Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering

Ed. by de Lasa, Hugo / Xu, Charles Chunbao

12 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.881
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.908

CiteScore 2017: 0.86

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.306
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.503

Online
ISSN
1542-6580
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

Volume 9 (2011)

Volume 8 (2010)

Volume 7 (2009)

Volume 6 (2008)

Volume 5 (2007)

Volume 4 (2006)

Volume 3 (2005)

Volume 2 (2004)

Volume 1 (2002)

Gas-Phase Mercury Removal by Modified Activated Carbons Treated with Ar-O2 Non-Thermal Plasma under Different O2 Concentrations

Long Wu
  • Tianjin International Joint Research and Development Center of Low-Carbon Green Process Equipment; College of Mechanical Engineering, Tianjin University of Science & Technology, Tianjin 300222, China
  • Tianjin Key Laboratory of Integrated Design and On-line Monitoring for Light Industry & Food Machinery and Equipment, Tianjin University of Science & Technology, Tianjin 300222, China
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Zhongsheng Shang
  • Tianjin International Joint Research and Development Center of Low-Carbon Green Process Equipment; College of Mechanical Engineering, Tianjin University of Science & Technology, Tianjin 300222, China
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Hailu Zhu
  • State Key Laboratory of Coal Combustion, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Zhanyong Li
  • Tianjin International Joint Research and Development Center of Low-Carbon Green Process Equipment; College of Mechanical Engineering, Tianjin University of Science & Technology, Tianjin 300222, China
  • Tianjin Key Laboratory of Integrated Design and On-line Monitoring for Light Industry & Food Machinery and Equipment, Tianjin University of Science & Technology, Tianjin 300222, China
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Guangqian Luo
  • Corresponding author
  • State Key Laboratory of Coal Combustion, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Hong Yao
  • State Key Laboratory of Coal Combustion, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-11-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijcre-2018-0093

Abstract

During the plasma modification process on activated carbon surface, reactive gas of O2 in the plasma field dominates the formation of oxygen-containing groups on activated carbon surface, which is a key factor that affects the mercury adsorption. Previous studies showed that change the O2 concentration would influence the generation of oxygen-containing groups and thus affect the mercury adsorption. It is important to investigate the effects of O2 concentration in the non-thermal plasma field on the mercury adsorption characteristic of modified activated carbon. This work presents the results of the novel use of non-thermal plasma in Ar-O2 gas to increase surface oxygen functionality on the surface of a commercially available biomass carbon. The volume fraction of O2 in the Ar-O2 mixture was varied from 10 % to 100 %. The surface physical and chemistry properties of modified activated carbon were analyzed by using BET, FT-IR and XPS techniques. Results showed that activated carbon modified by Ar-O2 non-thermal plasma showed significantly better mercury removal performance compared with the original activated carbon. Moreover, increase O2 concentration in the plasma field can further increase the mercury removal efficiency of modified activated carbon. Higher O2 concentration can produce more O radicals during plasma system and facilitated the formation of carbonyl and ester groups on activated carbon surface and thus enhanced the mercury removal. Temperature programmed desorption (TPD) results indicated that mercury reacted with ester groups were prior to carbonyl groups. When O2 concentration increased to 100 %, the ester groups of modified activated carbon dominated the mercury adsorption process.

Keywords: Mercury removal; Ar-O2 plasma; different O2 concentrations; activated carbon; functional groups

References

  • Ancora, M. P., L. Zhang, S. Wang, J. J. Schreifels, and J. Hao. 2016. “Meeting Minamata: Cost-Effective Compliance Options for Atmospheric Mercury Control in Chinese Coal-Fired Power Plants.” Energy Policy 88: 485–94.Google Scholar

  • Du, C. M., H. Liu, M. D. Xiao, D. Gao, D. W. Huang, Z. Y. Li, T. F. Chen, et al. 2012. “Adsorption of Iron and Lead Ions from an Aqueous Solution by Plasma-Modified Activated Carbon.” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 51: 15618–25.Google Scholar

  • Eliasson, B., and U. Kogelschatz. 1991. “Modeling and Applications of Silent Discharge Plasma.” IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 19: 309.Google Scholar

  • Hu, P., Y. Duan, W. Ding, J. Zhang, L. Bai, N. Li, and H. Wei. 2017. “Enhancement of Mercury Removal Efficiency by Activated Carbon Treated with Non-Thermal Plasma in Different Atmospheres.” Energy & Fuels 31: 13852–58.Google Scholar

  • Jew, A. D., E. C. Rupp, D. L. Geatches, J. E. Jung, G. Farfan, L. Bahet, J. C. Hower, G. E. B. Jr, and J. Wilcox. 2015. “Mercury Interaction with the Fine Fraction of Coal-Combustion Fly Ash in a Simulated Coal Power Plant Flue Gas Stream.” Energy & Fuels 29: 564–71.Google Scholar

  • Krishnan, S. V., B. K. Gullett, and W. Jozewicz. 1994. “Sorption of Elemental Mercury by Activated Carbons.” Environmental Science & Technology 28: 1506–12.Google Scholar

  • Manchester, S., X. Wang, I. Kulaots, Y. Gao, and R. H. Hurt. 2008. “High Capacity Mercury Adsorption on Freshly Ozone-Treated Carbon Surfaces.” Carbon 46: 518.Google Scholar

  • Mullett, M., P. Pendleton, and A. Badalyan. 2012. “Removal of Elemental Mercury from Bayer Stack Gases Using Sulfur-Impregnated Activated Carbons.” Chemical Engineering Journal 211-212: 133–42.Google Scholar

  • Niu, Q., J. Luo, Y. Xia, S. Sun, and Q. Chen. 2017. “Surface Modification of Bio-Char by Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma for Hg 0 Removal.” Fuel Processing Technology 156: 310–16.Google Scholar

  • Pérez-Mendoza, M., M. Domingo-GarcíA, and F. J. López-Garzón. 1999. “Modifications Produced by O2 and CO2 Plasma Treatments on a Glassy Carbon: Comparison with Molecular Gases.” Carbon 37: 1463–74.Google Scholar

  • Placinta, G., F. Arefi‐Khonsari, M. Gheorghiu, J. Amouroux, and G. Popa. 2010. “Surface Properties and the Stability of Poly(Ethylene Terephtalate) Films Treated in Plasmas of Helium‐Oxygen Mixtures.” Journal of Applied Polymer Science 66: 1367–75.Google Scholar

  • Puziy, A. M., O. I. Poddubnaya, A. MartíNez-Alonso, F. Suárez-GarcíA, and J. M. D. Tascón. 2003. “Synthetic Carbons Activated with Phosphoric Acid III. Carbons Prepared in Air.” Carbon 41: 1181–91.Google Scholar

  • Puziy, A. M., O. I. Poddubnaya, R. P. Socha, J. Gurgul, and M. Wisniewski. 2008. “XPS and NMR Studies of Phosphoric Acid Activated Carbons.” Carbon 46: 2113–23.Google Scholar

  • Senior, C., C. J. Bustard, M. Durham, K. Baldrey, and D. Michaud. 2004. “Characterization of Fly Ash from Full-Scale Demonstration of Sorbent Injection for Mercury Control on Coal-Fired Power Plants.” Fuel Processing Technology 85: 601–12.Google Scholar

  • Shu, T., P. Lu, and N. He. 2013. “Mercury Adsorption of Modified Mulberry Twig Chars in a Simulated Flue Gas.” Bioresource Technology 136: 182–87.Google Scholar

  • Sjostrom, S., M. Durham, C. J. Bustard, and C. Martin. 2010. “Activated Carbon Injection for Mercury Control: Overview.” Fuel 89: 1320–22.Google Scholar

  • Srivastava, R. K., N. Hutson, B. Martin, F. Princiotta, and J. Staudt. 2006. “Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers.” Environmental Science & Technology 40: 1385–93.Google Scholar

  • Streets, D. G., J. Hao, Y. Wu, J. Jiang, M. Chan, H. Tian, and X. Feng. 2005. “Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in China.” Atmospheric Environment 39: 7789–806.Google Scholar

  • Tan, Z., G. Niu, and X. Chen. 2015. “Removal of Elemental Mercury by Modified Bamboo Carbon.” Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 23: 1875–80.Google Scholar

  • Tan, Z., L. Sun, J. Xiang, H. Zeng, Z. Liu, S. Hu, and J. Qiu. 2012. “Gas-Phase Elemental Mercury Removal by Novel Carbon-Based Sorbents.” Carbon 50: 362–71.Google Scholar

  • Tang, S., N. Lu, J. K. Wang, S. K. Ryu, and H. S. Choi. 2007. “Novel Effects of Surface Modification on Activated Carbon Fibers Using a Low Pressure Plasma Treatment.” Journal of Physical Chemistry C 111: 1820–29.Google Scholar

  • Terzyk, A. P. 2001. “The Influence of Activated Carbon Surface Chemical Composition on the Adsorption of Acetaminophen (Paracetamol) in Vitro: Part II. TG, FTIR, and XPS Analysis of Carbons and the Temperature Dependence of Adsorption Kinetics at the Neutral pH.” Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 177: 23–45.Google Scholar

  • Vidic, 1996 . “Control of mercury emissions in flue gases by activated carbon adsorption.” Preprints of Papers, American Chemical Society, Division of Fuel Chemistry 41 (1): 437– 41.Google Scholar

  • Wang, D. H., R. Xiao, H. Y. Zhang, and G. Y. He. 2010. “Comparison of Catalytic Pyrolysis of Biomass with MCM-41 and CaO Catalysts by Using TGA-FTIR Analysis.” Journal of Analytical & Applied Pyrolysis 89: 171–77.Google Scholar

  • Winters, H. F., and J. W. Coburn. 1992. “Surface Science Aspects of Etching Reactions.” Surface Science Reports 14: 162–269.Google Scholar

  • Wu, L., W. Wan, Z. Shang, X. Gao, N. Kobayashi, G. Luo, and Z. Li. 2018. “Surface Modification of Phosphoric Acid Activated Carbon by Using Non-Thermal Plasma for Enhancement of Cu(II) Adsorption from Aqueous Solutions.” Separation & Purification Technology 197: 156–69.Google Scholar

  • Xu, Y., X. Zeng, B. Zhang, X. Zhu, M. Zhou, R. Zou, P. Sun, G. Luo, and H. Yao. 2016. “Experiment and Kinetic Study of Elemental Mercury Adsorption over a Novel Chlorinated Sorbent Derived from Coal and Waste Polyvinyl Chloride.” Energy & Fuels 30 (12): 10635–42.Google Scholar

  • Xu, Y., Q. Zhong, and X. Liu. 2015. “Elemental Mercury Oxidation and Adsorption on Magnesite Powder Modified by Mn at Low Temperature.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 283: 252–59.Google Scholar

  • Zhang, B., P. Xu, Y. Qiu, Q. Yu, J. J. Ma, H. Wu, G. Q. Luo, M. H. Xu, and H. Yao. 2015. “Increasing Oxygen Functional Groups of Activated Carbon with Non-Thermal Plasma to Enhance Mercury Removal Efficiency for Flue Gases.” Chemical Engineering Journal 263: 1–8.Google Scholar

  • Zhang, B., X. B. Zeng, P. Xu, J. Chen, Y. Xu, G. Q. Luo, M. H. Xu, and H. Yao. 2016a. “Using the Novel Method of Nonthermal Plasma to Add CI Active Sites on Activated Carbon for Removal of Mercury from Flue Gas.” Environmental Science & Technology 50: 11837–43.Google Scholar

  • Zhang, J., Y. F. Duan, Q. Zhou, C. Zhu, M. She, and W. K. Ding. 2016b. “Adsorptive Removal of Gas-Phase Mercury by Oxygen Non-Thermal Plasma Modified Activated Carbon.” Chemical Engineering Journal 294: 281–89.Google Scholar

  • Zhao, Y., M. Qi, and R. Hao. 2017. “Elemental Mercury Removal from Flue Gas by Diperiodatoargentate(III) Solution.” International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering 15 (6): 1–11.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-04-08

Accepted: 2018-11-13

Revised: 2018-09-23

Published Online: 2018-11-30


Citation Information: International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering, 20180093, ISSN (Online) 1542-6580, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijcre-2018-0093.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in