2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126636
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

SO2 resistance of CeO2- and Co3O4-supported activated carbon during removal of mercury from flue gas: A comparative study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 43 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are various forms of mercury in non-ferrous smelting flue gas, including elemental mercury (Hg 0 ), oxidized mercury (Hg 2+ ), and particulate mercury (Hg p ) [4][5][6]. In the existing flue gas purification system, Hg p would be captured by the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) [7][8][9]. Hg 2+ has strong water solubility and can be removed by wet scrubber, whereas the capture of Hg 0 is difficult due to its strong stability, high volatility, and low solubility [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are various forms of mercury in non-ferrous smelting flue gas, including elemental mercury (Hg 0 ), oxidized mercury (Hg 2+ ), and particulate mercury (Hg p ) [4][5][6]. In the existing flue gas purification system, Hg p would be captured by the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) [7][8][9]. Hg 2+ has strong water solubility and can be removed by wet scrubber, whereas the capture of Hg 0 is difficult due to its strong stability, high volatility, and low solubility [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%