Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Control of mercury vapor emissions from combustion flue gas

  • Review Articles
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 01 March 2005

Abstract

Goal, Scope and Background

Mercury (Hg) emission from combustion flue gas is a significant environmental concern due to its toxicity and high volatility. A number of the research efforts have been carried out in the past decade exploiting mercury emission, monitoring and control from combustion flue gases. Most recently, increasing activities are focused on evaluating the behavior of mercury in coal combustion systems and developing novel Hg control technologies. This is partly due to the new regulatory requirement on mercury emissions from coalfired combustors to be enacted under the U.S. Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The aim of this review work is to better understand the state-of-the-art technologies of flue gas mercury control and identify the gaps of knowledge hence areas for further opportunities in research and development. Main Features. This paper examines mercury behaviors in combustion systems through a comprehensive review of the available literature. About 70 published papers and reports were cited and studied.

Results and Discussion

This paper summarizes the mechanisms of formation of mercury containing compounds during combustion, its speciation and reaction in flue gas, as well as subsequent mobilization in the environment. It also provides a review of the current techniques designed for real-time, continuous emission monitoring (CEM) for mercury. Most importantly, current flue gas mercury control technologies are reviewed while activated carbon adsorption, a technology that offers the greatest potential for the control of gas-phase mercury emissions, is highlighted.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Although much progress has been achieved in the last decade, techniques developed for the monitoring and control of mercury from combustion flue gases are not yet mature and gaps in knowledge exist for further advancement. More R&D efforts are required for the effective control of Hg emissions and the main focuses are identified.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Linak W, Wendt J (1994): Trace metal transformation mechanisms during coal combustion. Fuel Proc. Technol. 39, 173–198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Linak W, Wendt J (1993): Toxic metal emission from incineration: mechanisms and control. Prog. Energ. Combust. Sci. 19, 145–185

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Senior C, Helble J, Sarofim A (2000): Emission of mercury, trace elements, and fine particles from stationary combustion sources. Fuel Proc. Technol. 65, 263–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Siebert P, Alston-Guiden D (1991): Air toxics emissions from municipal, hazardous and medical waste Incinerators and the effects of control equipment. Air & Waste Management Association, 91-103.15, for presentation at the 84th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Vancouver, British Columbia, June 16-21

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hall B, Schager P, Lindqvist O (1991): Chemical reactions of mercury in combustion flue gases. Water, Air, Soil Poll. 56, 3–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gibb W, Clarke E, Mehta A (2000): The fate of coal mercury during combustion. Fuel Proc. Technol. 65, 365–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Galbreath KC, Zygarlicke CJ (1996): Mercury speciation in coal combustion and gasification flue gases. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30 (8) 2421–2426

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Laudal D, Nott B, Brown T, Roberson R (1997): Mercury speciation methods for utility flue gas. Fresenius J. Anal. Chem. 358(3) 397–400

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Vidic R, Chang M, Thurnau R (1998): Kinetics of vapor-phase mercury uptake by virgin and sulfur-impregnated activated carbons. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 48, 247–255

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Vidic R, McLaugghlin J (1996): Uptake of elemental mercury vapors by activated carbons. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 46(3) 241–250

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kilgroe J (1996): Control of dioxin, furan, and mercury emission from municipal waste combustors. J. Hazard. Mater. 47, 163–194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stein E, Cohen Y, Winer A (1996): Environmental distribution and transformation of mercury compounds. Critical Reviews in Environ. Sci. and Technol. 26 (1) 1–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fthenais V, Lipfert F, Moskowitz P, Saroff L (1995): Assessment of mercury emissions and health risks from a coal-fired power plant. J. of Hazard. Mater. 44 (2-3) 267–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lipfert F, Saroff L (1996): Methylmercury risk assessment issues. Proceedings of the Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 96CB35978. Vol.3, 2159–2164

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Richardson C, Kavanaugh R, Craft C, Barkay T, Vaithivanathan P (1996): Relationship of eutrophication to the distribution of mercury and to the potential for methylmercury production in the peat soil of the Everglades. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30 (8) 2591–2597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brown T, Smith D, Hargis R, O’Dowd W (1999): Critical review overview - Mercury measurement and its control: what we know, have learned, and need to further investigate. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 49, 628–640

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Li Z, Hwang J (1997): Mercury distribution in fly ash components. Air & Waste Management Association, WP72B.05, for presentation at the 90th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 8-13

    Google Scholar 

  18. Yan R, Gauthier D, Flamant G (2000): Possible interaction between As, Se, and Hg during coal combustion. Combust. Flame 120, 49–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Yan R, Gauthier D, Flamant G (2001): Partitioning of Trace Elements in the Flue Gas from Coal Combustion. Combust. Flame 125, 942–954

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Widmer N, Cole J, Seeker W, Gaspar J (1998): Practical limitation of mercury speciation in simulated municipal waste incinerator flue gas. Combust. Sci. Technol. 134 (1-6) 315–326

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Senior C, Sarofim A, Zeng T, Helble J, Mamani-Paco R (2000): Gas-phase transformations of mercury in coal-fired power plants. Fuel Proc. Technol. 63 (2-3) 197–213

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Edwards J, Srivastava R, Kilgroe J (2001): A study of gas-phase mercury speciation using detailed chemical kinetics. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 51(6) 869–877

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Helble J, Mamani-Paco R (2000): Bench scale examination of mercury oxidation under non-isothermal, post-combustion conditions. Air and Waste Management Association, for presentation at the 93rd Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 18-22

  24. Silger R, Kramlich J, Marinov N (2000): Development of an elementary homogeneous mercury oxidation mechanism. Air and Waste Management Association, for presentation at the 93rd Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 18-22

  25. Carey T, Hargrove C, Richardson C, Chang R (1998): Factors affecting mercury control in utility flue gas using activated carbon. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 48 (12) 1166–1174

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Carpi A (1997): Mercury from combustion sources: A review of the chemical species emitted and their transport in the atmosphere. Water, Air, Soil Poll. 98 (3-4) 241–254

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Senior C (2001): Behavior of mercury in air pollution control devices on coal-fired utility boilers, presented for Power Production in the 21st Century: Impact of Fuel Quality and Operations. Engineering Foundation Conference, Snowbird, UT, October 28-November 2

  28. Felsvang K, Glesier R, Juip G, Nielsen K (1993): Proceedings of the 1993 International Conference on Managing Hazardous Air Pollution, Washington DC, pp. VI-1–VI-7

  29. Felsvang K, Glesier R, Juip G, Nielsen K (1994): Fuel Proc. Technol. 39, 417

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Anonymous (1997): Air toxics: hazardous emissions from coal combustion. National Engineer 101 (5) 9–10

    Google Scholar 

  31. Laudal D, Nott B, Brown T, Roberson R (1997): Mercury speciation methods for utility flue gas. Fresenius Journal of Analytical Chemistry 358(3)397–400

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ondrey G (1999): Chemical Engineering 106 (4) 45

    Google Scholar 

  33. Clark C, Davies C, Idkaidek I, Takeda T (2001): Mercury monitors: is the market rising? Hg CEM Report, June 5

  34. Laudal D (2001): State-of-the-art mercury continuous emission monitors for coal-fired systems. Draft document received April 27, Energy and Environmental Research Center.

  35. Sjostrom S (2001): Sample conditioning system for real-time mercury analysis. Final Report of EPA Grant Project 68D00228, Apogee Scientific, Inc.

  36. AECDP Report, http://www.mtiresearch.com/aecdp/mercury.html

  37. Biswas P, Wu YC (1998): Control of toxic metal emissions from combustors using sorbents: a review. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 48, 113–127

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Fahlke J, Bursik A (1995): Water, Air, Soil Poll. 80, 209–215

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Laudal D, Pavlish J, Chu P (2001): Pilot-scale evaluation of impact of selective catalytic reduction for NOx on mercury speciation. Air and Waste Management Association, for presentation at the 94th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Orlando, Florida, June 24-28

  40. Liberti L, Notarnicola M, Amicarelli V, Campanaro V, Roethel F, Swanson L (1998): Mercury removal with powdered activated carbon from flue gases at the Cariano municipal solid waste incineration plant. Waste Manage. Res. 16(2) 183–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Krivanek C (1993): Proceedings of the 1993 International Municipal Waste Combustion Conference. Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, p 824

    Google Scholar 

  42. White D, Nebel K, Johnson M (1991): Proceedings of the Second Annual International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion. Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, p652

    Google Scholar 

  43. Brna T (1991): Proceedings of the Second Annual International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion. Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, pl45

    Google Scholar 

  44. Meij R (1991): The fate of mercury in coal-fired power plants and the influence of wet flue-gas desulfurization. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 56, 21–33

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Donnelly J (1991): Proceedings of the Second Annual International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion. Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, pl25

    Google Scholar 

  46. Miller S, Dunham G, Olson E, Brown T (2000): Flue gas effects on a carbon-based mercury sorbent. Fuel Proc. Technol. 65, 343–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Meserole F, Chang R, Carey T, Machac J, Richardson C (1999): Modeling mercury removal by sorbent injection. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 49 (6) 694–704

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Oates J (1998): Lime and Limestone - Chemistry and Technology, Production and Uses. Wiley-VCH press, Chapter 29 Gaseous Effluents, 333–343

  49. Gullett B, Raghunathan K (1993): The effect of sorbent injection technologies on Emissions of coal-based, metallic air toxics. Proceedings of the 1993 S02 Control Symposium, Vol.2, U.S.EPA (Research Tri angle park, NC) Session 6A, Boston, MA, Aug. 24-27

    Google Scholar 

  50. Olson E, Miller S, Sharma R, Dunham G, Benson S (2000): Catalytic effects of carbon sorbents for mercury capture. J. Hazard. Mater. 74(1-2), 61–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Krishnan S, Gullett B, Jozewicz W (1997): Mercury control in municipal waste combustors and coal-fired utilities. Environ. Prog. 16 (1), 47–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Flora J, Vidic R, Liu W, Thurnau R (1998): Modeling powdered activated carbon injection for the uptake of elemental mercury vapors. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 48 (11) 1051–1059

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Chang R (1996): Power plant mercury control options and issues. Proceedings of the International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 96CB35978, Vol.3, 2165–2168

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Chen J, Wey M, Liu Y, Chiang B (1998): Dynamic adsorption of heavy metals under various incineration temperatures. J. Environ. Eng., August, 776–779

  55. Korpiel J, Vidic R (1997): Effect of sulfur impregnation method on activated carbon uptake of gas-phase mercury. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31(8) 2319–2325

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Srivastava K, Sedman B, Kilgroe J, Smith D, Renninger S (2001): Preliminary estimates of performance and cost of mercury control technology applications on electric utility boilers. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 51, 1460–1470

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Spiric Z, Hraste M (1999): Mercury saturation profile across the sulfurimpregnated activated carbon bed, Environmental Science - mercury Contaminated sites. Edited by Ebinghaus R. et al., Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  58. Liu W, Vidic R, Brown T (1998): Optimization of sulfur impregnation protocol for fixed-bed application of activated carbon-based sorbents for gas-phase mercury removal. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32(4) 531–538

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Dunham G, Miller S, Chang R, Bergman P (1997): Mercury capture by an activated carbon in a fixed-bed bench-scale system. Air & waste Management Association, for presentation at the 90th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 12p97-WA72A.03

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ghorishi S, Sedman C (1998): Low concentration mercury sorption mechanisms and control by calcium-based sorbents: application in coal-fired processes. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 48, 1191–1198

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Hsi H, Chen S, Rostam-Abadi M, Rood M, Richardson C, Carey T, Chang R (1998): Preparation and evaluation of coal-derived activated carbons for removal of mercury vapor from simulated coal combustion flue gases. Energy Fuels 12(6) 1061–1070

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Oji L (1998): Mercury disposal via sulfur reactions. J. Environ. Eng., October, 945–952

  63. Mendioroz S, Guijarro M, Bermejo P, Munoz V (1999): Mercury retrieval from flue gas by monolithic adsorbents based on sulfurized sepiolite. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33(10) 1697–1702

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Hayashi T, Lee T, Hazelwood M, Hedrick E, Biswas P (2000): Characterization of activated carbon fiber filters for pressure drop, submicrometer particle collection, and mercury capture. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 50(6) 922–929

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Liu W, Vidic R, Brown T (2000): Optimization of high temperature sulfur impregnation on activated carbon for permanent sequestration of elemental mercury vapors. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34(3) 483–488

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Hsi H, Rood M, Rostam-Abadi M, Chen S, Chang R (2001): Effects of sulfur impregnation temperature on the properties and mercury adsorption capacities of activated carbon fibers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35 (13)2785–2791

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Vidic R, Siler D (2001): Vapour-phase elemental mercury adsorption by activated carbon impregnated with chloride and chelating agents. Carbon 39 (1)3–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Lausman R, Lavely L (1997): Controlling air toxics emissions poses challenges. Power Eng. 101(8) 23–25

    Google Scholar 

  69. Yan R, Liang D, Tsen L, Wong Y, Lee Y (2002): Mercury speciation in combustion flue gases and its capture using activated carbon adsorption. #42404, Air and Waste Management Association, for presentation at the 95th Annual Conference & Exhibition, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, June 23-27

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Innovation Center, Block 2, Unit 237, 18 Nanyang Drive, 637723, Singapore

    Rong Yan, David Tee Liang & Joo Hwa Tay

Authors
  1. Rong Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Tee Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joo Hwa Tay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rong Yan.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03039573.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yan, R., Liang, D.T. & Tay, J.H. Control of mercury vapor emissions from combustion flue gas. Environ Sci & Pollut Res 10, 399–407 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2003.04.149

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2003.04.149

Keywords

Search

Navigation