A Study on the Characteristics of Condensable Fine Particles in Flue Gas

Abstract

The study evaluated methods to measure condensable fine particles in flue gases and measured particulate matter by fuel and material to get precise concentrations and quantities. As a result of the method evaluation, it is required to improve test methods for measuring Condensable Particulate Matter (CPM) emitted after the conventional Filterable Particulate Matter (FPM) measurement process. Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) based on the evaluated analysis process showed that RSD percentages of FPM and CPM were around 27.0~139.5%. As errors in the process of CPM measurement and analysis can be caused while separating and dehydrating organic and inorganic materials from condensed liquid samples, transporting samples, and titrating ammonium hydroxide in the sample, it is required to comply with the exact test procedures. As for characteristics of FPM and CPM concentrations, CPM had about 1.6~63 times higher concentrations than FPM, and CPM caused huge increase in PM mass concentrations. Also, emission concentrations and quantities varied according to the characteristics of each fuel, the size of emitting facilities, operational conditions of emitters, etc. PM in the flue gases mostly consisted of CPM (61~ 99%), and the result of organic/inorganic component analysis revealed that organic dusts accounted for 30~88%. High-efficiency prevention facilities also had high concentrations of CPM due to large amounts of NO x , and the more fuels, the more inorganic dusts. As a result of comparison between emission coefficients by fuel and the EPA AP-42, FPM had lower result values compared to that in the US materials, and CPM had higher values than FPM. For the emission coefficients of the total PM (FPM + CPM) by industry, that of thermal power stations (bituminous coal) was 71.64 g/ton, and cement manufacturing facility (blended fuels) 18.90 g/ton. In order to estimate emission quantities and coefficients proper to the circumstances of air pollutant-emitting facilities in Korea, measurement

Non-Negligible Stack Emissions of Noncriteria Air Pollutants from Coal-Fired Power Plants in China: Condensable Particulate Matter and Sulfur Trioxide

“…By comparison, the EFs of CPM in US EPA AP-42 for various boilers or stokers under different control measures are much higher than the measurement results obtained in this study. The EF of CPM reported by Gong et al in Korea is 71.76 g/(t of coal), which is similar to the result of plant #4, and a little lower than other three tested CFPPs in this study. The EF of SO 3 reported by Zhao and Han is slightly lower than those tested in this study.…”

Analysis of National PM2.5 (FPM and CPM) Emissions by Past, Current, and Future Energy Mix Scenarios in the Republic of Korea

“…However, because the data reported after 2010 include improved techniques for removing FPM 2.5 , the absolute value of the FPM 2.5 emission factor at the end of the prevention facility was lower than it was before the 2010s. However, the reduction rate of condensable dust did not improve until now, so the CPM 2.5 /FPM 2.5 after the 2010s were relatively high [12]. Therefore, in order to efficiently reduce the amount of CPM 2.5 , which is very high compared to the FPM 2.5 depending on the fuel (especially, LNG), it is necessary to further investigate the cause of CPM 2.5 and the particle size distribution.…”

“…Table 3 shows the CPM 2.5 emission factors of stationary emission sources in Korea published by the NIER. Natural gas (LNG), diesel, and bunker C oil were measured at the boiler without control facilities, and the bituminous coal emission factor was measured at the end of the power plant control facility [12]. CPM 2.5 emissions from the combustion of diesel oil, bunker C oil, and bituminous coal are calculated by multiplying the PM 2.5 filterable dust (FPM) emission factor in Table 3 by the ratio of the FPM 2.5 emission factor to the CPM 2.5 emission factor; that is, the amount of CPM 2.5 was calculated by multiplying the CPM 2.5 to FPM 2.5 ratio of 18.46 for diesel, 1.58 for bunker C, and 9.94 for bituminous coal.…”

“…However, the test measurement method for CPM has not been designated, as it is difficult to determine systematically and comprehensively the characteristics of PM emissions. For this reason, it is necessary to establish a Korean standard test method for CPM in a stationary source [12]. The ES 01307.1 test method requires a sampling nozzle, pipe, pitot tube, filter holder, heating device, impinger train, and flow measurement components.…”

Considering Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions Improves the Accuracy of Air Quality Modeling for Environmental Impact Assessment

“…In addition, total suspended particles (TSPs) and PM 2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 µm) were selected as the target air pollutants. Moreover, CPM emission factors for stationary sources were used, as published by the National Institute of Environmental Research [33] (Table 1). Liquified natural gas (LNG), diesel, and B-C oil were measured in a boiler without a control device.…”