Partitioning and Emission of Hazardous Trace Elements in a 100 MW

Oct 2, 2017 - Pudasainee , D.; Kim , J. H.; Yoon , Y. S.; Seo , Y. C. Fuel 2012, 93, 312– 318 DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2011.10.012 .... K. Method M29 Sam...
0 downloads 8 Views 398KB Size
Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF ESSEX

Article

Partitioning and emission of hazardous trace elements in a 100MW coal-fired power plant equipped with SCR, ESP, wet FGD Shilin Zhao, Yufeng Duan, Chunfeng Li, Yaning Li, Cong Chen, Meng Liu, and Jianhong Lu Energy Fuels, Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b01608 • Publication Date (Web): 02 Oct 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on October 2, 2017

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 free 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 accessible to all readers and 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.

Energy & Fuels 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 16

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

1

Partitioning and emission of hazardous trace elements in a 100 MW coal-fired

2

power plant equipped with SCR, ESP, wet FGD

3

Shilin Zhao, Yufeng Duan, Chunfeng Li, Yaning Li, Cong Chen, Meng Liu, Jianhong

4

Lu

5

Key Laboratory of Energy Thermal Conversion and Control of Ministry of Education,

6

School of Energy and Environment, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210096, China

7

ABSTRACT:

8

Hazardous trace elements (HTEs) emitted from coal combustion have caused great

9

harm on the environment and human health. Partitioning and emission of eight HTEs,

10

namely, Zn, Sb, Pb, Cd, As, Cr, Mn and Ba, were conducted on a 100 MW coal-fired

11

power plant, which was equipped with SCR, ESP and wet FGD. US EPA Method 29

12

was used to sample the eight HTEs in flue gas at the four sites before or after each

13

device, simultaneously. Feed coal, bottom ash, ash from ESP (ESP ash), limestone

14

slurry, and desulphurization wastewater were collected at the same time. Results show

15

that mass balance rates of eight HTEs of the whole system and each device are in the

16

acceptable range of 70%-130%. The studied HTEs are mainly distributed in ESP ash

17

with a relative mass distribution ratio of 86.23%-98.25%, followed by 1.65%-13.67%

18

for bottom ash. Concentrations of Cd, Sb, As, Cr, Pb, Zn, Mn, Ba in flue gas at the

19

inlet and outlet of SCR are 18.22, 78.60, 380.57, 1416.76, 3021.00, 3746.24, 5720.50,

20

20355.09 µg/m3 and 18.02, 60.83, 358.42, 1418.04, 3023.00, 3753.47, 5596.90,

21

20382.44 µg/m3, respectively, with a high particulate form proportion of

22

99.39%-99.99%. Removal efficiency of the eight HTEs in flue gas by ESP + wet FGD

23

is 99.78%-99.96% with that of 99.43%-99.95% for ESP. 18.10% of Sb, 22.25% of Ba,

24

23.16% of Cr, 28.39% of Mn, 31.15% of As, 53.17% of Pb, 61.26% of Zn, 68.47% of

25

Cd, in the flue gas is captured by wet FGD compared to their concentration at its inlet.

26

Emission concentrations of Cd, Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Zn, Mn and Ba in flue gas to

27

atmosphere are 0.03, 0.07, 0.15, 1.42, 3.11, 6.74, 7.82, and 8.11 µg/m3, with

28

corresponding emission factors of 0.25, 0.61, 1.23, 11.53, 25.07, 54.93, 63.46, and

29

65.90 mg/ (t coal), respectively. All the studied HTEs except Mn are prone to enrich

30

in ESP ash than bottom ash.

31

KEYWORDS: Coal-fired power plant; Hazardous trace elements; Partitioning;

32

Emission; Enrichment characteristic

33

1. INTRODUCTION

34

Hazardous trace elements (HTEs) emitted from coal combustion have received 1

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

Page 2 of 16

35

worldwide attention because of their dangerous harm on the environment and public

36

health

37

total coal consumed was burned directly for power generation in 2007 4. It is

38

estimated that the proportion will reach 65% in 2050 5. With the huge consumption of

39

coal, coal-fired power plants are the main anthropogenic sources of HTEs, beside

40

conventional air pollutants, such as SO2, NOx, PM 6, 7.

1-3

. Coal is the main primary energy in the world. In China, near 50% of the

41

During combustion, HTEs are released from coal and distributed to bottom ash,

42

fly ash, and flue gas 8. Thus, HTEs in flue gas can be divided into particulate (which

43

are associated with particulate matter) and gaseous form. With great concern on the

44

conventional air pollutant emission, most of the coal-fired power plants have been

45

installed with cyclones, electrostatic precipitator (ESP), or fabric fibers (FFs) in China.

46

By the end of 2015, SO2 control devices and the selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

47

devices used for NOx removal had occupied 91.20% and 94.54% of the installed

48

capacity of coal - fired units, respectively 9. The use of these air pollution control

49

devices (APCDs) in coal-fired power plants will influence the partitioning of HTEs in

50

coal combustion by-products and accordingly change their way to atmosphere 11-14

10

.

51

Studies

have shown that SCR benefits for elemental mercury oxidation, ESP or

52

FF can capture over 99% of particulate mercury, wet FGD can remove 60%-95% of

53

oxidized mercury but elemental mercury can re-emit in the desulfurization process,

54

and the overall removal rate across SCR + ESP + wet FGD ranges from 43.8% to

55

94.9%. Deng et al. 8 conducted a field test at six coal-fired power plants to study the

56

emission characteristics of Cd, Pb and Mn from coal combustion, results of which

57

showed that wet FGD combined with particulate control devices could remove

58

94.9-98.2% of Pb, 98.9-99.9% of Cd and 99.9% of Mn in flue gas. Though Tian at

59

al.15 summarized the average co-benefit removal efficiency of eight HTEs (namely,

60

Hg, As, Se, Pb, Cd, Cr, Ni, Sb) by each APCD, such as ESP, FFs, WFGD and SCR, in

61

coal-fired power plants, reference data for other HTEs is lacking compared to that of

62

Hg. The papers for directly monitoring of HTEs’ concentration in flue gas along the

63

APCDs in coal-fired power plants are not yet sufficient, which is a fundamental step

64

to control the HTEs emission.

65

In this study, US EPA Method 29 16 was used to sample eight HTEs, namely, Zn,

66

Sb, Pb, Cd, As, Cr, Mn and Ba, in flue gas before or after SCR, ESP, and wet FGD

67

simultaneously in a 100 MW small-scale coal-fired power plant. Feed coal, bottom

68

ash, ash from ESP (ESP ash), limestone slurry, and desulfurization wastewater were 2

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 3 of 16

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

69

collected at the same time. Partitioning and emission characteristics of the eight HTEs

70

under 85% load in the power plant were investigated. The main objective is to explore

71

the behavior of HTEs across the APCDs, including their release, transformation and

72

removal, which can provide guidance for controlling HTEs’ emission in coal-fired

73

power plants.

74

2. EXPERIMENTAL SECTION

75

2.1. Plant description

76

The field test was carried out on a 100 MW coal-fired power plant, located in a

77

chemical plant in China. The generated electricity from the power plant was only used

78

for production of the chemical plant itself. For control of the conventional air

79

pollutant emission, SCR and ESP were used to remove NOx and particle matters in

80

flue gas, respectively. Wet FGD was equipped to capture SO2, which adopted the

81

commonly used limestone-gypsum technology. The combination of SCR, ESP and

82

wet FGD is the most popular APCDs in coal-fired power plants in China.

83

2.2 Sampling

84

In this study, the 85% load was investigated. The eight HTEs in flue gas

85

including the particulate and gaseous form at the four sites before or after each APCD

86

were sampled by US Apex instrument, which was consisted of a probe, a heated filter

87

box, a set of glass impingers, a cumulative flow meter and a vacuum pump. The

88

particulate HTEs were retained in the filter while gaseous HTEs could be absorbed in

89

5% (v/v) nitric acid (HNO3) and 10% (v/v) hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) solution. All

90

the procedures for sampling of the eight HTEs in flue gas were conducted strictly in

91

accordance with US EPA method 29 16, in which a detail description could be found.

92

For each test, sampling of the eight HTEs in flue gas lasted for one hour, and

93

solid or liquid samples including feed coal, ESP ash, bottom ash, limestone slurry, and

94

desulfurization wastewater were collected at 30-minute intervals. Then the same type

95

of sample was gathered evenly on an equal weight basis. The sampling sites for the

96

eight HTEs in the flue gas, solid and liquid are shown in Figure 1. To reduce

97

uncertainties and obtain accurate data, field tests under the 85% load were carried out

98

repeatedly. The operating data, such as the boiler output, the amount of feeding coal,

99

and the amount and density of limestone slurry, was obtained from the online

100

monitoring system of the power plant. The amount of ESP ash and bottom ash was

101

calculated based on the mass balance of ash, and the flow rate of desulfurization

102

wastewater was obtained by the mass conservation of the desulfurization system. 3

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

Page 4 of 16

103

Figure 1 Sampling sites in the coal-fired power plant

104 105 106 107

2.3 Analysis methods The proximate and elemental analysis of the coal used at the 85% load was determined according to the National Standard of China 17.

108

The eight HTEs, namely, Zn, Sb, Pb, Cd, As, Cr, Mn, Ba, in pure liquid sample,

109

such as the absorption solution of 5% (v/v) HNO3 and 10% (v/v) H2O2, were

110

determined by an inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometer (ICP-MS, US). The

111

eight HTEs in solid samples such as coal, bottom ash, ESP ash, and gypsum were

112

determined by the ICP-MS after digestion through a mixture of some acids (HNO3:

113

HCl: HF = 3:1:1) in a microwave oven. For the eight HTEs in limestone slurry and

114

desulfurization wastewater, the concentration was obtained by calculation based on

115

their content in the filtered pure liquid and solid of limestone or gypsum. For

116

desulfurization wastewater, the concentrations and mass distributions of Zn, Sb, Pb,

117

Cd, As, Cr, Mn and Ba in gypsum and the pure wastewater are shown in Table 1.

118

Table 1 Concentrations and mass distributions of the eight HTEs in gypsum and the

119

pure wastewater HTEs Zn Sb Pb Cd As Cr Mn

Concentration Gypsum Pure wastewater mg/kg mg/L 452.06±10.24 0.98±0.01 8.59±0.12 0.38±0.01 5.80±0.09 34.86±0.89 130.91±3.12

6.29±0.09 0.04±0.00 0.06±0.00 0.06±0.00 0.85±0.01 1.53±0.02 6.12±0.09

Mass distribution Gypsum Pure wastewater % % 94.73±2.11 86.66±1.98 97.20±2.34 59.33±0.99 63.06±1.32 85.04±1.77 84.24±1.67

4

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

5.27±0.12 13.34±0.21 2.80±0.07 40.67±1.15 36.94±1.08 14.96±0.22 15.76±0.24

Page 5 of 16

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

Ba

149.15±3.11

0.36±0.06

99.04±1.88

0.96±0.01

120

The burning weight-loss method was used to get the unburned carbon (UBC)

121

content of bottom ash and ESP ash 18. The samples were placed in a muffle furnace at

122

850 0C for 3 hours after being dried at 102 0C for 8 hours. Then, the proportion of

123

difference between the burned and the dried samples to the initial weight of the

124

sample was defined as the UBC. The content of O2 in flue gas at the four sites of flue

125

gas HTEs sampling was determined by a multifunction flue gas analyzer (MRU vario

126

plus, Germany), the data of which is shown in Table 2. All the data given in this paper

127

is the average value, and concentration of the eight HTEs in flue gas has been unified

128

to 6% O2, dry flue gas for comparison.

129

130

Table 2 Content of O2 in flue gas at the four sites of flue gas HTEs sampling (%) Sites

SCR inlet

SCR outlet

ESP outlet

Wet FGD outlet

85% load

7.57

5.60

6.60

6.71

2.4 Quality assurance and quality control

131

For determination of the eight HTEs in samples by the ICP-MS, all the reagents

132

were excellent grade. It required that the concentration of the eight HTEs in a blank

133

digestion solution should be less than the maximum value among the 5% of the

134

sample test value, 5% of the regulatory limit and method detection limit. When

135

normalized, it should firstly measure the standard solution with low concentration and

136

then that with high concentration. Relative standard deviation (RSD) for the three

137

repeated measurements of standard solution with high concentration was required to

138

be no more than 5%, otherwise, the sampling system should be checked. At least five

139

points must be adopted to obtain the calibration curve, and the correlation coefficient

140

should be more than 0.995. After measuring 10 samples, it should be back to

141

determine the concentration of the eight HTEs in a standard solution. The RSD must

142

be less than 10%, otherwise the standardization should be repeated and the

143

determination of the 10 samples should be done again.

144

For the sampling of HTEs in flue gas, the RSD should be less than 34% when the

145

concentration of HTEs in flue gas was less than 3 µg/m3. Otherwise, the value should

146

be no more than 11%. The field tests were conducted three or more times to meet

147

these requirements.

148

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

149

3.1 Coal analysis

150

The proximate and elemental analysis of the coal used at 85% load is shown in 5

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

Page 6 of 16

151

Table 3. According to the Chinese classification method for coal used in boiler, this

152

coal belongs to lean coal. Flue gas components, such as hydrogen chloride (HCl),

153

chlorine (Cl2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2), can affect the speciation of HTEs

154

average content of Cl in Chinese coal is 220 mg/kg, and the value in American coal is

155

614 mg/kg 22. The content of S in Chinese coal is in the range of 0.2%-8%, reported

156

by Gao et al. 23. For the coal used in this work, the content of Cl (281 mg/kg) is a little

157

higher than the Chinese average value, while the content of S belongs to the low

158

sulfur coal.

. The

Table 3 Proximate and elemental analysis of the coal sample a

159

Proximate analysis M %

A %

V %

FC %

7.09 21.30 11.45 60.16 160

19-21

Element analysis (%)

Qnet, ar MJ/kg 26.05

C %

H %

O %

N %

S %

Cl mg/kg

63.12 3.09 3.87 0.98 0.55

281

a

Note: : All the value is on as received basis

161

Concentrations of the eight HTEs in the coal sample are shown in Table 4. The

162

average content of the eight HTEs in the coal of China and the world is also listed in

163

the table 24, 25. Except Mn, the average content of Zn, Pb, Cd, and Ba in Chinese coal

164

is higher than that of world’s coal. The concentrations of Zn, Pb and Ba are higher

165

than the average value of both Chinese and world’s coal. The different content of the

166

eight HTEs in the coal may be due to their different coal formation process,

167

surrounding condition, coal type, etc.

168

Table 4 Concentration of the eight HTEs in the coal sample (mg/kg) Coal sample China 24 World 25

Zn

Sb

Pb

Cd

As

Cr

Mn

Ba

39.47 38 23

0.53 0.71 0.92

23.02 15.1 7.8

0.20 0.25 0.22

4.14 3.79 8.3

12.99 15.4 16

43.95 116.2 nd

173.25 159 150

169

Note: nd: no data

170

3.2 Mass balance rate and mass distribution

171

The mass balance rate, which is defined as the ratio of the output to the input

172

amount per unit time for a particular object, is used to verify the accuracy and

173

credibility of field test data in this work. For the whole system, the input HTEs are

174

that coming from feeding coal and limestone slurry; the output HTEs include that in

175

bottom ash, ESP ash, desulphurization wastewater and that in flue gas emitted to

176

atmosphere. For each device, namely, furnace, SCR, ESP, and wet FGD, the input 6

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 7 of 16

177

HTEs is that in flue gas or limestone slurry entering the device; the output HTEs is

178

that in flue gas, bottom ash, ESP ash, or desulfurization wastewater leaving the device.

179

As shown in Figure 2, all the mass balance rates of the eight HTEs for the whole

180

system and each device are in the range of 74.07%-128.53%. In general, some factors,

181

such as the representativeness of the collected liquid or solid samples, error in

182

determination analysis of the HTEs, and fluctuations in the feeding coal amount, can

183

affect the mass balance rate. Thus, the mass balance rates of 74.07%-128.53% in this

184

work are within the acceptable range, which is 70%-130%, as reported by others 10, 26. System Furnace SCR ESP Wet FGD

130 120 110 100

Mass balance rate / %

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

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

185 186

Zn

Sb

Pb

As

Cd

Cr

Mn

Ba

Figure 2 Mass balance rates of the eight HTEs of the whole system and each device

187

The relative mass distribution proportion of the eight HTEs across the power

188

plant, which is defined as the ratio of mass amount of HTEs in each part to the total

189

mass amount including that in bottom ash, ESP ash, removed by wet FGD, and flue

190

gas to atmosphere, is shown in Figure 3. The eight HTEs are mainly distributed in

191

ESP ash, the relative mass distribution proportion of which is 86.23%-98.25%. Mass

192

amount of the eight HTEs in bottom ash accounts for 1.65%-13.67%. The eight HTEs,

193

which are removed by wet FGD and that in flue gas to atmosphere are little, the

194

relative mass distribution proportion of which is 0.006%-0.214% and 0.037%-0.190%,

195

respectively. This indicates that more attention about treatment and recycle for the

196

studied HTEs should be paid to the ESP ash and bottom ash.

7

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

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

Mass relative distribution proportion/ %

Energy & Fuels

Page 8 of 16

HTEsg, stack

100.0

HTEsp,stack wet FGDremoval

99.8

ESP ash bottom ash

99.6 99.4 99.2

30 20 10 0

197

Zn

Sb

Pb

As

Cd

Cr

Mn

Ba

198

Figure 3 Relative mass distribution proportions of the eight HTEs across the power

199

plant

200

3.3 Concentration and removal efficiency of HTEs across SCR, ESP and wet

201

FGD

202

HTEs in coal are usually bound to organic and inorganic matter 27. At the furnace

203

temperature, some HTEs will be evaporated in flue gas during coal combustion. Some

204

HTEs, which can’t escape from the burnout char particles, will go into fly ash and

205

bottom ash. As flue gas cools down, HTEs will be in gaseous and particulate phase by

206

homogeneous reactions, condensation, and adsorption. Concentrations of the eight

207

HTEs across SCR, ESP, and wet FGD are shown in Table 5. At the inlet and outlet of

208

SCR, concentrations of Cd, Sb, As, Cr, Pb, Zn, Mn, Ba in flue gas are 18.22, 78.60,

209

380.57, 1416.76, 3021.00, 3746.24, 5720.50, 20355.09 µg/m3 and 18.02, 60.83,

210

358.42, 1418.04, 3023.00, 3753.47, 5596.90, 20382.44 µg/m3, respectively. Cd has

211

the minimum concentration while Ba has the maximum value, which may be due to

212

their different contents in the coal. The proportion of the eight particulate HTEs is far

213

more than that of their gaseous form, which is in the range of 99.39%-99.99%.

214

Studies have proven that SCR catalysts are beneficial for Hg0 oxidation, in which

215

hydrogen chloride (HCl) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) have positive effects

216

However, due to the unavailable valence of the eight HTEs by the current sampling

217

method, complexity of flue gas components, and extremely low concentration of

218

gaseous form, it is hard to explore the effects of SCR system on the studied HTEs.

219

With great removal efficiency of more than 99.95% for the particulate matter, 8

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

11, 28, 29

.

Page 9 of 16

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

220

concentration of the eight HTEs at the outlet of ESP decreases dramatically with the

221

value of 0.09-17.39 µg/m3. In addition to the conventional removal of SO2, wet FGD

222

can capture the soluble and low volatile trace element compounds, as well as the

223

ultrafine particles further. This leads to a decrease in concentration of the eight HTEs

224

at the outlet of wet FGD, which is 0.03-8.11 µg/m3.

9

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Energy & Fuels

1 2 225 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 37 226 38 39 227 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Page 10 of 16

Table 5 Concentrations of the eight HTEs across SCR, ESP, and wet FGD SCR HTEs

inlet

outlet

ESP

wet FGD

outlet

outlet

Conc.

Prop.

Conc.

Prop.

Conc.

Prop.

Conc.

Prop.

µg/m3

%

µg/m3

%

µg/m3

%

µg/m3

%

Zng

17.44±0.55

0.47±0.01

17.13±0.52

0.46±0.01

15.69±0.51

90.23±2.93

5.46±0.21

81.10±3.12

Znp

3728.80±112.86

99.53±3.01

3736.34±113.21

99.54±3.02

1.70±0.06

9.77±0.35

1.27±0.04

18.90±0.59

Sbg

0.12±0.00

0.16±0.00

0.10±0.00

0.17±0.00

0.07±0.00

71.39±0.00

0.05±0.00

69.37±0.00

Sbp

78.48±2.45

99.84±3.12

60.73±1.91

99.83±3.14

0.03±0.00

28.61±0.00

0.02±0.00

30.63±0.00

Pbg

1.95±0.06

0.06±0.00

1.91±0.06

0.06±0.00

1.65±0.06

54.53±1.98

0.39±0.01

27.36±0.71

Pbp

3019.05±91.78

99.94±3.04

3021.09±91.24

99.94±3.02

1.38±0.05

45.47±1.65

1.03±0.04

72.64±2.82

Cdg

0.11±0.00

0.61±0.00

0.10±0.00

0.55±0.00

0.09±0.00

91.48±0.00

0.03±0.00

78.91±0.00

Cdp

18.11±0.67

99.39±3.68

17.92±0.67

99.45±3.72

0.01±0.00

8.52±0.00

0.01±0.00

21.09±0.00

Asg

0.04±0.00

0.01±0.00

0.03±0.00

0.01±0.00

0.03±0.00

13.39±0.00

0.03±0.00

16.61±0.00

Asp

380.53±12.32

99.99±3.24

358.39±13.87

99.99±3.87

0.19±0.01

86.61±4.53

0.13±0.00

83.39±0.00

Crg

4.55±0.21

0.32±0.01

4.06±0.19

0.29±0.01

3.39±0.12

83.78±2.97

2.59±0.08

83.24±2.58

Crp

1412.21±50.33

99.68±3.55

1413.98±50.56

99.71±3.57

0.66±0.02

16.22±0.49

0.52±0.02

16.76±0.64

Mng

9.57 ±0.31

0.17±0.01

8.34±0.32

0.15±0.01

8.17±0.32

74.89±2.93

5.76±0.25

73.70±3.20

Mnp

5710.93±173.22

99.83±3.03

5588.56±170.22

99.85±3.04

2.74±0.09

25.11±0.82

2.06±0.09

26.30±1.15

Bag

1.47±0.05

0.01±0.00

1.27±0.05

0.01±0.00

1.20±0.04

11.46±0.38

1.14±0.04

14.06±0.49

Bap

20353.62±667.32

99.99±3.28

20381.17±677.87

99.99±3.33

9.24±0.35

88.54±3.35

6.97±0.31

85.94±3.82

Notes: Zng: gas phase Zn; Znp: particulate Zn; Sbg: gas phase Sb; Sbp: particulate Sb; Pbg: gas phase Pb; Pbp: particulate Pb; Cdg: gas phase Cd; Cdp: particulate Cd; Asg: gas phase As; Asp: particulate As; Crg: gas phase Cr; Crp: particulate Cr; Mng: gas phase Mn; Mnp: particulate Mn; Bag: gas phase Ba; Bap: particulate Ba; Con.: concentration; Prop.: proportion. 10

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 11 of 16

228

To better describe removal effects of APCD on the eight HTEs in flue gas, the

229

removal efficiency for ESP, wet FGD, and ESP + wet FGD is defined as follows.

230

ηHTEs(t)APCD = [HTEs(t)in, APCD-HTEs(t)out, APCD] / THEs(t)in, APCD × 100%

231

Where, ηHTEs(t)APCD represents the removal efficiency of APCD on the HTEs(t) in

232

flue gas, %; HTEs(t) represents the total concentration of gaseous and particulate

233

HTEs in flue gas, µg/m3; APCD represents the ESP, wet FGD, and ESP + wet FGD,

234

respectively; THEs(t)in, APCD and HTEs(t)out, APCD represent the HTEs(t) in flue gas at

235

the inlet and outlet of the APCD.

(1)

236

The removal efficiency of the eight HTEs in flue gas across ESP, wet FGD, and

237

ESP + wet FGD is shown in Figure 4. ESP has great effects on the removal of the

238

eight HTEs in flue gas, which ranges from 99.43% to 99.95%. Wet FGD can remove

239

18.10% of Sb, 22.25% of Ba, 23.16% of Cr, 28.39% of Mn, 31.15% of As, 53.17% of

240

Pb, 61.26% of Zn, 68.47% of Cd, in the flue gas, respectively. The total removal

241

efficiency of ESP + wet FGD on the HTEs is in the range of 99.78%-99.96%, which

242

agrees with the results of Deng et al. 8. This indicates that APCDs in power plant are

243

beneficial for HTEs’ removal besides capture of conventional air pollutants. 100.0

ESP Wet FGD ESP+Wet FGD

99.8 99.6

Removal efficiency / %

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

99.4 99.2 99.0 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

244

Zn

Sb

Pb

Cd

As

Cr

Mn

Ba

245

Figure 4 Removal efficiency of the eight HTEs across ESP, wet FGD, and ESP + wet

246

FGD

247

3.4 Emission characteristic of HTEs in flue gas to atmosphere

248

Emission concentrations of the eight HTEs in flue gas to atmosphere are the sum

249

of their gaseous and particulate form at the outlet of wet FGD, which are in the scope

250

of 0.03- 8.11 µg/m3, as shown in Table 5. Though there is no certain emission 11

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

Page 12 of 16

251

standard for HTEs emitted from coal-fired power plants except mercury with value of

252

30 µg/m3 in China, the Integrated Emission Standard of Air Pollutants, enacted by the

253

National Environmental Protection Agency of China in 1996, specified the limits of

254

Pb, Cd, and Cr emitted for the pollution source established after January 1st, 1997 as

255

0.7, 0.85, and 0.07 mg/m3, respectively

256

concentration of Pb, Cd, and Cr is far less than the limits. Zhao et al.

257

average emission concentration of Cr, Ba, and Pb in a 350 MW coal-fired plant as

258

1.05, 4.28, and 0.21µg/m3, respectively, which is lower than the value in this study. It

259

may be mainly due to high content in the coal of this study.

30, 31

. It indicates that the emitted 32

gave the

260

Emission factor is commonly used for comparison between different power

261

plants or different conditions, which is defined as the ratio of ultimate HTEs emitted

262

to atmosphere to the amount of coal consumed (seen as Formula (2)) 33, EF = [HTE(t)stack /FC] × 1000

263

(2)

264

Where, EF represents emission factor, mg/ (t coal); HTE(t)stack is the total

265

emission mass amount of HTEs escaping from stack to atmosphere per hour, g/h; FC

266

represents mass amount of the feeding coal, t/h.

267

The emission factors of Cd, Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Zn, Mn, and Ba are also listed in

268

Table 6, which are in the range of 0.25-65.90 mg/ (t coal). Cd, Sb, and As have the

269

low emission factors of 0.25-1.23 mg/ (t coal), while Zn, Mn, and Ba have the high

270

value of 54.93-65.90 mg/ (t coal). The difference in the emission factors of the studied

271

HTEs may be due to their content and occurrence form in coal, coal combustion

272

temperature, removal efficiency of the APCD, the nature characteristics of the trace

273

element compounds themselves, etc. 26.

274

Table 6 Emission concentrations and emission factors of the eight HTEs in flue gas to

275

atmosphere

276 277

Zn

Sb

Pb

Cd

As

Cr

Mn

Ba

Conc. µg/m3

6.74 ±0.21

0.07 ±0.00

1.42 ±0.06

0.03 ±0.00

0.15 ±0.00

3.11 ±0.11

7.82 ±0.25

8.11 ±0.31

EF mg/(t coal)

54.93 ±1.82

0.61 ±0.01

11.53 ±0.52

0.25 ±0.01

1.23 ±0.03

25.07 ±0.78

63.46 ±2.08

65.90 ±2.61

Notes: Conc.: concentration

3.5 Enrichment of HTEs in ESP ash and bottom ash

278

Relative enrichment index (REI) can be adopted to assess the enrichment

279

characteristic of HTEs in bottom ash and ESP ash, which can be expressed in Formula 12

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 13 of 16

280

(3) 34, 35. REI = HTEsash × Acoal, ad / HTEscoal (3)

281 282

Where, REI represents relative enrichment index of HTEs in ESP ash or bottom

283

ash; HTEsash represents the concentration of HTEs in bottom ash or ESP ash, mg/kg;

284

Acoal,ad represents the ash content in the feeding coal on air dried basis.

285

The REI of the eight HTEs in ESP ash and bottom ash is shown in Figure 5. For

286

Mn, the REI in both bottom ash and ESP ash is higher than 1, which shows that it

287

enriches in bottom ash and ESP ash equally. For Pb, Sb, Ba, Cr, Zn, Cd, and As, the

288

REI of them in ESP ash is more than that in bottom ash, which indicates that these

289

HTEs are more enriched in ESP ash than bottom ash. The differences in the REI of

290

the eight HTEs in ESP ash and bottom ash have relations with the mineral

291

composition, surrounding temperature, and pore structure of ash, as well as their

292

existence form in coal and flue gas, etc. 17. For Mn, it is mainly bound to the dispersed

293

material with the most occurrences of carbonate and residual form in coal

294

coal combustion process, it is hard to escape into flue gas. Thus, it always appears in

295

residual particles, such as bottom ash and ESP ash.

35, 36

. In

1.2 Pb Mn 1.0

Ba

Sb

REI of ESP ash

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

Cr

0.8 As

Zn

Cd

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0.0

298

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

REI of bottom ash

296 297

0.2

Figure 5 Relative enrichment index of the eight HTEs in bottom ash and ESP ash 4. CONCLUSIONS

299

The coal used in this work belongs to lean coal, which has little high Cl and low

300

S content. Mass balance rates of the eight HTEs of the whole system and each device

301

are in the acceptable range of 70%-130%. The eight HTEs are mainly distributed in

302

ESP ash with relative mass distribution ratio of 86.23%-98.25%, followed by

303

1.65%-13.67% for the bottom ash. Mass amount proportion of the eight HTEs 13

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

Page 14 of 16

304

removed by wet FGD and in flue gas to atmosphere accounts for very little.

305

Concentrations of Cd, Sb, As, Cr, Pb, Zn, Mn, Ba in flue gas at the inlet and outlet of

306

SCR are 18.22, 78.60, 380.57, 1416.76, 3021.00, 3746.24, 5720.50, 20355.09 µg/m3

307

and 18.02, 60.83, 358.42, 1418.04, 3023.00, 3753.47, 5596.90, 20382.44 µg/m3,

308

respectively. Removal efficiency of the eight HTEs in flue gas by ESP + wet FGD is

309

99.78%-99.96%, while that for ESP is 99.43%-99.95%. Wet FGD can capture 18.10%

310

of Sb, 22.25% of Ba, 23.16% of Cr, 28.39% of Mn, 31.15% of As, 53.17% of Pb,

311

61.26% of Zn, 68.47% of Cd, in the flue gas compared to that at its inlet, respectively.

312

Concentrations of Cd, Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Zn, Mn and Ba in flue gas emitted to

313

atmosphere are 0.03, 0.07, 0.15, 1.42, 3.11, 6.74, 7.82, and 8.11 µg/m3, respectively.

314

Cd, Sb, and As have low emission factors of 0.25-1.23 mg/ (t coal), but Zn, Mn, and

315

Ba have high value of 54.93-65.90 mg/ (t coal). Except Mn, which enriches in bottom

316

ash and fly ash equally, all the other studied HTEs are prone to enrich in ESP ash than

317

bottom ash.

318



319

Corresponding Author

320

Yufeng

321

86+025-83795652.

322

Notes

323

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

324



AUTHOR INFORMATION

Duan:

[email protected]

Telephone:

86+025-83795652.

Fax:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

325

This project was financially supported by the National Key Research and

326

Development Program (2016YFB0600604), the National Natural Science Foundation

327

of China (51376046, 51576044), the Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate

328

School of Southeast University (YBJJ1706), and the Graduate Student Research and

329

Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (KYCX17_0072). The authors would like to

330

thank the anonymous reviewers for their critical comments.

331



332

[1] Lenz, M; Lens, P. N. L. Science of The Total Environment 2009, 407(12),

333

REFERENCES

3620-3633.

334

[2] Zhang, L.; Wong, M. H. Environment International 2007, 33,108-121.

335

[3] Wiedinmyer, C.; Friedli, H. Environmental Science & Technology 2007, 41(23),

336 337

8092-8098. [4] NBS, NDRC. China Energy Statistical Yearbook 2008. Beijing: China Statistics 14

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 15 of 16

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

338

Press; 2009 (in Chinese).

339

[5] You, C. F.; Xu, X. C. Energy 2009, 35(11), 4467-4472.

340

[6] Wu, Y.; Wang, S. X.; Streets, D. G. Environmental Science & Technology 2006,

341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351

40(17), 5312-5318. [7] Streets, D. G.; Hao, J. M.; Wu, Y.; Jiang, J. K.; Chan, M.; Tian, H. Z.; Feng, X. B.. Atmospheric Environment 2005, 39 (40), 7789-7806. [8] Deng, S.; Shi, Y. J.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, C.; Wang, X. F.; Cao, Q.; Li, S. G.; Zhang, F. Fuel Processing Technology 2014, 126, 469–475. [9] China Electric Power Yearbook Editorial Board, China Electric Power Yearbook 2016, China Electric Power Press, Beijing, 2016 (in Chinese). [10] Wang, S.X.; Zhang, L.; Li, G.H.; Wu, Y.; Hao, J.M.; Pirrone, N.; Sprovieri, F.; Ancora, M. P. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2010, 10, 1183–1192. [11] Zhao, S. L.; Duan, Y. F.; Yao, T.; Liu, M.; Lu, J. H.; Tan, H. Z.; Wang, X. B.; Wu, L. T. Fuel 2017, 199, 653–661.

352

[12] Pudasainee, D.; Kim, J. H.; Yoon, Y. S.; Seo, Y. C. Fuel 2012, 93,312-318.

353

[13] Zhang, L.; Wang, S. X.; Wu, Q. R.; Wang, F. Y.; Lin, C. J.; Zhang, L. M.; Hui, M.

354

L.; Yang, M.; Su, H. T.; Hao, J. M. Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics 2016, 16,

355

2417-2433.

356 357

[14] Zhang, Y.; Yang, J. P.; Yu, X. H.; Sun, P.; Zhao, Y. C.; Zhang, J. Y.; Chen, G.; Yao, H.; Zheng, C. G. Fuel Processing Technology 2017, 158, 272–280.

358

[15] Tian, H. Z.; Liu, K. Y.; Zhou, J. R.; Lu, L.; Hao, J. M.; Qiu, P. P.; Gao, J. J.; Zhu,

359

C. Y.; Wang, K.; Hua, S. B. Environmental Science & Technology 2014, 48,

360

3575-3582.

361

[16] Myers, J.; Kelly, T.; Lawrie, C.; Riggs, K. Method M29 Sampling and Analysis,

362

Environmental Technology Verification Report; United States Environmental

363

Protection 454 Agency (U.S. EPA): Washington, D.C., 2002; pp 15-22.

364

[17] Zhao, S. L.; Duan, Y. F.; Tan, H. Z.; Liu, M.; Wang, X. B.; Wu, L. T.; Wang, C. P.;

365

Lv, J. H.; Yao, T.; She, M.; Tang, H. J. Energy & Fuels 2016, 30, 5937-5944.

366

[18] Xin, M.; Gustin, M. S.; Ladwig, K. Fuel 2006, 85, 2260–2267.

367

[19] Otero-Rey, J. R.; López-Vilariño, J. M.; Moreda-Piñeiro, J.; Alonso-Rodríguez, E.;

368

Muniategui-Lorenzo, S.; López-Mahía, P.; Prada-Rodríguez, D. Environmental

369

Science & Technology 2003, 37 (22), 5262–5267.

370

[20] Jano-Ito, M. A.; Reed, G. P.; Millan, M. Energy Fuels, 2014, 28 (7), 4666–4683.

371

[21] Jiao, F.; Cheng, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yamada, N.; Sato, A.; Ninomiya, Y. Proceedings of 15

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

372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390

the Combustion Institute 2011, 33(2), 2787–2793 [22] Dombrowski, K.; Chang, R.; Senior, C. Power Plant Air Pollutant Control ‘‘MEGA” Symposium. US: Baltimore; 2008. [23] Gao, L. F.; Liu, G. J.; Chou, C. L.; Zheng, L. G.; Zheng, W. Bulletin of Mineralogy Petrology & Geochemistry 2005, 24(1), 79–87 (in Chinese). [24] Dai, S. F.; Ren, D. Y.; Chou, C. L.; Finkelman, R. B.; Seredin, V. V.; Zhou, Y. P. International Journal of Coal Geology 2012, 94, 3-21. [25] Ketris, M. P.; Yudovich, Y. E. International Journal of Coal Geology 2009, 78, 135−148. [26] Reddy, M. S.; Basha, S.; Joshi, H. V.; Jha, B. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2005, 123, 242-249. [27] Zajusz-zubek, E.; Konieczynski, J. Archives of Environmental Protection 2014, 40(1), 115-127. [28] Rallo, M.; Heidel, B.; Brechtel, K.; Maroto-Valer, M. M. Chemical Engineering Journal 2012, 198–199, 87–94. [29] Zhuang, Y.; Laumb, J.; Liggett, R.; Holmes, M.; Pavlish, J. Fuel Processing Technology 2007, 88 (10), 929–34. [30] MEP, Ministry of Environmental Protection of China. Emission standard of air pollutants for thermal power plants, GB 13223–2011; 2011 (in Chinese).

391

[31] Integrated Emission Standard of Air Pollutants, National Standards of People’s

392

Republic of China, GB 16297-1996; Ministry of Environmental Protection:

393

Beijing, China, 1996 (in Chinese).

394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403

[32] Zhao, S. L.; Duan, Y. F.; Chen, L.; Li, Y. N.; Yao, T.; Liu, S.; Liu, M.; Lu, J. H. Environmental Pollution 2017, 226, 404-411. [33] Zhao, S. L.; Duan, Y. F.; Wang, C. P.; Liu, M.; Lu, J. H.; Tan, H. Z.; Wang, X. B.; Wu, L. T. Energy & Fuels 2017, 31, 747-754. [34] Goodarzi, F.; Hugginsb, F.E.; Sanei, H. International Journal of Coal Geology 2008, 74, 1–12. [35] Bhangare, R.C.; Ajmal, P.Y.; Sahu, S.K.; Pandit, G.G.; Puranik, V.D. International Journal of Coal Geology 2011, 86, 349–356. [36] Vassilev, S. V.; Vassileva, C. G. Fuel Processing Technology 1997, 51(1-2), 19– 45.

16

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 16 of 16