Dergiler / Atmospheric Pollution Research / 2020 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 5

Mass balance of mercury in a pilot scale mercury recovery plant using thermal roasting technology

Sayfa
886–893
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Hgconcentration influe gas was lower than 15μg-Hg/m3after passing through the activated carbon trap.Byproducts of the pilot scale system, such as activated carbon and dust can be further treated and converted toHg free waste.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:A pilot scale mercury recovery plant was developed to treat Hg waste by thermal treatment.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The capacity of thesystem was 60 kg/batch and consisted of four units carrying out thermal treatment, dust separation, con-densation, andflue gas treatment.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Hgconcentration influe gas was lower than 15μg-Hg/m3after passing through the activated carbon trap.Byproducts of the pilot scale system, such as activated carbon and dust can be further treated and converted toHg free waste.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

A pilot scale mercury recovery plant was developed to treat Hg waste by thermal treatment. The capacity of thesystem was 60 kg/batch and consisted of four units carrying out thermal treatment, dust separation, con-densation, andflue gas treatment. The mass balances of Hg fromfive different wastes in three categories werecalculated from Hg recovery data. From the following selectedfive wastes, Hg-added product, Hg-contaminatedsoil, byproduct offluorescent lamp treatment process, and waste sludge from non-ferrous metal industrialprocess, we recovered 97.5%, 83.61%, 93.07%, 70.25%, and 29.36% of elemental mercury, respectively. Dustinterfered during the condensation process, as volatilized Hg vapor was condensed with dust. Hg concentrationsin leaching extract of treatment residues from the Hg-added product, Hg-contaminated soil, and the byproduct offluorescent lamp treatment process were 0.003 mg-Hg/L, 0.0045 mg-Hg/L, and 0.002 mg-Hg/L, respectively,which are below the Korean classification standard of hazardous waste for mercury (0.005 mg-Hg/L). Hgconcentration influe gas was lower than 15μg-Hg/m3after passing through the activated carbon trap.Byproducts of the pilot scale system, such as activated carbon and dust can be further treated and converted toHg free waste.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

LEE, E., BACK, S., MOJAMMAL, A., SEO, Y., JANG, H. (2020). Mass balance of mercury in a pilot scale mercury recovery plant using thermal roasting technology. Atmospheric Pollution Research, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 5, 886–893. https://ajindex.com/articles/144447

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (10)

  1. Agarwal, H., Sharma, D., Sindhu, S.K., Tyagi, S., Ikram, S., 2010. Removal of mercuryfrom wastewater use of green adsorbents–a review. Electron. J. of Environ. Agric.Food Chem. ISSN 1579–4377. AMAP/UNEP, 2013. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme/United NationsEnvironment Programme, 2013. Technical Background Report for the GlobalMercury Assessment 2013. AMAP/UNEP Chemicals Branch, Geneva, Switzerland vi+, pp. 263. Back, S.K., Jung, B.M., Lee, E.S., Sung, J.H., Lee, S.J., Park, Y.J., Seo, Y.C., 2017. Thermaltreatment and leaching characteristics of mercury in waste phosphor powder fromUV lamp. J Korea Soc Waste Manag 180–187.https://doi.org/10.9789/kswm.2017.34.2.180. Balcan Engineering Ltd, 2019. Mercury Recycling. Balcan Engineering Ltd., Lincolnshire,UK.http://www.cfl-lamprecycling.com/products/mercury-recycling-11.htm,Accessed date: 19 February 2019.
  2. Berglund, F., Bertin, M., 1969.
  3. Chemical Fallout. Tomas Publisher,
  4. Springfield. Brown, T.D., Smith, D.N., O'Dowd, W.J., Hargis Jr., R.A., 2000. Control of mercuryemissions from coal-fired power plants: a preliminary cost assessment and the nextsteps for accurately assessing control costs. Fuel Process. Technol. 65–66, 311–341.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(00)00081-3.
  5. Busto, Y., Palacios, E.W., Tack, F.M.G., Peralta, L.M., Cabrera, X., Rios, L.M., 2015.Behaviour of mercury from hazardous solid waste generated by chlor-alkaki Cubanindustry. Remediation proposal at pilot scale. J. Chem. Eng. Transac. 45, 751–756.https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1545126.
  6. Chang, T.C., Yen, J.H., 2006. On-site mercury-contaminated soils remediation by usingthermal desorption technology. J. Hazard Mater. B128, 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.053.
  7. Dang, T.A., Frisk, T.A., Grossman, M.W., Peters, C.H., 1999. Identification of mercuryreaction sites influorescent lamps. J. Electrochem. Soc. 3896–3902 S0013-4651(99)03-097-9.
  8. Dawlet, A., Talip, D., Mi, H.Y., Ti, M.L.K.Z., 2013. Removal of mercury from aqueoussolution using sheep bone charcoal. Procedia Environ. Sci. 18, 800–808.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2013.04.108.
  9. Ekino, S., Susa, M., Ninomiya, T., Imamura, K., Kitamura, T., 2007. Minamata diseaserevisited: an update on the acute and chronic manifestations of methyl mercurypoisoning. J. Neurol. Sci. 262, 131–144.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2007.06.036.
  10. Gyu, L.Y., Jin-Won, P., Jung-Hyun, K., Ryul, M.B., Jongsoo, J., Jinsoo, K., Gyu, L.T., 2004.Comparison of mercury removal efficiency from a simulated e