS. This extremely speedy rate makes Nano-CuS promising for a future sorbent injection
15
technique. The anisotropic growth of Nano-CuS was confirmed by X-ray diffraction analysis and
16
provided a fundamental aspect for Nano-CuS surface reconstruction and polysulfide formation.
17
Further X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and Hg0 temperature-programmed desorption tests
18
showed that the active polysulfide, S-S dimers, and copper-terminated sites contributed primarily to
19
the extremely high Hg0 adsorption capacity and rate. With these advantages, Nano-CuS appears to
20
be a highly promising alternative to traditional sorbents for Hg0 capture from coal combustion flue
21
gas.
22 23 24
KEYWORDS: Elemental mercury; Nano-CuS; Coal combustion; Flue gas 2
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 2 of 39
Page 3 of 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
25
Langmuir
Introduction
26
The Minamata Convention went into effect in August 2017 to limit mercury emissions among its
27
128 signatories, including China and the United States, the two largest mercury-emitting countries
28
worldwide.1 Coal combustion is one major source of anthropogenic mercury emission.2-3 Mercury
29
emitted from coal-fired sources exists in three forms: elemental mercury (Hg0), particulate-bound
30
mercury (Hgp), and oxidized mercury (Hg2+).4-6 Hgp and Hg2+ are easily removed by flue gas
31
treatment facilities equipped with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) system and a wet flue gas
32
desulfurization (WFGD) system.7-8 In contrast, Hg0 is the form of mercury most difficult to be
33
degraded in flue gas due to its high volatility and low solubility in water.9 Therefore, mercury
34
emitted from coal combustion power plants endures mainly in the form of Hg0.10
35
Activated carbon injection (ACI) is currently the most mature technique for control of Hg0
36
emissions from coal combustion power plants.11 The injection of activated carbon between the
37
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) set-up and the ESP system does not require the installation of an
38
extra facility to balance the overall cost.12-15 However, the high operating cost, mediocre adsorption
39
capacity, possible downstream mercury re-emission, and compromising effect on the use of fly ash
40
impede the application of activated carbon.16-20 Thus, the development of new sorbents with a
41
higher affinity toward Hg0 and a neutral effect on fly ash reclamation is urgently needed.
42
Mineral sulfides were recently found to be promising alternatives to traditional activated carbons
43
for Hg0 control because their surface is “entirely” covered by sulfur active sites with high affinity
44
with mercury species.16, 21 After adsorption, Hg0 is transferred into the most stable mercury form,
45
mercury sulfide (HgS), with extremely low solubility and high thermal stability, which ensures a
46
minimal probability of Hg0 re-emission into the environment.22 The most common poisoning flue
47
gas components, SO2 and water vapor (H2O), generally exert a slight hindrance to Hg0 adsorption 3
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Langmuir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
48
over mineral sulfides.22-24 Moreover, the stable mineral sulfide not only showed a beneficial effect
49
on the use of fly ash, it also inhibited mercury methylation.25-26 Based on these advantages, the
50
mineral sulfides exhibit great potential for replacing activated carbon in future industrial Hg0
51
removal from coal combustion flue gas.
52
However, to the best of our knowledge, Hg0 adsorption over mineral sulfides has not yet been
53
widely reported. The common issue with mineral sulfides is their very limited surface area.19, 22, 27-28
54
Hence, even when mineral sulfides are fully covered with sulfur active sites, the Hg0 adsorption
55
capacity was still similar to or only slightly higher than that of activated carbon.19 Nanostructured
56
sphalerite (Nano-ZnS), which has a high surface area, was thus synthesized to overcome this
57
intrinsic drawback.16 Nano-ZnS showed a better Hg0 adsorption capacity and a better adsorption
58
rate than several commercial activated carbons. However, the surface and bulk stoichiometric
59
analysis of ZnS revealed that the Zn/S ratio over the ZnS surface from 1:0.5 to 1:0.8 was much
60
lower than its theoretical value of 1:1.29 In contrast, copper sulfide (CuS) was reported to show a
61
high sulfur exposure ratio, with a Cu/S value exceeding 1:1. Moreover, CuS established sulfur sites
62
enriched crystal surface under standard pressure and temperature below 100 °C.30-31 From the
63
surface sulfur coverage aspect, nanostructured CuS (Nano-CuS) is superior to Nano-ZnS. It should
64
also be noted that the most suitable temperature for Hg0 adsorption over the Nano-ZnS (180 °C)
65
requires that it be injected between the SCR set-up and the ESP system. Considering the nitrogen
66
(N2) selectivity of the SCR catalysts, a small amount of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is present in the flue
67
between the SCR set-up and the ESP system.32 Thus, with this scheme, the detrimental effect of
68
NO2 on Hg0 adsorption over mineral sulfides is inevitable.25 One alternative strategy is to inject
69
sorbents after the WFGD system and before the wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) system, a
70
facility equipped to collect fine particles immediately before the flue gas is discharged into the 4
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 4 of 39
Page 5 of 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Langmuir
71
atmosphere.33 In this section, the water-soluble NO2 is fully removed by the WFGD system, but the
72
reaction temperature is much lower, in the range of 40 °C to 100 °C.10, 22, 34 Coincidentally, Hg0
73
interacts much more strongly with Cu-terminated active sites than Zn ones to form amalgam at low
74
temperatures.35-36 Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Nano-CuS would be preferable to
75
Nano-ZnS as an excellent mineral sulfide sorbent for the removal of Hg0 from coal combustion flue
76
gas within a lower temperature range.
77
Based on the above hypothesis, Nano-CuS synthesized with a precipitation method with the
78
assistance of hexadecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) was for the first time applied for
79
Hg0 adsorption from coal combustion flue gas. The optimal CTAB addition on Nano-CuS
80
preparation and the best-performing temperature were determined. The excellent adsorption
81
performance of the Nano-CuS was confirmed by comparison with some renowned sorbents. The
82
possible application of Nano-CuS between the WFGD and WESP systems was discussed. The
83
mechanism responsible for the extremely high adsorption rate and capacity of Nano-CuS for Hg0
84
removal was also investigated.
85
Experimental
86
Sorbent preparation
87
Nano-sized CuS was synthesized with a liquid-phase precipitation method. In a typical procedure, a
88
1-M aqueous solution of copper chloride (CuCl2, anhydrous, 99.99%, Aladdin) and a 1-M aqueous
89
solution of ammonium sulfide ((NH4)2S, 20 wt%, Aladdin) were prepared in separate 100-mL
90
beakers. To adjust the particle size of the final products, a trace amount of CTAB (99.00%,
91
Sinopharm) was added to the beaker containing CuCl2 solution and stirred for 30 min until the CTAB
92
was fully dissolved. The (NH4)2S solution was then added dropwise into the CuCl2 solution to obtain
93
a black precipitant, which was aged for another 1.5 h. The obtained precipitant was then centrifuged 5
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Langmuir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
94
and the supernatant was poured off and washed with anhydrous ethanol (analytical grade, Sinopharm)
95
five times and distilled water another five times. The purged samples were heated at 120 °C in a
96
vacuum for 12 h before they were ground and sieved by 100 meshes to be the sorbents. Four groups
97
of CuS samples were prepared by altering the amount of added CTAB from 1% to 10% versus the
98
weight of the CuCl2 precursor. After the washing process, small amount of CTAB may be left in the
99
as-prepared samples. However, based on our preliminary experiments, the left CTAB did not
100
influence the Hg0 adsorption performance. Thus, The CuS sample with the highest surface area was
101
simply denoted as the Nano-CuS instead of CTAB/CuS composite.
102
For comparison, Nano-ZnS was prepared with the same method used in our previous work.16
103
Activated carbon (AC, Kemiou Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd.) was also purchased and tested for its
104
mercury adsorption efficiency.
105
Sorbent Characterization
106
The Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area of the sorbents was determined by the N2
107
adsorption and desorption method with a BET analyzer (ASAP 2020, Micromeritics, USA). Before
108
BET testing, the prepared sorbents were purged in pure N2 for 4 h to obtain a clean surface.
109
Thermogravimetric testing was conducted with a thermogravimetric analyzer (SDT Q600, TA
110
Instruments, USA) to investigate the thermal stability of Nano-CuS. The sample was heated in 50
111
mL/min Ar from 100 °C to 400 °C at a rate of 10 °C/min. Morphology of the nano-particles were
112
recorded by a transmission electron microscopy (TEM, JEOL 2100F, Japan) at 200 kV. In the TEM
113
characterizations, the fresh Nano-CuS was pretreated under pure N2 at 175 oC for 4 h to be the spent
114
Nano-CuS. The crystallinity of the Nano-CuS was measured by X-ray diffraction (XRD, D8 Bruker
115
AXS, Germany) with two theta from 10° to 80° in Cuα (λ = 0.15406 nm) radiation. With C 1s binding
116
energy value of 284.8 eV as the reference, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) spectra were 6
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 6 of 39
Page 7 of 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Langmuir
117
recorded for fresh and spent Nano-CuS (sorbent pretreated in the presence of 200 µg/m3 Hg0 carried
118
by N2 for 12 h) with an X-ray photoelectron spectroscope (Thermo ESCALAB 250Xi).
119
Adsorption Activity Test
120
Hg0 removal over as-synthesized CuS was evaluated with a fixed-bed reaction system, as shown in
121
Figure 1. Compressed gas cylinders containing N2, O2, and SO2 were used to provide the different gas
122
components. A washing bottle filled with 150 mL H2O was put in a thermostat water bath at 80 °C
123
and connected with a separated N2 gas cylinder to introduce water vapor into the reaction system. The
124
total flow rate was controlled precisely at 1.0 L/min with a mass flow controller. A Dynacal Hg0
125
permeation device (VICI Metronics) heated in a water bath at an unchanged temperature was used to
126
provide a constant feed of gas-phase Hg0 (90 µg/m3 for testing and 200 µg/m3 for pretreatment). A
127
reactor made of borosilicate glass with an inner diameter of 1 cm was put in a tubular furnace,
128
equipped with a temperature adjustment system, with temperature variation of less than 2.0 °C. The
129
Hg0 concentration was detected with a mercury analyzer (VM3000, Mercury Instrument, Inc.) and
130
continuously recorded by a computer. The adsorption of Hg0 by an empty reactor was measured to
131
rule out Hg0 adsorption by the borosilicate reactor. Before each test began, the gas flow bypassed
132
the reactor loaded with sorbents until the detected Hg0 concentration was stable (with fluctuation of
133
472.1
0.26
>497.8
0.28
H2S modified Fe-Ti spinel (5%) N2 Nano-ZnS
180
16
Air Pyrrohotite (4%)
SFG
60
220
0.26
22
[MoS4]2-/CoFe-LDH
N2 + O2
75
16390
5.04
23
CoMoS/γ-Al2O3
N2
50
18940
0.13
44
Calgon AC
Air
140
40-370
-
19
CarboChem AC
Air
140
400
-
19
Norit FGD AC
Air
70
81
1.01
45
AC Fiber
Air
25
~52.5
< 8.75×10-2
46
BPL AC
N2
140
~10
0.5
47
N2
140
2300
-
48, 49
Steam AC
N2
25
230
1.15
50
SIAC
N2
120
221
-
51
S-impregnated BPL AC
SFG represents simulated flue gas (4%/5% O2, 80/100 ppm SO2 and 8% H2O carried by N2). The percentage in the parentheses represents the breakthrough ratio of the sorbents. 25
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Langmuir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 26 of 39
Table 3. Sulfide species analysis of fresh and spent Nano-CuS Sulfide (%)
S-S dimer (%)
Polysulfide (%)
Fresh Nano-CuS
52.9
14.6
32.5
Spent Nano-CuS
54.1
30.6
15.3
26
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 27 of 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Langmuir
List of figures: Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the reaction system. Figure 2. The influence of (a) surface area and (b) temperature on Hg0 adsorption over CuS. Figure 3. (a) Hg0 adsorption over Nano-CuS pretreated at different temperatures, and (b) TG curves of Nano-CuS. Figure 4. TEM images of (a) fresh Nano-CuS, and (b) Nano-CuS pretreated at 175 oC under pure N2. Figure 5. Hg0 adsorption over (a) Nano-CuS under N2 and SFG, (b) Nano-CuS pretreated by O2 at different temperatures, and (c) Nano-CuS with different concentrations of SO2 or H2O. Figure 6. (a) Half-breakthrough curves of Nano-CuS under N2, N2 plus 4% O2, and SFG. (b) Estimation of the adsorption capacity of Nano-CuS with kinetic simulation. Figure 7. Comparison of Hg0 adsorption capacity and rate for different sorbents.. Figure 8. XRD pattern of Nano-CuS. Figure 9. (a) Preferential growth of Nano-CuS; and (b) layered structure of Nano-CuS along direction. Figure 10. Hg-TPD profile of mercury loaded Nano-CuS. Figure 11. XPS patterns of (a) Hg 4f of spent Nano-CuS; and (b) S 2p and (c) Cu 2p of fresh and spent Nano-CuS.
27
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Langmuir
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the reaction system. Gas Mixing Chamber
MFC
MFC
MFC
3-way Valve
MFC
Hg Permeation Device
Catalyst
Tubular Furnace
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 28 of 39
H2O Condenser
NaOH Vent
N2
O2
SO2
N2
Carbon Trap
N2
Temperature Controller
Water Bath Hg Analyzer
28
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Terminal
Page 29 of 39
Normalized Mercury Concentration
Figure 2. Influence of (a) surface area; and (b) temperature on Hg0 adsorption over CuS. 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
(a)
28.90 m2/g 33.06 m2/g 20.95 m2/g 14.58 m2/g
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.00 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
0.00 240
Time (min)
1.0 Normalized Mercury Concentration
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Langmuir
(b)
25 oC 75 oC 125 oC 175 oC
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0 0
30
60
90
120 150 Time (min)
180
0.0 240
210
29
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Langmuir
Figure 3. (a) Hg0 adsorption over Nano-CuS pretreated at different temperatures; and (b) TG
Normalized Mercury Concentration
curves of Nano-CuS. 1.0
(a)
Fresh Nano-CuS o Pretreated at 125 C o Pretreated at 175 C Pretreated at 250 oC Pretreated at 325 oC
0.8
1.0 0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0 0
30
60
90
120 150 Time (min)
180
210
240
100
0.4 310.7
95
(b)
277.5 297.3
0.3
Deriv. Weight (%/oC)
Weight (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 30 of 39
90
0.2 85
80
75 100
0.1
157.0
150
200 250 300 Temperature (oC)
350
0.0 400
30
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 31 of 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Langmuir
Figure 4. TEM images of (a) fresh Nano-CuS, and (b) Nano-CuS pretreated at 175 oC under pure N2. (a)
(b)
31
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Langmuir
Figure 5. The Hg0 adsorption over (a) Nano-CuS under N2 and SFG; (b) Nano-CuS pretreated by O2 under different temperature; (c) Nano-CuS with the presence of different concentration
Normalized Mercury Concentration
of SO2 or H2O. 1.0
(a)
N2
1.0
SFG
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
0.0 240
210
Normalized Mercury Concentration
Time (min) 1.0
(b)
0.9
1.0 0.9
Fresh Nano-CuS Pretreated at 125 oC with 4% O2 for 12 h Pretreated at 125 oC with 20% O2 for 12 h
0.1
0.1
0.0 0
30
60
90
120 150 Time (min)
180
0.0 240
210
20% H2O off
40 Mercury Concentration (µg/m3)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 32 of 39
(c)
With H2O addition
40
With SO2 addition
30
30
20% H2O or 1000 ppm SO2 on 15% H2O on
20
15% H2O off 8% H2O or 8% H2O on
20
1000 ppm SO2 off
10
10
0 0
30
60
90
120
150
0 210
180
Time (min)
32
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 33 of 39
Figure 6. (a) Half-breakthrough curves of Nano-CuS under N2, N2 plus 4% O2 and SFG; (b) Estimation of the adsorption capacity of Nano-CuS with kinetic simulation.
Normalized Mercury Concentration
1.0
1.0 (a)
N2 N2 + O2
0.8
0.8
SFG
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0 0
120 Adsorption Capacity (mg/g)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Langmuir
10
20
30
40 Time (h)
50
60
70
120
(b)
100
100
80
80
60
60 N2
40
N2 simulation
N2 + O2
N2 + O2 simulation
SFG
SFG simulation
20
40 20
0 0
100
200
300 Time (h)
400
500
0 600
∞
33
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Langmuir
Figure 7. Comparison of Hg0 adsorption capacity and rate for different sorbents. Nano-CuS 75 oC Nano-CuS 125 oC Nano-CuS 175 oC
1.2 Normalized outlet mercury concentration
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 34 of 39
Commercialized AC 140 oC Nano-ZnS 180 oC
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0 0
2
4
6
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
50
100 Time (min)
34
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
150
200
Page 35 of 39
Figure 8. XRD pattern of Nano-CuS. (100)
(102)
Intensity (a.u)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Langmuir
(103) & (006)
(101) (108)
10
20
30
40 50 Two theta (o)
(116)
60
70
80
35
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Langmuir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 36 of 39
Figure 9. (a) Preferential growth of Nano-CuS; and (b) layered structure of Nano-CuS along direction.
(a)
(b)
36
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 37 of 39
Figure 10. Hg-TPD profile of mercury loaded Nano-CuS. Hg-Cu HgS (metacinnabar)
Mercury signal (a.u)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Langmuir
HgS (cinnanbar)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
o
Temperature ( C)
37
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Langmuir
Figure 11. XPS patterns of (a) Hg 4f of spent Nano-CuS; and (b) S 2p and (c) Cu 2p of fresh and spent Nano-CuS. (a) Hg 4f
98.10 eV
Intensity (a.u)
100.67 eV
104.58 eV
97
99
101
103 105 Binding Energy (eV)
107
109
(b) S 2p Sulfide
Intensity (a.u)
S-S dimer Polysulfide Fresh
Spent
156 158 160 162 164 166 168 170 172 174 176 Binding Energy (eV) 932.38 eV
(c) Cu 2p
Cu 2p 3/2 Cu 2p 1/2
Intensity (a.u)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Satellite shakeup
Fresh 931.96 eV
Spent
925
930
935
940 945 950 Binding Energy (eV)
955
960
38
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 38 of 39
Page 39 of 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Langmuir
Graphical Abstract
39
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
