mercury emissions from a 100-mw wall-fired boiler as measured by

www.elsevier.com/locate/fuproc

Fuel Processing Technology 85 (2004) 487–499

Mercury emissions from a 100-MW wall-fired boiler

as measured by semicontinuous mercury monitor and

Ontario Hydro Method

Shawn Kellie a, Yufeng Duan a, Yan Cao a, Paul Chu b, Arun Mehta b,Ron Carty c, Kunlei Liu a, Wei-Ping Pan a,*, John T. Riley a

aCombustion Laboratory, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY 42101, USAbElectric Power Research Institute, 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA

cIllinois Clean Coal Institute, Suite 2000 Coal Development Park, Carterville, IL 62918, USA

Abstract

Western Kentucky University (WKU) recently established a mobile laboratory for monitoring

mercury emissions (MMEML). The lab contains facilities to perform both continuous emissions

monitoring and the Ontario Hydro Method for mercury analysis. Among the instruments available

in the lab are a semicontinuous mercury emissions monitor (SCEM), pretreatment and speciation

unit for the SCEM, and an atomic absorption spectrometer with automated sampler. The MMEML

was recently utilized at a power plant site that had a 100-MW, wall-fired combustor with low-NOx

burners. At this site, a comparison between OHM and SCEM data was possible for testing

locations before and after the ESP. OHM and SCEM produced analogous results for the

measurement of total mercury, but differ in their measurement of mercury speciation. Testing by

OHM also showed that vapor-phase mercury decreases as temperature decreases and as fly ash is

removed. Our results suggest that the removal of vapor-phase mercury by fly ash is mostly the

removal of oxidized mercury.

D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ontario Hydro Method; MMEML; SCEM

1. Introduction

In 1997, The EPA issued a Mercury Study Report to Congress, which estimated that

anthropogenic sources in the US emitted 158 tons of mercury into the atmosphere in

0378-3820/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2003.11.004

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1-270-745-5361.

E-mail address: [email protected] (W.-P. Pan).

S. Kellie et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 85 (2004) 487–499488

1994–1995. The report estimates that approximately 33% of these anthropogenic

sources are coal-fired combustion sources [1]. Because of the danger to human health

posed by mercury, Congress and the EPA are determined to regulate mercury emissions.

The EPA has set a target date of 2004 for new mercury regulations. At the same time

that the EPA seeks to lower total mercury emissions, there is a resurgence in the

construction of new coal boilers [2]. Therefore, the need to control and measure mercury

emissions in a cost-effective manner has become an issue of importance to both the coal

industry and regulators.

In flue gas, mercury exists in three primary forms, elemental mercury (Hg0),

oxidized mercury, and particle associated mercury. Most oxidized mercury in flue

gas is in the mercury(II) state (Hg2 +). Oxidized mercury is soluble and has a

tendency to associate with particulate matter. Therefore, emissions of oxidized

mercury may be efficiently controlled by air emission and particulate controlling

apparatus such as a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubber system, electrostatic

precipitator (ESP), and activated carbon injection systems (ACI). On the other hand,

elemental mercury is extremely volatile and insoluble. Elemental mercury has a high

vapor pressure at typical air emission and particular control device-operating temper-

atures. Therefore, effective collection by particulate matter control devices is highly

variable. In addition, elemental mercury is not captured by FGD and any kind of PCD

systems. While elemental mercury may be removed by some chemically treated

activated carbon or selective absorbents, they are more difficult to collect and treat.

Therefore, elemental mercury emissions are harder to reduce than oxidized mercury

emissions.

Studies indicate that the distribution of Hg species in coal-fired flue gas is strongly

dependent on the type of coal (e.g., bituminous, subbituminous, or lignite), the operating

conditions of the combustion system (in terms of unburned carbon in the ash), and

temperature and residence time in the particulate control device [3–11]. The variability

in the distribution of vapor-phase mercury species in coal-fired flue gas may depend

upon the coal’s chloride concentration. Higher concentrations of ionic mercury are

obtained in utility flue gas when the combusted coal has a high chloride content (0.1–

0.3 wt.%) [12–15]. Additional studies including ones conducted at Western Kentucky

University (WKU) have suggested that calcium may play a role in mercury speciation

[16,17]. Furthermore, other components of the air pollutant control systems such as FGD

and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems have also been shown to affect both the

speciation of mercury in the stack and the amount of mercury removed in the air

pollutant control equipment.

To help study the OHM and SCEM techniques and the effects of flue gas temperature

on mercury in flue gas, the Western Kentucky University built a mobile mercury

emissions monitoring lab (MMEML). The MMEML contains the facilities to collect and

analyze Ontario Hydro Method samples on site. The MMEML also has a semi-

continuous mercury emissions monitor (SCEM), PSA’s Sir Galahad, and two PSA

speciation/pretreatment units. WKU’s SCEM setup allows for two points in a combustor

to be monitored and speciated simultaneously. WKU’s MMEML—described in detail in

the following section—has been moved to a 100-MW boiler with wall-fired low-NOx

burners.

S. Kellie et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 85 (2004) 487–499 489

2. Experimental

2.1. Mobile mercury emissions monitoring lab

Western Kentucky University (WKU) designed a Mobile Mercury Emissions Monitor-

ing Lab (MMEML). The MMEML is shown in Fig. 1. It was built from a 53-ft tractor-

trailer. To limit sample contamination problems, the trailer was divided into three rooms: an

OHM preparation room, an analysis room, and a storage room. The lab is both heated and

air-conditioned to minimize instrumentation problems due to temperature fluctuations. The

preparation room is a clean room for the preparation of OHM solutions and sample trains. It

is also the area were the OHM sample trains are disassembled. The preparation room has a

functioning sink. The analysis room contains a Leeman Hydra Prep, a Leeman Hydra AA,

and their standards. The storage room contains areas for storage of the mercury probes, gas

analysis equipment, and spare glassware. The storage area also has tie-downs for the PSA

Analytical Mercury Semicontinuous Emission Monitor (SCEM) system. The storage area

has a separate door to the outside from the other two areas of the lab; this facilitates the

movement of equipment and helps reduce possible contamination of the samples and

equipment in the other two rooms.

2.2. Ontario Hydro Method

The Ontario Hydro Method (OHM) is the standard—but unadopted—method of

measuring and speciating mercury in flue gas. A diagram of the OHM sampling train is

shown in Fig. 2. OHM has two possible configurations based on EPAMethods 5 and 17 out-

Fig. 1. Mobile Mercury Emissions Monitoring Lab (MMEML) Floor Plan.

Fig. 2. Ontario Hydro Method impinger train.


of-stack filtration and in-stack filtration, respectively. A standard Method 5 configuration is

shown in Fig. 3. The EPAMethod 17 configuration was used at the sampling point after the

electrostatic precipitator. Due to the high volume of fly ash immediately before the ESP

region, a modified sampling train (EPA Method 5) with both in-stack and out-of-stack

filtration was used.

2.3. Semicontinuous emissions monitoring

The semicontinuous emissions monitor (SCEM) used in this study is the Sir Galahad

II manufactured by PS Analytical. It uses a gold trap to collect the mercury from the

Fig. 3. EPA Method 5 configuration.


flue gas before analysis with an atomic fluorescence detector. The Sir Galahad system

also has a Hg vapor generator capable of supplying a constant stream of Hg vapor

(about 14 l/min) for calibration purposes. Another important feature of the Sir Galahad

system is its stream selection box. The selection box allows the Sir Galahad software to

differentiate between different streams for the measuring of different points or different

mercury species.

Without the aid of a pretreatment system, the Sir Galahad is unable to speciate

mercury. The pretreatment system, Model S235C400 manufactured by PS Analytical,

splits the incoming flue gas into two streams. One stream passes through a KCl solution,

which removes oxidized mercury, thereby allowing only elemental mercury to reach the

detector. The other stream passes through a stannous chloride solution, which reduces

oxidized mercury to Hg0, thus facilitating the measurement of total mercury. Both

solutions also serve the dual purpose of removing acidic gases that could damage the

gold detector.

Our lab owns two pretreatment systems, which along with the Sir Galahad’s stream

selection box allow us the ability to monitor and speciate mercury at two locations at

once. At our current project, we monitor the flue gas before and after the ESP. A

diagram of our monitoring arrangement can be seen in Fig. 4. (All sample lines shown

in the diagram are heated at 200 jC to avoid the loss of mercury and the condensation

of acidic gases.)

Fig. 4. SCEM and pretreatment system configuration.

2.4. Hydra AA

The OHM solutions were analyzed using a Leeman Labs Hydra AA. The Hydra AA is

a cold vapor atomic absorption (CVAA) instrument dedicated to mercury analysis. It has a

detection limit of 1 ppt. Additionally, to ensure maximum reproducibility and to allow the

rapid processing of samples, the lab has a Hydra Prep, which automates the sample

digestion process. A diagram of the Hydra AA is shown in Fig. 5.

2.5. Leco Advanced Mercury Analyzer 254

Ash samples collected from the dust collector, ESP and/or OHM are analyzed using the

Leco Advanced Mercury Analyzer 254 (AMA 254.) Coal samples are also analyzed using

the AMA 254. The AMA 254 is CVAA instrument. In addition to performing basic

CVAA, the AMA 254 has a gold amalgamate trap to pre-concentrate the mercury. The

AMA 254 has a detection limit of 0.01 ng and a detection range of 0.05–600 ng. The

AMA 254 conforms to EPA Method 7473.


Fig. 5. Hydra AA.


2.6. Testing locations

The results discussed in this paper were obtained in a 100-MW boiler with wall-fired

low-NOx burners. The boiler is in a commercial plant and was operated normally

throughout the duration of testing. The load carried by the plant was constant during the

course of each individual test. A diagram of the boiler is shown in Fig. 6. The concentration

of mercury in the flue gas was measured at three locations: immediately prior to the air

preheater, immediately before the dust collector and electrostatic precipitator (ESP), and

immediately after the ESP in the duct leading to the stack. All three locations are shown in

Fig. 6. The 100-MW boiler and mercury testing locations.

Table 1

Analytical values for coals used in this study on a dry basis

Coal sample Hg ppb % Ash Cl ppm % Fixed C % S

Coal 1 120 9.6 1010 55 1.35

Coal 2 100 10.1 1450 60 1.76


Fig. 6. OHM was used to measure and speciate the mercury at all three locations. The

SCEM and pretreatment systems were used only at the testing locations immediately before

and after the ESP. Two coals were used during the course of this study are shown in Table 1.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Comparison of SCEM and OHM results

As mentioned earlier, mercury measurements were made at two locations, before and

after the ESP, using both OHM and SCEM. The total vapor mercury measurement results are

shown in Fig. 7. For both coals and locations, SCEM and OHM showed good agreement

with each other. Themeasurements for total vapor-phase mercury were within 2300 ng/Nm3

of each other, and neither method produced consistently higher results than the other.

When the data for oxidized vapor-phase mercury was examined, it showed that OHM

measured more oxidized mercury in all four cases. (Please note the term vapor-phase

mercury excludes particle-bound mercury.) As seen in Fig. 8, the difference between the two

methods was as high as 4900 ng/N m3 for coal 1 before the ESP and as low as 110 ng/N m3

for coal 2 after the ESP. Because OHM produced consistently higher levels of oxidized

mercury than SCEM, it suggests something in the methods maybe responsible.

Because of the trend observed for oxidized mercury, an analogous trend might be

expected in element vapor-phase mercury data. As shown in Fig. 9, there is a large

disagreement between the two methods. For coal 2 after the ESP, OHM measures three

times the quantity of elemental vapor-phase mercury, as does SCEM. For coal 1 before the

ESP, SCEM measures a third more mercury than OHM. The only trend evident in

Fig. 7. Total vapor-phase mercury before and after the ESP for coals 1 and 2.

Fig. 8. Oxidized vapor-phase mercury before and after ESP for coals 1 and 2.


comparing the elemental mercury data between the two methods is that the OHM

measured higher levels of elemental mercury than SCEM after the ESP. The exact

opposite was true before the SCEM. A large quantity of the fly ash is removed as the

flue gas passes through the ESP; therefore, it is logical to assume that fly ash may play a

role in the differing measurement of elemental mercury at these locations. A possible

explanation would be before the ESP, high levels of fly ash on the OHM filter convert

Fig. 9. Elemental vapor-phase mercury before and after ESP for coals 1 and 2.

Fig. 10. Total vapor-phase mercury as measured by OHM at three locations.


elemental mercury to oxidized mercury. This explanation is supported by the presence

1575 ng/N m3 for coal 1 and 2100 ng/N m3 for coal 2 of particle bound vapor-phase

mercury before the ESP compared to quantities below detection after the ESP. Other

researchers have reported biases caused by the fly ash accumulated on the filter in the

OHM method. To determine what this mechanism maybe or to determine if the methods

contain a bias, further research is required.

3.2. Testing location and temperature effects on mercury measurement

Based on previous research linking temperature and fly ash concentration to mercury

speciation, we predicted that vapor-phase mercury concentrations would fall as the flue gas

Fig. 11. Percentage of total vapor-phase mercury in elemental form.

Table 2

Ash samples from the dust collector and ESP

Ash sample Hg ppb (dry basis) Loss on ignition

Coal 1 dust collector 900 5.7

Coal 1 ESP 4100 6.4

Coal 2 dust collector 600 4.0

Coal 2 ESP 3100 5.7


moved out of the combustor. The results shown in Fig. 10 suggest that this prediction was

correct. The measurements in Fig. 10 were taken with OHM and show a decrease in total

vapor-phasemercury concentrationwith the decrease in temperature from the air preheater at

a temperature of 750–298 jF before the ESP. At the exit to the ESP, the flue gas temperature

is 259 jF; therefore, there is only a slight change in temperature occurring in the ESP. Any

changes in mercury flue gas concentration occurring in the ESP are more likely the result of

factors other than temperature, probably the fly ash in ESP acting as a filter for mercury.

The effect of location on vapor-phase mercury speciation can be seen in Fig. 11. The

percentage of vapor-phase mercury in elemental form increases with the decrease of

temperature and the decrease of fly ash. This trend suggests that the majority of oxidized

vapor-phase mercury is removed in the fly ash and that only elemental mercury remains in

the vapor phase.

3.3. Ash mercury concentrations

Ash was collected during the beginning and end of every OHM sampling period. The ash

was collected from sampling ports in the dust collector and the ESP. Both sampling ports

were blown clean every half-hour by routine operation of the plant; therefore, the ash

collected will correspond to the coal being burnt during the sampling period. The mercury

concentration of the ash and other factors can be seen in Table 2.

For both coals 1 and 2, the highest concentration of mercury was found in the ash from

the ESP. The difference in mercury bound fly ash may be higher LOI exhibited by the ESP

fly ash compared to that collected from the dust collector, which has been linked with high

levels of mercury retention in other studies [18–20].

4. Conclusions

1. Western Kentucky University (WKU) recently established a mobile mercury emissions

monitoring lab (MMEML). The lab is capable of collecting Ontario Hydro Samples and

analyzing them on site. The lab has a PSA Sir Galahad SCEM with two pretreatment

systems; therefore, it is capable of simultaneously performing analysis at two points.

2. OHM and SCEM produce analogous results for the measurement of total mercury, but

differ in their measurement of mercury speciation.

3. Vapor-phase mercury decreases as temperature decreases and as fly ash is removed.

4. The removal of vapor-phase mercury by fly ash is mostly the removal of oxidized

mercury.


Acknowledgements

This paper was prepared by Western Kentucky University research group with support,

in part, by grants made possible by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community

Affairs through the Office of Coal Development and the Illinois Clean Coal Institute and

Electric Power Research Institute. Neither Western Kentucky University nor the Illinois

Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, Office of Coal Development, the

Illinois Clean Coal Institute, nor any person acting on behalf of either (A) makes any

warrant of representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness,

or usefulness of the information contained in this paper, or that the use of any information,

apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this paper may not infringe privately owned

rights, or (B) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting

from the use of, any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this paper.

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily state or reflect those of the

Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, Office of Coal Development,

or the Illinois Clean Coal Institute.

References

[1] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volume I: Excessive Summary;

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development, 1997, EPA-452/R-

97-003.

[2] J. Varley, Cleaning up in the coal boom, Modern Power Systems 21 (3) (2001, March) 19.

[3] J. Laumb, R. Jensen, S. Benson, Information Collection Request (ICR) for Mercury: Correlation analysis of

coal and power plant data. Presented at Conference on Air Quality II: Mercury, Trace Elements, and

Particulate Matter, McKean, Virginia, September 19–21, 2000.

[4] T.R. Carey, O.W. Hargrove, Jr., T.D. Brown, R.G. Rhudy, Enhanced control of mercury in wet FGD

systems. Presented at the First Joint DOE-PETC Power and Fuel Systems Contractors Conference, July

9–11, 1996, U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh, PA.

[5] M.S. DeVito, W.A. Rosenhoover, Flue gas mercury and speciation studies at coal-fired utilities equipped

with wet scrubbers. Presented at the Fourth EPRI International Conference on Managing Hazardous Air

Pollutants, Washington, DC, November 1997.

[6] F.E. Huggins, N. Yap, G.P. Huffman, C.L. Senior, Identification of mercury species in unburned carbon from

pulverized coal combustion. Presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the Air and Waste

Management Association, St. Louis, MO, June 1999.

[7] D.L. Laudal, M.K. Heidt, B.R. Nott, T.D. Brown, Evaluation of flue gas mercury speciation methods. EPRI

TR-108988; Electric Power Research Institute/U.S. Department of Energy Final Report, December 1997.

[8] K.E. Redinger, A. Evans, R. Bailey, P. Nolan, Mercury emissions control in FGD systems. Presented at the

EPRI/DOE/EPA Combined Air Pollutant Control Symposium, Washington DC, August 25–29, 1997.

[9] C.L. Senior, J.R. Morency, G.P. Huffman, F.E. Huggins, N. Shah, T. Peterson, F. Shadman, B. Wu,

Prediction of mercury speciation in coal-fired power plant flue gas: A fundamental study. Presented at

the Fourth EPRI International Conference on Managing Hazardous Air Pollutants, Washington, DC, No-

vember 12–14, 1997.

[10] K.L. Liu, Y. Gao, S. Kellie, W.-P. Pan, J.T. Riley, A study of mercury removal in FBC systems fired with

high chlorine coals, Combustion Science and Technology 164 (2001) 145.

[11] A.F. Sarofim, C.L. Senior, J.J. Helble, Emissions of mercury, trace, elements, and fine particles from

stationary combustion sources, Proceedings of the Conference on Air Quality: Mercury, Trace Elements,

and Particulate Matter, McLean, VA, December 1–4, 1998.


[12] C.L. Senior, J.R. Morency, G.P. Huffman, F.E. Huggins, N. Shah, T. Peterson, F. Shadman, B. Wu,

Interaction between vapor-phase mercury and coal fly ash under simulated utility power plant flue gas

conditions. Presented at the 91st Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the Air and Waste Management

Association, San Diego, CA, June 1998, paper no. 98-RA79B.04.

[13] N. Bloom, E. Presto, V. Miklavic, Flue gas mercury emissions and speciation from fossil fuel combustion.

Presented at the Second EPRI International Conference on Managing Hazardous Air Pollutants, Washing-

ton, D.C., July 1993.

[14] J.G. Noblett, Control of air toxics from coal-fired power plants using FGD technology. EPRI Second

International Conference on Managing Hazardous Air Pollutants, Washington D.C., July 1993.

[15] M. Saenger, J. Werther, H. Hanben, Concentration and mass balance of mercury in a fluidized bed sewage

sludge incineration plant, Proc. 15th Inter. Conf. on FBC, ASME, Savannah, GA, May, 1999.

[16] K.C. Galbreath, C.J. Zygarlicke, Mercury transformations in coal combustion flue gas, Fuel Processing

Technology 65–66 (2000) 289–310.

[17] S. Kellie, J.T. Riley, K.L. Liu, W.P. Pan, Mercury content of fly ash from FBC systems co-firing municipal

solid, 18th Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference: Coal-Energy and the Environment; Dec. 3–7.

Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, 2001(paper in proceedings and presentation).

[18] Y.H. Li, C.W. Lee, B.K. Gullett, Importance of activated carbon’s oxygen surface functional groups on

elemental mercury adsorption, Fuel 82 (2003) 451–457.

[19] N. Fujiwara, Y. Fujita, K. Tomura, H. Moritomi, et al., Mercury transformations in the exhausts from lab-

scale coal flames, Fuel 81 (2002) 2045–2052.

[20] W.H. Gibb, F. Clarke, A.K. Mehta, The fate of coal mercury during combustion, Fuel Processing Technology

65–66 (2000) 365–377.

mercury emissions from a 100-mw wall-fired boiler as measured by

Documents