Removal of elemental mercury by KI-impregnated clay

doi:10.1007/s11783-014-0765-7

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.

2016, Vol. 10

Issue (2) : 236-243 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-014-0765-7

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Removal of elemental mercury by KI-impregnated clay

Boxiong SHEN^1,^2,^*(

),Jianhong CHEN²,Ji CAI²

1. School of Energy & Environmental Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China
2. College of Environmental Science & Engineering, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China

Download: PDF(197 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

This study described the use of clay impregnated by KI in gas phase elemental mercury (Hg^o) removal in flue gas. The effects of KI loading, temperature, O₂, SO₂ and H₂O on Hg^o removal were investigated using a fixed bed reactor. The Hg^o removal efficiency of KI-clay with 3% KI loading could maintain at a high level (approximately 80 %) after 3 h. The KI-clay demonstrated to be a potential adsorbent for Hg^o removal when compared with activated carbon based adsorbent. O₂ was found to be an important factor in improving the Hg^o removal. O₂ was demonstrated to assist the transfer of KI to I₂ on the surface of KI-clay, which could react with Hg^o directly. NO and SO₂ could slightly improve Hg^o removal, while H₂O inhibited it greatly. The results indicated that after adsorption, most of the mercury escaped from the surface again. Some of the mercury may have been oxidized as it left the surface. The results demonstrated that the chemical reaction primarily occurred between KI and mercury on the surface of the KI-clay.

Keywords clay elemental mercury removal efficiency potassium iodide mechanism

Corresponding Author(s): Boxiong SHEN

Just Accepted Date: 27 November 2014 Online First Date: 12 December 2014 Issue Date: 01 February 2016

Cite this article:

Boxiong SHEN,Jianhong CHEN,Ji CAI. Removal of elemental mercury by KI-impregnated clay[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(2): 236-243.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-014-0765-7
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2016/V10/I2/236

Tab.1 Physical properties of different materials

Fig.1 Effects of KI loading on Hg^o removal efficiency (Reaction condition: 80 °C, 6vol.% O₂, initial Hg^o 26±2 μg·m⁻³and GHSV 10⁶ h⁻¹)

Fig.2 Effects of temperature on Hg^o removal efficiency for KI(1)-clay.(Reaction condition: 80°C−180°C, 6 vol.% O₂, initial Hg^o 26±2 μg·m⁻³and GHSV 106 h⁻¹)

Fig.3 Effects of O₂ concentration on Hg^o removal efficiency for KI(1)-clay.(Reaction condition: 80°C, 0−10 vol.% O₂, initial Hg^o 26±2 μg·m⁻³ and GHSV 10⁶ h⁻¹)

Fig.4 Effects of NO, SO₂ and H₂O on Hg^o removal efficiency for KI(1)-clay.(Reaction condition: 80°C−180°C, 6 vol.% O₂, 0−500 ppm SO₂, 0−100 ppm NO, 0−3 vol.% H₂O, initial Hg^o 26±2 μg·m⁻³ and GHSV 10⁶ h⁻¹)

Fig.5 Hg species at the outlet of the reactor for KI(1)-clay(Reaction condition: 80°C−180°C, 6 vol.% O₂, initial Hg^o 26±2 μg·m⁻³ and GHSV 10⁶ h⁻¹)

Fig.6 The changes of the percentage of Hg^oxi/Hg^T vs. adsorption time at the outlet of the reactor (Reaction condition: 80°C−180°C, 6 vol.% O₂, initial Hg^o 26±2 μg·m⁻³ and GHSV 10⁶ h⁻¹)

1	Lee K J, Lee T G. A review of international trends in mercury management and available options for permanent or long-term mercury storage. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2012, 241−242: 1−13
2	Yang H, Xu Z, Fan M, Bland A E, Judkins R R. Adsorbents for capturing mercury in coal-fired boiler flue gas. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2007, 146(1−2): 1−11
3	Li P, Feng X B, Qiu G L, Shang L H, Li Z G. Mercury pollution in Asia: A review of the contaminated sites. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2009, 168(2−3): 591−601
4	Zhang L, Wong M H. Environmental mercury contamination in China: sources and impacts. Environment International, 2007, 33(1): 108−121 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.022
5	Masaki O, Md A U, Eiji S, Wu S J. Fuel, 2008, 87(17−18): 3610−3615.
6	Vidic R D, Siler D P. Vapor-phase elemental mercury adsorption by activated carbon impregnated with chloride and chelating agents. Carbon, 2001, 39(1): 3−14 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-6223(00)00081-6
7	Granite E J, Pennline H W, Hoffman J S. Effects of photochemical formation of mercuric oxide. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 1999, 38(12): 5034−5037 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie9904495
8	Granite E J, Pennline H W. Photochemical removal of mercury from flue gas. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2002, 41(22): 5470−5476 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie020251b
9	McLarnon C R, Granite E J, Pennline H W. The PCO process for photochemical removal of mercury from flue gas. Fuel Processing Technology, 2005, 87(1): 85−89 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2005.07.001
10	Zhang B, Zhong Z, Ding K, Yu L. Photooxidative removal of Hgo from simulated flue gas using UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation process: Influence of operational parameters. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2014, 31(1): 56−61 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-013-0179-4
11	Nolan P S, Redinger K E, Amrhein G T, Kudlac G A. Demonstration of additive use for enhanced mercury emissions control in wet FGD systems. Fuel Processing Technology, 2004, 85(6−7): 587−600 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2003.11.009
12	He C, Shen B, Chen J, Cai J. Adsorption and oxidation of elemental mercury over Ce-MnOx/Ti-PILCs. Environmental Science & Technology, 2014, 48(14): 7891−7898 https://doi.org/10.1021/es5007719
13	Pavlish J H, Sondreal E A, Mann M D, Olson E S, Galbreath K C, Laudal D L, Benson S A. Status review of mercury control options for coal-fired power plants. Fuel Processing Technology, 2003, 82(2−3): 89−165 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(03)00059-6
14	Zeng H C, Jin F, Guo J. Removal of elemental mercury from coal combustion flue gas by chloride-impregnated activated carbon. Fuel, 2004, 83(1): 143−146 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-2361(03)00235-7
15	De M, Azargohar R, Dalai A K, Shewchuk S R. Mercury removal by bio-char based modified activated carbons. Fuel, 2013, 103: 570−578 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.08.011
16	Cai J, Shen B, Li Z, Chen J, He C. Removal of elemental mercury by clays impregnated with KI and KBr. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2014, 241: 19−27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.11.072
17	Presto A A, Granite E J. Survey of catalysts for oxidation of mercury in flue gas. Environmental Science & Technology, 2006, 40(18): 5601−5609 https://doi.org/10.1021/es060504i
18	Shen B X, Yao Y, Ma H Q, Liu T. Ceria modified MnOx/TiO2-pillared clays catalysts for the selective catalytic reduction of NO with NH3 at low temperature. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2011, 32(11−12): 1803−1811 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2067(10)60269-0
19	Shen B, Ma H, Yao Y. Mn-CeOx/Ti-PILCs for selective catalytic reduction of NO with NH3 at low temperature. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 2012, 24(3): 499−506 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(11)60756-0
20	Tian Z Y, Chafik T, Assebban M, Harti S, Bahlawane N, Kouotou P M, Katharina K H. Towards biofuel combustion with an easily extruded clay as a natural catalyst. Applied Energy, 2013, 107: 149−156 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.025
21	Bhardwaj R, Chen X, Vidic R D. Impact of fly ash composition on mercury speciation in simulated flue gas. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2009, 59(11): 1331−1338 https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.59.11.1331
22	Zhao P, Guo X, Zheng C. Removal of elemental mercury by iodine-modified rice husk ash sorbents. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 2010, 22(10): 1629−1636 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(09)60299-0
23	Lopez-Anton M A, Yuan Y, Perry R. Maroto-ValerM M. Analysis of mercury species present during coal combustion by thermal desorption. Fuel, 2010, 89 (3): 629−634
24	Huggins F E, Yap N, Huffman G P, Senior C L. XAFS characterization of mercury captured from combustion gases on sorbents at low temperatures. Fuel Processing Technology, 2003, 82(2−3): 167−196 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(03)00068-7
25	Huggins Y C, Yan N, Qu Z, Qiao S, Jia J. The performance of iodine on the removal of elemental mercury from the simulated coal-fired flue gas. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2009, 166(2−3): 776−781
26	Hsi H C, Chen C T. Influences of acidic/oxidizing gases on elemental mercury adsorption equilibrium and kinetics of sulfur-impregnated activated carbon. Fuel, 2012, 98: 229−235 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.04.011
27	Ochiai R, Uddin M A, Sasaoka E, Wu S. Effects of HCl and SO2 concentration on mercury removal by activated carbon sorbents in coal-derived flue gas. Energy & Fuels, 2009, 23(10): 4734−4739 https://doi.org/10.1021/ef900057e
28	Lopez-Anton M A, Tascon J M D. Martinez-TarazonaM R. Retention of mercury in activated carbons in coal combustion and gasification flue gases. Fuel Processing Technology, 2002, 77−78: 353−358
29	Diamantopoulou I, Skodras G, Sakellaropoulos G P. Sorption of mercury by activated carbon in the presence of flue gas components. Fuel Processing Technology, 2010, 91(2): 158−163 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2009.09.005
30	Miller S J, Dunham G E, Olson E S, Brown T D. Flue gas effects on a carbon-based mercury sorbent. Fuel Processing Technology, 2000, 65−66: 343−363 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(99)00103-4
31	Uddin M A, Yamada T, Ochiai R, Sasaoka E, Wu S. Role of SO2 for elemental mercury removal from coal combustion flue gas by activated carbon. Energy & Fuels, 2008, 22(4): 2284−2289 https://doi.org/10.1021/ef800134t
32	Granite E J, Pennline H W, Hargis R A. Novel sorbents for mercury removal from flue gas. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2000, 39(4): 1020−1029 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie990758v
33	Lee S J, Seo Y C, Jurng J, Lee T G. Removal of gas-phase elemental mercury by iodine- and chlorine-impregnated activated carbons. Atmospheric Environment, 2004, 38(28): 4887−4893 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.05.043

[1]

Supplementary Material1

Download

[1]	Kangying Guo, Baoyu Gao, Jie Wang, Jingwen Pan, Qinyan Yue, Xing Xu. Flocculation behaviors of a novel papermaking sludge-based flocculant in practical printing and dyeing wastewater treatment[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 103-.
[2]	Zhifei Ma, Huali Cao, Fengchun Lv, Yu Yang, Chen Chen, Tianxue Yang, Haixin Zheng, Daishe Wu. Preparation of nZVI embedded modified mesoporous carbon for catalytic persulfate to degradation of reactive black 5[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 98-.
[3]	Mengqing Ge, Tao Lin, Kemei Zhou, Hong Chen, Hang Xu, Hui Tao, Wei Chen. Characteristics and removal mechanism of the precursors of N-chloro-2,2-dichloroacetamide in a drinking water treatment process at Taihu Lake[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 93-.
[4]	Xinshu Liu, Xiaoman Su, Sijie Tian, Yue Li, Rongfang Yuan. Mechanisms for simultaneous ozonation of sulfamethoxazole and natural organic matters in secondary effluent from sewage treatment plant[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(4): 75-.
[5]	Mariana Valdez-Castillo, Sonia Arriaga. Response of bioaerosol cells to photocatalytic inactivation with ZnO and TiO₂ impregnated onto Perlite and Poraver carriers[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(3): 43-.
[6]	Dongjie Shang, Jianfei Peng, Song Guo, Zhijun Wu, Min Hu. Secondary aerosol formation in winter haze over the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region, China[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(2): 34-.
[7]	Huibin Guo, Ning Wang, Xiang Li. Antioxidative potential of metformin: Possible protective mechanism against generating OH radicals[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(2): 21-.
[8]	Jinjin Fu, Quan Zhang, Baocheng Huang, Niansi Fan, Rencun Jin. A review on anammox process for the treatment of antibiotic-containing wastewater: Linking effects with corresponding mechanisms[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 17-.
[9]	Jianzhi Huang, Huichun Zhang. Redox reactions of iron and manganese oxides in complex systems[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 76-.
[10]	Sen Liu, Congren Yang, Wei Liu, Longsheng Yi, Wenqing Qin. A novel approach to preparing ultra-lightweight ceramsite with a large amount of fly ash[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 62-.
[11]	Meng Zhu, Yongming Luo, Ruyi Yang, Shoubiao Zhou, Juqin Zhang, Mengyun Zhang, Peter Christie, Elizabeth L. Rylott. Diphenylarsinic acid sorption mechanisms in soils using batch experiments and EXAFS spectroscopy[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 58-.
[12]	Siqi Li, Min Zheng, Shuang Wu, Yu Xue, Yanchen Liu, Chengwen Wang, Xia Huang. The impact of ultrasonic treatment on activity of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria in activated sludge[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 82-.
[13]	Yu Jiang, Beidou Xi, Rui Li, Mingxiao Li, Zheng Xu, Yuning Yang, Shaobo Gao. Advances in Fe(III) bioreduction and its application prospect for groundwater remediation: A review[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 89-.
[14]	Weihua Wang, Wanfeng Zhang, Hong Liang, Dawen Gao. Occurrence and fate of typical antibiotics in wastewater treatment plants in Harbin, North-east China[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(3): 34-.
[15]	Hang Zhang, Shuo Chen, Haiguang Zhang, Xinfei Fan, Cong Gao, Hongtao Yu, Xie Quan. Carbon nanotubes-incorporated MIL-88B-Fe as highly efficient Fenton-like catalyst for degradation of organic pollutants[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(2): 18-.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed