Mercury removal by bio-char based modified activated carbons

De, Mahuya; Azargohar, Ramin; Dalai, Ajay K.; Shewchuk, S. R.

doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2012.08.011

Cited by 172 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Especially, porous materials (including activated carbons, zeolites, and alumina powders) are useful materials for gas adsorption and storage [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. Adsorption, especially using activated carbon (AC) as adsorbent, is currently the most widely used technology for hazardous gas removal from the incineration flue gases [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]. As for the sorbent injection technique, activated carbons are injected into the flue gas right before it enters the electrostatic precipitators or bag house filters.…”

Section: +mentioning

confidence: 99%

Overlook of carbonaceous adsorbents and processing methods for elemental mercury removal

Bae¹,

Kim²,

Park³

2014

Carbon letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People have been concerned about mercury emissions for decades because of the extreme toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation of methyl Hg transformed from emitted Hg. This paper presents an overview of research related to mercury control technology and identifies areas requiring additional research and development. It critically reviews measured mercury emissions progress in the development of promising control technologies. This review provides useful information to scientists and engineers in this field.

show abstract

Section: +mentioning

confidence: 99%

Overlook of carbonaceous adsorbents and processing methods for elemental mercury removal

Bae¹,

Kim²,

Park³

2014

Carbon letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Typically, activated carbon injection is used to capture oxidized mercury [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. A major limitation with using activated carbon is that in flue gases with low halogen concentrations a large amount of activated carbon needs to be added to the system to effectively control Hg0.…”

Section: Mercury Control Technology and The Remaining Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Mercury Emissions in USA and China-The Way of Effective Control of Hg from the Power Plant

Wang¹,

Xu²

2014

Int J Waste Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coal-fired power plants are the largest sources of mercury in China as well as United States, accounting for nearly 50% of industrial mercury releases. USA consumed much more coal than China before 1987, while no Hg control measures had been taken during this period. There has been lots of background Hg emitted into air system, including those from mining, oil & gas extraction, coal combustion, volcanoes and geothermal et.al. However the coal combustion has been considered as the dominant sources. Since 2005, quite a few coal power plants started adopting mercury control measures based on the powder Active Carbon Injection (ACI) technology in USA, metallic Hg emission to air environment has been thus significantly reduced, but leading to Hg content in fly ash is up to 10 ppm, potentially a Hg pollution source if not disposed properly. Although short terms studies have showed little leachate of Hg occurred from the fly dust, there is a potential that the landfilled or dumped dust may be a possible source for the Hg leachate to contaminate underground water in long term, as Hg is mainly trapped as Hg 2+ or other forms, which are either soluble or minor soluble in water and could go to water environment. Based on this analysis, a more safe and reliable Hg removal technology has been developed and tested. Comparison of Mercury Emissions in USA and

show abstract

“…In developed and developing countries Many biomass feedstock have been used to produced biochar such as grain husks, nut shells, manure, crop residues and wood, whilst those with the highest carbon contents (for example nut shell, wood), abundance and cost-effectiveness are currently used for activated carbon production [27]. Biochar produced from agricultural waste does not cause any notable life cycle based greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [28]. However, little is done about the usages of readily available, eco-friendly and costeffective biomass feedstocks that have the potency for effective removal of trace metals from aqueous environment (such as landfill wastewater and polluted water bodies in mining areas).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Eco-Friendly Biochar Used in the Removal of Trace Metals on Aqueous Phases

Duwiejuah¹,

Cobbina²,

Bakobie³

2017

IJEBB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eco-friendly biochar produced from cost-effective and readily available agricultural waste will likely pose no threat on the aqueous phases, other environmental media, human health and emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Optimising biochar for an intended application could require careful selection of a biomass feedstock as well as production pyrolysis technique and conditions for the production of biochars with specific characteristics. Previous studies have explores the relationships that exist between biochar production conditions, characteristics, and possible end-uses of biochar. This review provides an overview of the production and utilisation of biochar as absorbents for adsorption of trace metals in contaminated aqueous environment. Biochar has great affinity to adsorb molecular ions that is making it possible to be used for various toxicological remediation strategies. It has proven effective and useful for mitigating aqueous metals, organic compounds, suspended solids, and organic hydrocarbons in a various kind of industrial applications such as urban and residential storm water runoff, landfill leachates, industrial runoff, resource extraction runoff, and industrial wastewater filtration. Specifically designed biochar could be very effective in the removal of trace metals from contaminated aqueous environment. The multiple factors that determine the adsorption of the trace metals in aqueous environment or phases needs to be carefully examined. Cost-effectiveness of biomass feedstock and eco-friendliness of techniques need to also be given much consideration by way of making comparison with existing contaminant mitigation technologies. Keywords: aqueous phases, biochar, cost-effective, biomass feedstock, removal, trace metalsCite This Article: A. B. Duwiejuah, S.

show abstract

Mercury removal by bio-char based modified activated carbons

Cited by 172 publications

References 31 publications

Overlook of carbonaceous adsorbents and processing methods for elemental mercury removal

Overlook of carbonaceous adsorbents and processing methods for elemental mercury removal

Comparison of Mercury Emissions in USA and China-The Way of Effective Control of Hg from the Power Plant

Review of Eco-Friendly Biochar Used in the Removal of Trace Metals on Aqueous Phases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About