Investigation of the growth and removal of particles in coal-fired flue gas by temperature management

Preventing Aerosol Emissions in a CO2 Capture System: Combining Aerosol Formation Inhibition and Wet Electrostatic Precipitation

“…However, the particle-capturing mechanism of electrostatic precipitation is inefficient for particles in the size range of 0.1–1 μm because of the inherent low electrical mobility . Research has indicated that cooling-enhanced vapor condensation can be a feasible means of improving the removal of fine particles. − In addition, in the CO 2 capture system, some researchers applied WESP before the absorber to remove the condensation nuclei with 99% removal efficiency . However, the existence of SO 2 would generate sulfuric acid aerosol under the effect of corona discharge, which would increase the aerosol emission of the absorber.…”

Co-Benefits of Pollutant Removal, Water, and Heat Recovery from Flue Gas through Phase Transition Enhanced by Corona Discharge

“…Based on the mechanism of the particle growth, the change in the flue gas temperature would substantially affect the condensation process of water vapor, thereby affecting the growth of the particles. Since it is difficult to detect the flue gas temperatures during operation, the flue gas cooling is controlled by changing the temperature and flow of the cooling water in the heat exchanger, which is reflected in the temperature difference between the flue gas at the CHE inlet and outlet . Theoretically, the more the flue gas temperature decreases in the CHE, the higher the water vapor condensation rate, which would increase the particle size.…”

“…Since it is difficult to detect the flue gas temperatures during operation, the flue gas cooling is controlled by changing the temperature and flow of the cooling water in the heat exchanger, which is reflected in the temperature difference between the flue gas at the CHE inlet and outlet. 23 Theoretically, the more the flue gas temperature decreases in the CHE, the higher the water vapor condensation rate, which would increase the particle size. During the test, we explored the change in particle size under different flue gas temperature differences between the CHE inlet and outlet by changing the cooling water flow rate (shown in Figure 3(c)).…”

“…Thus, they improve the particle-removal efficiency by facilitating particle growth, agglomeration, and partial capture in advance . This approach was demonstrated to exhibit good pollutant removal efficiency in our previous research …”

“…22 This approach was demonstrated to exhibit good pollutant removal efficiency in our previous research. 23 However, during operation using the above-mentioned method, corrosion and ash deposition occur because of the high concentration of pollutants, which decrease the heat transfer coefficient and increase the maintenance costs. 24 Moreover, the presence of slurry droplets and sulfuric acid aerosol could deteriorate the water quality, resulting in the scaling or jamming of pipelines.…”