Emission Characteristics of Particulate Matter from Two Ultralow

Feb 4, 2019 - All Publications/Website .... Matter from Two Ultralow-Emission Coal-Fired Industrial Boilers in Xi'an, China .... Most of it ends up in...
0 downloads 0 Views 791KB Size
Subscriber access provided by Temple University Libraries

Fossil Fuels

Emission Characteristics of Particulate Matter from Two UltraLow Emission Coal-Fired Industrial Boilers in Xi’an, China Renhui Ruan, Xinwei Xu, Houzhang Tan, Sicong Zhang, Xuchao Lu, Peng Zhang, Ruiwu Han, and Xiaohe Xiong Energy Fuels, Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b04069 • Publication Date (Web): 04 Feb 2019 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on February 4, 2019

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 30 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

Energy & Fuels

4

Emission Characteristics of Particulate Matter from Two Ultra-Low Emission Coal-Fired Industrial Boilers in Xi’an, China

5

Renhui Ruan1,2, Xinwei Xu1, Houzhang Tan1,2*, Sicong Zhang1, Xuchao Lu1, Peng Zhang1,

1 2 3

Ruiwu Han1, Xiaohe Xiong1

6

7

1. Key Laboratory of Thermo-Fluid Science and Engineering of Ministry of Education,

8

School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710049,

9

China 2. Research Institute of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 311215, China

10

*

11

Email: [email protected]

Corresponding author: Tel: +86-029-82668051

Fax: 029-82668703

12 13

Abstract:

14

backward compared to coal-fired power plants, enhancing serious PMs (particulate matters)

15

pollution. The PM removal characteristics of APCDs from two industrial boilers (a CFB

16

(circulating fluidized bed) boiler and a CGB (chain-grate boiler)) with ultra-low emission were

17

studied in this research. PM was sampled at the inlet/outlet of FF (fabric filter), WFGD (wet flue

18

gas desulfurization) and WESP (wet electrostatic precipitator) through the cyclone-filter sampling

19

system. The morphology and water-soluble ions of PM were analyzed by SEM (scanning electron

20

microscope) and IC (ion chromatography). The results show that the concentrations of PM1, PM2.5,

The APCDs (air pollution control devices) of industrial boilers in China are

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Energy & Fuels 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

21

and PM10 (PM with aerodynamic diameter ≤ 1, 2.5, 10 μm, respectively) at the precipitator inlet of

22

CFB are much higher than that of CGB. The PM removal efficiency of FF in the CFB boiler is

23

98.12~99.56% while that of CGB is only 90.0~93.6%. WFGD can increase the alkalinity of PM

24

and the combined PM removal efficiency of WFGD coupled with WESP is 46.75~62.77%. SO42-

25

is the most abundant water-soluble anions in PM while the water-soluble cations are richest in

26

Ca2+ and Na+. After ultra-low emission retrofit, the EF (emission factors) of PM10, PM2.5 and PM1

27

are 0.028~0.033 kg/t, 0.025~0.028 kg/t and 0.014~0.017 kg/t, respectively. The percentage of

28

PM2.5 in PM10 is 85.2~88.6% at WESP outlet. These results are significant to the understanding of

29

emission characteristic for atmospheric fine particles from industrial boilers with ultra-low

30

emission in China.

31

32

1. Introduction

33

Recent years, the frequent haze and dust in eastern China are harmful to human beings and

34

the environment.1, 2 Source apportionment analysis reveal that coal combustion is one of the most

35

essential sources of the primary and secondary particles in the atmosphere.3, 4 In 2017, China's

36

total energy consumption was about 44.9 billion tons of coal equivalent, of which coal

37

consumption accounted for 60.4%.5 Coal is mainly consumed by industrial boilers and coal-fired

38

power plants which can release huge amounts of PM, SO2, NOx, VOCs and heavy metals6 and it is

39

one of the main sources of atmospheric PM and SO2.7

40

With the strengthening of the public environmental awareness, the emission standard of

41

coal-fired power plants in China has been raised in the past five years and it is now the most strict

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 2 of 30

Page 3 of 30 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

Energy & Fuels

42

standard around the world: PM#3>#2. This is mainly attributed to the different combustion technology of the three boilers

198

and the fuel properties (ash content, fuel size, etc). The combustion temperature in #1 furnace is

199

low and locates in the range of 800~900 °C which is not high enough for mineral gasification and

200

molten, the fuel stays in the furnace for a long time, and the intensity of the gas-solid two-phase

201

flow state is between that of CGB and PCUB. The collision among ash and fuel particles is the

202

main way for the formation of fly ash. #2 furnace adopts the grate firing technology with the

203

maximum combustion temperature of 900~1000 °C. The air required for combustion is blown

204

from below the grate and passes through the fuel bed. The fuel is large in size of about 5~30 mm.

205

The gas flow in the furnace is far less strong than that in #1 and # 3 so that the mineral particles

206

with large size will remain on the chain grate, only some of the volatile matters and micron-sized

207

particles can escape away from the grate. Thus the mass concentration of PM produced from #2

208

furnace is much lower than that from #1 and #3. #3 adopts the tangential-firing technology with

209

the average coal particle size of around 100 μm. The gas-solid two-phase flow is more violent than

210

#1 and #2. The combustion temperature is about 1200~1300 °C, which is beneficial to mineral

211

gasification and volatilization. The above conditions results in good carrying ability of fly ash by

212

flue gas in #3 furnace, and the mass concentration of PM produced from #3 furnace is much

213

higher than that from #2, especially for coarse particles like PM2.5 and PM10.

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 12 of 30

Page 13 of 30

3000 79.5 %

60

2000 47.3 % 1500

40

35.1 % 1139

1000

27.2 %

846

20

500

297 147

0 PM10

214 215

80

2500

117

8.8 % 6.0 %

213

40

51

PM2.5/PM10 and PM1/PM10 ratio %

2408

PM mass concentration mg/Nm3

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

Energy & Fuels

0

PM1

PM2.5

#1 mass of PM

#2 mass of PM

#3 mass of PM

#1 PM ratio

#2 PM ratio

#3 PM ratio

Figure 3. Mass concentration of PM10, PM2.5, PM1 at #a and PM2.5/PM10, PM1/PM10.

216

Considering the ash content of fuel burned in #3 furnace is only 10.7% (Table 2) while that in

217

#1 is 28.0%, it is reasonable that #1 furnace produce more PM than #3 furnace.27 The PM2.5/PM10,

218

PM1/PM10 ratios at the outlet of #2 furnace are higher than that of #1 and #3, which is 79.5% and

219

27.2% respectively. Meanwhile, the PM2.5/PM10, PM1/PM10 ratios at #1 and #3 are close to each

220

other. These indicate that #2 furnace mainly produces fine particles with an aerodynamic diameter

221

less than 2.5 μm. Cao et al.24 sampled PM from six industrial CGBs, and the PM2.5 mass

222

concentration at the furnace outlet was in the range of 46.5~150.5 mg/Nm3, which was consistent

223

with the result (117 mg/Nm3) of #2 furnace in our test.

224 225

Figure 4 presents the quartz membranes sampling at #a. Figure 5 shows the microscopic morphology of PM on the quartz membranes in Figure 4. PM10

PM2.5

PM1

PM10

PM2.5

PM1

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

PM10

PM2.5

PM1

Energy & Fuels 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

(a) #1a

226

(b) #2a

Page 14 of 30

(c) #3a

Figure 4. Quartz membranes after sampling PM at the furnace outlet.

227

The PM at #2a is black as shown in Figure 4(b), which indicates lots of unburned matters and

228

low combustion efficiency. The PM10, PM2.5, PM1 of #1 is mostly irregular particles with sharp

229

corners as shown in Figure 5(a), (d) and (g) respectively. The flame temperature of #1 furnace is

230

lower than the melting point of most aluminosilicates. These particles are derived from the

231

fragmentation during the collision among the fuel and ash particles.36 The PM10, PM2.5, PM1

232

generated from #2 furnace are much small in diameter than that from #1 and #3. The EDS analysis

233

indicated high carbon content in PM10, PM2.5, PM1, which is 71.1%, 83.2%, 88.8% respectively.

234

Most of these nano-sized particles are soot produced by incomplete combustion, which is also

235

consistent with the color of the quartz membranes in Figure 4(b). The PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 at

236

#3a are mostly spherical particles. The EDS results indicate that the main components include Si,

237

Al, Ca and S. The fly ash particles melt at high temperature and exhibit a uniform spherical

238

morphology under the surface tension.

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 15 of 30 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

Energy & Fuels

239 240

(a) #1 PM10

5 µm

(b) #2 PM10

5 µm

(c) #3 PM10

5 µm

(d) #1 PM2.5

5 µm

(e) #2 PM2.5

5 µm

(f) #3 PM2.5

5 µm

(g) #1 PM1

5 µm

(h) #2 PM1

5 µm

(i) #3 PM1

5 µm

Figure 5. Morphology of PM10, PM2.5, PM1 sampled at the furnace outlet (#a).

241

3.2 Influences of APCDs on PM Mass Concentration

242

3.2.1 FF (fabric filter)

243

The PM removal efficiencies of the precipitator are shown in Table 4. The removal efficiency

244

of #1 FF varies in the range of 98.12% to 99.56% for PM10, PM2.5, and PM1. The PM removal

245

efficiency of #2 FF is only 90.0~93.6%, which is much lower compared to #1. According to the

246

design and selection criteria of FF, the dust concentration at the outlet of the precipitator is

247

generally determined according to the local environmental emission standard. For different types

248

of coal-fired industrial boiler, the designed value of dust concentration at the outlet of the FF is

249

close to each other. In our test, the PM10 mass concentrations at the FF outlet of #1, #2 are 10.5

250

mg/Nm3, 9.4 mg/Nm3. The PM mass concentration at #1a (precipitator inlet) is much higher than

251

that of #2a, resulting in a lower PM removal efficiency for #2 FF.

252

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Energy & Fuels 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

253

Page 16 of 30

Table 4. PM Removal Efficiency by FF and LLT-ESP % #1 FF

#2 FF

#3 LLT-ESP

PM10

99.56

93.60

98.77

PM2.5

99.37

93.24

98.58

PM1

98.12

90.00

98.41

254

FF is widely used in industrial boilers, and its filtration efficiency is usually higher than that

255

of ESP. The ESP of #3 adopts three-phase power technology with five electric fields. The removal

256

efficiencies of PM10, PM2.5, PM1 are all above 98%. However, the removal efficiencies of PM10

257

and PM2.5 are lower than that of the FF of #1. The submicron particles are mainly removed by the

258

dust cake on the surface of FF, and the resistance of the dust cake could account for 80~90% of the

259

FF operating resistance.37 When the resistance of FF reaches a threshold, the cleaning operation is

260

performed and the removal efficiency of dust temporarily decreases. The ESP usually uses

261

mechanical vibration to remove the dust on the anode plate, causing the secondary dust which

262

usually results in a temporary increase of mass concentration of the dust at the precipitator

263

outlet.38

264

3.2.2 WFGD (wet flue gas desulfurization) and WESP (wet electrostatic

265

precipitator)

266

WFGD not only effectively reduces SO2 but also affects the concentration of PM. As shown

267

in Figure 6, the removal efficiencies of PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 of #1 WFGD are between 17.5%

268

and 31.4%. The coarse particles are easier to be removed by WFGD. The circulating slurry

269

droplets and ash particles with small size are difficult to be removed by the cleaning process of the

270

circulating slurry and the demister.39 It is beneficial to install particle agglomerator between the

271

precipitator outlet (also induced draft fan outlet) and the desulfurization scrubber inlet to promote

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 17 of 30 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

Energy & Fuels

272

the growth of particles, and then remove the coarse particles through the scrubber, thereby

273

reducing the burden of ESP and WESP.40 The #3 WFGD scrubber adopted the structure of 4 layers

274

sprayer with 3 stages demister, and the #1 WFGD scrubber is equipped with 4 layers sprayer with

275

2 stages demister. After the flue gas passed through the #3 WFGD scrubber, the PM1 increased by

276

58.7% in mass, while the #1 WFGD scrubber reduced the PM1 mass concentration. The removal

277

efficiency of the WFGD scrubber on fine PM, especially PM1, is not only related to the

278

performance of the demister but also the PM mass concentration at the scrubber inlet. The PM1

279

mass concentration at #3 scrubber inlet was 0.97 mg/Nm3 while that at #1 scrubber inlet was 4

280

mg/Nm3. When the PM mass concentration at the scrubber inlet is low, the entrainment of the

281

micron-size circulating slurry droplets or micron-size insoluble particles in the slurry by flue gas

282

could offset the PM removal performance of the scrubber, resulting in the increase of PM

283

concentration.41 #3: PM10

52.47

#2: PM10 #1: PM10

62.77

31.43

#3: PM2.5

60.86

29.43

13.41

75.68

62.27

#2: PM2.5

60.76

60.76

#1: PM2.5

21.13

#3: PM1 -58.70 #2: PM1

50.71

29.58

88.60

29.9 56.25

56.25

#1: PM1 0

46.75

29.25

17.50

-60 -40

82.59

30.12

62.77

20

40

60

80

PM removal efficiency %

284 285

WFGD+WESP

WESP

WFGD

Figure 6. The removal efficiency of PM by WFGD and WESP.

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Energy & Fuels 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

286

The #1 WESP can effectively remove PM10, PM2.5, PM1, and the removal efficiency varies in

287

the range of 29.25% to 29.58% (relative to the PM concentration at the WFGD inlet). The removal

288

efficiency of PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 by #3 WESP was higher, which is 30.12%, 62.27%, and 88.60%

289

respectively. The PM removal performance is related to the operating voltage (also secondary DC

290

voltage) of WESP. The operating voltage of #1 WESP is 23 kV while that for #3 WESP is 45 kV.

291

The PM is easier to be charged and captured when the operating voltage is higher.42 Since the

292

outlet of #2 WFGD has no measuring point, we only obtained the combined PM removal

293

efficiency of WFGD coupled with WESP which is 56.25~62.77%.

294

3.2.3 PM2.5/PM10 and PM1/PM10 ratios

295

The PM2.5/PM10, PM1/PM10 ratios along the APCDs are presented in Figure 7. When the flue

296

gas passes through the precipitator (FF or ESP), WFGD and WESP, the proportion of PM2.5 and

297

PM1 in PM10 increase (except PM1/PM10 at the #3 WFGD outlet). It is illustrated that the coarse

298

particles are much easier to be removed by APCDs than fine particles, resulting in an increasing

299

proportion of fine particles. PM1/PM10 at the chimney inle of #1, #2 and #3 t are 51.1%, 50% and

300

33.3% respectively, PM2.5/PM10 at the chimney inlet of #1, #2 and #3 are 85.2%, 88.6% and

301

52.5% respectively. The final PM10 emissions from industrial boilers are mainly PM2.5.43 These

302

particles are tend to enrich toxic and harmful substances and belongs to inhalable PM which

303

should be further controlled in future.44

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 18 of 30

Page 19 of 30

100 Ratio of PM1/PM10 or PM2.5/PM10 %

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

Energy & Fuels

80

60

40

20

0

304 305 306

#a

#d

#c

#b

#1: PM1/PM10

#2: PM1/PM10

#3: PM1/PM10

#1: PM2.5/PM10

#2: PM2.5/PM10

#3: PM2.5/PM10

Figure 7. PM1/PM10 and PM2.5/PM10 along the APCDs.

3.2.4 EF (emission factor)

307

EF is an important indicator for evaluating and quantifying the PM emission from coal

308

combustion. It is related to the type of furnace, fuel properties, boiler capacity, operating load and

309

the APCDs. The EF in this study is calculated based on the fuel mass according to equation (1).

310

311 312

EF 

C

PM

 V flue gas 

10

6

 mcoal 

(1)

CPM is the PM mass concentration of the flue gas at chimney inlet, mg/Nm3. Vflue gas is the volume flow rate of the flue gas, Nm3/h. mcoal is the coal feeding rate of the boiler, t/h.

313

According to Table 5, the EF of PM10, PM2.5 and PM1 for #1 and #2 before APCDs is in the

314

range of 1.168~19.264 kg/t, 0.934 ~9.112 kg/t, 0.320~1.704 kg/t respectively. CFB generates

315

significantly much more PM than CGB. With the purification of APCDs, the EF of PM10, PM2.5

316

and PM1 reduce to 0.028~0.033 kg/t, 0.025~0.028 kg/t and 0.014~0.017 kg/t. The difference of EF

317

between #1 and #2 can be ignored after the purification.

318

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Energy & Fuels

319

Table 5. EF of PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 before and after APCDs (kg/t) Unit

Before APCDs

After APCDs

PM10

PM2.5

PM1

PM10

PM2.5

PM1

#1

19.264±1.512

9.112±0.019

1.704±0.259

0.033±0.015

0.028±0.010

0.017±0.009

#2

1.168±0.196

0.934±0.232

0.320±0.073

0.028±0.012

0.025±0.009

0.014±0.005

320

Figure 8 compared the EF of PM2.5 from the literature22-24, 45-47 with the EF from our test. The

321

APCDs from literatures in Figure 8 are backward and the difference of EF is significant. After

322

ultra-low emission retrofit, the EF of PM2.5 from our test is lower than that of most coal-fired

323

industrial boilers from the literature. The pollutant removal technology applied in #1 and #2 unit

324

of our study is the most advanced among the coal-fired industry boilers in current China, including

325

SNCR/SCR+FF+WFGD+WESP. Zhang et al.25 test PM2.5 from CFB equipped with ESP and FF

326

but without WFGD or WESP. The EF of PM2.5 varies from 6.58 mg/Nm3 to 29.17 mg/Nm3 with

327

the average is 14.12 mg/Nm3. It is significantly higher than that in the unit we test which is

328

3.1~3.5 mg/Nm3. Considering the contribution to reduce air pollutants, the pollutants emission

329

characteristic of ultra-low emission coal-fired industrial boiler should be systematically studied.

1

PM2.5 Emission factor kg/t

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 20 of 30

6 7

15

21 20 23

13 11 9 8 2,4,5

24 14

19

1

0.1

10 3

12

16,22 18 25 26

17

0.01

330