Removal of elemental mercury by KI-impregnated clay

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

References

[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

[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

[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

[8] Granite E J, Pennline H W. Photochemical removal of mercury from flue gas. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2002, 41(22): 5470−5476

[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

[10] Zhang B, Zhong Z, Ding K, Yu L. Photooxidative removal of Hg^o from simulated flue gas using UV/H₂O₂ advanced oxidation process: Influence of operational parameters. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2014, 31(1): 56−61

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[18] Shen B X, Yao Y, Ma H Q, Liu T. Ceria modified MnO_x/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

[19] Shen B, Ma H, Yao Y. Mn-CeO_x/Ti-PILCs for selective catalytic reduction of NO with NH₃ at low temperature. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 2012, 24(3): 499−506

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51176077), the Key Project of the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin (No. 12JCZDJC29300) and the Marine Science and Technology Project from the Tianjin Marine Bureau (No. KJXH2013-05).

Supporting information is available in the online version of this article at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11783-014-0765-7 and is accessible for authorized users.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2014 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg