Sunteți pe pagina 1din 36

Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

CHAPTER 9
Control of Stationary Sources
(Particulate Matter)

Lesson Goal
Demonstrate an understanding of the basic principles, equipment, and methods used to control
particulate emissions generated by stationary sources of air pollution by successfully completing the
review questions at the end of the chapter.

Lesson Objectives
1. Describe the basic principles, equipment, and methods used to control
particulate emissions generated by stationary sources of air pollution.

2. Describe six principles used to control particulate emissions from stationary sources.

3. Explain how industry determines which type of control technology is appropriate


and/or required.

4. Distinguish between methods of controlling emissions that require a control


device and those that do not in the control of pollutant emissions.

5. List the types of devices used to control particulate emissions.

6. Describe the factors that affect collection efficiency.

7. Discuss the influence of particle size and composition on collection efficiency.

8. Recognize the structure of settling chambers and cyclones and describe how
they collect particulate matter.

9. Recognize the structure of wet collectors used to control particulate matter and
describe their operation.

10. Recognize the structure of electrostatic precipitators and describe their operation.

11. Recognize the structure of fabric filtration systems (baghouses), describe their
operation, and list at least three methods of bag cleaning.

Reading Assignment: Godish, Thad, “Control of Emissions from Stationary Sources,” Air Quality, 3rd Edition,
New York: Lewis, 1997, pp. 309-340.

9-1
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

References
Air Pollution Technology Fact Sheets and Technical Bulletins, Available on the Clean Air
Technology Center (CATC) Bulletin Board of the U.S. EPA OAQPS TTN Web
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/products:html#aptecfacts).

AWMA, Air & Waste Management Association, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1992.

Andriola, T. Andriola, Fisher-Klosterman, Inc., (502) 572-4000, personal communication with


Eric Albright, October 14, 1999.

Avallone, 1996, “Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers,” Eugene Avallone
and Theodore Baumeister (Eds.), New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1996.

Billings, Charles, et al. 1970, Handbook of Fabric Filter Technology, Volume I: Fabric Filter
Systems Study, GCA Corp., Bedford, MA, December 1996.

Boubel, R.W., D.L. Fox, D.B. Turner, and A.C. Stern, Fundamentals of Air Pollution, 3rd
Edition, New York: Academic Press, 1994.

Buonicore, A.J. 1980, “Air Pollution Control,” Chem. Eng., June 30, 1980, pp. 81-101.

Carr, R. C. and W. B. Smith, “Fabric Filter Technology for Utility Coal-Fired Power Plants,
Part V: Development and Evaluation of Bag Cleaning Methods in Utility Baghouses,”
J. Air Pollution Control Assoc., 34(5):584, May, 1984.

Cheremisinoff, P.N., “Air Pollution Control and Management,” Pollution Engineering


June 1991, pp. 54-59.

Cooper, C.D. and Alley, F.C., Air Pollution Control: A Design Approach, 2nd Edition,
Waveland Press, Inc., IL, 1994.

Corbitt, Robert A. (Ed.), Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering, New York:


McGraw-Hill, 1990.

First, M.W., “Control of Systems, Processes and Operations,” A.C. Stern (Ed.),
Air Pollution, Vol. IV, Engineering Control of Air Pollution, 3rd Edition, New York:
Academic Press, 1977, pp. 4-38.

Flynn, Brian, Beltran Associates, Inc., (718) 338-3311, personal communications with Eric
Albright, February 5 and 10, 1999.

Freeman, H., T. Harten, J. Springer, P. Randall, M.A. Curran, and K. Stone, “Industrial
Pollution Prevention: A Critical Review,” JAWMA 42:618, 1992.

Godish, Thad, “Control of Emissions from Stationary Sources,” Air Quality, 3rd Edition,
New York: Lewis, 1997, pp. 309-340.

Gottschlich, C.F., “Combustion,” A.C. Stern (Ed.), Air Pollution, Vol. IV, Engineering Control
of Air Pollution, 3rd Edition, New York, NY: Academic Press, 1977, pp. 365-376.

9-2
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

Hesketh, H.E., Air Pollution Control, Traditional and Hazardous Pollutants, Lancaster, PA:
Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., 1991.

Higgins, T.E. (Ed.), Pollution Prevention Handbook, Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Lewis Publishers,
1995.

ICAC, Institute of Clean Air Companies Internet Web page, http://www.icac.com, Control
Technology Information, Fabric Filters, page last updated January 11, 1999.

Mycock, J., J. McKenna, and L. Theodore, “Handbook of Air Pollution Control Engineering
and Technology,” Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1995.

Perry, Robert, and Don Green (Eds.), “Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook,” 6th Edition,
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.

STAPPA/ALAPCO, State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials(STAPPA/ALAPCO), “Controlling
Particulate Matter Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options,” STAPPA/ALAPCO,
Washington, DC, July, 1996.

Theodore, L. and A.J. Buonicore (Eds.), Air Pollution Control Equipment: Selection,
Design, Operation, and Maintenance, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994.

Turk, A., “Adsorption,” A.C. Stern (Ed.), Air Pollution, Vol. IV, Engineering Control of Air
Pollution, New York: Academic Press, 1977, pp. 329-363.

Turner, Tom, Turner Envirologics, (800) 933-8385, personal communication with Eric
Albright, May 26, 1999.

Turner, L.H. and J.D. McKenna, “Control of Particles by Filters,” S. Calvert and H. Englund
(Eds.), Handbook of Air Pollution Technology, New York: Wiley, 1984, pp. 249-283.

U.S. EPA, APTI Course 413: Control of Particulate Emissions, Student Manual, Research
Triangle Park, NC, EPA 450/2-80-066, 1980.

U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, “Control Technologies for
Hazardous Air Pollutants,” EPA/625/6-91/014, Washington, DC, June 1991.

U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Control Techniques for
Volatile Organic Emissions from Stationary Sources,” EPA-453/R-92-018, Research
Triangle Park, NC, December 1992(a).

U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Survey of Control
Technologies for Low Concentration Organic Vapor Gas Streams,” EPA-456/R-95-003,
Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1995.

U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA, “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,” AP-42, Volume I,
Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1995.

9-3
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “OAQPS Control Cost
Manual,” Fifth Edition, EPA 453/B-96-001, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1996.

U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I, Fifth Edition, Research Triangle Park, NC, October
1997.

U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Stationary Source
Control Techniques Document for Fine Particulate Matter,” EPA-452/R-97-001, Research
Triangle Park, NC, October 1998.

Vatavuk, W.M., “Estimating Costs of Air Pollution Control,” Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers,
1990.

Wark, K. and C.F. Warner, Air Pollution: Its Origin and Control, 2nd Edition, New York:
Harper & Row Publishers, 1981.

White, H.J., “Control of Particulates by Electrostatic Precipitation,” S. Calvert and H. Englund


(Eds.), Handbook of Air Pollution Control Technology, New York: Wiley, 1984, pp. 283-
317.

XONON, www.catalytica-inc.com/cs/nox_control.html.

9-4
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

Control of Stationary
Sources, Particulate Matter

T he types of inorganic and organic air pollutants


stationary sources emit are dependent on Mostthe
specific process operations. For example, inby1993,
of the air pollution produced
stationary sources results from
stationary source fuel combustion accounted for 34.2% ofincomplete
air pollution, second only to mobile sources, which
the
or
all
industrial
combustion of fuel
processing.
contributed 56.2% (Godish, 1997). Fossil fuel
fired boilers emit ash, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides and mercury, and or vanadium if
contained in the fuel. Certain boiler firing
conditions can also produce “cenospheres,”
which are light hollow spheres that can be
coated with unburned carbon.

The carbon can adsorb sulfur trioxide (SO 3) and water to


form sulfuric acid (H2 SO4). Metallurgical plants can emit a
variety of metal dusts, including iron oxides and sometimes
fluorides and chlorides. Industrial plants manufacturing
inorganic chemicals will emit various waste gases depending
on their product. Odorous organic waste gases can also be
emitted from organochemical and petrochemical plants.
Industrial pollutant sources such as these and others can be
categorized into several groups based on their specific
process operation:

• Process Operations. Process operations with


incomplete chemical reactions, which include
combustion due to unconverted reactants, or a reaction
having a final yield that is less than expected theoretical
conversion.

• Atmospheric Releases. Atmospheric releases of a


process’s secondary components or impurities of raw
materials.

9-5
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

• Auxiliary Losses. The auxiliary losses of compounds


such as volatile organic solvents from fugitive sources
or inorganics such as carbon disulfide and hydrogen
sulfide in rayon production and fluorine compounds as
in the production of aluminum.

• Waste Emissions. Emissions of malodorous


substances or oxidation compounds in the exhaust
from oxidation, heating or drying processes.

Releases from these categories can originate from a


variety of emission points and may not be centrally collected
before entering the atmosphere. Each category and source
should be individually evaluated to determine what amount
of the air contaminant is being emitted and what appropriate
control strategy might be required.

Air release emission points, from industrial process


Stack, duct, vent, fugitive and area operations, can be categorized as stack, duct, vent, fugitive
sources are examples of industrial and area (see Table 9-1). Fugitive emission points are
air release emission points. release points, which are unconfined in a stack or duct
before reaching the atmosphere. Therefore, whether an
emission source is considered a point or fugitive source is
dependant on whether the release is confined or unconfined
in a stack or duct prior to atmospheric release.

Table 9-1. Industrial Process Operation Air Emission Points and


Categories (Cheremisinoff, P.N., 1991)
Industrial Process Operation Air Emission Points and
Categories
Process Operation Fugitive Sources
Reactors vents Valves
Distillation systems Pump seals
Vacuum systems Flanges/connectors
Combustion stacks Compressors
Blow molding Open ended lines
Spray drying and booths Pressure relief devices
Extrusion machines Equipment cleaning/maintenance

Surface Area Sources Handling, Storage, Loading


Pond evaporation Storage tank breathing losses
Cooling tower evaporation Loading/unloading
Wastewater treatment Line venting
Land disposal Packaging and container loading

9-6
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

While stationary sources


account for a tremendous
amount of ambient air
pollution, the control of these
sources is a sensitive issue
because these industries
generate thousands of useful
consumer products, create
millions of jobs, and provide
essential goods and services.
Although it is necessary to control pollution from stationary
sources, creating an economic environment that forces
facilities out of the marketplace is not practical. Therefore, a
fine balance must be achieved between the costs borne by
industry and the protection of human health and the
environment. The U.S. EPA believes that pollution control
can be achieved through common sense solutions such as
the installation of effective control technology, changes in
production processes, and the implementation of pollution
prevention techniques.

Compliance with emission standards and the successful


attainment of air quality standards depends in large part on
the application of appropriate stationary source control
measures. Although stationary source emissions vary
greatly, in quantity and character, applying responsible
control practices can reduce their effects. The purpose of
this chapter is to review the principles and practices of
stationary source emission control.

Control Procedures
The control of stationary source emissions can be
accomplished through the application of a sound control Control procedures for stationary
strategy. The control strategy required for an industrial sources of pollution include the use
environmental impact is a four of tall smokestacks, changes in
step process: (1) elimination of plant operations, and installation of
the problem source or operation, effective control devices.
(2) modification of the source
operation, (3) relocation of the
source, and (4) selection and
application of the appropriate
control technology.

9-7
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

Some of the strategies used to control particulate and


gaseous emissions may also include the use of well-planned
tall stacks.

Exhaust Stacks. Exhaust stacks do not reduce


emissions from a stationary source; rather they reduce the
local effects of the pollution by elevating the exhaust stream
to a point where it can be more effectively dispersed. High
exhaust stacks were an inexpensive solution in the absence
of expensive control technology. For years elevated stacks
Elevated exhaust stacks reduce the were used with the nearby communities in mind. A belief
exposure of surrounding was widely held that elevated stacks reduced the likelihood
populations to concentrated that pollutants would have any effect on neighboring
pollutants. populations. Utility and smelter operations have traditionally
used tall stacks (200m to 400m) in order to reduce the
amount of ground-level concentrations of sulfur dioxide
(SO2). Plumes from higher stacks were diluted and
dispersed by natural forces such as ambient air currents. So
the purpose of tall stacks was to disperse as much of the
pollutant as possible over as wide an area as possible.
However, this did not always eliminate the problem, but
instead simply transferred it to another location (Godish,
1997).

This approach was used for many years, until concern


arose over the regional and transboundary spread of harmful
toxics. For example, there is great concern over the spread
of acid rain from one region to another, particularly across
political borders. These issues are the current topics of
discussion between the United States, Canada, and
European countries.

Plant Operations. Compliance with emission standards


may require the use of control technology, but many
industrial operations have reduced emissions by changing
operational methods. Some of these changes include pre-
treating process materials, fuel or material substitution, and
changes in the manufacturing process. As an example of
how pre-treating raw materials can be an inexpensive
solution to pollution control, industry has discovered that
significant reductions in particulate matter and sulfur
emissions can be achieved by a technique called coal
washing. Pre-treating raw materials in this manner not only
reduces the amount of fly ash released from coal, but it also
reduces the amount of inorganic sulfur released as well.

9-8
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

Another way to comply with emission standards is to


substitute cleaner fuels during the refining process. Natural
gas and low-sulfur fuel oil are just two examples of fuels that
emit less pollution during combustion. However, cleaner
fuels can be more expensive and can increase national
reliance on foreign fuel sources.

Reduction in emissions from stationary sources can also


be accomplished through increased attention to plant
maintenance. Plants that release significant quantities of
pollutants into the environment frequently do so as the result
of improperly maintained equipment. This is especially true
of combustion equipment. Adequately scheduled
maintenance must be performed to reduce both the exhaust
and amount of fugitive emissions released from vats, valves,
and transmission lines. Periodic maintenance also reduces
the likelihood of spill-related accidents by discovering faulty
equipment before problems occur (Godish, 1997).

Control Technology. A final way to reduce emissions


from stationary sources is through the use of advanced, add- Add-on equipment may be installed
on control technology. Control devices can destroy or to destroy or recover pollutants for
recover gaseous compounds or particulate matter for proper proper disposal.
disposal or re-use. The pollution control operations used to
destroy or capture gases include combustion, adsorption,
absorption, and condensation. Control devices that
implement these processes include thermal incinerators,
catalytic incinerators, flares, boilers, process heaters, carbon
absorbers, spray towers, and surface condensers.

The most important process parameters for selecting air


pollution control equipment are the exhaust gas
characteristics obtained from emissions tests and process or
site characteristics obtained from a field survey.

Exhaust Gas Characteristics


• Total exhaust gas flow rate
• Exhaust gas temperature
• Required control efficiency
• Particle size distribution
• Particle resistivity
• Composition of emissions
• Corrosiveness of exhaust gas over operating range
• Moisture content
• Stack pressure
• Exhaust gas combustibility and flammability properties

9-9
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

Process or Site Characteristics


• Reuse/recycling of collected emissions
• Availability of space
• Availability of additional electrical power
• Availability of water
• Availability of wastewater treatment facilities
• Frequency of startup and shutdowns
• Environmental conditions
• Anticipated changes in control regulations
• Anticipated changes in raw materials
• Plant type – stationary or mobile

Technologies used to control particulate matter focus on


removing particles from the effluent gas stream. Many
factors (such as particle size and chemical characteristics)
determine the appropriate particulate control device for a
process. Devices most commonly used to control particulate
matter include electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters, venturi
scrubbers, cyclone collectors, and settling chambers. The
following section provides a more detailed discussion of
each type of control technology used for both particulate and
gaseous emissions (Godish, 1997).

Control Devices for


Particulate Emissions

Particulate matter is any finely divided liquid or solid


Devices most commonly used devices to substance. Examples of particulate matter include smoke,
control particulate emissions include: dust, or some forms of fine mist and is entrained in effluent
• Electrostatic Precipitation gas streams or suspended in ambient air. Any particulate
• Fabric Filters less than 10 micrometers (µm) in diameter is defined as
• Venturi Scrubbers PM10 and is regulated as a criteria pollutant. The purpose of
• Cyclones such regulation is to control smaller, respirable particles that
• Settling Chambers can bypass the body’s respiratory filters and penetrate
deeply into the lungs, which could cause harm to human
health. Toxic substances, such as sulfates, sulfites, nitrates,
heavy metals, and polycyclic organic matter are
predominantly carried by particles in this size range.
Therefore, control devices used today, to prevent particles
from reaching the ambient air, focus on capturing particulate
matter 10µm in diameter.

9-10
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

Several factors must be considered when selecting an


appropriate particulate control device. Typically, particles
must be captured from an effluent gas stream; therefore,
characteristics of the particles and the gas stream will
determine the appropriate control device. Characteristics that
must be considered include the particle size and resistivity,
exhaust flow rate, temperature, moisture content, and various
chemical properties of the exhaust stream such as
explosiveness, acidity, alkalinity, and flammability. For
example, although the electrostatic precipitator has a 99
percent removal efficiency for most particles less than 10µm,
it would be a disastrous selection for any exhaust stream that
contains high levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Exposing a highly explosive, volatile substance to a control
device that relies primarily on electrical charge would be a
dangerous and inappropriate use of technology.

In many cases, a combination of multiple devices yields


the best collection efficiency. For example, a settling
chamber can be used to remove large particles from the
exhaust stream before it enters an electrostatic precipitator
where smaller particles are removed. [The following control
devices are most commonly used to regulate the flow of
particulate matter into the ambient air.] The devices most
commonly used to control particulate emissions include
fabric filters, venturi scrubbers, cyclones, electrostatic
precipitators, and settling chambers.

The Venturi scrubber uses wet


impingement to trap gas-laden
particles in a liquid form.

Figure 9-1. Venturi Scrubber

9-11
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

Venturi Scrubbers. Venturi scrubbers use a liquid


stream to remove solid particles, as shown in Figure 9-1. A
venturi scrubber accelerates the waste gas stream to
atomize the scrubbing liquid and to improve gas-liquid
contact. In a venturi scrubber, a “throat” section is built into
the duct that forces the gas stream to accelerate as the duct
narrows and then expands. As the gas enters the venturi
throat, both gas velocity and turbulence increase. Depending
on the scrubber design, the scrubbing liquid is sprayed into
the gas stream before the gas encounters the venturi throat,
or in the throat, or upwards against the gas flow in the throat.
The scrubbing liquid is then atomized into small droplets by
the turbulence in the throat and droplet-particle interaction is
increased. Some designs use supplemental hydraulically or
pneumatically atomized sprays to augment droplet creation.
However, the disadvantage of these designs is that clean
liquid feed is required to avoid clogging (EPA, 1998; AWMA,
1992; Corbitt, 1990).

After the throat section, the mixture decelerates, and


further impacts occur causing the droplets to agglomerate.
Once the particles are captured by the liquid, the wetted PM
and excess liquid droplets are then separated from the gas
stream by an entrainment section, which usually consists of
a cyclonic separator and/or a mist eliminator (EPA, 1998;
Corbitt, 1990).

Current designs for venturi scrubbers generally use the


vertical downflow of gas through the venturi throat and
incorporate three features: (1) a “wet-approach” or “flooded-
wall” entry section to avoid a dust buildup at a wet-dry
junction; (2) an adjustable throat for the venturi throat to
provide for adjustment of the gas velocity and the pressure
drop; and (3) a “flooded” elbow located below the venturi and
ahead of the entrainment separator, to reduce wear by
abrasive particles. The venturi throat is also sometimes fitted
with a refractory lining to resist abrasion by dust particles
(Perry, 1984).

Typical gas flow rates for a single-throat venturi scrubber


unit are 0.2 to 28 standard cubic meters per second (sm 3
/sec) (500 to 60,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm).
Flows higher then this range will use either multiple venturi
scrubbers in parallel or a multiple throated venturi (Cooper,
1994; EPA, 1998; AWMA, 1992).

9-12
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

Particle collection efficiencies of venturi scrubbers range


from 70 to greater than 99 percent, depending on the
application. Collection efficiencies are generally higher for Particle collection efficiencies of
PM with aerodynamic diameters of approximately 0.5 to venturi scrubbers range from 70 to
5µm. Some venturi scrubbers are designed with an greater than 99 percent,
adjustable throat to control the velocity of the gas stream depending on the application.
and the pressure drop. Increasing the venturi scrubber
efficiency requires increasing the pressure drop, which in
turn increases the energy consumption (Corbitt, 1990; EPA,
1998).

Venturi scrubbers have been applied to control PM


emissions from utility, industrial, commercial, and institutional
boilers fired with coal, oil, wood, and liquid waste. They have
also been applied to control emission sources in the
chemical, mineral products, wood, pulp and paper, rock
products, and asphalt manufacturing industries,
lead, aluminum, iron and steel, and gray iron production
industries; and to municipal solid waste incinerators.
Typically, venturi scrubbers are applied where it is necessary
to obtain high collection efficiencies for fine PM. Thus, they Typically, venturi scrubbers are
are applicable to controlling emission sources with high applied where it is necessary to
concentrations of submicron PM (EPA, 1995; Turner, 1999). obtain high collection efficiencies
for fine PM. Thus, they are
For PM applications, wet scrubbers generate waste in the applicable to controlling emission
form of a slurry or wet sludge. This creates the need for both sources with high concentrations of
wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal. Initially, the submicron PM.
slurry is treated to separate the solid waste from the water.
The treated water can then be reused or discharged.
However, once the water is removed, the remaining waste
will be in the form of a solid or sludge. If the solid waste is
inert and nontoxic, it can generally be landfilled. Hazardous
wastes will have more stringent procedures for disposal. In
some cases, the solid waste may have value and can be
sold or recycled (EPA, 1998).

Advantages of Venturi Scrubbers (Cooper, 1994)


• Capable of handling flammable and explosive dusts
• Can handle mists in process exhausts
• Relatively low maintenance
• Simple in design and easy to install
• Collection efficiency can be varied
• Provides cooling for hot gases
• Neutralizes corrosive gases and dusts

9-13
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

Disadvantages of Scrubbers (Perry, 1984, Cooper,


1994)
• Effluent liquid can create water pollution problems
• Waste product collected wet
• High potential for corrosion problems
• Requires protection against freezing
• Final exhaust gas requires reheating to avoid visible
plume
• Collected PM may be contaminated, and not recyclable
• Disposal of waste sludge may be very expensive

Electrostatic precipitators. An ESP is a PM control


device that uses electrical forces to move particles entrained
within an exhaust stream onto collection surfaces. The
entrained particles are given an electrical charge when they
pass through a corona, a region where gaseous ions flow.
Electrodes in the center of the flow lane are maintained at
high voltage and generate the electrical field that forces the
particles to the collector plates. The high voltage electrodes
are long wires or rigid “masts” suspended from a frame in
the upper part of the ESP that run through the axis of each
tube. Rigid electrodes are generally supported by both an
upper and lower frame. In modern designs, sharp points are
added to the electrodes, either at the entrance to a tube or
along the entire length in the form of stars to provide
additional ionization sites (EPA, 1998; Flynn, 1999).

The power supplies for the ESP convert the industrial AC


voltage (220 to 480 volts) to pulsating DC voltage in the
range of 20,000 to 100,000 volts as needed. The voltage
applied to the electrodes causes the gas between the
Particulate matter is removed from electrodes to break down electrically, an action known as a
Electrostatic Precipitators by “corona.” The electrodes are usually given a negative
mechanical “rapping,” wet wash, polarity because a negative corona supports a higher
or acoustic blast. voltage than does a positive corona before sparking occurs.
The ions generated in the corona follow electric field lines
from the electrode to the collecting pipe. Therefore, each
electrode-pipe combination establishes a charging zone
through which the particles must pass. As larger particles
(>10µm diameter) absorb many times more ions than small
particles (>1µm diameter), the electrical forces are much
stronger on the large particles (EPA, 1996).

When the collection plates are filled to capacity, the


particulate is removed from the plates by “rapping,” which is
a mechanical means to dislodge the particulate. The

9-14
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

collected particulate material slides downward into a hopper


located below the unit.

Recently, dry wire-pipe ESPs are being cleaned


acoustically with sonic horns (Flynn, 1999). The horns,
typically cast metal horn bells, are usually powered by
compressed air. The acoustic vibration is introduced by a
vibrating metal plate, which periodically interrupts the airflow
(AWMA, 1992). As with a rapping system, the collected
particulate slides downward into the hopper. The hopper is
evacuated periodically as it becomes full. Dust is removed
through a valve into a dust-handling system, such as a
pneumatic conveyor, and is then disposed of in an
appropriate manner.

In wet ESPs, the collectors are either intermittently or


continuously washed by a spray of liquid, usually water. The
collection hoppers used by dry ESPs are replaced with a
drainage system. The wet effluent is collected, and often
treated on-site (EPA, 1998). In a wire-pipe ESP, also called
a tubular ESP, the exhaust gas flows vertically through
conductive tubes, generally with many tubes operating in
parallel. The tubes may be formed as a circular, square, or
hexagonal honeycomb. Square and hexagonal pipes can be
packed closer together than cylindrical pipes, reducing
wasted space. Pipes are generally 7 to 30 cm (3 to 12
inches (in.) in diameter and 1 to 4 m (3 to 12 feet) in length.

Wet ESPs require a source of wash water to be injected


or sprayed near the top of the collector pipes either
continuously or at timed intervals. This wash system
replaces the rapping mechanism generally used by dry
ESPs. The water flows with the collected particles into a
sump from which the fluid is pumped or drained. A portion of
the fluid may be recycled to reduce the total amount of water
required. The remainder is pumped into a settling pond or
passed through a dewatering stage, with subsequent
disposal of the sludge (AWMA, 1992).

Wet wire-pipe ESPs, and other ESPs in general, have


very low-pressure drops (typically less than 13 millimeters
[0.5 in.] water column) because they act only on the
particulate to be removed, and only minimally hinder flue gas
flow. As a result, energy requirements and operating costs
tend to be low. They are capable of very high efficiencies,
even for very small particles. Operating costs are also
relatively low. ESPs are capable of operating under high

9-15
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

pressure (1,030 kPa [150 psi]) or vacuum conditions, and


relatively large gas flow rates can be effectively handled
(AWMA, 1992). Wet ESPs can collect sticky particles and
mists, as well as highly resistive or explosive dusts. The
continuous or intermittent washing with a liquid eliminates
the re-entrainment of particles due to rapping, which dry
ESPs cannot effectively control. The humid atmosphere that
results from the washing in a wet ESP enables them to
collect high resistivity particles, absorb gases or cause
pollutants to condense and cool, and condition the gas
stream.

Liquid particles or aerosols present in the gas stream are


collected along with solid particles and provide another
means of rinsing the collection electrodes (EPA, 1998). Wet
wire-pipe ESPs have the additional advantages of reducing
“sneakage” by passing the entire gas stream through the
collection field. The wet wire-pipe ESPs ability to be tightly
sealed to prevent leaks of material is an especially valuable
feature for hazardous materials (AWMA, 1992).

The collection efficiency of an ESP is quite reliably about


99 percent for particles less than 10m. Wire-Plate Type
The collection efficiency of an ESP Typical new equipment design efficiencies are between 99
is quite reliably about 99 percent and 99.9%, while older existing equipment has a range of
for particles less than 10 actual operating efficiencies of 90 to 99.9%. Although
micrometers. several factors determine ESP collection efficiency, ESP size
is the most important. Size determines treatment time. The
longer a particle spends in the ESP, the greater will be its
chance of being collected. Maximizing electric field strength
will effectively maximize ESP collection efficiency
(STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996). Collection efficiency is also
affected by dust resistivity, gas temperature, chemical
composition (of the dust and the gas), and particle size
distribution. Cumulative collection efficiencies of PM, PM 10,
and PM2.5 for actual operating ESPs in various types of
applications are presented in Table 9-2.

Wire-Pipe Type ESPs generally have high capital costs.


Wire discharge electrodes (approximately 2.5 mm [0.01 in.]
ESPs, in general, are very in diameter) are high-maintenance items. Corrosion can
expensive to operate and are not occur near the top of the wires because of air leakage and
very well suited for use in industrial acid condensation. Also, long weighted wires tend to
processes because they are too oscillate – the middle of the wire can approach the pipe,
sensitive to fluctuations in the gas causing increased sparking and wear. Newer ESP designs
stream. tend toward rigid electrodes, or “masts” which largely
eliminate the drawbacks of using wire electrodes (Cooper

9-16
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

and Alley, 1994; Flynn, 1999). ESPs in general are not


suited for use in processes, which are highly variable
because they are very sensitive to fluctuations in gas stream
conditions (flow rates, temperatures, particulate and gas
composition, and particulate loadings).

Table 9-2. Cumulative PM, PM10, and PM2.5 Collection


Efficiencies for Dry ESPs (EPA, 1998; EPA, 1997)

Collection Efficiency (%)


Application Total PM PM10 PM2.5

Coal-Fired Boilers
Dry bottom bituminous)
99.2 97.7 96.0
Spreader stoker
99.2 99.4 97.7
(bituminous)

Primary Copper
Production
99.0 99.0 99.1
Multiple hearth roaster
99.0 97.1 97.4
Reverbatory smelter

Iron and Steel


99.2 99.2 99.2
Production
Open hearth furnace

ESPs are also difficult to install in sites, which have


limited space, since ESPs must be relatively large to obtain
the low gas velocities necessary for efficient PM collection

9-17
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

(Cooper and Alley, 1994). Relatively sophisticated


maintenance personnel are required, as well as special
precautions to safeguard personnel from the high voltage.
The high voltage also produces ozone molecules from the
negatively charged electrodes during gas ionization (AWMA,
1992). Wet ESPs add to the complexity of a wash system,
and the fact that the resulting slurry must be handled more
carefully than a dry product, and in many cases requires
treatment, especially if the dust can be sold or recycled.

Wet ESPs are limited to operating at stream


temperatures under approximately 80 to 90ºC (170 to
190ºF), and generally must be constructed of non-corrosive
materials (EPA, 1998; Flynn, 1999). For wet ESPs,
consideration must be given to handling wastewaters. For
simple systems with innocuous dusts, water with particles
collected by the ESP may be discharged from the ESP
system to a solids-removing clarifier (either dedicated to the
ESP or part of the plant wastewater treatment system) and
then to final disposal. More complicated systems may
require skimming and sludge removal, clarification in
dedicated equipment, pH adjustment, and/or treatment to
remove dissolved solids. Spray water from an ESP
preconditioner may be treated separately from the water
used to wash the ESP collecting pipes so that the cleaner of
the two treated water streams may be returned to the ESP.
Recirculation of treated water to the ESP may approach 100
percent (AWMA, 1992).

Dusts with very high resistivities (greater than 10 10 ohm-


cm) are also not well suited for collection in dry ESPs. These
The Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) particles are not easily charged, and thus are not easily
separates particles from the gas collected. High-resistivity particles also form ash layers with
stream by electrically charging the very high voltage gradients on the collecting electrodes.
particles. Electrical breakdowns in these ash layers lead to injection of
. positively charged ions into the space between the discharge
and collecting electrodes (back corona), thus reducing the
charge on particles in this space and lowered collection
efficiency. Fly ash from the combustion of low-sulfur coal
typically has a high resistivity, and thus is difficult to collect
In a fabric filter, flue gas is passed (ICAC, 1999).
through a tightly woven or felted
fabric, causing PM in the flue gas Fabric filters. In a fabric filter, flue gas is passed
to be collected on the fabric by through a tightly woven or felted fabric, causing PM in the
sieving and other mechanisms. flue gas to be collected on the fabric by sieving and other
mechanisms. Fabric filters may be in the form of sheets,

9-18
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

cartridges, or bags, with a number of the individual fabric


filter units housed together in a group. Bags are the most
common type of fabric filter.

The dust cake that forms on the filter from the


collected PM can significantly increase collection efficiency.
Fabric filters are frequently referred to as baghouses
because the fabric is usually configured in cylindrical bags.
Bags may be 6 to 9m (20 to 30 ft) long and 12.7 to 30.5
centimeters (cm) (5 to 12 inches) in diameter. Groups of
bags are placed in isolable compartments to allow cleaning
of the bags or replacement of some of the bags without
shutting down the entire fabric filter (STAPPA/ALAPCO,
1996). Operating conditions are important determinants of
the choice of fabric. Some fabrics (i.e., polyolefins, nylons,
acrylics, polyesters) are useful only at relatively low
temperatures of 95 to 150ºC (200 to 300ºF). For high-
temperature flue gas streams, more thermally stable fabrics
such as fiberglass, Teflon®, or Nomex® must be used
(STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996).

The practical application of fabric filters requires the


use of a large fabric area in order to avoid an unacceptable
pressure drop across the fabric. Baghouse size for a
particular unit is determined by the choice of air-to-cloth
ratio, or the ratio of volumetric airflow to cloth area. The
selection of air-to-cloth ratio depends on the particulate
loading and characteristics, and the cleaning method used. A
high particulate loading will require the use of a larger
baghouse in order to avoid forming too heavy a dust cake,
which would result in an excessive pressure drop. As an
example, a baghouse for a 250-megawatt (MW) utility boiler
may have 5,000 separate bags with a total fabric area
approaching 46,500 m2 (500,000 square feet) (ICAC, 1999).

Determinants of baghouse performance include the fabric


chosen, the cleaning frequency and methods, and the
particulate characteristics. Fabrics can be chosen which will
intercept a greater fraction of particulate. In order to
accomplish this, some fabrics are coated with a membrane
of very fine openings for enhanced removal of submicron
particulate. However, such fabrics tend to be more
expensive. Cleaning intensity and frequency are important
variables in determining removal efficiency because the dust
cake can affect the fine particulate removal capability of a
fabric. Cleaning procedures, which may be too frequent or
too intense, will also lower the removal efficiency of the

9-19
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

fabric filter. On the other hand, if removal is too infrequent or


too ineffective, then the baghouse pressure drop will become
too high (ICAC, 1999).

Mechanical shaking of the bags has been a popular


cleaning method for many years because of its simplicity as
well as its effectiveness. In a typical operation, dusty gas
Mechanical shaking of bags has enters an inlet pipe to the shaker. Very large particles are
been a popular cleaning method for removed from the stream when they strike the baffle plate in
many years because of its simplicity the inlet duct and fall into the hopper. The particulate-laden
as well as its effectiveness. gas is drawn from beneath a cell plate in the floor and into
the filter bags. The gas proceeds from the inside of the bags
to the outside and through the outlet pipe. The particles are
collected on the inside surface of the bags and a filter cake
accumulates. In mechanical shaking units, the tops of bags
are attached to a shaker bar, which is moved briskly (usually
in a horizontal direction) to clean the bags. The shaker bars
are operated by mechanical motors or by hand, in
applications where cleaning is not required frequently (EPA,
1998).

Reverse-air cleaning is another popular fabric filter


cleaning method that has been used extensively and
improved over the years. It is a gentler but sometimes less
effective cleaning mechanism than mechanical shaking.
Most reverse-air fabric filters operate in a manner similar to
shaker-cleaned fabric filters. Typically, the bags are open on
bottom, closed on top, and the gas flows from the inside to
the outside of the bags with dust being captured on the
inside. However, some reverse-air designs collect dust on
the outside of the bags.

In either design, forcing clean air through the filters in the


opposite direction of the dusty gas flow performs reverse-air
cleaning. The change in direction of the gas flow causes the
bag to flex and crack the filter cake. In internal cake
collection, the bags are allowed to collapse to some extent
during reverse-air cleaning. The bags are usually prevented
from collapsing entirely by some kind of support, such as
rings that are sewn into the bags. The support enables the
dust cake to fall off the bags and into the hopper. Cake
release is also aided by the reverse flow of the gas because
felted fabrics retain dust more than woven fabrics.
Therefore, they are more difficult to clean. For this reason,
felts are usually not used in reverse-air systems (EPA,
1998).

9-20
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

There are several methods of reversing the flow through


the filters. As with mechanical shaker-cleaned fabric filters,
the most common approach is to have separate
compartments within the fabric filter so that each
compartment can be isolated and cleaned separately while
the other compartments continue to treat the dusty gas. One
method of providing the reverse flow air is by the use of a
secondary fan or cleaned gas from the other compartments.

Reverse-air cleaning alone is used only in cases where


the dust releases easily from the fabric. In many instances,
reverse-air is used in conjunction with shaking, pulsing or
sonic horns (EPA, 1998). Sonic horns are being increasingly
used to enhance the collection efficiency of mechanical
shaker and reverse-air fabric filters (AWMA, 1992). Sonic
horns use compressed air to vibrate a metal diaphragm,
producing a low frequency sound wave from the horn bell.
The number of horns required is determined by the fabric
area and the number of baghouse compartments.

Typically, 1 to 4 horns per compartment operating at 150


to 200 hertz are required. Compressed air to power the horns
is supplied at 275 to 620 kiloPascals (kPa) (40 to 90 pounds
per square inch gage [psig]). Sonic horns activate for roughly
10 to 30 seconds during each cleaning cycle (Carr, 1984).
Sonic horn cleaning significantly reduces the residual dust
load on the bags, which decreases the pressure drop across
the filter fabric by 20 to 60 percent. It also lessens the
mechanical stress on the bags, resulting in longer operational

The Baghouse removes particulate


matter by forcing contaminated air
through a series of fabric filters,
much like the filtering action of a
vacuum cleaner.

Figure 9-3. Fabric Filter

9-21
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

life (Carr, 1984). As stated previously, this can decrease the


O&M cost by 1 to 3%, annually.

Baghouse compartments are easily retrofitted with sonic


horns and are frequently used with fabric filters at coal-
burning utilities (EPA, 1998). Reverse-jet is another cleaning
method developed in the 1950s to provide better removal of
residual dusts. In this method, the reverse air is piped to a
ring around the bag with a narrow slot in it. The air flows
through the slot, creating a high velocity air stream that
flexes the bag at that point. The ring is mounted on a
carriage, driven by a motor and cable system that travels up
and down the bag. This method provides an excellent way to
clean residual dust. However, due to its complexity,
maintenance requirements are high. In addition, air
impingement on the bags results in increased wear (Billings,
1970). Therefore, the use of reverse-jet cleaning procedures
has been declining in recent years (EPA, 1998).

Pulse-jet cleaning of fabric filters is a relatively new


concept as compared to other types of fabric filters; they
have been used only in the past 30 years. However, this
cleaning mechanism has consistently grown in popularity
because it can treat high dust loadings, operate at constant
pressure drop, and occupy less space than other types of
fabric filters. Pulse-jet cleaned fabric filters can only operate
as external cake collection devices. The bags are closed at
the bottom, open at the top, and supported by internal
retainers called cages. Particulate-laden gas flows into the
bag, with diffusers often used to prevent oversized particles
from damaging the bags. The gas flows from the outside to
the inside of the bags, and then out the gas exhaust. The
particles are then collected on the outside of the bags and
drop into a hopper below the fabric filter (EPA, 1998).

During pulse-jet cleaning, a short burst of air, 0.03 to 0.1


During pulse-jet cleaning, a short seconds in duration, of high pressure [415 to 830 kiloPascals
burst of air is injected into the bags. (kPa) (60 to 120 pounds per square inch gage [psig]) air is
The wave of air flexes the fabric, injected into the bags (EPA, 1998; AWMA, 1992). A remote
pushing it away from the cage, and timer connected to a solenoid controls this cleaning cycle air.
then snaps it back dislodging the The pulse is then blown through a venturi nozzle at the top
particulate matter. of the bags and establishes a shock wave that continues
onto the bottom of the bag. The wave flexes the fabric,
pushing it away from the cage, and then snaps it back
dislodging the dust cake. The burst of air is controlled by the
solenoid valve and is released into blow pipes that have

9-22
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

nozzles located above the bags. The bags are usually


cleaned row by row (EPA, 1998).

There are several unique attributes of pulse-jet


cleaning. Because the cleaning pulse is very brief, the flow
of dusty gas does not have to be stopped during cleaning.
The other bags continue to filter, taking on extra duty when
other bags are cleaned. In general, there is no change in
fabric filter pressure drop or performance as a result of
pulse-jet cleaning. This enables the pulse-jet fabric filters to
operate on a continuous basis with solenoid valves as the
only significant moving parts. Pulse-jet cleaning is also more
intense and occurs with greater frequency than the other
fabric filter cleaning methods. This intense cleaning
dislodges nearly all of the dust cake each time the bag is
pulsed. As a result, pulse-jet filters do not rely on a dust cake
to provide filtration. Felted (non-woven) fabrics are used in
pulse-jet fabric filters because they do not require a dust
cake to achieve high collection efficiencies. However, it has
been found that woven fabrics used with pulse-jet fabric
filters leak a great deal of dust after they are cleaned (EPA,
1998).

Since bags cleaned by the pulse-jet method do not


need to be isolated for cleaning, pulse-jet cleaned fabric
filters do not need extra compartments to maintain adequate
filtration during cleaning. Also, because of the intense and
frequent nature of the cleaning, they can treat higher gas
flow rates with higher dust loadings. Consequently, fabric
filters cleaned by the pulse-jet method can be smaller than
other types of fabric filters in the treatment of the same
amount of gas and dust, making higher gas-to-cloth ratios
achievable (EPA, 1998).

Fabric filters in general provide high collection


efficiencies on both coarse and fine (submicron) particulates.
Typical new equipment design efficiencies are between 99 Fabric filters in general provide
and 99.9%. Older existing equipment has a range of actual high collection efficiencies on both
operating efficiencies of 95 to 99.9%. Several factors coarse and fine (submicron)
determine fabric filter collection efficiency which include gas particulates. Typical new equipment
filtration velocity, particle characteristics, fabric design efficiencies are between 99%
characteristics, and cleaning mechanism. In general, and 99.9%.
collection efficiency increases with increased filtration
velocity and particle size. For a given combination of filter
design and dust, the effluent particle concentration from a
fabric filter is nearly constant, whereas the overall efficiency
is more likely to vary with particulate loading. For this

9-23
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

reason, fabric filters can be considered to be constant outlet


devices rather than constant efficiency devices.

Constant effluent concentration is achieved because at


any given time, part of the fabric filter is being cleaned. As a
result of the cleaning mechanisms used in fabric filters,
the collection efficiency is constantly changing. Each
cleaning cycle removes at least some of the filter cake and
loosens particles, which remain on the filter. When filtration
resumes, the filtering capability has been reduced because
the lost filter cake and loose particles are pushed through
the filter by the flow of gas. As particles are captured, the
efficiency increases until the next cleaning cycle. Average
collection efficiencies for fabric filters are usually determined
from tests that cover a number of cleaning cycles at a
constant inlet loading (EPA, 1998).

Fabric filters are relatively insensitive to fluctuations in


gas stream conditions. Efficiency and pressure drop are
relatively unaffected by large changes in inlet dust loadings
for continuously cleaned filters. Filter outlet air is very clean
and may be recirculated within the plant in many cases (for
energy conservation). Collected material is gathered in a dry
form for subsequent processing or disposal. Corrosion and
rusting of components are usually not problems.

The operation of baghouses is relatively simple. Unlike


electrostatic precipitators, fabric filter systems do not require
the use of high voltage; therefore, maintenance is simplified
and flammable dust may be collected with proper care. The
use of selected fibrous or granular filter aids (precoating)
permits the high-efficiency collection of submicron smokes
and gaseous contaminants. Filter collectors are available in
a large number of configurations, resulting in a range of
dimensions and inlet and outlet flange locations to suit
installation requirements (AWMA, 1992). Fabric filters are
used for collecting particles with resistivities either too low or
too high for collection with electrostatic precipitators. Fabric
filters therefore may be a good candidate for collecting fly
ash from low-sulfur coals or fly ash containing high unburned
carbon levels, which respectively have high and low
Since settling chambers are most resistivities, and are thus relatively difficult to collect with
effective in removing only large electrostatic precipitators (STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996).
particles, they are frequently used
in combination with a control Settling chambers. This type of technology is a part of
device that can effectively capture the group of air pollution controls collectively referred to as
smaller particles. “precleaners.” They are referred to as precleaners because

9-24
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

they are often used to reduce the inlet loading of particulate


matter (PM) to downstream collection devices by removing
larger, abrasive particles. Settling chambers are also
referred to as gravity settling chambers, gravity collectors,
expansion chambers, and outfall chambers. This is because
settling chambers are quite effective in removing only large
particles; therefore, they can be frequently used in
combination with other control devices.

Settling Chambers rely on simple


gravitation to remove particles from
a gas stream.

Figure 9-4. Settling Chamber


Settling chambers, which rely on gravitational settling as
a collection mechanism are the simplest and oldest
mechanical collectors (see Figure 9-4). Settling chambers
are generally built in the form of long, horizontal, rectangular
chambers with an inlet at one end and an exit at the side or
top of the opposite end. Flow within the chamber must be
uniform and without any macroscopic mixing. Uniform flow is
can be improved by flow straighteners at the inlet to the
chamber. Hoppers are used to collect the settled-out
material, though drag scrapers and screw conveyers have
also been employed. The dust removal system must be
sealed to prevent air from leaking into the chamber which
increases turbulence, causes dust reentrainment, and
prevents dust from being properly discharged from the
device (EPA, 1982; Wark, 1981; Corbitt, 1990; Perry, 1984;
Mycock, 1995; Avallone, 1996; EPA, 1998).

There are two primary types of settling chambers: the


expansion chamber and the multiple-tray chamber. In the
expansion chamber, the velocity of the gas stream is
significantly reduced as the gas expands in a large chamber.
The reduction in velocity allows larger particles to settle out

9-25
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

of the gas stream (EPA, 1992; Wark, 1981; Perry, 1984;


Mycock, 1995; EPA, 1998).

A multiple-tray settling chamber is an expansion chamber


with a number of thin trays closely spaced within the
chamber, which causes the gas to flow horizontally between
them. While the gas velocity is increased slightly in a
multiple-tray chamber, when compared to a simple
expansion chamber, the collection efficiency generally
improves because the particles have a much shorter
distance to fall before they are collected. Multiple-tray
settling chambers have lower volume requirements than
expansion-type settling chambers for the collection of small
particles (15µm) (EPA, 1998).

The efficiency of settling chambers increases with the


residence time of the waste gas in the chamber. Because of
this, settling chambers are often operated at the lowest
possible gas velocities. In reality, the gas velocity must be
low enough to prevent dust from becoming reentrained, but
not so low that the chamber becomes unreasonably large.
The unit size is generally driven by the desired gas velocity
within the unit, which should be less than 3 meters per
second (m/s) (10 feet per second (ft/sec), and preferably
less than 0.3 m/s (1 ft/sec) (Wark, 1981; Corbitt, 1990;
Mycock, 1995; EPA, 1998).

The most common failure of settling chambers is when


chambers become plugged with collected dust. In expansion
Settling chambers are most effective settling chambers the plugging can result from hopper
when collecting large or dense bridging or hopper discharge seal failure. Multiple-tray
particles, but often fail when the settling chambers may experience plugging of the individual
chamber becomes plugged with gas passages. Such failures can be prevented or minimized
collected dust. by use of hopper level indicators or by continuous monitoring
of the dust discharge. Scheduled internal inspection can
determine areas of air leakage and condensation, both of
which may cause hopper bridging. Normal instrumentation
for a settling chamber generally includes only an indicator of
differential static pressure. An increase in static pressure
drop can indicate plugging (EPA, 1992).

The collection efficiency of settling chambers varies as a


function of particle size and settling chamber design. Settling
chambers are most effective for large and/or dense particles.
Gravitational force may be employed to remove particles
where the settling velocity is greater than about 13
centimeters per second (cm/s) (25 feet per minute [ft/min]).

9-26
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

In general, this applies to particles larger than 50µm if the


particle density is low, down to 10µm if the material density is
reasonably high. Particles smaller than this would require
excessive horizontal flow distances, which would lead to
excessive chamber volumes. The collection efficiency for PM
less than or equal to 10µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM 10)
is typically less than 10 percent. Multiple-tray chambers have
lower volume requirements for the collection of particles as
small as 15µm (Wark, 1981; Mycock, 1995; EPA, 1998).

Advantages of Settling Chambers (Wark, 1981;


Corbitt, 1990; Perry, 1984; Mycock, 1995; and EPA, 1998)
• Low capital cost
• Very low energy cost
• No moving parts
• Few maintenance requirements
• Low operating costs
• Excellent reliability
• Low pressure drop through device
• Device not subject to abrasion due to low
gas velocity
• Provide incidental cooling of gas stream
• Dry collection and disposal

Disadvantages of Settling Chambers (Wark, 1981;


Mycock, 1995; and EPA, 1998)

• Relatively low PM collection efficiencies


• Unable to handle sticky or tacky materials
• Large physical size
• Trays in multiple-tray settling chamber
may warp

Cyclones. This type of air pollution control is also Cyclones use inertia to remove
referred to as a “precleaner,” because they too are used to particles from the gas stream.
reduce the inlet loading of particulate matter (PM) to Particles in the gas stream are
downstream collection devices by removing larger, abrasive forced toward the cyclone walls by
particles. Cyclones are also referred to as cyclone collectors, the centrifugal force of the spinning
cyclone separators, centrifugal separators, and inertial gas and eventually drop out of the
separators. In applications where many small cyclones are bottom of the collector device.
operating in parallel, the entire system is called a multiple
tube cyclone, multicyclone, or multiclone.

9-27
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

Cyclones use inertia to remove particles from the gas


stream. The cyclone imparts centrifugal force on the gas
stream, usually within a conical shaped chamber.
Cyclones operate by creating a double vortex inside the
Cyclone Collectors remove cyclone body. The incoming gas is forced into a circular
particulate matter through use of motion downward, forcing the particulates to the inner
centrifugal force. surface of the cyclone walls. At the bottom of the cyclone,
the gas turns and then spirals up through the center of the
cyclone and exits out of the top outlet (AWMA, 1992).
Particles in the gas stream are forced toward the cyclone
walls by the centrifugal force of the spinning gas, but are
opposed by the fluid drag force of the gas traveling through
and out of the cyclone.

For larger particles, inertial momentum overcomes the


fluid drag force so that the particles reach the cyclone walls
and are collected. For smaller particles, the fluid drag force
overwhelms the inertial momentum and causes these
particles to leave the cyclone with the exiting gas. Gravity
also causes the larger particles that reach the cyclone walls
to travel down into a bottom hopper. While they rely on the
same separation mechanism as momentum separators,
cyclones are more effective because they have a more
complex gas flow pattern (AWMA, 1992).

Cyclones are generally classified into four types,


depending on how the gas stream is introduced into the
device and how the collected dust is discharged. The four
types include tangential inlet, axial discharge; axial inlet,
axial discharge; tangential inlet, peripheral discharge; and

9-28
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

axial inlet, peripheral discharge. The first two types are the
most common (AWMA, 1992).

Pressure drop is an important parameter because it


relates directly to operating costs and control efficiency. For
a given cyclone, higher control efficiencies can be obtained
by increasing inlet velocities, but this also increases the
pressure drop. In general, 18.3 meters per second (60 feet
per second) is considered the best operating velocity.
Common ranges of pressure drops for cyclones are 0.5 to 1
kilopascals (kPa) (2 to 4 in. H 2 O) for low-efficiency units
(high throughput), 1 to 1.5 kPa (4 to 6 in. H 2 O) for medium-
efficiency units (conventional), and 2 to 2.5 kPa (8 to 10 in.
H2O) for high-efficiency units (AWMA, 1992).

When high-efficiency (which requires small cyclone


diameter) and large throughput are both desired, a number
of cyclones can be used that contain a large number of
tubes with a common gas inlet and outlet in the chamber.
The gas enters the tubes through axial inlet vanes, which
impart a circular motion (AWMA, 1992). Another high-
efficiency unit, the wet cyclonic separator, uses a
combination of centrifugal force and water spray to enhance
control efficiency.

Cyclones are used to control PM, and primarily PM


greater than 10 micrometers (µm) in aerodynamic diameter.
However, there are high efficiency cyclones designed to be
effective for PM less than or equal to 10µm and less than or
equal to 2.5µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM 10 and PM2.5).
Although cyclones may be used to collect particles larger
than 200µm, gravity settling chambers or simple momentum
separators are usually satisfactory and less subject to
abrasion (Wark, 1981; Perry, 1984).

The collection efficiency of cyclones varies as a function


of particle size and cyclone design. Cyclone efficiency
generally increases with (1) particle size and/or density, (2)
inlet duct velocity, (3) cyclone body length, (4) number of gas
revolutions in the cyclone, (5) ratio of cyclone body diameter
to gas exit diameter, (6) dust loading, and (7) smoothness of
the cyclone inner wall.

Cyclone efficiency will decrease with increases in (1) gas


viscosity, (2) body diameter, (3) gas exit diameter, (4) gas
inlet duct area, and (5) gas density. A common factor
contributing to decreased control efficiencies in cyclones is

9-29
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

leakage of air into the dust outlet (EPA, 1998). Control


efficiency ranges for single cyclones are often based on
three classifications of cyclone (i.e., conventional, high-
efficiency, and high-throughput). The control efficiency range
for conventional single cyclones is estimated to be 70 to 90
percent for PM, 30 to 90 percent for PM 10, and 0 to 40
percent for PM2.5.

High efficiency single cyclones are designed to achieve


higher control of smaller particles than conventional
Single cyclones have a control cyclones. According to Cooper (1994), high efficiency single
efficiency between 80 to 99% cyclones can remove 5µm particles at up to 90 percent
percent for PM, 60 to 95% for PM10 efficiency, with higher efficiencies achievable for larger
, and 20 to 70% for PM2.5. particles. The control efficiency ranges for high efficiency
single cyclones are 80 to 99 percent for PM, 60 to 95
percent for PM10, and 20 to 70 percent for PM2.5. Higher
efficiency cyclones come with higher pressure drops, which
require higher energy costs to move the waste gas through
the cyclone. Cyclone design is generally driven by a
specified pressure-drop limitation, rather than by meeting a
specified control efficiency (Andriola, 1999; Perry, 1994).
According to Vatavuk (1990), high throughput cyclones are
only guaranteed to remove particles greater than 20µm,
although collection of smaller particles does occur to some
extent. The control efficiency ranges for high-throughput
cyclones are 80 to 99 percent for PM, 10 to 40

percent for PM10 , and 0 to 10 percent for PM2.5.


Multicyclones are reported to achieve from 80 to 95 percent
collection efficiency for 5µm particles (EPA, 1998).

Cyclones are designed for many applications. Cyclones


themselves are generally not adequate to meet stringent air
Cyclones are generally not pollution regulations, but they do serve an important purpose
adequate to meet stringent air as precleaners for more expensive final control devices such
pollution regulations, but are used as fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). In
extensively after spray drying addition to use for pollution control work, cyclones are also
operations in the food and chemical used in many process applications to recover and recycle
industries. food products and process materials such as catalysts
(Cooper, 1994).

Cyclones are used extensively after spray drying


operations in the food and chemical industries; after
crushing, grinding and calcining operations in the mineral
and chemical industries; and to collect salable or useful
material. In the ferrous and nonferrous metallurgical
industries, cyclones are often used as a first stage in the

9-30
Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

control of PM emissions from sinter plants, roasters, kilns,


and furnaces. PM from the fluid-cracking process is removed
by cyclones to facilitate catalyst recycling. Fossil fuel and
wood-waste fired industrial and commercial fuel combustion
units commonly use multiple cyclones (generally upstream of
a wet scrubber, ESP, or fabric filter), which collect fine PM
(<2.5µm) with greater efficiency than a single cyclone. In
some cases, collected fly ash is re-injected into the
combustion unit to improve PM control efficiency (AWMA,
1992; Avallone, 1996; STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996; EPA, 1998).

Advantages of Cyclones (AWMA, 1992;


Cooper, 1994; and EPA, 1998)
• Low capital cost
• No moving part
• Few maintenance requirements
• Low operating costs
• Relatively low-pressure drop
• Dry collection and disposal
• Relatively small space requirements

Disadvantages of Cyclones (AWMA, 1992;


Cooper, 1994; and EPA, 1998)
• Relatively low PM collection efficiencies
• Unable to handle sticky or tacky materials
• High efficiency units may experience high-pressure
drops

Momentum Separators

Momentum separators are an enhancement to settling


chambers in that it operates by forcing the exhaust gases to
sharply change direction, within a gravity settling chamber,
through the use of strategically placed baffles. It is also
considered a “precleaner,” because it is oftentimes used to
reduce the inlet loading of particulate matter (PM) to
downstream collection devices by removing larger, abrasive
particles. Momentum separators are also referred to as
impingement separators, baffle chambers, and knock-out
chambers.

Momentum separators operate by forcing waste gas to


sharply change direction within a gravity settling chamber
through the use of strategically placed baffles. Typically, the
gas first flows downward and is then forced by the baffles to

9-31
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

suddenly flow upward. Inertial momentum and gravity act in


the downward direction on the particles, which causes larger
particles to cross the flow lines of the gas and collect in a
hopper in the bottom of the chamber (EPA, 1998). The
design of momentum separators must provide sufficient
volume to allow settling of materials separated from the high-
velocity gas stream and materials of construction hard
enough to survive high abrasion. As with all mechanical
collectors, the design must include methods of sealing dust
discharge from hoppers to prevent air leakage. The methods
may include use of rotary air locks, flapper valves, or other
positive sealing devices. Air leakage through the hopper or
shell results in changes in the gas distribution, interferes with
dust discharge, and may cause condensation or corrosion.
Because of the high velocities used to separate the particles
from the gas stream and the impaction of these particles on
surfaces that direct the gas flow, the materials of
construction must have high abrasion resistance.
(EPA,1982)

The collection efficiency of a momentum separator varies


as a function of particle size and the momentum separator’s
design. Momentum separator efficiency generally increases
with (1) increased particle size and/or density; (2) increased
gas stream velocity; and (3) number of turns, baffles, or
other sharp direction changes to gas flow. EPA (1982)
presents a fractional collection efficiency curves for two
lovered momentum separator controlling fly ash. Fractional
collection efficiencies are 5 percent for a particle size of 5
m, 10 to 20 percent for a particle size of 10 m, and up to
99 percent for particle sizes  90 m.

Particulate control devices are designed to capture and


store pollutants; however, proper disposal of the pollution is
still necessary. Generally, collected particulate matter is
disposed of in a landfill while the wastewater generated by
scrubbers is sent to treatment facilities. Research is
currently being conducted to design better ways to recycle
and reuse this collected particulate matter.

9-32
NAME _______________________________________ DATE _______________ SCORE_________

CHAPTER 9 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS


FROM STATIONARY SOURCES

Multiple Choice

Directions: Read each question and choose the best answer. Write the letter of
your answer in the space provided.

1. The following are all principles used to control particulate matter, except _______.

a. gravity
b. centrifugal force
c. infrared analysis
d. diffusion
e. electrostatic attraction 1.________

2. Which of the following control devices might be effectively used to control coarse
particulate matter (> 50 microns)?

a. Electrostatic Precipitation Collection Plates


b. Baffle Chambers
c. Baghouse
d. Venturi Scrubber
e. Electrostatic Precipitation Electrodes 2. ________

3. Settling Chambers use _______ to remove pollutants from gas exhaust.

a. electrostatic precipitation
b. diffusion
c. fabric filters
d. centrifugal force
e. gravity 3. _______

4. The three T’s of combustion are commonly referred to as _______.

a. time , temperature, and type of fuel


b. temperature, type of fuel, and turbulence
c. time, turbulence, and temperature
d. type of fuel, turbulence, and time
e. None of the above 4. _______
Matching

Directions: Match each of the following advantages and disadvantages with the proper
control technology.

Control Technology

A. Electrostatic Precipitators
B. Fabric Filters

_______ 5. Is highly efficient (>99%) for collecting all types of dust and high to
low flow rates.

_______ 6. Expensive to purchase and maintain and limited by space.

_______ 7. Ability to treat large volumes of gas economically.

_______ 8. Limited to dry environments.


Principles and Practices of Air Pollution Control

Control Technology Identification

Directions: Match the control technology with the device that is displayed and answer the
questions in the spaces provided.

A. Electrostatic Precipitator G. Packed Column Absorber System


B. Catalytic Incinerator H. Fabric Filter
C. Contact Condenser I. Thermal Incinerator
D. Carbon Adsorber J. Adsorption System
E. Cyclone Collector K. Settling Chamber
F. Elevated Flare System L. Venturi Scrubber

9. _______ 10. _______

11. _______
12. _______

9-35
Control of Stationary Sources (Particulate Matter)

REVIEW ANSWERS
No. Answer
1. C
2. B
3. E
4. C
5. B
6. A
7. A
8. B
9. K
10. E
11. A
12. H

9-36

S-ar putea să vă placă și