Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T05:32:43.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigation of the sorption of mercury vapour from exhaust gas by an Ag-X zeolite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Magdalena Wdowin ,
Mariusz Macherzyński ,
Rafał Panek ,
Jerzy Górecki  and
Wojciech Franus
Magdalena Wdowin*
Affiliation:
The Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Wybickiego 7, 31-261 Kraków, Poland
Mariusz Macherzyński
Affiliation:
AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Energy and Fuels, Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland
Rafał Panek
Affiliation:
Lublin University of Technology, Nadbystrzycka 40, 20-618 Lublin, Poland
Jerzy Górecki
Affiliation:
AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Energy and Fuels, Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland
Wojciech Franus
Affiliation:
Lublin University of Technology, Nadbystrzycka 40, 20-618 Lublin, Poland
*
*E-mail: wdowin@meeri.pl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The removal of gaseous mercury from flue gases from coal-fired power plants is currently an environmental challenge under investigation. Therefore, the main aim of this paper was to evaluate the suitability of faujasite group zeolites (Na-X) to adsorb mercury compounds. Previous, initial tests showed negligible Hg0 uptake by Na-X zeolite, but silver impregnation improved adsorption markedly. Therefore, the testing of mercury adsorption from flue gases into Ag+- impregnated Na-X synthetic zeolite (Ag-X zeolite) derived from coal fly ash was carried out. This material was characterized by X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy, X-ray fluorescence and nitrogen adsorption/desorption before being evaluated for mercury removal from exhaust gas. After preliminary mercury adsorption tests (fixed bed) under a nitrogen atmosphere, the adsorbent was examined with a simulated flue gas composition under various conditions, i.e. weight of zeolite, temperature of experiment and zeolite in powder and granulated forms. The removal of mercury was shown to depend on the sorbent texture (powder or granulate), exhaust gas flow rate and contact time, as well as the temperature of the experiment. The Ag-X zeolite tested reduced the level of mercury in the flue gas and, depending on the experimental conditions, long-time mercury breakthrough ranges from 15 to 40% were obtained. The best results for mercury capture were obtained for granulated material.

Keywords

mercury uptakeflue gasNa-X zeolitefly ashAg impregnation

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Clay Minerals , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 31 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrams, L. & Corbin, D.R. (1995) Probing intrazeolite space. Pp. 1–46 in: Inclusion Chemistry with Zeolites; Nanoscale Materials by Design (N. Herron & D.R. Corbin, editors). Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Adamczyk, Z. & Białecka, B. (2005) Hydrothermal synthesis of zeolites from Polish coal fly ash. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 14(6), 713–719.Google Scholar
Barrer, R.M. & Whiteman, J.I. (1967) Mercury uptake in various cationic forms of several zeolites. Journal of the Chemical Society (A): Inorganic, Physical, Theoretical, 20, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, E.P., Joyner, L.G. & Halenda, P.P. (1951) The determination of pore volume and area distributions in porous substances. I. Computations from nitrogen isotherms. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 73, 373–380.Google Scholar
Chałupnik, S., Franus, W., Wysocka, M. & Gzyl, G. (2013) Application of zeolites for radium removal from mine water. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 20, 7900–7906.Google Scholar
Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption. OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.Google Scholar
de Boer, J.H. (1958) The shape of capillaries. Pp. 68–94 in: The Structure and Properties of Porous Materials (D.H. Everett & F.S. Stone, editors). Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Fan, X., Li, C., Zeng, G., Zhang, X., Tao, S., Lu, P., Li, S. & Zhao, Y. (2012) The effects of Cu/HZSM-5 on combined removal of Hg0 and NO from flue gas. Fuel Processing Technology, 104, 325–331.Google Scholar
Feeley, T.J., Murphy, J.T., Hoffmann, J.W., Granite, E.J. & Renninger, S.A. (2003) DOE/NETL’s Mercury Control Technology Research Program for Coal-Fired Power Plants, EM.Google Scholar
Franus, W. & Wdowin, M. (2010) Removal of ammonium ions by selected natural and synthetic zeolites Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi – Mineral Resources Management, 26(4), 133–148.Google Scholar
Franus, W. (2012) Characterization of X-type zeolite prepared from coal fly ash. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 21, 337–343.Google Scholar
Franus, W., Wdowin, M. & Franus, M. (2014) Synthesis of zeolites for fly ash development. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186, 5721–5729.Google Scholar
Gerasimov, G.Y. (2005) Investigation of the Behavior of Mercury Compounds in Coal Combustion Products. Journal of Engineering Physics and Thermophysics, 78(7), 668–676.Google Scholar
Grzywacz, P., Dziok, T. & Porada, S. (2014) Behavior of mercury in the processes of energo-chemical coal processing. Pp. 79–91 in: Mercury as a Coal Combustion Pollutant – a monograph (J. Gołaś & A. Strugała, editors). Oficyna Drukarska – Jacek Chmielewski, Warsaw.Google Scholar
Hall, B., Schager, P. & Linqvist, O. (1991) Chemical reactions of mercury in combustion flue gases. Water, Air, Soil Pollution, 56, 3–14.Google Scholar
Hollman, G.G., Steenbruggen, G. & Janssen-Jurkovicova, M. (1999) A two-step process for the synthesis of zeolites from coal fly ash. Fuel, 78, 1225–1230.Google Scholar
http://www.mercuryconvention.org/Portals/11/documents/conventionText/Minamata%20Convention%20on%20Mercury_e.pdf, Minamanta Convention, 2013.Google Scholar
Inada, M., Eguchi, Y., Enomoto, N. & Hojo, J. (2005) Synthesis of zeolite from coal ashes with different silica–alumina composition, Fuel, 84, 299–304.Google Scholar
Jurng, J., Lee, T.G., Lee, G.W., Lee, S.-J., Kim, B.H. & Seier, J. (2002) Mercury removal form incineration flue gas by organic and inorganic adsorbents. Chemosphere, 47, 907–913.Google Scholar
Koukouzas, N., Vasilatos, Ch., Itskos, G., Mitsis, I. & Moutsatsou, A. (2010) Removal of heavy metals from wastewater using CFB-coal fly ash zeolitic materials. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 13, 581–588.Google Scholar
Liu, H., Peng, S., Shu, L., Chen, T., Bao, T. & Frost, R.L. (2012) Effect of Fe3O4 addition on removal of ammonium by zeolite NaA. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 390, 204–210.Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Bisson, T.M., Yang, H. & Xu, Z. (2010) Recent developments in novel sorbents for flue gas clean up. Fuel Process Technolology, 91, 1175–97.Google Scholar
Macherzyński, M., Górecki, J. & Styszko, K. (2014) Chemical analysis of mercury and its compounds. Pp. 43–62 in: Mercury as a Coal Combustion Pollutant – a monograph (J. Gołaś & A. Strugała, editors). Oficyna Drukarska – Jacek Chmielewski, Warsaw.Google Scholar
Macherzyński, M., Górecki, J., Styszko, K., Dziok, T. & Grzywacz, P. (2011) Analytical and environmental aspects of mercury emitted in the energy sector. Documenta Geonica, 1, Ostrava 2011, 147–154.Google Scholar
Maroto-Valer, M.M., Zhang, Y., Granite, E.J., Tang, Z. & Pennline, H.W. (2005) Effect of porous structure and surface functionality on the mercury capacity of a fly ash carbon and its activated sample. Fuel, 84, 105–108.Google Scholar
Merrikhpour, H. & Jalali, M. (2013) Comparative and competitive adsorption of cadmium, copper, nickel and lead ions by Iranian natural zeolite. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 15, 303–316, doi 10.1007/s10098-012-0522-1.Google Scholar
Mohamed, M.M., Zidan, F.I. & Thabet, M. (2008) Synthesis of ZSM-5 zeolite from rice husk ash: Characterization and implications for photocatalytic degradation catalysts. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 108, 193–203.Google Scholar
Morency, J.R., Panagiotou, T. & Senior, C.L. (2000) Laboratory duct injection of a zeolite-based mercury sorbent, Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste Management Association, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, June 2000.Google Scholar
Moutsatsou, A., Stamatakis, E., Hatzitzotzia, K. & Protontarios, V. (2006) The utilization of Ca-rich and Ca-Si-rich fly ashes in zeolites production. Fuel, 85, 657–663.Google Scholar
Musyoka, N.M., Petrik, L.F., Balfour, G., Gitari, W.M. & Hums, E. (2011) Synthesis of hydroxysodalite from coal fly ash using waste industrial brine solution. Journal of Environmental Sciences and Health A: Toxic Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, 46, 1699–1707, doi: 10.1080/10934529.2011.623961.Google Scholar
Ojha, K., Pradhan, N.C. & Samanta, A.N. (2004) Zeolite from fly ash: synthesis and characterization. Bulletin of Materials Science 27, 555–564.Google Scholar
Pacyna, E.G., Pacyna, J.M., Steenhuisen, F. & Wilson, S.J. (2006) Global anthropogenic mercury emission inventory for 2000. Atmospheric Environment, 40, 4048–4063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirrone, N., Cinnirella, S., Feng, X., Finkelman, R.B., Friedli, H.R., Leaner, J., Mason, R., Mukherjee, A.B., Stracher, G.B., Streets, D.G. & Telmer, K. (2010) Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10, 5951–5964.Google Scholar
Querol, X., Plana, F., Alastuey, A. & Lopez-Soler, A. (1997) Synthesis of Na-zeolites from fly ash. Fuel, 76, 793–799.Google Scholar
Querol, X., Moreno, N., Alastuey, A., Juan, R., Andrés, J.M., López-Soler, A., Ayora, C., Medinaceli, A. & Valero, A. (2007) Synthesis of high ion exchange zeolites from coal fly ash. Geologica Acta, 5, 49–57.Google Scholar
Shigemoto, M., Hayashi, H. & Miyaura, K. (1993) Selective formation of Na-X zeolite from fly ash by fusion with sodium hydroxide prior to hydrothermal reaction, Journal of Materials Science, 28, 4781–4786.Google Scholar
Szala, B., Bajda, T., Matusik, K., Zięba, K. & Kijak, B. (2015) BTX sorption on Na-P1 organo-zeolite as a process controlled by the amount of adsorbed HDTMA. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 202, 115–123.Google Scholar
Tanaka, H., Sakai, Y. & Hino, R. (2002) Formation of Na- A and -X zeolites from waste solutions in conversion of coal fly ash to zeolites. Materials Research Bulletin, 37, 1873–1884.Google Scholar
Tomaszewska, B. (2011) The use of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis in the desalination of low mineralized geothermal waters. Archives of Environmental Protection, 37, 63–77.Google Scholar
Walton, K.S., Abney, M.B. & Douglas, L.M. (2006) CO2 adsorption in Y and X zeolites modified by alkali metal cation exchange. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 91, 78–84.Google Scholar
Wang, H., Li, J., Sun, X., Wang, L. & Sun, X. (2009) Evaluation of zeolites synthesized from fly ash as potential adsorbents for wastewater containing heavy metals. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 21, 127–136.Google Scholar
Wang, H.P., Lin, K.S., Huang, Y.J., Li, M.C. & Tsaur, L.K. (1998) Synthesis of zeolite ZSM-48 from rice husk ash. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 58, 147–152.Google Scholar
Wdowin, M., Franus, W. & Panek, R. (2012) Preliminary results of usage possibilities of carbonate and zeolitic sorbents in CO2 capture. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 21, 3726–3734.Google Scholar
Wdowin, M., Franus, M., Panek, R., Badura, L. & Franus, W. (2014a) The conversion technology of fly ash into zeolites. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 16, 1217–1223, DOI10.1007/s10098-014-0719-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wdowin, M., Wiatros-Motyka, M.M., Panek, R., Stevens, L.A., Franus, W. & Sape, C.E. (2014b) Experimental study of mercury removal from exhaust gases. Fuel, 2014, 128, 451–457.Google Scholar
WHO (2011) World Health Organization (WHO), Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Fourth edition. www.who.int, 2011, ISBN 978 92 4 154815 1.Google Scholar
Yi, H., Deng, H., Tang, X., Yu, Q., Zhou, X. & Liu, H. (2012) Adsorption equilibrium and kinetics for SO2, NO, CO2 on zeolites FAU and LTA. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 203–204, 111–117, doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.11.091.Google Scholar
Zhang, L., Zhuo, Y., Chen, L., Xu, X. & Chem, Ch. (2008) Mercury emission from six coal-fired power plants in China. Fuel Processing Technology, 89, 1033–1040.Google Scholar
Zhu, J., Meng, X. & Xiao, F. (2013) Mesoporous zeolites as efficient catalysts for oil refining and natural gas conversion. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering 7, 233–248.Google Scholar