EPA-650/2-74-049-0
PILOT-PLANT STUDY OF AN AMMONIA
ABSORPTION-AMMONIUM BISULFATE
REGENERATION PROCESS,
TOPICAL REPORT PHASES I AND II
by
Process Engineering Branch
Division of Chemical Development
Tennessee Valley Authority
Muscle Shoals , Alabama 35660
and
Power Research Staff
Office of Power
Tennessee Valley Authority
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
Interagency Agreement 31990A
ROAP No. 21ACX-60
Program Element No. 1AB013
EPA Project Officer: R. D. Stern
Control Systems Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
This report covers the pilot—plant work done through June
1973 by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on an ammonia absorption — ammonium bisulfate
regeneration process for removing sulfur dioxide (S02) from the stack
gas of coal—fired power plants. This work was carried out sequentially
in two pilot plants at the TVA Colbert Power Plant in northwest Alabama.
The first pilot plant was used to study the absorption process only.
This work was reported as Phase I. The second pilot plant was used to
study the ammonium bisulfate regeneration step as well as the absorp-
tion step. This work was reported as Phase II.
Both pilot plants were designed for about kOOO acfm of flue
gas at 300°F. Two types of scrubbers were studied—a sieve—tray type
and a moving marble—bed type.
The principal variables studied were: temperature of the
inlet flue gas,, pH of the recirculated absorber liquor,, opacity of
the plume leaving the absorber stack, oxidation of sulfite to sulfate
in the absorber liquor, and the level of fly ash in the flue gas
entering the absorber.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of contract
Wo. TV—31990A, by the Division of Chemical Development, Tennessee Valley
Authority. The work was sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Although the project is being continued, that part of the work reported
here was finished in June 1973.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract
List of Figures vii
List of Tables xi
Acknowledgements xiii
Conclusions and Recommendations 1
Summary 2
Introduction h
Pilot Plant No. 1 (Phase l) 8
Equipment and Operation 8
Study Program and Results 12
Sulfur Dioxide Removal 12
Ammonia Loss IT
Oxidation 20
Heat Recovery 20
Corrosion 21
Plume 22
Pilot Plant No. 2 (Phase II) 23
Equipment and Operation 23
Absorption 23
Regeneration 23
Vent System 27
Instrumentation 27
Study Program and Results 28
Problem Areas 28
Pilot-Plant Test Results 30
Modified Pilot-Plant Operation 35
References 53
Appendix A — Process Variations A—1
Appendix B — Equipment Evaluation B—1
Equipment for Pilot Plants B-l
Instruments B—18
Appendix C — Condensed Data from Pilot—Plant Runs C—1
IV
-------
Page
Appendix D — Analytical and Gas Sampling Procedures D-l
lodimetric Method for Analysis of Total Sulfites D-l
Manipulations D_l
Calculations D-l
Alkimetric Method for Analysis of Total
Bisulfite Sulfur and Total Sulfur D-2
Manipulations D-2
Calculations D-2
Analysis of the Acidulator and Stripper Liquors
for Bisulfite,, Bisulfate, and Total Sulfur D-J
Manipulations D-J
Calculations D-J
Ammonia in Exit Flue Gas Sample
(Direct Nesslerization Method) D-4
Method D-k
Manipulations D_4
Calculations D-5
Preparation of Ammonia Reagents
(for Nessler Method) D-6
Nessler Reagent D-6
Rochelle Salt Reagent D-6
Preparation of Standard Ammonium Chloride and
Ammonium Sulfate Solutions for Calibrating
Spectrophotometers D-7
Ammonium Chloride and Ammonium Sulfate
Stock Solutions D-7
Standard Solution Containing 0. 002 mg
NH4 per ml D-7
Procedure for Sampling Inlet or Exit Flue Gas
for Particulate and Sulfur Dioxide D—8
Apparatus D-8
Procedure D-8
Calculations D-8
Procedure for Sampling Exit Flue Gas for Ammonia D-10
Apparatus D-10
Procedure D-10
Calculations D-10
Sample Calculation Sheet for Particulate and S02
in Inlet Flue Gas D-12
Test Data D-12
Calculations D-12
Sample Calculation Sheet for Particulate and S02
in Exit Flue Gas D-l 4
Test Data D_il|
Calculations D-l4
Sample Calculation Sheet for Ammonia in Exit Flue Gas D-l6
Test Data D-l6
Calculations D-l6
-------
Page
Appendix E — Sample Calculations _
Typical Chemical Analysis of a Forward Feed E-!
Solution for Pilot Plant No. 1 E-!
Mols of Sulfur/ Liter E-!
Total Grams of Salt/Liter E-!
(Total S02) Mols of S02/Liter as Sulfite and Bisulfite E-l
S02 as Sulfite E-!
S02 as Bisulfite £_]_
Total S02 E-2
(Active NH3) Mols of NH3/Liter as Sulfite and
Bisulfite E-2
WH3 as Sulfite E-2
NH3 as Bisulfite E-2
Active NH3 E-2
(Total NH3) Mols of WH3/Liter as Sulfite, Bisulfite,
and Sulfate E-2
WH3 as Sulfate E-2
Total NH3 E-2
(Reaction Water) Grams H20/Liter Combined with S02 arid
NH3 " E-2
Reaction Water in Sulfite (Grams H20/l) E-2
Reaction Water in Bisulfite (Mols H20/l) E-5
Reaction Water in Sulfate (Mols H20/l) E-5
(Free Water) Grams H20/Liter — Unreacted E-!>
C Value (Mols Total NH3/100 Mols H20) E-5
CA Value (Mols Active WH3/100 Mols H20) E-5
A Value (Mols (NH4)2S04/100 Mols H20) E-4
S Value (Mols S02/100 Mols H20) E-4
S/CA Ratio (Mols S02/Mols Active NH3) E-5
S02 Vapor Pressure of Absorber Liquor (mm Hg) at 125°F E-5
NH3 Vapor Pressure of Absorber Liquor (mm Hg) at 125°F E-5
H20 Vapor Pressure of Absorber Liquor (mm Hg) at 125° F E— 6
Appendix F — Corrosion Data ]?—i
Corrosion ]?_1
Appendix G — Glossary G— 1
Appendix H — Conversion Factors
Appendix I — Stack Plumes — Condensed Moisture and/or
Opaque Pollutants I— 1
Introduction 1-1
Factors Relating to Plume Formation 1-2
Derivation of Mathematical Relationship Limiting the
Formation of Water Plumes 1-2
Discussion of Relationship Limitations and Implications 1-3
Estimating Flue Gas Reheat Temperature to Avoid
Formation of a Water Plume 1-3
Accuracy of Estimated Critical Flue Gas Temperatures I- 10
VI
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Flow Diagram of Ammonia Absorption Process for Sulfur
Dioxide Recovery 9
2 Pictorial View of Ammonia Absorption Pilot Plant 10
3 Location of Ammonia Absorption Pilot Plant Relative
to Power Plant Equipment 11
h Sulfur Dioxide Removal versus Z 1 l8
5 K versus Z J 19
6 Absorption Section: Ammonia Absorption — Ammonium
Bisulfate Regeneration Process 2k
7 Regeneration Section: Ammonia Absorption — Ammonium
Bisulfate Regeneration Process 25
8 A typical Plume from the Ammonia Absorption Pilot Plant
During Routine Operation (Product from Absorber:
CA = 10, S/CA = 0.8) No Reheat 29
9 Flow Configuration for Double—Alkali Tests Using
Ammoniacal Solutions 3^-
10 Single—Stage Operation, Flue Gas Washed with Water; No
Reheat; Ambient Temperature, 57°F; Relative Humidity,
36
11 Single—Stage Operation; Flue Gas Washed with Water;
Reheat Temperature, 175°F; Ambient Temperature, 57°F;
Relative Humidity, k2$> 37
12 Once—Through Single—Stage Absorber Operation (Forward
Feed to Absorber: CA = 1, S/CA = 0.82), Ambient Tempera-
ture, U9°F; Relative Humidity, 60/o 38
13 Once—Through Single—Stage Absorber Operation (Forward Feed
to Absorber: C. = 1, S/CA = 0.82) Reheat Temperature,
175°F; Ambient Temperature, ^9°F; Relative Humidity, 60/o 39
ik Once—Through Two-Stage Absorber Operation (Forward Feed
to Absorber: C, = 1.8, S/CA = 0.70) Reheat Temperature,
200°F; Ambient Temperature, 57°F; Relative Humidity,
VI1
-------
FIGURES (COMT. )
No. ' Page
15 Recirculating Flow Configuration k2
16 Once—Through Flow Configuration 43
17 Once—Through Single—Stage Absorber Operation (Forward
Feed to Absorber: C. = 2, S/CA = 0.8); Reheat Tempera-
ture,, 200°F; Ambient Temperature, 92°F; Relative
Humidity., 66/0; No Water Wash Before Absorption Stage ^7
18 Once—Through Single—Stage Absorber Operation (Forward
Feed to Absorber: CA = 2, S/CA = 0.8); Reheat temp-
erature, 200°F; Ambient Temperature, 93°F; Relative
Humidity, 66%, Water Wash Before Absorption Stage
19 Recirculating Single—Stage Absorber Operation with
Acceptable Plume and Wo Reheat (Product from Absorber:
CA = 10, S/CA = 0.8) Ambient Temperature = 8j5°F,
Relative Humidity = k'J'fo 50
20 Recirculating Single—Stage Absorber Operation with
Plume Reforming Above Stack (Product from Absorber:
CA = 12, S/CA = 0.8) Reheat Temperature, 200°F;
Ambient Temperature, 53°F, Relative Humidity, 9^/o 52
21 Flue Gas Desulfurization Ammonia System A—2
22 Solubility Data for the System
(KH4)2S04 - (NH4)2 S03 - KH4S03 - H20 A-10
23 Bisulfate Regeneration of Ammoniacal Sulfite Solutions A—11
2k Bisulfate Regeneration of Ammoniacal Sulfite Solutions
for Different Process Variations A—12
25 Heat Exchanger Tube Sections B-2
26 Deposits of Scale and Fly Ash on Heat Exchanger Tubes B-3
27 Soot Blower for Cleaning Heat Exchanger Tubes B-i|
28 Cleaning Heat Exchanger Tubes with Water B-5
29 Cyclonic Dust Collectors for Pretreating Flue Gas B-6
VI11
-------
FIGURES (CONT.)
No. Page
30 Overall View of Sieve—Tray Absorber B-8
31 Internal View of Sieve—Tray Absorber B-9
32 Overall View of Marble—Bed Absorber B-10
33 Internal View of Marble—Bed Absorber B-ll
3^- Modified Sieve—Tray Absorber B—12
35 Pilot—Plant Blower System (j-5 and 6) B-l4
36 Variable—Speed Rubber—Lined Pumps (j—1 and 2) B-15
37 Rubber Liner in Pump after 2500 Hours of Operation B-l6
38 Stainless Steel Constant—Speed Centrifugal Pumps
(J-3, k, and 5) B-l?
39 Use of Rubber Hose for Operating Flexibility B-19
40 Quick—Connect Fittings for Use with Rubber Hose B-20
kl Foxboro Magnetic Flowmeters for Liquid Flow
Measurements B-22
\2 Control Board for Pilot Plant B-23
4-3 Ultraviolet Analyzer for Measuring Sulfur Dioxide
Content of Flue Gas B-24
kk Sampling Apparatus for Determining Sulfur Dioxide and
Particulate Content of Flue Gas Entering and Leaving
the Absorber D-9
^5 Sampling Apparatus for Determining Ammonia Content
in Flue Gas Leaving the Absorber D-ll
46 Water Plume Formation Boundaries I_il
4-7 Relationship of Factors Governing Formation of Water
Plumes from Stacks 1—5
48 Relationship of Factors Governing Formation of Water
Plumes from Stacks 1—6
IX
-------
FIGURES (CONT. )
Mo. Page
U9 Relationship of Factors Governing Formation of Water
Plumes from Stacks 1—7
50 Relationship of Factors Governing Formation of Water
Plumes from Stacks 1—8
51 Relationship of Factors Governing Formation of Water
Plumes from Stacks 1-9
52 Critical Stack Gas Temperature, for Zero Water Plume—
Comparison of Estimates 1—12
x
-------
TABLES
Page
1 Analysis of Variance for Percentage of Sulfur Dioxide
Removed l4
2 Analysis of Variance for pH 17
3 Typical Absorber Loop Test Ammonia Absorption —
Ammonium Bisulfate Pilot Plant J2
4 Typical Regeneration Loop Operation Ammonia Absorption —
Ammonium Bisulfate Pilot Plant 33
5 Summary of Operating Data for Pilot Plant for the
Ammonia Absorption — Ammonium Bisulfate Regeneration 44—
Process 46
6 Flue Gas Desulfurization — Ammonia System: Run
Summaries for Process Variations A—4
7 Ammonium Bisulfate Process Regeneration Systems A—5
8 Flue Gas Desulfurization—Ammonia System: Process
Variation 1 (Complete Vaporization of Water) A—6
9 Flue Gas desulfurization—Ammonia System: Process
Variation 2 (Partial Vaporization of Water) A—7
10 Flue Gas Desulfurization—Ammonia System: Process
Variation 3 (No Vaporization of Water) A—8
11 Flue Gas Desulfurization—Ammonia System: Process
Variation 4 (No Vaporization of Water) A—9
12 Wonmetallic Materials Tested in Pilot Plant for Removal
of Sulfur Dioxide by the Ammonia Absorption Process F—2
13 Corrosion Tests Conducted in the Flue Gas Ducts of the
Pilot Plant for Removal of Sulfur Dioxide by the Ammonia
Absorption Process F—3
14 Corrosion Tests Conducted in the Recirculation Tanks of
the Pilot Plant for Removal of Sulfur Dioxide by the F-4-
Ammonia Absorption Process F—5
15 Corrosion Tests Conducted in Vertical Sections of Pipes
Circulating Liquor to the Absorber at the Pilot Plant
for Removal of Sulfur Dioxide by the Ammonia Absorption
Process F—6
XI
-------
TABLES (COMT. )
No.
16 Corrosion Tests Conducted in the Pilot Plant for the
Removal of Sulfur Dioxide by the Ammonia Absorption
Process F—7
XI 1
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. L. I. Griffin, former EPA project officer for the ammonia
absorption — ammonium bisulfate regeneration process, compiled Appendix A
and was quite helpful in the preparation of other sections.
XI11
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The two pilot—plant studies have demonstrated that the
ammonia absorption — ammonium bisulfate regeneration process is a
promising candidate for S02 removal and recovery from power plant
stack gases. Conclusions drawn from the work are:
• Absorption is effective (90^ or higher) over a wide
range of operating conditions. The absorption effi-
ciency can be reliably predicted for given operating
parameters (see text).
• Sulfate levels in the absorber loop have only slight
influence on S02 absorption.
• Fly ash has a neglible effect on S02 removal.
• Temperature of the inlet flue gas had very little
effect on S02 removal in the range covered by the
study (l80°-300°F).
• Corrosion is not a problem in the absorption loop
when using stainless steels and certain nonmetals.
Corrosion tests in the regeneration loop have not
been made.
• Plume formation while producing liquor with high—salt
concentrations (C^ >12) can be controlled by proper
operation of the scrubber.
• Avoidance of a steam plume outside the stack on days
of high relative humidity and low temperature may be
impractical.
• Adequate separation of fly ash and ammonium sulfate
crystals has not been achieved in the pilot—plant
equipment; with proper equipment and operation, ade-
quate separation is expected.
The evaluation and conclusions based on the past work
indicate that additional work on the process is warranted. Addi-
tional study is needed to evaluate the entire process, absorption
and regeneration, while operating on a continuous basis under condi-
tions expected during power plant operations. This will require that
the pilot plant produce and regenerate a solution containing high
salt concentrations during cycling loads. The solids removal problems
(fly ash and ammonium sulfate crystals) and corrosion throughout the
process require additional work. To make these studies, certain
equipment additions are needed. These include a separate water wash
ahead of the present absorber and an ammonium sulfate evaporator—
crystallizer in the regeneration section. Additionally, the
ammonium sulfate decomposition step should be piloted.
-------
SUMMARY
In 1968, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commis-
sioned the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to pilot an ammonia
absorption process for removal of sulfur dioxide from coal—fired
power plant stack gases. Test programs were conducted sequentially
in two pilot plants at TVA's Colbert Power Plant in northwest Alabama.
The operation of pilot plant No. 1 (study of absorption step only)
extended from June 1970 to December 1971. Operation of pilot plant
No. 2 (absorption step coupled with a regeneration step) began in
June 1972, and is scheduled to continue until July 1975- This report
covers the test work through June 1973-
Both pilot plants were designed for about kOOO acfm1 of flue
gas at JOO0F. Process equipment and materials of construction were
selected to approximate a commercial process.
Two types of absorbers were tested—a sieve—tray unit and
a moving marble—bed unit. Most of the test work was done with the
marble—bed absorber.
The S02 removal efficiency was 90% or higher. The sulfate
content of the feed solution had little (5% or less) effect on S02
removal efficiency.
The temperature of inlet flue gas had no significant effect
on S02 removal efficiency in the range of l80° to 300°F. The heat
capacity of the inlet gas was 0.26 Btu/lb(°F). The overall heat
transfer coefficient of a mild steel tube— and shell—type heat
exchanger in the inlet gas stream was about 2.9 Btu/hr(ft2)(°F).
Data were obtained that showed the relationship of ammonia
loss in the gases exiting the absorber as a function of the pH of
the liquor recirculated to the top stage. Results indicate that the
pH of the liquor must not exceed 6.1 in order to stay below the arbi-
trarily selected limit of 50 ppm ammonia in the exit gases.
A severe problem encountered during the study of both pilot
plants was the emission of a highly visible plume of ammonia salts
from the absorber. The plume was so severe that most of the program
was directed toward defining operating conditions that would eliminate
or reduce the plume to acceptable limits. A plume of acceptable
opacity resulted when the absorber was operated with:
• Low ammonia concentration in the absorbing liquor and
reheat as required to dissipate the steam plume (max.
200°F).
A table of factors for converting measurements made in English
units to their equivalents in the metric system is shown in
Appendix H.
-------
• High ammonia concentration in the absorbing liquor, a
water wash ahead of the absorber, the absorber and all
downstream ducts insulated, and reheat as required to
dissipate the steam plume. The quantity of reheat
required for avoidance of a steam plume depends on the
ambient conditions (temperature and humidity).
The variables affecting oxidation of sulfite to sulfate
could not be accurately determined. From 10 to 3C$ of the S02 in the
gas to the absorber was oxidized. Most of the results were in the
lower end of this range—15$ oxidation ordinarily.
The level of fly ash in the flue gas entering the absorber
had no apparent effect on S02 absorption; however, the fly ash could
not be removed satisfactorily from the absorbing liquor and adversely
affected separation of sulfate crystals in the regeneration section.
The regeneration loop was designed to use molten ammonium
bisulfate to acidify the absorber product liquor; however, sulfuric
acid was used as a substitute. Approximately 97$ of the absorbed
sulfur dioxide was released during regeneration. The ammonium sul—
fate crystallized from the acidulated and stripped liquor could not
be separated because of blinding of the (centrifuge or filter) media.
Solids separation should be an area of major emphasis in the future
work.
Corrosion tests were made in the absorber loop only. Mild
steel was unacceptable at all absorber loop locations except the dry
inlet ductwork. Type ^>l6L stainless steel was acceptable in all
environments in the absorber loop. In areas where temperature limita-
tions were not exceeded, certain nonmetallic materials of construction
appeared promising. Corrosion tests are planned for the regeneration
loop.
The pilot—plant study demonstrated that the ammonia absorp-
tion process is capable of decreasing the S02 content of gases from
a coal—fired boiler to well within an acceptable level in commer-
cially available equipment. Results of these studies provide a back-
ground of data and experience for additional pilot—plant operation
involving detailed studies of the ammonium bisulfate regeneration
system.
-------
INTRODUCTION
In 1968, the EPA contracted with TVA to make an in— depth
study of the ammonia absorption process. The purpose of the study is
to gain engineering information about the ammonia system when applied
to actual power plant stack gas. The ammonia process was selected for
study because ammonia is widely available, relatively low in cost,
easy to handle, and has a high affinity for S02. In addition, the
reaction products are soluble salts which avoid the scaling and plug-
ging problem of some alternative processes. Furthermore, the ammonia
reaction products are amenable to regeneration to recover the S02,
which is further processed to sulfuric acid or elemental sulfur. In
such systems, ammonia is recovered and recycled to the absorption
section to complete the regeneration cycle.
Sulfur dioxide removal from gas streams using ammonia
absorption was studied as far back as 1883 when a British patent was
issued to Ramsey (l). In these early studies, ammonium sulfate was
the desired product. Around 19J6 the Consolidated Mining and Smelting
Company (2) (now Cominco, Ltd. ), installed a commercial ammonia absorp-
tion unit for removal of sulfur oxides from waste smelter gases.
Products from the unit were ammonium sulfate and sulfur dioxide.
About the same time Cominco was developing a process,
Johnstone and his coworkers at the University of Illinois were deve-
loping basic data for the ammonia system. Five major papers were
published by Johnstone between 1935—1952 dealing with absorption of
sulfur dioxide by ammoniacal solutions and desorption from the
absorber effluent (3, ]j_, _5> &., 7.). Measurements of vapor pressures
in the system were made, and methods for regenerating the absorbing
solution and recovery of byproducts were studied.
Beginning in 1953? TVA piloted an ammonia absorption
process for removal of S02 from coal— fired power plant stack gases
(8).
Considerable data have been gathered by Chertkov and his
coworkers at the NIOGAZ (Scientific Research Institute for Industrial
and Sanitary Purification of Gases) in Russia. This work began in
the late 1950 !s and resulted in over 40 papers being published on
sulfur oxide recovery, mostly involving ammonia absorption. All
phases of the subject have been reported — "basic chemical data, mass
transfer in absorbers, the autoclave process, and several regenera-
tion schemes. A large portion of the experimental work was done on
a pilot scale. Plans are underway for equipping a 2^0— megawatt
boiler with an ammonia absorption and thermal— stripping unit (9).
In Japan, the Showa Denko Company has operated an ammonia
absorption test unit (25 MW) on stack gases from an oil burning
boiler. Ammonium sulfate was the end product (10).
-------
In 1967,, Ugine Kuhlman, Weiritam, and Electricite de France
combined to construct and operate a 25-megawatt ammonia absorption
unit at an EDF power plant near Paris. In 1969, a thermal—stripping
regeneration process was added to the unit. It was closed down after
less than 1 year's operation because of high steam consumption in the
stripping section (£).
Even with the extensive effort of these early workers, some
areas of the ammonia process as applied to power plant stack gas
cleanup were not well defined. These areas include: absorber
design including multistaging to obtain optimum results, degree of
oxidation of sulfites in the absorber loop, effect of fly ash on
scrubber operation, absorber product regeneration, and corrosion.
Initially, a pilot—plant study program was developed jointly by TVA
and EPA to examine the ammonia absorption process. Later, the contract
was expanded to include a study of a regeneration process. The initial
absorption study was conducted in a pilot plant on unit 3 at TVA's
Colbert Power Plant in northwest Alabama. This pilot plant was
dismantled to make room for a new electrostatic precipitator on unit
No. 3- A new pilot plant was then constructed in another area at
Colbert to continue the study of the absorption step with particular
emphasis on overcoming the problem of plume formation identified in
the earlier study and to study a regeneration scheme.
Several regenerable or semiregenera"ble ammonia absorption
processes have been developed and are, or have been, in full—scale
operation. The earliest of these was pioneered by the Consolidated
Mining and Smelting Company (Cominco) in Trail, B.C., Canada. The
process consists of aqueous ammonia absorption followed by acidifica-
tion of the sulfita liquor with sulfuric acid to evolve S02 and produce
ammonium sulfate. The S02 is sent to a sulfuric acid plant and the
ammonium sulfate is further processed for sale as a fertilizer. The
process has been operating continuously and reliably on smelter gas
since the mid—1930's and is still in operation. Work on adapting
the method to power plant stack gas was carried out by TVA (pilot-
plant scale) in 1953—5^ (8). The uncertainty of a large market for
ammonium sulfate severely limits the applicability of this process
in the United States.
Quite similar processes have been developed and are in full-
scale operation on sulfuric acid plant tail gases in Czechoslovakia
and Romania (ll, 12). These processes produce a single end product,
such as ammonium sulfate, which may have a limited market.
A cyclic regeneration process producing only S02 was
postulated and tested in the 1930's by H. F. Johnstone (6). Since
concentrated S02 is the product, it can be converted into sulfuric
acid, liquid S02, or elemental sulfur thereby increasing its
marketability. Steam stripping was employed to recover S02 and to
regenerate the ammoniacal solution for reuse in the absorber.
-------
Development of the Johnstone process has been vigorously pursued in
the USSR. A l40,000-scfm (60 MW) unit was installed near Moscow
in 1952 and operated continuously until 1967 at which time it was
dissassembled because the power plant was converted from coal to
natural gas. It is reported that the cyclic ammonia process will
be installed on a 200—megawatt coal—fired utility boiler in the
USSR in 1973. Although the Johnstone process has been shown to be
feasible and presupposes no link to a complex fertilizer plant, it
possesses some undesirable characteristics. Energy requirements for
the process are high, approximately 12 pounds steam per pound of S02.
Oxidation products may be difficult to purge selectively from the
system without loss of active species. The occurrence of undesirable
disproportionaticn reactions in the steam stripper aggravates the
oxidation problem.
The regeneration process selected for the EPA—TVA study
utilizes an acid ion to decompose the sulfites and release S02.
In this decomposition of sulfites, it may be possible to regenerate
the acid from the salt and thereby avoid the need for disposal of
the salt. Such a regeneration process (13.) has been known in the
fertilizer industry since the 1920's. In this process, the ammonium
sulfate is heated to drive off ammonia and produce acidic ammonium
bisulfate, which is then used as an acidulant to release SC2.
In more recent work, an engineering company has incorporated
the bisulfate technique in various fertilizer flow sheets (l4) and
has carried out pilot—plant work for corverting ammonium sulfate to
bisulfate. The process involves direct heating of the ammonium
sulfate with combustion gas. The decomposition reaction is highly
endothermic. This work is being expanded currently to a large—scale
test program on a scale equivalent to the size required for a
30-megawatt power plant burning 3- 5^ sulfur coal. Several other
research organizations have also worked on the conversion step but in
a less extensive way.
Application of the bisulfate technique to regeneration of
ammonia absorption liquor in an S02 removal process was proposed by
Hixson and Miller in 19^ (15.). In the bisulfate process, ammonium
sulfite—bisulfite liquor is pumped from the absorber to an acidifier—
stripper where the following reactions take place:
(m4)2S03 + 2WH4HS04->2(NH4)2S04 + H20 + S02t (l)
WH4HS03 + HH4HS04-», (NH4)2S04 + H20 + S02f (2)
Essentially all of the S02 is released from the liquor in
the acidifier stripper. If a condenser is employed on the off—gas,
virtually a 100/0 stream of S02 can be obtained. The resulting strip-
ped solution, containing mainly (KH4)2S04, is sent to an evaporator—
crystallizer where the water is removed,. Ammonium sulfate crystals
-------
are then transported to the decomposer which thermally dissociates
the (NH4)2S04 into NH4HS04 and gaseous NH3. The bisulfate is returned
to the acidifier and the ammonia to the absorber, completing the cyclic
process. Several modifications of this process are discussed in
Appendix A.
The following sections of this report cover the work
performed in the two pilot plants. The absorption study in pilot
plant No. 1 began in June 1970 and ended in December 1971. The
work performed in pilot plant No. 2 and included in this report began
with its startup in mid—1972 and extended through June 1973- Addi-
tional work using pilot plant No. 2 is planned and will be reported
later in a separate volume.
-------
PILOT FLAM1 NO. 1
(PHASE i)
Equipment and Operation
Construction of the pilot plant No. 1 began in April 1969.
Actual plant operation began in June 1970 and extended through
December 1971. The pilot plant was installed on TVA's Colbert Power
Plant Wo. 3 unit, a 200—megawatt Babcock and Wilcox, front>-fired
pulverized coal—burning unit.
A flow diagram of the process is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2 is a pictorial sketch of the pilot plant. Figure 3 shows
the location of the pilot plant relative to the power plant ducts
and indicates relative size of the equipment.
About 4000 acfm of flue gas at 300°F (equivalent to 1.3 MW)
was withdrawn isokinetically immediately after the air preheater
and upstream from the mechanical fly ash separators. The gas passed
through one of two dust collectors, a gas cooler, and into the
absorber.
The absorber shell (32 in x J2 in x 20 ft) consisted of
three independent sections plus a gas inlet and outlet assembly.
The three sections were removable and contained the various absorber
and mist eliminator elements.
Exhaust gas from the absorber was vented into the power
plant ductwork or to the atmosphere for observation. A two—stage
blower system with a variable—speed drive was used to maintain a
constant gas flow under varying degrees of pressure drop.
Process equipment and materials of construction for the
pilot plant were selected to approximate a commercial process.
Corrosion specimens of various materials were installed at several
locations in the system and were periodically removed and evaluated.
The concentration of sulfur dioxide in the gas stream was
monitored continually at the tower inlet and outlet and between each
of the absorber sections by use of an ultraviolet analyzer. The gas
stream was sampled for ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and particulate
loadings. Wet chemical analysis procedures were used to determine
the quantities of ammonium bisulfite, ammonium sulfite, and ammonium
sulfate in the absorber liquor samples. Details of these gas and
liquid analtyical procedures are given in Appendix D.
The pilot plant was operated approximately 2000 hours. Parts
of the equipment, primarily the blowers and sulfur dioxide analyze^r,
were also used in a limestone — wet—scrubbing pilot plant. An evalua-
tion of the performance of individual components of pilot plant No. 1
and No. 2 is given in Appendix B.
-------
H
X
O
H
n
-------
-
O
O
03
cvji m
H
i
o
O
EH
O
H
10
-------
H
EH
EH
O
H
O
H
FM
O
ra
m
<
^
0
1
O
iz;
o
1 — 1
EH
O
o
EH
S
1
EH
-------
Study Program and Results
The objectives of this Phase I program were to determine
the factors influencing the absorption step in the ammonia.-scrubbing
process and to obtain data on the following parameters:
1. Sulfur dioxide removal
2. Ammonia loss
3. Fly ash effect on absorber operation
h. Oxidation
5. Heat recovery
6. Corrosion
Sulfur Dioxide Removal
Two separate test programs were conducted in the pilot plant.
The first test program examined the effects of the following variables
on S02 removal and oxidation:
Variable
designation
xl
x2
Q,
x^b
x5
Description
Inlet flue gas temperature, °F
Fly ash loading of inlet flue gas, gr/scf
C. ' of forward feed solution
S/CA' of forward feed solution
Ammonium sulfate in forward feed,
x6 | Flow rate of forward feed liquor,
x7
Flow to top of scrubbing stage, %
gm/1
Range to
be tested
180 to 210
0.3 to 3
8 to 15
0.65 to 0. 72
4 to 110
gpm ! 3 to 5
of x6 6 to 12
C. ' is the mols of ammonia in the form of ammonium sulfite and
bisulfite per 100 mols of total water.
a
A' is a mol ratio of S02 present as ammonium sulfite and
bisulfite to the ammonia present as ammonium sulfite and
bisulfite.
With this moderately large group of variables, it was
decided to conduct a highly fractionated 2n test program consisting
of l8 tests—16 points on the hypercube and 2 center points. In
this type of test program, unambiguous results can be obtained on
the linear effect of each individual variable, but the interrela-
tions between variables are masked, assuming that higher order
interactions (three or more variable combinations) are negligible.
This is known as a Resolution IV design.
12
-------
The original levels specified for the independent variables
were not exactly achieved; however, the consistency of levels achieved
was such that a simple analysis of variance (Table l) was performed
for the percentage of S02 removed. The actual data are tabulated in
Appendix C.
The variables having a significant linear effect on the
S02 removal at the levels tested and the percentages of variation
explained were:
Variable
designation_
x4
xl
xj
x5
Description
S/C^' of forward feed solution
Temperature of the inlet flue gas
CA' of forward feed solution
Ammonium sulfate concentration, gm/1
% variation
explained
7^.5
3.9
2.8
1.5
The following tabulation gives a breakdown of the mean
difference of the significant linear effects which were derived
from the first tabulation shown on page 12.
Variable
Mean difference
in percentage S02 removal
(avg of high setting —
avg of low setting)
Inlet flue gas temperature (xl)
CA' of forward feed solution (xj)
S/CA' of forward feed solution (xk)
Ammonium sulfate concentrations (x5)
-2.9
1^.9
2.1
Several important observations were made from the analysis. First,
increasing the temperature of the inlet flue gas increased the S02
removal. This was unexpected. However, further examination of
the data showed that the higher inlet flue gas temperature required
that more makeup water be added to the system. The additional
makeup water was added to the third stage, thereby reducing C '
and S/CA', hence improving the scrubbing potential. These observa-
tions and conclusions were supported by a computer simulation model
developed for the Environmental Protection Agency by Jonathan Earhart.
Next, increasing the sulfate concentration also improved
the removal. Johnstone's equations for the vapor pressure of S02
over solutions indicate that the sulfate level does not alter the
S02 vapor pressure; however, Chertkov's equation shows that
increasing sulfate concentration increases the S02 vapor pressure
over solutions. The effect of sulfate in the statistical analysis,
-------
TABLE 1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PERCENTAGE OF SULFUR DIOXIDE REMOVED
Source
Mean
Linear (total)
xl
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
2— factor interaction
. b
x2x4
x4x5
x3x4
x4xl
x4x6
x2xT
x4x7
Residual (higher
order interactions)
Pooled error
Total
k
Sum of
squares
123728
994.5
"45-9
3.ia
33-1
885.1
18.1
7.6a
l.6a
185.6
.60.1
85.6
7.6a
27.6
l.5a
O.la
3.la
7.6
24.6
124915. 7
\ j
Degrees of j Mean
freedom _, square
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
16
^5.9
33-1
885.1
18.1
60.1
85.6
27.6
3.075
F-ratio (l)
P1'8'.05=5-317T
14. 9268
10. 76^2
287. 8374
5. 8862
19. 5447
27.8374
8. 9756
a
Sum of squares tised for pooled error sum of square (l) F — ratio 5-3177
significant for o(- 0.05 with 1, 8 degrees of freedom.
13 Only one pair listed each pair has two other aliases.
14
-------
while significant (cX, = 0,05), is not compelling. Also, the levels
of sulfate concentration were not widely separated. The lack of
significance of the forward feed rate and the percentage of forward
feed to the top stage on S02 removal indicated that, in the next
test program, the levels of these variables should be altered to
higher and lower levels.
Since the temperature of the flue gas showed a positive
direction, it was decided to expand the temperature range to approxi-
mately l8o° to 300° F.
The level of the the fly ash in the incoming flue gas did
not affect the S02 removal over the range tested (0.3 gr/scf to
5 gr/scf) and it presented no mechanical problems. Therefore,, the
level of fly ash was disregarded as a variable of any impact.
Lastly, the presence of significant two—factor interaction
and the observations and conclusions of the statistical analysis,
paired with the chemical engineering and computer simulation work,
led to the second experimental test program.
The second experimental test program was a half—replicate
of a 2s factorial test. The independent variables were as follows:
1. Inlet flue gas temperature, °F
2. Flow rate of forward feed solution, gpm
3. C^' of forward feed solution
h, Sulfate concentration of forward feed solution, gm/1
5. Flow to top stage, $ of variable 2
In addition, it was decided that instead of adding ammonia
to the forward feed solution to maintain a constant forward feed
liquor, that no ammonia be added, thereby getting a response of S02
removal with varying S/C^' for each set of l6 test conditions. The
run was terminated when the S02 removal dropped to approximately
The actual data are tabulated in Appendix C.
The variables and their respective levels tested in the
second test program are listed in the tabulation on the following
page. The responses that were analyzed as a function of the inde-
pendent variables were S02 removal and ammonia loss.
Because of the extreme nonlinearity of the responses, the
analysis of the data collected in the second test program was not
so straightforward as the first test program. The first attempts
at a simple factorial analysis were unsatisfactory because of the
large residual and will not be presented. In an attempt to describe
the experimental results, it was decided to base all work on the
compositions of the forward feed solution and incoming flue gas.
15
-------
Independent variables for the second test program are shown below.
Variable
designation
Description
Range to be tested
Split
FF
The percentage of feed liquor
directed to the top tray
Forward feed flow rate
Effective ammonia concentration;
i. e. , /mols W& - 2(mols SO^jJ x
T
moIs H20
Sulfate concentration
Temperature of incoming flue gas
10 to
2 to 5 gpm
5 to 10
Low to saturated
225° to 300°F
The unit of mol/min (ft2 of absorber cross—sectional area)
was selected in an attempt to analyze the data and provide scale—up
parameters. The analysis of the data showed that the mol/min (ft2)
of (WH4)2S03 in the forward feed solution was the largest single
controlling variable on S02 removal. A nonlinear model was constructed
in an attempt to adequately describe the S02 removal as a function of
the following variables:
Z±. Mol/min(ft2) of sulfur as (NH4)2S03 divided by
mol/min(fts) of incoming S02 at 125°F.
Z2. Mol/min(ft2) of sulfate sulfur in the forward feed.
Z3. Mol/min(ft2) of ammonia as sulfite and bisulfite
in the forward feed.
The following model describes the S02 removal for the second
screening test runs.
K x Zx x 100
, c,~ ^
Percent S02 removal =
Where
K = 1. 62 + 0. 2?Z2 + 0. 6Z3, and
(Z]>
s>
and- Z - values shown above
The standard error of equation (3) is approximately h% S02 removal. The
temperature of the inlet flue gas was also a significant variable, but
it has been deleted since its effect is to increase the S02 removal
16
-------
approximately 3^ when the inlet flue gas temperature is raised to
290°F. The behavior of equation (l) is illustrated in Figures 4
and 5. From these figures it can be seen that increasing the
sulfate concentration reduced the S02 removal, but the effect is
dampened at the higher levels of Z±—mols/min(ft2) of sulfur as
(EH4)2S03. This is in agreement with Chertkov's equation for the
effect of (NH4)2S04 on the vapor pressure of S02 over solutions.
Ammonia Loss
The ammonia loss from the scrubber was controlled by the
solution composition at the top stage. In order to maintain the
ammonia loss below 50 ppm and the S02 below 250 ppm, it was found
that the pH of the solution to the top stage must be below 6.1.
Analysis of pH versus S/C.' of the second screening test runs led
to the following equation:
pH = 9.2J4 - 0. 023CA' - 0. 002(S04) - 4.222 S/C ' (4)
A
Where
C ' = ammonia concentration as (NH4)2 and NH.4.HS03 —
rV
(mols/100 mols H20)
S04 = sulfate sulfur concentration, gm/1
S/C ' = ratio of mols of sulfur /(NH^aSOa and
£\.
to mols of ammonia J/CNH4)2S03 and KH^SO^/
Table 2 is the analysis of variance for equation (4).
TABLE 2
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR pH
Source
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
squares
42.00
1.159
43.159
Degrees of
freedom
3
161
164
Mean
square
14.00
. 0072
F— ratio
3,161,0.01 ~
3. T8l6
1944. 4
Variable
CA'
S04
S/CA'
Coefficient
- .023
- .002
-4.222
t— statistic
a
T.3
10.8
75.3
Each t—statistic is significant at o*. = 0.01 or less.
17
-------
H
O
a
OJ
O
•H
Q
CQ
18
-------
00
O
UJ
UJ
O
(X
ro
UJ
t
u.
-I
m
Q
z
UJ
(O
(O
Z
o
10
N
IS]
w
H
00
in
CM
«Z9 0
19
-------
Each of the variables in equation (4) is highly significant
( o( = 0.01 or less). The S/CA' ratio has the largest effect on the
pH. If CA' and S04 are set at their midpoints (i.e.,, CA ' = 7 and S04 = 50),
then equation reduces to:
pH = 8. 973 - 4.222 S/CA' (5)
Both Johnstone and Chertkov have presented equations for S/C versus pH.
Johnstone's equation is:
pH = 9. 2 - k. 62 S/C
Chertkov's equation is:
pH - 8. 88 - k. 0 S/C
The equation derived from the TVA—EPA program falls between
the above two equations and also includes the effects of ammonia and
sulfate concentrations. As with Johnstone's and Chertkov's equations,
the validity of equation (4) is limited to the region of testing.
Oxidation
Oxidation data obtained during both test programs were very
scattered. This resulted from taking the difference between two large
numbers. As a result of the scatter in the data, little definite work
could be done; however, the S/CA' ratio did show an effect on oxidation.
The increase of S/CA' did increase oxidation. The following tabulation
lists the average percent oxidation and the average S/CA'.
S/CA' of
forward feed
0.65
0.69
0.72
Percent
oxidation
3
10
23
The amount of oxidation in subsequent test work in which the scrubber
was run under generally similar conditions averaged about Ijfo with an
S/CA' °^ approximately 0.65, which is in reasonable agreement with
statistical test program results.
Heat Recovery
The stack gases from any power plant wet—scrubbing process
must be reheated to increase its bouyancy enough to disperse the S02
and dust. Heat capacity data were obtained to permit calculation of
the heat input required for reheating the scrubbed gases to an accepi>-
able temperature (l75°F). Data were also obtained on the overall heat
transfer coefficient for a standard tube—and—shell type of heat exchanger
for indirectly reheating the gases.
20
-------
Flue Gas Heat Capacity: Data on the heat capacity were
taken before and after the flue gas was scrubbed with the ammoniacal
liquor. Flue gas at a temperature of about 290°F from the coal—fired
boiler entered the shell side of a tube—and—shell type heat exchanger
and was cooled to about 200°F by countercurrent flow of water on the
tube side. Calculations based upon these data indicated an inlet flue
gas heat capacity of 0.260 Btu/lb(°F). This value agrees with the
value cited in literature (16) of 0.255 Btu/lb(°F).
The heat capacity of the scrubbed gas was calculated to be
0.269 Btu/lb(°F). This value was computed by adjusting the inlet gas
value to compensate for the increased water content of the scrubbed
gas. The literature value (l6) for this gas is 0.263 Btu/lb(°F). A
500—megawatt plant would require about 66 million Btu per hour to
reheat the saturated gas from 125° to 175°F. This is equivalent to
about 1—1/2$ of the coal required to generate the 500 megawatts.
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient, Uo: The overall heat
transfer coefficient of the flue gas tube—and—shell heat exchanger
was calculated on the basis of temperature and flow measurements of
the streams entering and leaving the heat exchanger. The exchanger,
manufactured by Thermal Transfer Corporation, consisted of three
sections. Each section contained 22k square feet of heat transfer
surface made from 3/^— inch mild steel tubes. The direction of gas
flow was perpendicular to the tubes. The flue gas entered the shell
side; cooling water flowed countercurrently on the tube side. The
manufacturer's stated Uo for the clean heat exchanger was 11.3
Btu/hr(ft2)(°F). The Uo was not measured when the new heat exchanger
was originally installed. After about 2 months of operation, the
heat transfer data indicated a Uo of 2.9 Btu/hr(ft2)(°F). After
18 months' operating time, the Uo was 2.7 Btu/hr(ft2)(°F), essentially
unchanged from the earlier finding. The indicated decrease in the Uo
from the specified new condition was apparently caused by fly ash
buildup and corrosion products that could not be removed from the
tube surfaces by use of soot blowers provided with the heat exchanger.
The soot blowers might have cleaned the surfaces if the design steam
pressure of 600 psig had been available. Steam at only 350 psig was
available at the site.
Corrosion
Twenty different materials of construction, metallic and
nonmetallic, were tested for corrosion and erosion throughout the
scrubber system using the standard ASTM method. Coupons of the
materials were installed in the flue gas ducts, absorber, recircu—
lation tanks, and pipelines. A detailed listing of all materials
tested, test location, exposure time, and evaluation is presented
in Appendix F.
21
-------
Abrasion from fly ash was probably more serious than corrosion
in the inlet flue gas ducts. The flue gas contained up to 5 grains of
fly ash per cubic foot and had a velocity of approximately 60 ft/s. The
stainless steels tested were satisfactory while mild steel deteriorated
at an excessively high rate. Mild steel ducts are used for similar
service in large steam plants and give good service because a coating
deposits inside the large ducts and protects the metal. Most of the
nonmetallic materials failed because of high temperature (280°—310°F)
or abrasion.
Several types of stainless steel and special alloys showed
good resistance to corrosion in the wetted areas (absorber, ^circula-
tion tanks, pipelines, and exhaust duct). Mild steel was unsatisfactory
in all wetted areas. Most nonmetallic materials were rated as satis-
factory where temperature limitations were not exceeded.
Plume
A major problem associated with the ammonia absorption process
is the emission of a dense plume of water vapor and ammonia salts. The
severity of the plume problem necessitated the expenditure of a large
portion of the test work at pilot plant Wo. 1 in an effort to determine
the operating factors affecting plume emission. Unsuccessful attempts
were made to determine the operating conditions that caused the plume
format ion.
22
-------
PILOT PLANT WO. 2
(PHASE II)
From the results obtained "by operating pilot plant No. 1,
a decision was made to expand the study of the ammonia absorption
process to include the regeneration step. In addition, a concerted
effort was planned to overcome the problem of plume emission from
the absorption step.
Equipment and Operation
The new pilot plant was designed to treat 4000 acfm of flue
gas at JOO0F. Stainless steels (J04 and 3l6), rubber, and Teflon were
used in all wetted sections for corrosion protection. The gas ducts
were mild steel. In the following discussions, the plant is divided
into the absorption and regeneration sections. Pilot plant Wo. 2 was
operated for approximately 1100 hours.
Absorption
The absorption section is shown in Figure 6. The absorber
was the three—stage, marble—bed unit (Environeering, Inc., Hydro-
Filter) which was used in the previous ammonia absorption study. The
three absorber stages could be operated to maximize the S02:WH3 ratio
in the product liquor while limiting the S02 and WH3 content of the
exit gases to 250 and 50 ppm, respectively.
The source of the pilot—plant flue gas was downstream from
the electrostatic precipitator on unit Wo. h at TVA's Colbert Power
Plant. Most of the fly ash was removed in the precipitator; however,
the remaining fly ash (up to 0. 5 gr/scf) entered the piloi>-plant
absorber. A portion of the ash was removed and accumulated in the
absorber solution at a rate of 1 to 10 pounds per hour, depending on
the efficiency of the precipitator.
Most of the fly ash accumulated in the absorber product
storage tanks F—5 and F—6. (Each of the storage tanks had a capacity
for approximately 2k hours' absorber operation. ) Periodically, the
settled material was purged from the system. In future work, studies
of fly ash separation will be made.
Eegeneration
The regeneration section shown in Figure 7 was designed to
process liquor produced in the absorber section. The pilot—plant
regeneration process was designed to include the following steps.
1. Acidulation of the absorber product with ammonium
bisulfate melt to release S02 and form ammonium
sulfate.
23
-------
ABSORBER
VARIABLE SPEEI
BLOWER
TO
'STACK
AMMONIA FROM
REGENERATION
SECTION
VARIABLE SPEED PUMP
J-l
VARIABLE SPEED PUMP
J-2
VARIABLE SPEED PUMP
J-3
RECIRCULATION TANK
RECIRCULATION TANK
RECIRCULATION TANK
J-12
-*- PRODUCT LIQUOR TO
REGENERATION SECTION
FIGURE 6
ABSORPTION SECTION
AMMONIA ABSORPTION - AMMONIUM BISULFATE REGENERATION PROCESS
-------
SULFURtC ACID
STORAGE TANK
r
rr TTT
AMMO
I
1
JU
rL
ibq
NIUM
F-IO
AIR
J-ll
AMMONIA STORAGE TANK
PROPANE
GAS
AMMONIA TO
ABSORPTION
SECTION "•*
STORAGE AND SETTLING TANKS
1
F
r
-5
-
j
-^
t
1
F-6
STEAM
FLY ASH TO WASH AND DISCARD
D-l
AMMONIUM
BISULFATE
GENERATOR
ACIDULATOR
TO STACK
STRIPPER
STRIPPWG
GAS
Y i
1 1
r
F-7
1
L_f
F-8
COOLING
WATER
J'4 AMMONIUM
SULFATE •*-»
CRYSTALLIZATION TANKS
PRODUCT LIQUOR FROM
ABSORPTION SECTION
Tr
J-8
L
F-ll
CENTRIFUGE
AMMONIUM SULFATE
FIGUEE 1
REGENERATION SECTION
AMMONIA ABSORPTION - AMMONIUM BISULFATE REGENERATION PROCESS
-------
2. Stripping of the released S02 from the ammonium sulfate
solution.
3. Crystallization and separation of ammonium sulfate from
the mother liquor.
U. Generation of ammonium bisulfate for the acidulation step
by heating a 1:1 mol ratio of H2S04 and ammonium sulfate.
The acidulation was accomplished in a vessel made from a
6-foot section of a 12—inch stainless s~ceel pipe. The vessel was
coated internally with DuPont's TFE Teflon for corrosion protection.
Mixing of the incoming absorber liquor and ammonium bisulfate was
accomplished in a cone mixer in the upper part of the acidulator.
Released S02 flowed from the acidulation and joined the effluent from
the stripper vessel. The overflow from the acidulator to the stripper
could be raised or lowered to vary the retention time of material in
the acidulator from 0 to a maximum of JO minutes.
The Teflon-lined stripping vessel was 1 foot in diameter by
6 feet high and contained a ^4—foot section of 1/2—inch ceramic Raschig
rings. Acidulated liquor entered the top of the vessel and flowed
countercurrently to a stream of stripping gas entering the vessel near
the bottom. In the pilot plant, provisions were made to use either
steam, air or scrubbed flue gas as the stripping gas.
Ammonium, sulfate solution from the stripping vessel flowed
by gravity to crystallization tank F—7 where the water evaporated.
The concentrated solution then flowed to F—8 where cooling and crystal-
lization occurred. The ammonium sulfate crystals were separated from
the mother liquor.
In a completely closed—loop ammonium bisulfate regeneration
scheme, all the ammonium sulfate produced in the acidulation step is
thermally decomposed. The resulting ammonium bisulfate is fed to the
acidulation step and the ammonia was returned to the absorption section.
In this pilot—plant study, the thermal decomposition stage was omitted
and the acid ion was furnished by sulfuric acid. Ammonium bisulfate
will be the source of the acid ion later. The required ammonium
bisulfate will be generated by heating a 1:1 molar mixture of sulfuric
acid and ammonium sulfate. The sulfuric acid and the ammonium sulfate
will be fed separately and continuously to the ammonium bisulfate
generator D-l, a Teflon—lined stainless steel vessel. Here, sufficient
heat will be added to the acid—ammonium sulfate mixture to evaporate
the water added with the acid and to bring the mixture to about 350°F.
The ammonium bisulfate melt will then be fed to the acidulator.
Since ammonium sulfate was not decomposed during this study,
no ammonia was available from the regeneration section. The makeup
ammonia was fed from the ammonia storage tank F—9 directly to the
absorption section. Provisions will be made later to simulate ammonia
recovery from a stream of off—gases from a thermal decomposition process.
26
-------
Vent System
The exit flue gas is vented to the atmosphere for plume
observation. The recovered S02 from the acidulator and stripper
was vented into the power plant stack. The storage tanks containing
ammoniated solutions were vented to the absorber or to the stack.
Instrumentation
The pilot plant is instrumented throughout so that all
pertinent liquid and gas flows are monitored and values are recorded.
All signals are electrically transmitted from the sensing elements
to the recorder—controllers.
The gas flow through the absorber system is monitored using
a flange orifice in the duct leaving the absorber. A differential
pressure (d/p) cell (The Foxboro Company) senses the pressure differ-
ential across the orifice and sends a signal to a recorder—controller
on the pilot—plant instrumentation board. Any deviation from the
preset values on the controller—recorder causes a signal to be sent
to the variable—speed drive mechanism on the induced—draft blower
(J—23) to correct the deviation. This arrangement assures that a
constant gas flow through the absorber system is maintained.
Sulfur dioxide levels in the gas to the absorber and after
each stage are monitored using an ultraviolet analyzer (DuPont's kOO
Photometric Analyzer). The analyzer has three ranges of S02 values:
0-4000, 0-1000, and 0-100 ppm full-scale reading. The sample selec-
tion is changed manually from station to station to avoid the possi-
bility of leaks from an automatic sample sequencing system. Periodic
checks by wet—chemical methods confirmed the analyzer readings.
A smoke detector is used to monitor the opacity of the
plume at the stack exit. The instrument, manufactured by Photomation,
Inc., used a light source and a photocell to measure the plume opacity.
The digital readout is in Ringlemann units.
Gaseous ammonia was metered to the system as required with
a Foxboro differential pressure cell coupled with a recorder—controller
and a flow control valve. Liquid flows are sensed by magnetic flow-
meters which send electronic signals to recorder—controllers. The
required flows of recirculating liquor to the first two absorber
stages are maintained by variable—speed pumps J—1 and J—2. Variable-
speed pumps are used for flow control instead of valves because fly
ash removed in the bottom stages could cause plugging and erosion
of control valves. Automatic flow control valves are used to control
the flow of the remaining liquid streams.
27
-------
Temperatures throughout the system were sensed with thermo-
couples and recorded on strip charts in the control room.
See Appendix B for an evaluation of equipment performance
for pilot plant No. 1 and No. 2.
Study Program and Results
Problem Areas
Plume: The most severe problem encountered during the study
of the ammonia absorption process was the formation of a dense persistent
plume. A typical plume emitted during routine pilot—plant operations
with no gas reheat (exit temperature is approximately 125°F) is shown
in Figure 8. The plume was formed during operation using three
absorption stages, no prior humidification, and while producing a liquor
with a 0^ of about 10 and an S/C^ of 0. 8. The sulfur dioxide removal
efficiency under these conditions was typically about 90$. Efforts to
reduce or eliminate the plume through manipulation of the pH of the
absorber liquor and the addition of a humidification step ahead of the
absorber did not significantly reduce the plume opacity. Under these
conditions, the steam plume may have masked any reduction in the ammonia-
based plume. Adding a wet—electrostatic precipitator after the absorber
failed to produce significant results at the normal gas flow rate, 2600
scfm, (The precipitator was found to be 50$ efficient in removing the
particulate mass at this flow rate—15 ft/s shell velocity through the
precipitator. )
Chemical and petrographic analyses of the plume collected
in an impaction sampler (Brinks mass sampler) indicated that the major
fraction of the ammonia—sulfur salt was ammonium sulfate. It is
probable that the particulate was formed in the vapor phase as ammonium
sulfite and then oxidized to the sulfate form in the sampler. A portion
of the particulate has been analyzed as ammonium chloride. (The coal
used during these tests normally contained 0.1—0.2$ chlorides.) Tests
showed that a water wash ahead of the absorber materially reduced the
chloride content of the gas entering the absorber.
Personnel from the Southern Research Institute of Birmingham,
Alabama, determined the fume mean particule size to be 0. 25 micron with
107 particles/cm3 in the size range of 0.005 to 0.5 micron.
Solids Separation: Other problems identified in the pilot-
plant program are not so visible as the plume problem but they may prove
to be as difficult to solve. These are problems of fly ash separation
and ammonium sulfate separation. Most of the fly ash settled in the
absorber product storage and settling tanks during the 2k hours of
retention. However., the small quantity in the supernatant liquor from
the tanks may be sufficient to adversely affect the production of
crystalline ammonium sulfate further downstream in the process. Also,
28
-------
CO
O
c
ec
PL
O
-P
-P
0)
-------
The fly ash which contains iron may catalyze the decomposition of
ammonia during thermal decomposition of ammonium sulfate. Attempts
to remove the product liquor from the settled fly ash by filtration
in a tub filter failed because of blinding of the filter media. The
fly ash was settled from absorber product liquor which had CA values
of approximately 10 and contained from 10 to about 30% by weight
ammonium sulfate. The blinding was caused by gelatinous, thixotropic
material containing finely divided fly ash and needle-like crystals
of ferrous ammonium sulfite which precipitated from the absorber
solution. The dissolved iron contained in this compound probably came
from the fly ash. The quantity of iron dissolved in the solution is
small—on the order of 0.01 gm/1. Use of filter aids and precoats on
various types of filter media failed to prevent blinding.
An equipment company specializing in solids separation made
filtration tests on the absorber product liquor containing fly ash and
also on the mud from the bottom of the settling tanks. Drum filters
with filter aids were recommended for both materials.
Separation of ammonium sulfate crystals from the acidulated
and concentrated liquor in the regeneration loop, though difficult, may
be easier than fly ash separation. Licuor concentration and crystal
growth occur by evaporating water from the solution in a tank at
atmospheric pressure. Crystal growth cannot be controlled, in this
equipment and attempts to separate the small crystals in the pilot-
plant centrifuge and drum filter failed. Petrographic analysis indicated
that ferrous ammonium sulfite was present in the material blinding the
separation equipment the same as in the fly ash separation tests.
Bench-scale work using solutions from the pilot-plant opera-
tion produced much larger crystals than those produced in the pilot
plant. The ferrous ammonium sulfite did not cement together the
larger crystals produced in the bench—scale work. Filtration rates of
over 200 gal/hr(ft2) were obtained. The use of an evaporator—crystal—
lizer is expected to produce the required crystals although the small
amount of fly ash in the solution may influence the design (and cost)
of the unit. The equipment manufacturers were contacted concerning
the sulfate crystal growth and separation and they were of the opinion
that the standard sulfate crystallizer equipment would be sufficient..
However,, all stated that they could not guarantee this equipment
without making tests using the actual solution containing fly ash.
Once adequate crystals of proper size are produced, separation
could be accomplished by standard methods of filtration and centrifuga—
tion used in the ammonium sulfate industry.
Pilot-Plant Test Results
Routine Operation: Performance of the pilot plant in removing
S02 from the flue gas and in subsequently releasing the absorbed S02 has
been good. Data from a typical pilot—plant run when producing an absorber
-------
liquor with a CA of 10 and an S/C^ of 0.8 are presented in Table 3.
The ammonia required to react with the S0£ was added to the second-
stage absorber loop (F— 2 tank). Approximately 90$> of the S02 was
removed under these conditions. Approximately 13$ of the absorbed
S02 was oxidized to ammonium sulfate.
The regeneration loop was operated using sulfuric acid to
acidify the liquor from the absorber section. Typical data from
these tests are shown in Table k. Sulfuric acid was used for acidu—
lation instead of ammonium bisulfate because no ammonium sulfate
crystals were available from the pilot plant for production of the
bisulfate. Clarified liquor from the absorber section was pumped
to the acidulator at approximately 0. h gpm, the rate the liquor is
produced in the absorber. Sulfuric acid was pumped to the acidulator
at a rate of 1. 2 mols of acid ion per mol of sulfite and bisulfite
sulfur in the feed liquor. Approximately 85$ of the sulfur dioxide
present as the sulfite or bisulfite in the feed liquor was released
from the acidulator. The liquor containing the remaining S02 flowed
to the stripper. Approximately 83$ of the residual S02 was removed by
stripping with 12 cfm of air. The overall removal" efficiency of the
combined acidulator and stripper was 97$>.
The acidulated and stripped liquor flowed to the evaporation
tank F—7. The liquor was concentrated to about ^5$> ammonium sulfate
by weight and then cooled in tank F—8 to near 100°F to precipitate
crystalline ammonium sulfate. As noted earlier, the ammonium sulfate
could not be separated from the mother liquor in the pilot>-plant equip-
ment.
Double—Alkali Tests: Production of liquors with low C^ is
uneconomical for use in the ammonium bisulfate regeneration process
because of the energy requirements to concentrate the solutions in
the regeneration section. However,, scrubbing with solutions of low
Cn has possible application in the double—alkali process. In the
double—alkali process based on sodium as the absorbent, the concen-
tration of sodium in the absorber loop is limited to about 0.17 mol
per 100 mols of water because of solubility limitations in the regen-
eration section. Ammoniacal solutions, which are not limited to low
concentrations in the regeneration loop, would offer economic advan-
tages because the size of the regeneration equipment could be reduced.
When using an ammoniacal solution with a CA of 0. 5, the regeneration
equipment size could be reduced to about one—third that required with
sodium solutions.
A test series was made to determine whether a plume would
be present under absorber conditions expected in the double—alkali
process. The test series was made using the flow configuration shown
in Figure 9. Water was used on the bottom stage (G—l) for humidification
-------
TABLE 5
TYPICAL ABSORBER LOOP TEST
AMMONIA ABSORPTION AMMONIUM BISULFATE PILOT PLANT
Test conditions
Gas to scrubber
Flow rate, scfm at 32°F
Temperature, °F
S02, ppm
Gas leaving first stage
Temperature, °F
S02, ppm
Gas leaving second stage
Temperature, °F
S02, ppm
Gas leaving scrubber
Temperature, °F
Wet bulb
Dry bulb
S02, ppm
SOg removal, % ,
Forward feed flow rate, gpm
Liquor to top stage
CA
S/CA
pH
Specific gravity
Liquor to middle stage
Ct
Specific gravity
Liquor to bottom stage
CA
S/CA
pH
Specific gravity
Product from scrubber
CA
PH
Specific gravity
Flow rate, gpm
NH3 to F-2 tank
(normal operation)
2650
285
2360
127
1440
125
360
122
115
117
280
88
1.3
0.78
6.1
l. 036
5- 1
0.62
6.8
1. 098
10.8
0.8l
5-7
1. 200
0.84
5.7
1. 202
0.41
The only forward feed added to the system was water and gaseous ammonia.
-------
TABLE 4
TYPICAL REGENERATION LOOP OPERATION
AMMONIA-ABSORPTION AMMONIUM BISULFATE PILOT PLANT
Test conditions
Acidulation with HpSO.4. only
Acidulator
Liquor feed in
CA
S/CA
pH
Specific gravity
Flow rate, gpm
Sulfuric acid
Flow rate, gpm
Percent sulfuric acid
Stoichiometrya
Liquor flow out
CA
S/CA
PH
Specific gravity
Percent S02 release
Stripper
Stripping gas
Type gas
Flow rate, cfm at 70°F
Liquor flow out
CA
pir
Specific gravity
Percent S02 release
Overall % S02 release
9.8
0.83
6.0
1.193
0.36
0.11
93
1.2
1.3
i.o
2.0
85
Air
12
0.2
1.0
2.1
1.188
83
97
a
Stoichiometry is the ratio of mols of acid ion to mols NH3 as ammonium
"bisulfite and ammonium sulfite in the liquor to the acidulator.
33
-------
CHEVRON-TYPE
MIST ELIMINATOR
G-3
(MARBLE BED)
6-2
(MARBLE BED)
G-l
(MARBLE BED)
INLET GAS
V_
MAKE-UP
WATER
EXIT GAS TO ATMOSPHERE
REHEAT
ONCE-THROUGH
LIQUOR
TO
STORAGE
F-5
TO SEWER
FIGURE 9
'LOW CONFIGURATION TOR DOUBLE-ALKALI TESTS USING AMMONIACAL SOLUTIONS
-------
and fly ash removal. Forward feed liquor (ammoniacal solution) was
pumped to the middle stage (G—2) at JO gpm on a once—through basis
and then drained to the product liquor hold tank. The gas leaving
the absorber was reheated during most of the test series by direct
heating with a propane torch.
A steam plume as well as a minor residual particulate plume
was present when scrubbing flue gas with water only (Fig. 10). The
steam component of the plume was dissipated when the exit gas was
reheated to 175°F, but a light particulate plume remained (Fig. ll).
An additional plume component was present when an ammoniacal solution
was used. The opacity of the plumes produced when scrubbing with
solutions having C^'s of 0.5 or 1.0 was reduced to 10$ or less by
reheating to 175°F. The severe plume while scrubbing with a solu-
tion having a C of 1. 0 and with no gas reheat is shown in Figure 12.
The reduced plume from this operation while reheating to 175°F is
shown in Figure 13. The S0£ removal efficiencies varied from 75 to
during these tests.
In one test, two— stage absorption was used to increase
S02 removal. The forward feed liquor was pumped to the middle and
top stages at a rate of 30 gpm to each. An average S02 removal of
92$ resulted when operation with solutions having a C« of 1.8 to
both absorbing stages. Reheating to 200° F was required in this test
sequence to lower the plume opacity to 20$ or less (Fig.
It was concluded from these tests that the opacity of the
plume produced during operation with these solutions having low
ammonia contents can be made acceptable by reheating the exit gas
to a temperature necessary to dissipate the steam component of the
plume. This temperature will vary according to the temperature and
relative humidity of the ambient air.
Modified Pilot—Plant Operation
The absorption section of the pilot plant was operated
from April 16 to May h, 1973; to study additional methods of meking
the plume acceptable (5$ or less opacity judged by qualified visual
emissions observers). This operation was carried out in cooperation
with Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. , Allentown, Pennsylvania.
The tests were made to determine whether the plume leaving
the absorber could be made acceptable by operating with one or more
of the following:
• Insulated absorber
• A water wash ahead of the first absorber stage
-------
§
H
P-4
US
of
Q)
•H
-P
r-
LT\
|
0)
i*
-------
FIGURE 11
Single-Stage Operation, Flue Gas Washed with Water,
Reheat Temperature = 173°F, Ambient Temperature = 5T°F,
Relative Humidity =
37
-------
FIGURE 12
Once-Through, Single-Stage Absorber Operation
(Forward Feed to Absorber: C. = 1, 8/0^= 0.8)
No Reheat, Ambient Temperature = 49°F, Relative Humidity =
-------
>•>'-> ^-^T*^
• '.T-4&
f-> I- ^/S3
')•£$!
JfI"W^, .'.« V* ^^y^r^y £,£
IM
^;'
» -.* ^ i^jy*** »A
-, *; O VtTC-^r **
'H,.-»Vf§>**
•<*«,< *i*i?
:&,.^ ^. , "^S. « fp
v^ »=• ^ •**
, > %:*•*
*, , 1^>.T
C7* . '-.»,-- » ' \- • ^-gnai
V v«-.' ^V/ ™^ * 'fr'r"1
I..T*Y-'' 4';^'* *-^?
»*K»^ \ ^» r%, »!
«* * jf .^ & w
Itf '*>*'*'* ? ^- "' •** y ^ **
FIGURE 13
Once-llirough, Single-Stage Absorber Operation
(Forward Feed to Absorber: Cfc = 1, S/CA = 0.82)
Reheat Temperature = 1750Fj Amlpient Temperature = k-
Relative Humidity =
39
-------
FIGURE 14
Once-Itirough, Two-Stage Absorber Operation
(Forward Feed to Absorber; CA = 1.8, S/CA = 0.70)
Reheat Temperature = 200°F, Ambient Temperature = 57°F,
Relative Humidity =
HO
-------
• A water wash after the absorber stage
• Reheating the exit flue gas
Two basic flow configurations were used: a recirculation
system using one, two, or three stages of absorption (Fig. 15); and
a once—through system using one stage of absorption (Fig. 16). The
absorber and all downstream ductwork were insulated for reasons that
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., consider proprietary. The water
wash ahead of the first absorption stage was used to humidify and
cool the hot flue gas, to remove chlorides and thereby prevent forma-
tion of an ammonium chloride plume, and to remove fly ash. Humidifying
and cooling the flue gas should reduce or eliminate the ammonia—sulfur
plume by preventing evaporation of droplets of absorber solution.
Evaporation of these droplets could cause localized concentrations
of sulfur dioxide and ammonia sufficient for plume formation. The
moving marble "bed of the bottom stage (G—l) used in previous work
was replaced with a multiventuri FlexiTray manufactured by Koch
Engineering Company, Inc. No downtime was required when this type of
tray was deactivated during absorber operation. (The glass marbles
had to be removed from the marble—bed absorber when the unit was
deactivated to prevent damage from thermal shock should absorber
liquor accidentally come in contact with the hot bed. )
The purpose of the water wash after the absorption stage was
to decrease the salt content of the entrained mist leaving the absorber.
Reheating would have evaporated the mist and produced an increased
concentration of ammonia and sulfur dioxide in the exit flue gas which
could have then reacted to form a plume. The top stage of the absorber
(G—3) was used for this wash. The gas leaving the absorber was directly
reheated with a propane torch to destroy the ammonia—based particulate
matter present and eliminate a steam plume. The retention time of the
heated flue gas in the ductwork was 1. 5 seconds.
A summary of the test conditions and the opacity readings
for each test are given in Table 5. These tests indicate that a
plume with acceptable opacity was obtained during production of
liquor with high CA'S when:
• Water wash stage was used ahead of the first absorber
• Absorber and all ducts were insulated
• Reheat was applied as required to dissipate the steam plume
Comparison of Figure 17 and Figure 18 shows the effect of
the water wash ahead of the first absorber stage. In Figure 17, the
water wash was not employed and the opacity was 5$. The water wash
was activated and the opacity dropped to 0$> (Fig. 18).
The concentration of ammonia salts in the range CA of 0.1
to 3 in the water wash (G—3) after the absorption stage did not signifi-
cantly affect the plume opacity.
The chloride concentration of the inlet flue gas was approxi-
mately 30 ppm and in the exit gas was about 3 ppm.
-------
EXIT GAS TO ATMOSPHERE
CHEVRON-TYPE
MIST ELIMINATOR
G-3
(MARBLE BED)
G-2
(MARBLE BED)
G-l
(KOCH TRAY)
INLET GAS
PRODUCT
FIGURE I1}
RKCIRCUTATING FLOW CONFIGURATION
-------
CHEVRON-TYPE
MIST ELIMINATOR
G-3
(MARBLE BED)
G-2
(MARBLE BED)
G-l
(KOCH TRAY)
INLET GAS
EXIT GAS TO ATMOSPHERE
9 S ^ *
/•* *-* r\ r\ r\
"
MAKE-UP
WATER
F-l
» REHEAT
ONCE-THROUGH
LIQUOR
TO
STORAGE
F-5
TO SEWER
TO SEWER
Fir.URE 16
[-T,OW CONFIGURATION
-------
TABLE
Test No.
Date
Time
Liquor flow configuration
Flow
Liquor, gpm
To G-l (bottom stage)
To G-2 (middle stage)
To G-3 (top stage)
Gas, cfm
Liquor CAS
G-l-Ib
G~1"°b
0-2-Oc
G-3-Ib
0-3-0°
Liquor S/CA
G-l-I
G-1-0C
0-2-Ib
0-2-0°
G-3-Ib
G-3-Oc
Liquor pH
0-1-1°
G-1-0C
G-2-Ib
G-2-Oc
G-3-Ib
0-3-0°
SOo. ppm
Entering G-l
Leaving G-l
Leaving G-2
Leaving G-3
Percent removal
m3 leaving G-3, PPm
Temperatures, °F
Liquor
From G-l
From G-2
From G-3
Gas
To G-l
From G-l
From G-2
From G-3
Exit gas
Ambient
Relative humidity, %
Predicted minimum temperature
at which steam plume forms,
Reheat temperature, °F
Percent opacity
SUMMARY OF OPERATING DATA FOR THE PILOT PLANT
FOR AMMONIA ABSORPTION - AMMONIUM BISULFATB REGENERATION PROCESS
(INSULATED TEST SERIES,
o i
' 4/19
11:00 a.m. 1
J
30
30
15
2700
28.1 ,
1
! 9.52
9-48
1-35
1.88
;
0.76
_
i 0.58
i 0.59
1 0.62
! 0.60
5.90
; 6.70
, 6.70
; 6.70
. 6.80
2600
', 1700
80
I 98.5
141
126
i 282
130
, 126
200
73
1 J
80
ture
ns, °F 152
200
25
1-1
4/20
00 p.m. 1
30
30
15
2700
13.21
13-09
4.90
4.73
0.10
0.82
0.83
0-55
0.57
_
0.86
5-75
5-75
7-25
6.95
7.20
, 7.10
2320
' i860
400
100
95-6
47
i !3l
! 127
126
290
132
127
: 125
150
84
49
120
150
65
I-2A
4/20
45 p.m. 2
33
30
15
2700
12.6
13.0
5.2
5-2
0.1
0.6
0.85
0.84
0.55
0.57
0.84
0.58
, 5.80
i 5.75
! 7.10
' 6.95
1 7-25
7.15
2440
. 2000
300
4o
i 98-4
51
1 131
127
126,
289
• 133
! 127
j 125
1 200
85
i *7
120
( 200
15
APRIL - MAY
I-2B
4/20
15 p.m. J:
Re c i re ula~b J
31
30
15
2700
14.0
13-8
4-9
5.0
0.1
0.4
0.81
0.82
0.56
0.57
0.85
0.61
5.80
5-75
; 7.10
! 6.95
7.25
; 7.15
: 2600
1880
160
60
1 97-7
51
!
130
127
126
286
132
i 126
125
220
85
120
220
20
1973)
I-2C
4/20
I-2D
4/20 '
15 p.m. 3:40 p.m. 5:
r\rr
Il£
31
30
15
2700
-
30
3«
15
2700
13.0
13-6
_
-
-
-
-
-
4.5
4.5
1.2
1.4
0.79
0.79
0.60
0.62
0.72
0.70
5.80 5-80
5-90
6.80
5-90
6.80
6 . 70 6 . 70
6 . 50 6 . 50
6.50 ' 6.50
2400 i 2400
{ 2040 1640
i 160 240
60 ' 160
i 97-5 93-3
: 51 50
131 131
126 128
125 ; 125
290 290
: 133 < 133
: 127 127
125 , 126
225 i 200
82 84
42 ' 42
124 120
225 200
10 15
1-3
4/20
55 p.m. 6
29
30
15
2700
0.85
1.50
10.6
10.4
0.14
0.31
0.95
0.93
0.78
0.79
0.99
0.95
5.10
5-70
5.90
5-90
5-70
4.90
2520
1760
920
920
63-5
87
121
129
122
; 270
124
129
121
160
• 83
42
124
; 160
! Nil
1-4
4/20
:05 p.m.
i
1 30
; 30
15
2700
i
, 0.85
, 1-50
1 10.6
1 10.4
1 0.14
I 0.3]
i
0.95
0.9!>
0.78
; 0 . 79
' 0 . 99
0.95
5.10
' 5-70
5-90
5-90
5-70
4.90
2520
1760
920
920
63.5
,
1
121
129
' 12S
270
124
129
121
-
83
42
124
None
5
-------
TABLE 5 (CONT. )
Test No.
Date
1-5 1-6 A
4/23 1 */23
1-7 I-8A
4/23 ' 4/23
1-13 1 I-1*A
4/24 1 4/24
1-15
4/24
I-16A
4/24
Time 2:15 p.m. 1:45 p.m. 2:40 p.m. 3:05 p.m. 3:15 p.m. 3:45 p.m. 4:30 p.m. 4:10 p.m.
Flow
Liquor, gpm
To 0-1 (bottom stage)
To 0-2 (middle stage)
To 0-3 (top stage)
Gas, cfm
Liquor CAa
G-l-I
0-1-0°
G-2-Ib
0-2-0°
G-3-I
0-3-0° .
Liquor S/CAa
0-1- Ib
0-1-0°
0-2-Ib
(5-2-0°
0-3-Ib
0-3-0°
Liquor pH
0-1-1°
0-1-0°
0-2-Ib
0-2-0°
G-3-Ib
0-3-0°
Entering 0-1
Leaving 0-1
Leaving 0-2
Leaving 0-3
Percent removal
MHs leaving 0-3* ppn
Temperatures, °F
Liquor
From 0-1
From 0-2
From 0-3
Oas
To 0-1
From 0-1
From 0-2
From 0-3
Exit gas
Ambient
Relative humidity,
Predicted minimum temperature
at which steam plume forms, 'F6
Reheat temperature, °F
Percent opacity
31
31
15
2700
0.30
0.50
10.1
10.1
0.21
0.38
0.93
0.88
0.77
0.78
0.72
0.81
4.70
5-90
6.00
6.00
4.70
5.00
2560
2600
880
680
73-*
*7
125
130
150
290
127
130
125
150
72
84
159
150
20
32
32
15
2700
0.30
0.50
10.1
10.1
0.21
0.38
0.93
0.88
0.77
0.78
0.72
0.81
4.70
5-90
6.00
6.00
4.70
5.00
2480
2520
880
720
70.9
47
127
130
127
290
128
130
125
200
70
84
160
200
5
-
0
30
17
2700
-
-
9-1
8.9
0.30
0.41
-
_
0.77
0.79
0.93
0.90
—
-
5.80
5.80
S.10
4.20
2480
2480
920
780
68.5
79
-
128
124
290
274
138
124
150
72
80
15*
150
30
,
\SU\~^ 1/AU.WM.*
0
30
17
2700
_
-
9.1
8.9
0.30
0.4l
-
.
0.77
0.79
0.93
0.90
—
_
5.80
5.80
5.10
4.20
2480
2480
920
780
68.5
-
-
128
124
288
285
128
124
200
72
80
15*
200
5
30
30
15
2700
0.12
0.11
1.9
1.9
0.33
0.29
0.50
0.70
0.76
0.81
0.78
0.91
2.40
2.30
6.00
5.80
3.10
3.10
2480
2520
480
560
77.*
37
125
126
125
288
125
126
125
150
65
93
181
150
22/15
at lip
30
30
15
2700
0.12
0.11
1.9
1-9
0.33
0.29
0.50
0.70
0.76
0.81
0.78
0.91
2.40
2.30
6.00
5-80
3-10
3.10
2600
2600
44o
560
78.5
39
125
126
125
286
126
127
126
200
66
93
181
200
0
0
30
15
2700
-
-
1.8
1-7
0
30
15
2700
_
-
1.8
1-7
0.23 i 0.23
0.24 0.24
-
_
0.78
0.86
0.95
0.95
-
_
0.78
0.86
0.95
0.95
<• ••
_
6.00 6.00
5-70 ; 5-70
3-10 3.10
2.90 2.90
2600 ' 2600
2540 i 2540
440 580
600 ' 64
76-9 75-*
3* 3*
i
-
128 , 126
126 125
I
286 284
268 255
127 127
125 124
150 I 200
66 66
92 92
i
181 181
150 200
80/30 5
at lip t
-------
TABLE 5 (CONT. )
Test No.
Date
Time
Liquor flow configuration
Flow
Liquor, gpm
To G-l (bottom stage)
To G-2 (middle stage)
To G-3 (top stage)
Gas, cfm
1-17 1-17 ' 1-18
4/26 1 4/27 ' 5/1
3:05 p.m. 1:45 p.m. 1:00 p.m.
•4 ReoirculatinK-.
30
30
25
3000
Liquor C £ :
G-l-lb
0-1-0°
G-2-Ib
G-2-Oc
G-3-Ib
G-3-Oc
Liquor S/CAa
G-1-0C
G-2-Ib
G-2-Oc
G-3-Ib
G-3-Oc
Liquor pH
G-l-I
G-1-0C
G-2-Ib
G-2-Oc
G-3-Ib
G-3-Oc
0.03
0.03
11.6
11.8
0.29
0.38
0.74
0.75
0.93
31
30
26
30
30
25
3000 1 2900
0.03
0.03
ff
^
11.6 11.62
11.8
0.29
0.38
"
11.72
2.06
2.39
•"
0.74 0.75
0.75 0.75
0.93
0.93 0.93
2.30
2.30
2.20 2.20
0.93
0.89
2'. 20
2.20
6.00 ! 6.00 6.00
5-90
5-30
5-50
SO 2, ppm
Entering G-l
Leaving G-l
Leaving G-2
Leaving G-3
Percent removal
2620
2440
600
5-90 5-90
5.30 ; 5.60
5.50 5-60
2840 2640
2560 2480
680 560
680 | 4oo 440
74.0
NH3 leaving G-3, ppm : 89
Temperatures, °F
Liquor
From G-l
From G-2
From G-3
Gas
To G-l
From G-l
From G-2
From G-3
Exit gas
Ambient
Relative humidity, $
85-9 83-3
70 93
124 120 125
128 128
134
124 ' 121 j 129
280
272 | 295
124 120 125
128
124
200
128 , 133
120
127
160 200
60 57 I 74
96 51 64
Predicted minimum temperature )
at which steam plume forms, "F6 198 170 " l4l
Reheat temperature, °F 200 160 . 200
Percent opacity , 40/5 ', 12/10 ! 10/5
1 at lip at lip at lip
1-18
5/2
4:00 p.m.
30
30
25
2700
0.04
0.04
7.61
8.39
2.94
; 3-21
~
0.82
0.79
0.95
0.92
2.4o
2.30
5-80
5-70
5-40
5-40
J
; 2520
2400
560
: 800
68.3
85
5
1
I 110
! 125
122
j
! 294
115
1 124
121
160
'• 80
: 56
i
131
160
5
a Molo of active ammonia as ammonium sulfite-bisulfite per 100 mols'of water.
b Inlet cample.
c Outlet cample.
d Mol ratio of SOS:NH3-
e Calculated minimum temperature at which eteam plume can form regardless of dilution; does
not include a colid particulate plume, that is, an ammonia salt plume.
-------
CO
O
II
O
CQ
ol
t_
H
O
H
PH
• •
£_,
-------
CO
o
II
o
CQ
OJ
II
OJ
CO
H
H
O
1 — I
^
.. o^
!-
a
r-
?-
o
V.
^
o
-p
rd
cu
P
°
j-
-P
c
p
a
EH
•p
a
^
^
•^
Pq
o
O
II
S
-P
fi
0)
1
M -P
-P
CQ
0)
M
S
•H
CQ
05
0)
CD
a;
o:
|
T
-^
|
c
a
<-
-------
The effect of chloride removal on plume reduction could not
be separated from the effects of cooling and humidifying the gas ahead
of the first absorber stage.
Heat losses were minimized by insulating the absorber system.
The difference between the liquor temperature and the outside absorber
skin temperature averaged about 1 Farenheit degree. In operation with-
out insulation, differences as great as 30 Farenheit degrees were mea-
sured. The effect of the insulation in preventing plume formation was
not determined.
The reheat required to dissipate the steam plume is a function
of the ambient temperature and relative humidity. The reheat tempera-
ture required to avoid formation of a steam plume can be predicted for
a given scrubber exit temperature and pressure of water vapor, according
to the procedure given in Appendix J. The predicted reheat temperature
for each test is included in Table 5. Reheating the gas to a tempera-
ture above the predicted reheat temperature resulted in an acceptable
plume when a water wash was used ahead of the absorber. In one test
(1-4), an acceptable plume was obtained without reheating (Fig. 19).
In this case, the gas leaving the absorber was at a higher temperature
than the predicted reheat temperature. In those tests without a water
wash, reheating decreased the plume opacity and in two tests (l—8 and
I—16) the decreased opacity reached an acceptable level.
Tests 1—17 and I—18 were extended runs designed to show the
reheat required as a function of the ambient conditions (temperature
and relative humidity). The plume opacity was maintained at a constant
5^ by adjusting the reheat temperature of the exit flue gas (maximum
temperature set at 200°F). Data from these tests show that the reheat
requirements for an acceptable plume increase with increased relative
humidity. These data as well as the predicted reheat temperature
necessary to avoid formation of a steam plume and the opacity reading
of the stack are given below.
Relative
humidity, %
9h
9^
80
69
62
53
h2
32
Ambient
temp. , °F
62
62
65
63
68
57
60
82
Predicted reheat
temp, required
to eliminate
steam plume, °F
189
189
166
162
152
170
15^
12^4
Reheat
temp. , °F
125
Wo reheat)
200
193
196
197
180
175
158
Opacity
At
stack exit
50
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
reading, %
10 feet
above stack
60
30
10
10
5
5
5
5
-------
H
O
•H
13
H
0)
«
o
CO
II
-------
Formation of a high—opacity plume several feet from the
discharge of the stack occurred on days when the relative humidity was
high (see data on page ^9). Figure 20 shows a plume reforming down-
wind from a clear stack. Reheat temperatures required to avoid forma-
tion of a plume on days of high relative humidity and low temperature
are impractical if not impossible to achieve.
-------
a
C5
E
a
CO
-p
OJ
0)
0)
K
-------
REFERENCES
1. Ramsey,, "Use of the NHs-SO^H20 System as a Cyclic Recovery
Method/' British Patent 1,^27 (1883).
2. Lepsoe, R. , Kirkpatrick, W. S., "S02 Recovery at Trail, A
General Picture of the Development and Installation of the Sulfur
Dioxide Plant of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of
Canada, Limited, at Trail, B. C. ," Trans. Can. Inst. Mining Met, ho,
(In Can. Mining Met. Bull. No. 30*0, 399-^C4 (1937).
3. Johnstone, H. F. , "Recovery of S02 from Waste Gas: Equilibrium
Partial Vapor Pressures Over Solutions of the Ammonia—Sulfur
Dioxide-Water System," Ind. Eng. Chem 27 (5), 587-93 (May 1935).
k. Johnstone, H. F., Keyes, D. B. , "Recovery of S02 from Waste Gases:
Distillation of a Three—Component System Ammonia—Sulfur Dioxide-
Water/' Ind. Eng. Chem. 27 (6), 659-65 (June 1935).
5. Johnstone, H. F., Singh, A. D., "Recovery of S02 from Waste Gases;
Design of Scrubbers for Large Quantities of Gases, Ind. Eng. Ghem.
29 (3), 286-97 (March 1937).
6. Johnstone, H. F., "Recovery of S02 from Waste Gases; Effect of
Solvent Concentration on Capacity and Steam Requirements of
Ammonium Sulfite — Bisulfite Solutions, " Ind. Eng. Chem. 29
(12), 1396-98 (December 1937).
7. Johnstone, H. F. , "Recovery of Sulfur Dioxide from Dilute
Gases," Pulp Paper Mag. Con. 53 (», 105-12 (March 1952),
8. Hein, L. B. , Phillips, A. B. , Young, R. D. , "Recovery of S02
from Coal Combustion Stack Gases," in Problems and Control of
Air Pollution, Frederick S. Mallette, ed. , New York, Reinhold,
1955, PP 155-69.
9. Slack, A. V. , Sulfur Dioxide Removal from Waste Gases, Park Ridge,
New Jersey, Noyes Data Corporation, 1971, pp 118—9, (Pollution
Control Review No. 4).
10. Nakagawa, S., Japan Engineering Consulting Company, Tokyo, Japan,
Private Communication 1968.
11. "S02 - Recovery from Sulphuric Acid Plant Off-Gases, " Sulphur,
No. 80, 36-8 (January-February 1969).
12. Romania, Ministry of Petroleum and Chemical Industry, "Ammonium
Sulfate, British Patent 1,097,257 (January 3, 1968) 2 pp.
53
-------
13. Alabama Power Company, "New Process of Fertilizer Manufacture
Announced," Mfr. Rec. 92 (26), 53 (December 29, 1927).
14. Rubin, Allen G., Bohna Engineering and Research, Inc., San Francisco,
California, Private Communication, 1973-
15. Hixson, A. W. and Miller, R., "Sulfur Dioxide from Flue Gases"
U. S. Patent 2,405,747, (August 13, 1946).
16. Babcock and Wilcox Company, Steam Its Generation and Use, 37th ed.,
New York, New York, 1955, pp. 11-24 and Figure 25.
17. King, R. A., "Economic Utilization of Sulfur Dioxide from
Metallurgical Gases," Ind. Eng. Chem 42 (ll), 2241-8 (November 1950).
18. Gottfried, J., Nyvlt, J. , Hayerova, Z., "Phase Equilibrium in the
System (NH4)2S04-(NH4)2S03-NH4HS03-H20, " Chem Prumysl 16 (3),
' ' (1966). ~
19. Tennessee Valley Authority,"Sulfur Oxide Removal from Power Plant
Stack Gas Ammonia Scrubbing Production of Ammonium Sulfate and
Use as an Intermediate in Phosphate Fertilizer Manufacture," Report
Y—13. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration,
NTIS No. PB 196-80^ (19TO).
20. Environmental Protection Agency, Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources. Fed. Reg. December 23, 1971, 36 (2Vf), Part II.
21. Crocker, B. B. , "Water Vapor in Effluent Gases: What to do About
Opacity Problems," Chem.Eng. 75 (15), 109-16 (July 15, 1968).
22. Kalika, P. W. , "How Water Recirculation and Steam Plumes Influence
Scrubber Design," Chem. Eng. 76 (l6), 133-8 (July 28, 1969).
-------
APPENDIX A - PROCESS VARIATIONS
Removal of sulfur oxides from stack gas by absorbing them
in ammoniacal solutions has many appealing features. These include:
1. Wide availability and relatively low cost ammonia.
2. High solubility of ammonium sulfites in water — particu-
larly at low sulfate concentrations.
3. Ease of regeneration to recover sulfur dioxide, ammonia,
and ammonium sulfate.
The ammonia can be recycled to the absorber and the sulfur dioxide can
"be processed to sulfuric acid or reduced to elemental sulfur. Ammonium
sulfate produced in small amounts can be sold as fertilizer; however,
as a major product, it would have a limited market and value.
Regeneration systems used by Cominco and others (ij) employed
distillation or a combination of distillation and acidification with
sulfuric acid. These regeneration systems produce more ammonium sulfate
than desired presently, and they appear to be more expensive than modified
versions of the Hixon— Miller (15) regeneration scheme being tested by
TVA.
Hixon acidified the rich absorber liquor to release sulfur
dioxide according to the following equations.
WH4HS03 + WH4HS04 - + (KH4)2S04 + S0£ + H20 (6)
(KH4)2S03 + 2NH4HS04 - *.2(WH4)2S04 + S02 + H20 (7)
The reactions above produce ammonium sulfate and consume
ammonium bisulfate. To avoid the net production of ammonium sulfate
and to provide the needed ammonium bisulfate, Hixon decomposed
ammonium sulfate to ammonium bisulfate according to the following
equation.
(NH4)2S04 _ ^.NH4HS04 + RH3 (8)
This decomposition, demonstrated on a large scale during 19^6, proceeds
selectively as shown at about 725° F. The selective sulfate— bisulfate
decomposition limits the net production of ammonium sulfate to that
obtained by oxidation. Thus sulfur dioxide production is maximized by
the Hixon acidification process.
A simplified flow sheet for the ammonia absorption — bisulfate
regeneration process being piloted by TVA is shown in Figure 21. Several
regeneration alternatives can be tested in this pilot plant. All of the
alternatives produce crystals of ammonium sulfate for subsequent decom-
position to ammonium bisulfate. Four process variations are being
considered as follows.
A-l
-------
CM
H
s
-p
03
N
CO
erf
•H
a
Q
Pi
w
-------
1. Complete vaporization of water from the acidifier—
stripper liquor.
2. Partial vaporization of water from the acidifier—
stripper liquor.
3. No vaporization of water from the acidifier—stripper
liquor.
a. Absorber operated with an ammoniacal slurry of
ammonium sulfate.
b. Liquor saturated with ammonium sulfate at the
absorber outlet.
Important process quantities are summarized in Table 6, Detailed
calculation sheets for typical examples of these process variations
are given as Tables 7 through 11. The stream quantities shown are
identical with the streams identified by the same numbers on Figure 21.
Gottfried's solubility data (l8), shown in Figure 2.2, were used in all
of the calculations except the variation involving complete vaporization
of water.
These data show that:
1. The energy required for complete vaporization of water
can be significantly higher than when the water is only
partially vaporized in recovering crystalline ammonium
sulfate—see Figure 23. If no water is vaporized, no
energy is required for this purpose.
2. Equipment size and related investment cost are least for
complete vaporization of water and highest for no vapori-
zation of water if slurry formation in the absorber is
avoided—see Figure 2k. If slurry formation can be
tolerated, intermediate size equipment may be practical.
Other factors that must be considered in evaluating the
potentialities of process variations are included in Table 7. These
are:
1. Buildup of soluble contaminants in the absorber liquor.
This is least with complete vaporization of water.
2. Risk of ammonium sulfate scaling. This is also least with
complete vaporization of water.
3. Risk of system plugging. This, too, is least with complete
vaporization of water.
In view of the factors considered, complete vaporization of
water appears to best combine operability and economy of operation.
If initial operation with complete vaporization of water should reveal
serious process limitations, other process variations can and will be
tested.
A-3
-------
VD
C
0
•H
J- -P
C N"£
O -H CU
•H f-i -P
-POO!
03 ft 1*
•H 03
0! C
&
a
o
•H
KN -P
05--^
C N ?H
O -H 0)
•H f-i -P
-P O o:
03 fl, |S
•H 03
oi C
t> O
C!
O
•i— 4
•PI
-p
03
OJ N
C in ^
O O >
•H
03 o! O
t> *H
-P
Oi
§
•H
-P
05
CO
r~~\ *rH
.M ""^
CJ O Js
O p4 d)
•rH oJ •f-'
-P > 0)
•H CD
JH -P ^H
03 CU O
> rH
cu
rH
•8
•H
J~l
03
CQ
Proces
r— co oj vo o o
• • OJ CO
H O rH Q I O
9 rH
rH
'c
O
•H
-P
03
O 00 OJ V£> fn J- O
OJ CO }
^
^
CO
OJ CO OJ M3 O O
f<^ • OJ CO • •
OH O 1 O
VO H H
H
O CO OJ O O
• OJ 1 • •
OJ O H VQ | O
H fTS H
CM
o CU -P Tf 0) O -P
!H CO -H Jj C
FH • OM CMmO O
o ft MO) --^.2W vH!><;
B ^3 -P J1 S r° -P O
*^ cu c3 oJ w £ oJ o5 co
•p > S g _. -a
tCl — ' jj B «H CHO Hoo3 p-H cxjop
, M -P (H H t) M Oj .JOOO fel ^n JD
O CO < O £oicQ ,_1HM ft^
O OJ
5
NA
O E—
C—
O
,H
LT\ rr\
vq -*
H CO
ON VO
OJ
4^>
f^j (U
CU 3
N H CM
•H T3 'rH O
fn 4) ^H O
> i-t 0)
CU Q Q
?H *H tl H
CD O^^
-P cy CQ -o
cj O ^3
O H
,O ^D ,£> JH CU
i-l rH t-1 ft JH
t) !
•H t
-P
•P :
cS i
t3
CU
•H
-P
-P
O
O
ti
(U
•H
4^
O
O
TJ
CU
•H
fn
+3
H->
o
0
05
+3
>^
Solubilit;
-------
j
t
IATION SYSTEMS
R
p£
8
K
CO
CO
o
E
!?^
EH
5^
n
CO
H
R
g
0
g
i
co -P
-P -H
• S3 rH
•P 03 tH
^ C3 ,O
CD -H -H
S B CO
ft co co
•H -p O
3 a ft
& o
Small regeneration e
buildup of soluble c
absorber liquor. No
(NH4)2S04 scaling.
o
rH
CO
LT\
la
o
•H
•P
0)
N
•H
0
ft
?
1
v^x
iH
i — 1
cd
•H
+3
C *S
Q) O
•JJ kJ]
o
PH
ft
•P T3
C rH
0) iH
E^Q bO
"H C
3 -P -H
0< C rH
CU ol trt
Larger regeneration <
for soluble contamim
risk of (NH4)pS04 so
rH
rH
"c
O
•H
•P
Ct)
tsl
•H
O
ft
cO
rH
03
•H
-P
V_^
OJ
.
W)
•P C
G -H
0} 0} rH
rH C CO
P -H 0
o3 g CQ
0) -P •*
ft C 0
O O CO
f. . ^_^
•H CU <*
CU .O fe t50
K* 3 ^— * Cj
•H rH TH
•P O CH bO
0 CO O bO
co 3
Economically most at-
at C of 5 or greater
buildup. Highest rii
High risk of system ]
•H
1
CU
M
.
0
H
CO
ITN
^^
S3
O
•H
o3
N
•H
1
CO
O
vT^
«
•#
o
CO
CM
o tC
3 »?l
j ^~\
CO «H O
O
• _^J Si
-P CO M
y{ •(_) ^
rt Fr^
ft ,C CU
•H bQ M
3 -H
rj* to bo
_^
Largest regeneration
contaminant buildup.
scaling. Large pump:
8
H
OJ
*•— «s
.
O
•rH
0)
•H
0
ft
co
"
-*
-------
Temperature , ° F
Pound mols/hr
* (in soln. )
(solid)
(1014)2803
Free water
Total water
Free water in solution
as % of free water at
saturation
Salt, % by wt. of
solution or slurry
S/CA
TAHLE 8
FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION - AMMONIA SYSTEM
PROCESS VARIATION 1 (COMPLETE VAPORIZATION OF WATER)
Stream No.
1
122
2.0939
k. 7111
1»*. 133^
175.3588
196. 2972
236
; ki. 31
i
2
122
1.0667
2.1*000
7.2000
89-3333
100.0000
5
13.0667
0.0000
0.0000
98. 9333
1
236
slurry
i
1*1.31
1*9.20
i
12
i
': 0.8
a
13.0667
9
1
!
j
'
' i
16
122
2.0939
18. 8»*1*5
17
122
i
210. 6683 !
1
1
t
39.73
i
' i !
•earn No.
3
1*
•7
Pound mols/hr
NRi.HS04 S02
12.0
10
11
12
13
1U
IS '
I
NHg
!
9-6
H
I
98.
!
12.0000
2. 133^
1.
3U.
! 61*.
I
20 i ^NIl4)2S04
9333
0667
2l*29
690!*
12.0000
1.0667
i
A-6
-------
TAHLE 9
FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION - AMMONIA SYSTEM
PROCESS VARIATION 2 (PARTIAL VAPORIZATION OF WATER)
Temperature, °F
Pound mols/hr
(NEjaSO* (in soln. )
(NHjaSCU (solid)
(NHjsSOg
NKiHSOg
Free water
Total water
Free water in solution
as % of free water at
saturation
Salt, % by wt. of
solution or slurry
CA
S/CA
Stream No.
i
122
22.335
0.000
3.926
11.778
272. 561
310. 600
2
122
11.378
0.000
2.000
6.000
138. 8)+9
158. 227
110 ! 110
i
i
1*8.22
1*8.22
6.32
0.8
5
-
21.378
0.000
0.000
1»*6. 8^9
slurry
5-163
a
86
10. 1*89
10. 889
100.000
slurry
61.05
9
86
10. 1*89
100.000
100
1*3.1*8
16
122
22.335
15.701*
278. 1*89
no
1*8.76
i . .
17
122
10A89
11*1. 810
156
35.17
Pound mols/hr
Stream No. JMUHSO*
3 j 10. 0
i* i
7 i
10 |
11
12 |
13
so*
8.0
11*
15 i i
NHa
H20
1*6.81*9
i
!
10.0
1. 778 i 0. 889
I 5.039
' 1*1.810
(Nttt)i>SO,d.
10.000
0.889
_. -
A-7
-------
Temperature, *F
Pound mols/hr
(NH4)2S04 (in soln. )
(NH4)2S04 (solid)
Water
Pound of solid
(NH4)2S04/100 Ib
saturated solution
Salt, wt. $> of
solution or slurry
CA
S/CA
TABLE 10
FLUE QAS DESULFURIZATION - AMMONIA SYSTEM
PROCESS VARIATION 3 (NO VAPORIZATION OF WATER)
Stream No.
1(2 5
1
122
16.J1?
3.111
1-963
5.889
169. 017
196.293
6.81*
52.6o
122
8.311\
1. 585 J
1.000
3.000
86.101*
100.000
6.81*
52.60
5.0
0.8
Ik. 896
o.ooo
o.ooo
90.101*
5^.80
8
86
9.^52
5.1*1*1*
90.10«*
25.01*
5»t. 80
9 ! 16
86
9-^52
90.101*
0
1*3.1*8
122
15.691
3.733
7.852
0.000
169. U6l
817
53-25
17
122
9.1*52
90.101*
(
1*3. W
Stream No.
3
l*
7
10
11
12
15
Pound mols/hr
NH^HSO.!
5.0
11* j
15 1
SO;,
U.O
Nfe
0
5.000
0.889
0
EP_Q
0
0.1*1*1*
0
0
(NtUJpSO*
5.000
0.1*1*1*
Ar-8
-------
TABLE 11
FLUE GAS DESULFURI2ATION - AMMONIA SYSTEM
Temperature, °F
Pound mols/hr
(NH4)aS04 (in soln. )
(NHLjcSO* (solid)
(lOU).8Cb
NRiHSOg
PROCESS VARIATION k (NO VAPORIZATION OF WATER)
Stream No.
1 2 5 89
122
18. 90U
0.000
! o. 667
122 , - i 86 86
' I
9.630V 9.479 ! 9.479
i 11.330 :
o. ooo J 1.851 i
i
0.3^0 i o.ooo '
2.002 ! 1.O20 0.000
_-,
16 17
122 122
' 18.904 9-749
! 2.669
|
Free water
Total water
Free water in solution
as % of free water at
saturation
Salt, % by wt. of
174.727 i 89.010 90.370 ' 90.370 I 90.370 ; 174.878 90.370
196.300 ! 100.000 ; i I !
100
100 i Slurry Slurry
100
100
110
solution or slurry
CA
S/CA
Stream No.
3
k
7
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
k6.8k
NJUHS04,
; 1.7
;
!
1
1
k6.&
1.7
0.
S02
1.36
4. | 14.7.90 1*7.90 kj.kB
0 j !
LJ ,
Pound mols/hr
NHa H20 (NHAJaSO^
•
1.7
: o.i5n
1.7
0.3022 , 0.15H
0
1 ° 1
A-9
-------
cc
o
LL.
O
£D
O
O
o:
LU
o
00
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
GOTTFRIED'S DATAJ
SATURATION
AT 86°F
SATURATION
AT I22°F
I
I
50 60 70 80 90 100
LB OF AMMONIUM SULFATE/IOO LB OF DRY SALT
FIGURE 22
Solubility Data for the System
S0a - NH4S03 - H30
A-10
-------
5.0
4.5
Q
LU
LJ
_l
LJ
QL
CO
O
to
O
CD
O
LJ
N
tr
O
a.
4.0
CD
_J
3.5
3.0
> 2.5
a:
LJ
2.0
1.5
COMPLETE VAPORIZATION
OF WATER
PARTIAL VAPORIZATION
OF WATER
WATER IN ABSORBER
EFFLUENT' 143% OF
SATURATION
PARTIAL VAPORIZATION
OF WATER
WATER IN ABSORBER
EFFLUENT* 110% OF
SATURATION
8
10
12
14
CA
FIGURE
Bisulfate Regeneration of Ammoniacal Sulfite Solutions
A-ll
-------
RELEASED
OJ C
O CJ
CM
O
CO
U.
0 25
m
PROCESSED/
ro
0
z" 15
UJ
u.
u.
K I0
Ul
m
m
CC
co 5
u.
o
CO
_j
P (3)
\
\
_ \ _
\
(2) <>x
"^- 0 ~
1 1 1 1 i I
2 4 6 8 10 12
FIGURE 2k
Bisulfate Regeneration of Ammoniacal Sulfite
Solutions for Different Process Variations
A-12
-------
APPENDIX B - EQUIPMENT EVALUATION
Equipment for Pilot Plants
Ductwork for Pilot Plant No. 1: Wo maintenance was required
on the l4-inch rigid mild steel ductwork. Although during the early
part of each pilot—plant run, the temperature of the duct was below the
dew point of the S03 in the flue gas, deposits of fly ash corrosion
products protected the duct from failure due to acid condensation. The
flexible duct became nearly inflexible making it difficult to move from
one position to another; also, after the duct had been moved a number
of times, the flanges failed which caused excessive air leaks. This
system was replaced by a system of rigid ductwork and blanks.
Ductwork for Pilot Plant No. 2: Rigid mild steel ductwork
was used throughout; no maintenance was required.
Heat Exchanger for Pilot Plant No. 1 Only: The heat exchanger
used for cooling inlet flue gas to the scrubber was furnished by Thermal
Transfer Corporation. The exchanger consisted of three 32—by 32—inch
flanged sections (Fig. 25). Each section contained 825 linear feet
of 3/^—inch pipe with a total tube surface area of 68l square feet. The
shell and tubes were made of mild steel. Hot flue gas passed through
the shell side and water, the cooling medium, through the tubes.
Deposits of scale, fly ash, and ammonium salts on the tubes
(Fig. 26) eventually restricted the gas flow through the shell. The
ammonium salts resulted from injecting a small amount of gaseous ammonia
upstream from the heat exchanger for S03 corrosion control. Soot blowers
(Diamond Power Speciality Corporation) (Fig. 27) provided with the unit
to remove these deposits did not perform properly because of an insuffic-
ient steam pressure available at the plant. (A steam supply at a pressure
of 600 psig was specified by the manufacturer; the steam available to the
plant was at a static pressure of 350 psig and 50 psig during operation
of the blowers. ) The exchanger was cleaned by washing the tubes with
a jet of high—pressure water (Pig. 28). After about 1500 hours of
operation, the continual removal of the protective deposits caused a
leak to develop in the top section of the tubes. This section was
bypassed for the remainder of the tests.
Cyclone Dust Collectors for Pilot Plant No. 1 Only: Two
cyclonic collectors were used in the pilot—plant operations (Fig. 29).
One of the dust collectors had a collection efficiency of about 70/o
to simulate the flue dust loadings from power plants using mechanical
collectors. The other dust collector had a 95$ dus1>-collection
efficiency to approximate flue gas dust loadings from power plants
using electrostatic precipitators. No buildup of solids was observed
in either insulated mild steel dust collector. The collected fly ash
was discharged from the cyclones with difficulty.
B-l
-------
FIGURE 25
Heat Exchanger Tube Sections
B-2
-------
FIGURE 26
Deposits of Scale and Fly Ash on Heat Exchanger Tutx
-------
FIGURE 2?
Soot Blower for Cleaning Heat Exchanger Tubes
B-U
-------
FIGUEE 28
Cleaning Heat Exchanger Tubes with Water
B-5
-------
FIGURE 29
Cyclonic Past Collectors for Pretreatlng Flue Gas
B-6
-------
Absorbers for Pilot Plant No. 1; The absorbers tested consisted
of three sections or elements, plus a gas inlet and outlet assembly. The
three sections were removable and contained the various absorber and mist
elimination elements. Each of the original absorber sections was 32 inches
by 32 inches by h feet high. The first absorber tested was a sieve— tray
type (Sly Imp ing jet) (Pigs. 30 and- Jl)- The absorber was designed to have
independent absorbing stages and liquor recirculation loops. Interstage
mixing of the absorber liquors occurred during operation. A portion of
the liquor on the lower stage was entrained as mist in the gas stream
and was carried to the stage above. The carryover rate was intolerable
in this study that required control of liquor rates and concentrations
in each absorber circuit. The manufacturer concluded that the gas
velocity through the absorber elements was too high. At their suggestion,
two vane— type mist eliminators were installed — one between the bottom
and middle tray, and one between the middle and top tray. The modifi-
cations failed to reduce the interstage mixing to an acceptable level.
Absorber operation was considered poor.
The sieve— tray absorber was replaced with a moving marble— bed
absorber (National Dust Collector — Hydro— Filter) (Figs. 32 and 33)-
About 4 inches of 3/^— inch glass marbles was used on each tray. With
this absorber, some leakage of the liquor to the lower trays occurred.
This problem was corrected by adjusting liquor depth on each tray. The
performance was generally good; consequently most of the test program
was carried out using the marble— bed absorber.
A modified version of the sieve— tray absorber (Fig.
designed by the vendor, was installed. To solve the interstage liquor
mixing problem a ballooned section was added between the bottom and
middle trays and between the middle and top trays.
Operation of the absorber was good although the S02 removal
efficiency was lower than with the marble— bed unit operating under
similar conditions.
Absorber for Pilot Plant Mo. 2: The marble— bed (NDC)
absorber was selected for use in the second pilot plant. The problems
encountered with the absorber in the new location were (l) the absorber
trays leaked to the tray below and (2) the marble beds plugged when a
slurry of scrubbing liquor, ammonium sulfate, and fly ash was circulated
through the absorber. The leakage was stopped by balancing the gas
and liquor flows through the absorber. Slurry operation was discontinued
after a few tests. The overall operation of the absorber was good.
The Koch tray which replaced the bottom marble— bed stage
performed well as an S02 absorber and required no maintenance.
B-7
-------
FIGURE 30
Overall View of Sieve-Tray Absorber
B-8
-------
OJ
EH
0)
S>
•H
CQ
B-9
-------
FIGURE 52
Overall View of Marble-Bed Absorber
B-10
-------
to,
N">
O
s
JH
0)
•s
O
to
a;
pq
•e
•H
H
B-ll
-------
FIGURE
Modified Sieve-Tray Absorber
B-12
-------
-------
Blower System for Pilot Plant Ho. 1: Flue gas was moved
through the system "by two fans (American-Standard)(Fig. 35) installed
in series. The fans (made of Type 304 stainless steel) were located
after the absorber. One fan, equipped with a variable—speed drive
(American—Standard), discharged into the suction of the second fan
equipped with a constant—speed drive. Control of the gas flow using
this system was excellent; a constant gas flow was maintained regard-
less of the drop across the absorber system. The main problem with
the fans was the misalignment of the bearings which caused excessive
vibration. The misalignment occurred when fly ash deposits built up
on the fan housings and impellers and also when accumulated fly ash
fell from the duct walls and hit the fan impeller. Three sets of
bearings were replaced on each of the fans. The bearing pedestals,
as received from the factory, were too lightweight for the vibration.
The pedestals cracked and were repaired and strengthened. The blades
on the impellers of both blowers required balancing several times.
The belt drives gave no trouble. The variable—speed fluid drive used
on the first fan (J—6) gave excellent service.
Blower System for Pilot Plant No. 2; Three blowers (same
size and description as those on pilot plant No. l) were used to
move flue gas in the second pilot plant. Two constant—speed blowers
were located upstream of the absorber (hot, dry gas) and one variable-
speed blower was located after the absorber (cool, wet gas). The
blowers were operated so that the bottom of the absorber was under a
slight pressure and the top under a slight vacuum. No problems
occurred with any of the fans during the 1100 hours of total operation.
Pumps for Pilot Plant No. 1; Pumps from two manufacturers
were installed in the first pilot plant—three Allen—Sherman—Hoff
centrifugal pumps (J—1, J—2, and J—9) and three Wilfley centrifugal
pumps (J—3, J—k, and J—5).
Two Allen-Sherman-Hoff pumps (J-l and J—2) (Fig. 36), driven
by variable—speed fluid drives (American—Standard), were used in the
pumping circuits to the bottom and middle absorber stages. These
pumps had removable soft rubber linings and rubber—coated impellers.
Very little wear was noted to either the rubber linings or the
impellers (Fig. 37) after about 2500 hours of operation. One lining
was damaged by a tramp metal but did not require replacing. The main
problems encountered with these pump units were the failures of the
small control motors to the variable—speed drives and the mechanical
linkages from the drive to the control motors. The third rubber-
lined Allen— Sherman-Hoff (J—9) pump gave excellent service in general
use.
The three Wilfley centrifugal pumps made of Type 3l6L steel
(J—3, J—U, and J—5) (Fig. 38) were used to recirculate liquor to the
top absorber stage, to pump product liquor, and to pump forward feed
solution to the system. Some leakage occurred around the shaft when
liquor with a high specific gravity (1.25) was pumped. Some of the
mechanical seals stuck because of solids. The overall pumping service
was considered excellent.
B-13
-------
Tf
CJ
03
LPi
I
I
-p
CO
>3
CQ
0)
•P
o
rH
•H
-------
CM
nd
vo
0)
3
•H
0)
-------
o
•H
-------
CO
MA
o
LT\
T
CC
ft
H
03
-P
PI
<1J
O
0)
0)
ft
CQ
I
-P
-P
to
a
o
o
Q>
0)
-p
CQ
CQ
CQ
-------
Pumps for Pilot Plant No. 2: Three Allen-Sherman-Hoff pumps
coupled with variable—speed drives were used for recirculating liquor
to the absorber. These units gave good service except for the failure
of the small control motors and mechanical linkages used in the variable-
speed drives (same problem as in pilot plant No. l).
The three Wilfley pumps from the first pilot plant were reused
in pilot plant No. 2 for recirculating liquor and supplying forward feed
solution to the absorber. One was also used for recirculating evaporator
liquor (pH of 2 to h and temp, of 220°P). The only problem encountered
was some accumulation of crystals around the seal on the pump. Overall,
the service of the Wilfley pumps was excellent. Three other types of
pumps were used in the plant: (l) Jabsco centrifugal pump for liquid
flows to and from filter, (2) Tuthill gear pumps for sulfuric acid
and absorber product bleedoff, and (5) Yarway metering pump for sulfuric
acid. The Jabsco pumps were air powered and easily portable; overall
performance was good. The Tuthill pumps performed well in the acid
pumping service, but the fly ash in the product liquor caused scoring
of the impeller shaft causing leaks. The Yarway metering pump was
not used enough to be evaluated.
Piping for Pilot Plant No. 1; Rubber hoses were used in most
of the liquor handling service. These hoses (Fig. 39) gave a maximum
of operating flexibility and were trouble free. The connectors for
the hoses were Kam-Loc fittings (Fig. ko), a type of quick—connect fitting.
This fitting was extremely useful in the pilot—plant work. Cast iron
fittings were subject to corrosion but lasted several months before requir-
ing replacement. Stainless steel fittings gave excellent service but
were expensive. Some polypropylene fitting was installed and gave good
service but was easily damaged. For a long—term operation, the stain-
less fittings would be the most desirable to install. All rigid piping
used for liquor handling was Type J04 or J1.6 stainless steel and
required no maintenance. Rubber—lined (soft ru'b"ber) Hills—McCanna valves
were used for both throttling and cutoff. The valves showed no signs
of deterioration.
Piping for Pilot Plant No. 2: Stainless steel and/or rubber
hose was used for all piping. No serious corrosion problems occurred.
Instruments
Differential Pressure Cells for Gas Flow Measurement: The
flow of the flue gas through both pilot—plant systems was sensed with
a sharp—edged orifice and a Foxboro differential pressure (d/p) cell
arrangement. The electrical signal from the d/p cell, which was
recorded in the control room, also activated the controller on the
variable—speed blower. Some buildup of solids occurred in the ductwork
downstream from the orifice. A cleanout door was installed in the duc1>-
work to permit periodic cleaning. The liquid legs to the d/p cell.
required frequent attention to maintain the required liquid level. Excess
B-18
-------
FIGURE 39
Use of Rubber Hose for Operating Flexibility
B-19
-------
(U
CQ
a
•P
•H
-------
vibrations from the blower system caused mechanical breakages in the
line from the taps of the orifices to the d/p cell and in the orifice
taps themselves. When maintained properly,, the flow-sensing system
gave satisfactory service.
Flowmeters for Liquid Flow Measurements for Pilot Plant No. 1;
The recirculating liquor flow rate to the individual stages and the
product bleedoff rate were measured by Foxboro magnetic flowmeters
(Fig. 4l). The forward feed flow to the absorber was originally meas-
ured using rotameters which were unsatisfactory. The measurements
were complicated by changes in the specific gravity and solids content
of the feed liquor and by pumping fluctuation in the system. The
forward feed liquor flow was regulated with manually operated valves
which required frequent operator attention. A transmitting rotameter
coupled with an integrator was also used for measuring the forward
feed flow rate. This arrangement still did not prove satisfactory.
Magnetic flowmeters coupled with automatic flow control valves were
then installed and gave good flow control. The forward feed magnetic
flowmeters along with the product flowmeter were coupled with flow
integrators for detailed accounting of the flows.
Process Recorders and Controllers for Pilot Plant Kos. 1
and 2: Electronic flow recording and controlling instruments manu-
factured by the Foxboro Company were used in both pilot plants. The
instruments were mounted in shelf units installed in the control board
(Fig. 42). The shelf units contained wiring terminal boards to which
the instrument and the field—mounted flowmeters were connected. The
electronic instruments were reliable and required no maintenance over
a 5—year period. The data recorded on the strip chart were easily
read and provided quick access to past operating conditions. The
12—point temperature recorders, also from Foxboro, were satisfactory.
The only maintenance required was an occasional cleaning of the slide-
wires. Each motor had both a board—mounted and field—mounted control
station. No problems were encountered with the Cutler—hammer magnetic
starters used throughout the plant. Ammeters were used on all major
motors as a check of the loading.
Gas Analyzers for Pilot Plant Mo. 1; The sulfur dioxide in
the gas stream was analyzed with a DuPont spli1>-beam ultraviolet
analyzer (Fig. 43). This analyzer was originally equipped with an
automatic sampling system which failed to operate properly. The
sampling system automatically sequenced through six sampling stations.
The solenoid—operated valves operated improperly and leaked, causing
serious errors. These valves and all the automatic switches were
bypassed and switching from one sample point to another was done
manually. The readout from the analyzer was periodically checked by
wet—chemical methods. The main problems encountered with the analyzer
were (l) the windows inside the measuring tube became dirty and
required cleaning, (2) broken wires and loose connections were encoun-
tered, and (3) there were possibilities for air leaks throughout the
B-21
-------
FIGURE 4l
Foxboro Magnetic Flovmeters
for Liquid Flow Measurements
B-22
-------
CM
O
-p
PL,
-P
O
H
s
•p
a
8
B-23
-------
FIGURE ^3
Ultraviolet Analyzer for Measuring
Sulfur Dioxide in Flue Gas
-------
instrument and sample lines. A frequent check for leaks was required.
The original sample lines were steam—traced, "L/k— inch stainless steel
tubing. Ruptures and leaks in the sample lines occurred frequently.
Chloride—stress corrosion along with vibration stress from the blower
system probably caused the tubing failure.
A commercial sampling line arrangement (Dekoron tubing) was
tested and proved satisfactory. This sampling bundle consisted of
Teflon tubing with a steam tracer and insulation in a 1—inch—diameter
PVC tube.
Gas Analyzers for Pilot Plant Wo. 2: A DuPont 460 analyzer
was used to monitor S02 in pilot plant No. 2. The analyzer was
equipped with an automatic zero sequence, but was bypassed and the
instrument zeroed manually. Sample stations were also manually
selected. A glass wool filter (for particulate removal) was added
to the sample line just before the analyzer. This reduced the down-
time caused by dirty cell windows. The system as a whole gave good
results.
The opacity of the plume leaving the absorber was measured
in Ringlemann numbers with a Photomation Smoke Monitor. This instru-
ment uses a photocell to measure light transmitted from a single
source through the plume. The readings agreed with observation by
trained visual emission observers. The lens faces required frequent
cleaning but overall operation was good.
Dekoron tubing was used for all gas sampling lines.
Steam Regulator for Pilot Plant Mo. 1: Steam at a pressure
of about 350 psig was obtained from the power plant through a 1—inch
line. This line was too small to deliver the quantity of steam
needed for proper operation of the soot blowers. At the pilot plant,
the pressure was reduced to JO psig for steam tracing. The Fischer
steam regulator originally installed broke and froze. A replacement
was ordered but did not arrive until near the end of the test program.
In the absence of a regulator, the steam pressure was reduced by a
manually operated valve. This gave very poor control.
Steam Regulator for Pilot Plant No. 2: The steam used in
the second pilot plant was mostly low pressure (JO psig) for steam
tracings and an evaporation coil. A fischer steam regulator was
used to reduce the pressure from 350 psig. There were few problems
with this system.
B-25
-------
APPENDIX C - CONDENSED DATA FROM PILOT-PLANT RUNS
C-l
-------
PLANT TfiST NO.HST-1 ,DtC 23, 197Q
SAMPLE
B
HF.AN
T?M^F. ». 3/L
JLFUH, (,/U
PH
Q-3
SULFUR. U/L
«/L
; 1KAVITY
M:CIRCULATMO LIUUUH FHOrt SCMIIBBKM ELEMENTS
0-1 FI.elEMT
SJLMTF S ILFDH, U/L
SULFuH. l»/L
SJLFUh, U/L
PH
Q.2 El fc'-E'JT
S ILFUW, U/L
SULFUK. 0/L
S /LFUR, U/L
PH
G-3 FLE^pMT
SJL^ 1 IE s JLFUR, U/L
ULFUK, b/L
SJLFU«, U/L
S°tM> I : 1RAV 1 TY
P^URUCT LIO'O* FKOM
SJLFITL S ILFJN, 1,/L
S IL» bf. b
JLFUIIf li/L
PJ
S = (-C1» 1C "HAVMY
B'.f "-DOM , O
50.
,01S2
110,
11?.
9B.21
47.1
29,8
15,3
«,40
1.142
3.0
t?.
2A.
27.
27,
35,1
46,0
15.1
«,10
1.144
40.9
29.2
10,1
A, 40
1.12H
18,2
15,6
15,3
6,40
1,068
25,5
54,5
19,2
«,OU
1,150
35,8
29, Z
17,2
6.4C
1,1?6
14,6
15,6
12,7
6,40
1,074
27,3
46,7
20,2
6,10
1,142
5,1
60,
,01b2
110.
11?.
97, H6
41,2
32.4
17,6
6,40
1.142
3,0
12.
?»,
20,
27,
35.1
46.0
15.1
6,10
1,144
40,9
29.2
10,1
6.40
1,1?8
18,2
15,6
15.3
6,40
1.0*8
31.3
51.2
17.7
6,00
1.152
36,5
28,5
15,2
6,40
1.128
18,6
15,6
6.9
6.40
1.072
27.3
46,7
20.2
6,10
1.142
5.1
50,
.0154
110.
11?.
»8,?1
3(i.6
33,8
18.6
6,40
1,144
3.0
II?.
2«.
27,
27,
32.2
46,0
1»,0
6,10
1,142
35,4
29,8
16,0
6,40
1.1?6
15,9
15.6
12.6
6,30
1.07«
76,3
56,4
18,5
5,90
1,146
38,0
J9.B
14.4
*(«0
1,126
17.5
15,6
14,0
A, 40
1,066
:>7,3
-------
»bsonptioN HILOT PLANT TEST NO.RST-Z ,ntc 23,1*70
SAMPLE PERIOD
B C
MEAN
Q»S TO SCHUJ
FLU* HATE.
»T i?o F
DJSr, G"AINS/CU.FT..URY BASIS
S1Z, PP«
EXCESS An, PEMCEN1 OXYOEN
2704,
160.0
2,4300
3200,
*.
2704,
1*0,0
2,4300
3200,
•>,
2652,
180,0
2,4300
3200,
9,
2652.
180,0
2,4300
3200,
5,
2670,
180,0
2,4300
3200,
5.
QAS FRO"
0-1 ELEMENT
S02. >»P1
0-2 H E*IEMT
S3?. HP*
0-3 ELEMENT
SO?, fP*
NH1, °Pt
DJST, GUINS/CU.M.
F
502 R^
HAK5U* LIUU1R TO SCRURBEH
SJLF1TE SJLrU». G/L
BISULFITE SJLFUH. d/L
SJLFATfc SJLFJR. G/L
P-t
SPECIFIC 3RAVITY
PERCENT F1MARO FLON 10 0-3
R5CIRCUI ATI3N RATE, UPl
G-l
G-2
0-J
LlUIIOM TO ICRUb«EN ELEMENTS
s n.ru», y/t
SULFON, i/
SULFATE S.IUFO". U/L
PH
IRA* I TV
0-2 EIE«E*T
S'/LFUH, fc/l
SULFUH. 0/L
SJLFAlE SULFUR. U/L
PH
S»fcfl» i: 3RAVITY
G.3 ELE1EMT
SULFHE SJLFUH, U/L
BISULFATE SULFUH, 8/L
SJLFtTE SIL'UH, U/L
PH
SPECIFJ; IRAVITT
RECIRCULATMQ LIUUOH FROh SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
0-1 ELEiElT
SULFITE SJLFUR, U/L
BIS'JLFATE SULFUR, 3/L
SJLFATE SJL^UR» U/L
PH
SPECIFIC 5RAVITY
G-2 ELEHEn
SJLFUH, 0/L
SULTUR, a/L
SJLFAIE SJLFUH, U/L
WH
QRAVMY
G-3 ELEMENT
SULFUE SJLFU", U/L
8ISHLFATE SULFUR. 8/L
Si/LFATE S'»tFUR. U/L
PH
S»ECIt i: QHAVITY
P^OOUCT LlOJO'' FKOM bCRUHBER
SJLFITF- S /LFUH. G/L
BISULf I T£ SJLFUH, U/L
SJLFATE SJLrUR« G/t
PH
SPECIFIC ",R»V|TY
PRODUCT 9LE€OOfF, UPN
O^U »
80,
55,
0,0152
108,
110,
98,28
36,8
33,8
18,6
6,40
1,144
5,0
6,
2ft,
2ft,
27,
20.9
61,1
18,2
5,90
1,150
33,5
36,4
13,3
6,30
1,130
17,3
23,4
14.4
6,30
1,088
15.9
66,1
25,2
5,80
1.152
78,1
35,7
17,4
6,30
1,130
18,4
21.4
15,3
6,40
1,088
21,2
57.2
14,8
5,90
1,148
3,3
' C U |
80.
40,
0,0152
109,
111.
98,75
40,4
32.5
16,3
6,40
1.144
5,0
A,
28,
28,
27,
20,9
61,1
18.2
5.90
1.150
33,5
36,4
13,3
6,30
1.130
17.3
23,4
14.4
6,30
1.088
16,9
67.4
21.9
5,80
1.154
?4.9
37JO
20,3
6,20
1,130
14,8
22.7
18,6
6,30
1,018
21.2
57.2
14,8
5.9C
1,146
3,3
OBU ,
70,
35,
0,0152
110.
112.
«ft,91
47.1
79,8
15,3
A, 50
1,142
5.0
A,
28,
28.
27.
19.3
58,5
18,4
5,90
1,146
29,6
38,4
15,2
6,30
1,130
19,2
24,7
13.2
6,30
1.092
19,9
63,7
15,6
5,80
1,150
?8.8
37J7
16,5
6,20
1,132
16,0
74,7
14,4
6,20
1,090
21,2
57.2
14.8
5,90
1,148
3,3
'
-------
HHSUKHTION PILOT PLANT TEST NO.HST-J ,1-4-71
SAMPLE PFHIOD
R c
ST2,
. CFM *t i?o i
t, f
INWU.M . ,OHY HAMS
», PI-HCF-NF OXYOfcN
2268,
180.0
0,2610
3.120,
6,
22««,
180,0
0,2(J10
3320,
A.
2788,
iso.o
0,7810
3.120,
6,
2?88,
lao.o
0,2810
3320,
6,
2288,
IflO.O
0,2810
3320,
A,
B»S f ^(
a-i Kfc''i-YT
so?. PP-I
S-2 H t''EVT
S32, PPt
G-3 Hfc»6\IT
S02. rf*
N-M, HP<
DUST,
H> T-R IL t
[i«r-a IL i
y?
AK5UP l|Ou"IR
s JLFIU s IL
RISJL' 1 'E
SJLfATfc S
P-t
SCMUH8FH
U/L
U/L
10 G-S
n-?
H;CIH:IH»IMG LI ""OH 10 SCMUBRM
G-l k' t it VT
S )L> I 'f S-MUS. h/t
^ISHLfAlfc SUIFUM. 8/t
S )Ll »Te S
B/L
R- ^ VI
•5JL' i it s ILFU", O/L
Hisi'LfAiF SULFUM, a/L
'F S IL» UH- U/L
S.'ti IM " .-"V I t
M FHOM SCHUHBLP FLEfFNTS
(,/L
H, U/L
G-3 Fl E.MF JT
SJi1 i 'E s I
' A 1 1
I.F uw. 0/L
^miJCT LlUJO' TMOM b
S JLF I TF S ILrU4' U/L
HIS H r I T b IL» U", U/L
S)LF*'L %'LrJw' U/L
P <
S^FCirir T-ifvltv
P 70(111' T H.F-D'lt t / UPl
50,
0,0354
101,
104,
98,49
A8.1
52.7
20,5
5,80
1.206
3,0
12.
28,
27,
27,
56,8
7-3,4
11,1
«,00
1,204
61, «
52,7
12.7
«.oo
1,190
17. »
20.2
12,0
A, 00
1.074
5>,2
81. V
16.2
6,00
1.214
55,1
52.0
23.2
6,00
1,188
le.o
?1,5
13,6
5,90
1.080
51.2
78.7
17,4
5,«5
1.210
5.1
60,
0,0354
101,
104,
V8.19
70.1
53.3
19,9
6,10
1.210
3.0
12.
28,
27,
26,
56.8
75.4
11.1
6,00
1,204
61,9
52,7
12.7
6. no
1.190
17.9
20.2
12.0
6.00
1.074
46,0
82,6
23.7
5,80
1.210
55.1
52.0
19,2
6,00
1.190
17,1
20.2
17,8
5.QO
1.076
51.2
7B.7
17,4
5 .«5
1.210
5.1
40,
0. 11354
101,
104,
9n, no
70,1
53.4
17.8
6,40
1.210
3,0
12.
28,
27,
27,
52,2
78,7
13,4
6, no
1,208
57,1
52,0
10,1
6,10
1.1R4
18,2
21.5
13.4
5,80
1,080
52,7
84, 7
12.9
5.95
1.214
60,0
52,7
9,5
6,20
1,190
15.6
20,2
14,3
5 ,90
1.074
51.2
78. 7
17.4
^,ns
1 .210
5.1
50,
0.0354
101,
104,
98,49
72.0
53.1
1«,2
6,40
1.210
3,0
12.
28,
27,
27.
52.2
78,7
13,4
6.00
1,208
57.1
52,0
10,1
6,10
1.184
18,2
21.4
13.4
5.80
1,080
49,6
87,8
13.9
5.90
1.214
60.0
53.3
10.0
6,25
1.190
19.6
20,8
11.7
6.15
1,076
51, i
78.7
17,4
•S.R5
1.210
5.1
50.
0.0354
101,
104,
98.49
70,1
53,1
IB, 6
6,18
1,210
3.0
12.
2",
27,
27,
54,5
77,1
12,2
6,00
1,206
59.5
77,1
11,4
6,05
1.187
18,1
20.9
12.7
5,90
1,077
50,9
84,3
16,7
5,»1
1.213
57,6
52.5
15,5
6,11
1,190
17,6
JO, 7
14.4
5,96
1.077
51,2
78,7
17.4
5,»5
1,210
5.1
-------
•H«U1|» 4HSUHHTION PILOT PLANT TEST NO.HST-4 ,1-4*71
PFHIO!)
C
MFAN
T )
-'Alt-. r,rn AT 1?0 >
T = N;>(-»ATIHF, F
DJST. U«A|*i/CU,F T. ,URY BASIS
S12. °P"
EXCiSS AH. PFHONI UXYRfcN
2266,
210,0
0,?81D
3S20,
5,
^28«,
210,0
0 ,2810
352(1,
•5,
2288,
210,0
0,2010
3>520.
•5.
2?8fl,
210,0
0,2810
3ftt>,
5,
22BH,
210,0
0,?810
3^20,
5,
«S F ID
r,-l FlE«E1T
S )?. Pf>*
G-? H MESIT
SD7, HP"
G-3 El EMEMT
SIP, PPl
NH3, ^P ^
DJST, R)Al N|S/CU.k T.
T = HPE"»TU:":. r
W-T-H IL (
AK^U3 l. 1 I\J )R Til
SJLFl Tfe S ILr J*t U/L
HI SJL' I If S ILFUH, (./
S ILFATt S JL'MX, u/L
P-l
S'ECIf It, IRAVITV
FLO« 10 0-3
G-l
G-2
0-3
iCI HCUl » I I JQ LlUUUH TO iCHUBHEH ELEMENTS
G-l ?(.£»$ *1
SJLf I 'E S (LFUR. W/L
BISULtATE SUiruK. U/l
SJLFATE SJLf UN. U/u
P-l
SJL* I 'E s ILTUH. U/L
sisi'i'Art SULFUR, U/
SJIF ATE S IL^U». U/L
PH
1- 5«A»I1»
B-J kl Ef'E IT
SJL> I 'E s JLFUH, U/L
SULFUM. U/L
)LrUH« "/L
PH
SPfl> II ".RAVITT
H;CI HCUL A r i YQ i_iui)u» FMOM
0.1 Fl f-'E^T
SJL* i '6 s ILFOR. U/L
BISi'L> ATE SULFUM, U/L
SJl FAtE S ILFuW, U/L
P^
SKFI IF i ; I^AV I TV
U-? Flfe'^VT
SJL> I Tf S )LFU», U/L
n!snLtATE SULFUH, U/L
SJ(,f A rt s ILFUH, U/L
PH
S'Ff. I' IT 1>««VI TY
Q.J FI EMJ VJT
ELEMENTS
SJL1 l rb s ILFUD, U/L
UISIIL* ATfc SULFl'W. U/L
SJLf »Tf S IL> ""• U/L
p-<
S"f r If I : ",RAV I TY
Ll-JIO* FMUH
SJLF ITfc S >LrLI"' U/L
H ISJL' l 'E s ILFUW, U/L
S IL^ATE S JLrU"> U/L
P-l
S'ECIF It 1H«VI I Y
P-IUUlli T ,jwEcO"t F , UPl
500,
100,
480,
95,
480,
95,
380,
95.
460,
96,
SO.
0,0090
103,
103,
98,98
70,1
?3.4
17,8
6,4(1
1.210
5,0
6,
28.
27.
27,
56,3
67.2
16,8
6,?0
1.202
5H.4
48,5
?0.4
6,30
1.182
12.4
16,8
15.9
6,?0
1.066
52,1
BO, 2
25.0
5,90
1.216
55,8
49,9
19,6
6,30
1.182
13,0
16, B
12. J
A, 00
1,062
56. J
67.2
15,0
A, 70
1.J04
3,?
50.
0,0090
103.
103.
98,58
72.0
53.1
16,2
6,40
1.210
5.0
6,
28,
27,
27,
56.3
47.2
16.8
6,20
1.202
58.4
48.5
20,4
6,30
1,182
12.4
16.8
15.9
6,?0
1,066
53,3
78.9
19.1
5.70
1.214
54.9
49.8
19.6
6,10
1.184
10,6
17.5
15.0
6,?0
1.064
56.3
67,2
15. S
6,?0
1.204
3.3
50,
0.0090
103,
104,
98,58
68,1
52.7
20.5
5,80
1,208
5,0
6,
28.
27,
27,
51,4
69.2
18.7
6,15
1.204
56.7
49,8
15.8
6,30
1,1M
15,9
18,1
1«,1
*,30
1.074
56,8
71.8
20.7
6.10
1.212
56,1
47,0
17.3
6.30
1,1"!
12.4
16,8
15,9
6,?0
1,066
•56,3
f.7.2
15,8
A, 70
X.204
3.3
60,
0.0090
103.
103.
98,30
70.1
53.3
19,9
6,10
1,210
5.0
6,
28,
27,
27.
51.4
69.2
18.7
6.15
1,204
56.7
49,8
15.8
6.30
1.184
15.9
18,1
H.I
6,30
1.074
56.6
78.2
13,5
6,00
1,212
55,8
49.8
16,7
6.30
1.192
15,9
19.4
14.8
6,00
1,076
56,3
67.2
15.8
6,?0
1,204
3.3
53.
0,0090
103,
103,
98,51
70,1
53,1
18,6
6,17
1,210
5,0
6,
28,
27.
27,
53,9
68,2
17,7
6,18
1,203
57,6
68,2
18,1
6,30
1.183
14.2
17,5
15,0
6,25
1,070
54,7
77,3
19.6
5,93
1,214
55.7
49,3
18,3
6,25
1.185
13,0
17,6
1«,5
6,10
1,067
56.3
67,2
15,8
6, JO
1,204
3,3
0-5
-------
»M-lOll» »hMIHHT I ON PILOT PLAM TFST NO.MP-1
,JAN, 7. 1971
GAS rn '-CNIHB-H
FI.IH ''Art, :ri AT i?u t
T=MJt-L AllJ )f, F
0 1ST. G-MINS/CUi* T..URY
S32. ^f"1
SAHPLb PEHlUtl
A
25*0.
195.0
1,3600
3780,
5,
R
2550,
195,0
1,3800
3360,
5,
C
2550,
195,0
1.3800
3360,
5.
n
2*50,
195.0
1,3800
3360.
5,
1FAN
2550,
195.0
1,3800
3340,
5.
>i»S F-fu ' SC
G-l H E-E
G-2 H fc-FMT
Q-3 FLfc '6'iT
S3?. fP*
N H ,1 . H P ^
> T-fJ JL (
1 Y--J IL <
«K = U-> i luj IR TO sc'/L
S JLrA fe S ILfHW, l)/L
FLUn to 0-3
H?C I MCIU « I [ 'IN WAlt. UPn
U-l
15-2
G-i
H5CIRCULAI IMI, LIui-IOH Tu kCMUbMH
G-l El c'EiT
SUL> I 'E s ILKJW. u/t
BlSI'Lr-*rE S'lLFUW, 8/L
SJLr AFK S ILFu"< <»/L
PH
.
SJLFI TF; s ILFUM. (*/L
8IS"Lr»Tt S»Lfi)M. (J/L
SJL* »IE s
S^ECP I? IHAVI IT
r,-3 H c 'EvT
b.)L> I 'E S IL> JH» U/t
UIS^LFATE SULtUW. B/L
S Jl > ATE S JLFuW. U/L
PH
Sfpr |i | • ;HAV I TY
SCHU8BES
G-l H.6 'HMT
SJLTITfc SIL'U". b/L
alSl'L* ATE SULf U». G/L
SJLFATfc SJLFuM. U/L
PH
17 CAVITY
G-? FLt^FMT
S l{.fUH, U/k
SULfuH. II/L
iJL> A'E S ILf U". U/L
7H
S^H' I1 13 CAVITY
li-3 I-1 e-'F
•'.Ml
1 , 1 1 1'
28.1
93.8
18,4
5,60
1,200
4.2
1190,
459,
221,
0,0038
105,
108,
93,38
50,9
59.2
22,2
6,10
1.188
4.0
9,
30.
30.
27,
29,4
93.6
18,3
5.65
1,199
34,7
93,6
16,6
5,85
1.171
17,8
45,2
15.7
5.85
1.114
30.7
101,6
18,3
5,68
1.205
33,0
69.3
18,2
5,90
1.173
21,4
45,9
17.4
5,93
1.121
28,1
93,8
18,4
5,60
1.200
4.2
0-6
-------
ANWOMIA ABSORPTION PILOT PLANT TEST NO.MP-1R i*PR!L 5,1971
OAS TO SCHU^BER
FLOW RATE, crn AT 120 r
TEMPERATURE. F
DJST, 0»AINS/CU,FT,,ORY BASIS
S3?. PPM
EXCESS A[*. PEHC6NT OXYOEN
QAS FROH
Q-l EL6
S02.
0-2
S02, Pf»1
Q-3 ELE«6^T
S02, PPi
OUST, T.
TEMPERATURE. F
DRT-9JL1
PERCEXT SUZ R?10VAL
MAKEUP LIUU3R TO SCRUPBEH
SJLFITE SJLFUR. U/L
BISULFITE SULFUR, U/L
SJLFATfc SJLFUR. U/L
PH
S°ECIFIC 3RAVITY
FDHARt) FECQ, GPM
PERCENT FDWAUD fLO« TO 8-3
RECIHCULAT1DN RATE. UPN
G-l
G-2
0>3
RECIRCUL»TMO LIUUO* TO SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
0-1 ELEMENT
SULFITE 8'JLFU". */U
BISULFITE JOtroU, B/l
SULFATf fJtFUM. H/k
PM
SPECIFIC OMAVITY.
SULFITE SJLFUM, 8/t
B1SULFATE IULFUM. B/L
SULFATE SULFUR. tt/L
PH
SPECIF); ".RAVI IT
0-3 ELEMENT
SULFITE SJLFUR. 8/U
BISUL'ATE SULFUR. «/L
SULFATf SJLFUR, U/L
PH
|; 3RAVITT
RSCI«CUI»TMO LIUUOR FROH SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
0-1 ELEMENT
SULFITE SULFUR. U/L
BIStJLFATE SULFUR. 0/L
suLFAifc s ILFUR. U/L
PM
SPFCIFJC GRAVITY
Q-? FLE^E^T
SULFJTE SULFUR. U/L
BISULFATE SULFUR. 0/L
SULFATE SJLFUR. U/L
PH
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
0-3 Elfc«tvT
SULFITE SJLFUH. U/L
BISULf ATE SULFUR. 8/L
SULFATg SJLFbR, U/L
PH
SPECIFIC 1RAVITY
PRODUCT LIUJO^ FHOM SCRUBRfcR
SJLFJTE SJLFUR. G/L
BISULFITE SJLFUH, U/L
SJLFATE SJLFUR. 0/L
SPECIFIC 8R»V|TY
PIOnuCT
UPM
A
3080,
196,0
0,0847
2640,
1000,
375,
240,
169,
0,1302
108,
110.
90,91
49,7
61.4
9.7
1,176
4,0
9,
30,
IB,
18,
35,3
84,9
1,186
39,8
64,0
12.0
1,166
73,6
49.6
10.6
1.122
32,4
97,9
11.4
1,192
36,5
68,6
12.7
1,166
26,8
49,6
7.4
1,123
36,9
87,5
9.3
1,184
4.4
SAMPLE PERIOD
C
3080,
195,0
0,0847
2640,
960,
380,
240,
169,
0.1302
108,
109,
90,91
50.7
61.4
8.7
1.176
4,0
9,
30,
18,
18,
37,9
84.2
10,6
1,186
39,8
64,0
10.0
1.164
23,6
49,6
9.6
1.120
33.9
97,9
8.9
1.192
35.9
68,6
13,3
1,166
23.2
50,9
9,7
1.122
35.6
88.8
8,3
1,184
4.4
308(1,
195,0
0,0847
2500,
880,
380,
240,
169,
0,1302
108,
109,
90,40
51.3
60.7
9.8
1,176
4.0
9,
30,
18,
18,
34,7
111*
1,186
40,2
64,6
1,164
23,6
49,6
8,6
1,119
29,8
97.9
12.0
1.192
37,9
67.9
11,0
1,166
22,9
50,9
10,0
1.121
36,3
89, 8
7.6
1.184
4,4
D
3080,
195,0
0,0847
2SOO,
880,
340,
250,
0,1302
108,
110,
90,00
52,6
61,4
6,8
1,176
4.0
9,
30.
18,
18,
34,0
85.5
12.2
1,186
40,3
64,6
9.9
1,164
23,6
49,6
8,6
1,118
29,1
97,3
13,3
1,192
36,3
67,9
12.6
1,166
22,2
50,3
11,3
i,m
36,0
88,8
6.9
1.184
4,4
MEAN
3080,
195,3
0,0847
2570,
930,
369,
243,
149,
0,1302
108,
110,
90,55
51,1
61,2
8,7
1,176
4.0
9,
30,
18,
18,
35,5
85,0
11,7
1.186
40,0
85,0
10,2
1,164
23,6
49,6
9,3
1,120
31,3
97,8
11,4
1.192
36,7
68,3
12.4
1.166
23,8
50,4
1,122
36,2
88,5
8,0
1.184
4,4
0-7
-------
;M«OJ|» AHSUHHTION PILOT PLANT TFS>T NO.RST-5 ,JAN ?6,1971
SAMPLt PEHIOI)
B C
U A S T 3
FLCM
,-FI *i
DJST, mA INS/CU.F T. . DRY BASIS
SD2. >'P<
E»CESS AM, PHKCt*! UXYOkN
i«o.o
0,4370
253?,
5.
280B. 2H08. 2704, 2782,
180.0 180,0 181.0 1H0.2
0.437U 0.4370 0,43?.o 0,4370
2537. 2532, 2532. 7532,
5. 5. 5. •>.
li»S F^OM
0-1 bl
SO?,
G-2 Ftg
623,
»23,
623,
623,
623,
SI?.
N-13.
e. F
wt T-rt 1
«K5Uf LI'JUTR TJ
SJLFI Tfc S ILr J1*
BISJLF1 'E S
SJLF*TE s IL
p^
S'ECII IL 5R
. b/L
t/L
FDXARD FLO* TO fl-J
R4IF. UP"
S-l
0-2
G-3
= CIRCLILArMG
G.I H E"6MT
SJL» llfc S JLFUh. U/L
bISLL'ATE SHLFUH. 8/L
SJLFAIfr SJLFUR. W/L
PH
S0Ef"|r I - 1MAV I tY
(i-2 FlE"fcvT
SJL' I TE S PLFUR. lf/L
dlsnL»ATt SULFUN. U/L
SJLFATE SJLFUH. U/L
P-l
TO SCNubHER ELEMENTS
G-3 FIE"EVT
SJLFITE s ILFUR. U/L
HISl'L>ATb SULFUM. tt/L
SUL'ATh SJLFUN, l«/L
P-l
Spf IF I : TJAV I TY
H5CIHCIH AT | vin
G-t Fl FIR YT
SJL' I It S ILFUM, Ij/L
rflS'lLfATt Sl'LFuH. 1./L
SJL' A'c S ILFOH, d/L
PH
S3Er|F I - 15IAVI IY
fi-2 Fl E-'flT
S )L> I Ib b H.FUW, U/L
8 IS'iL* *f£ S'lLF UH, U/L
SJL> Alt S ILFul', U/L
P^
sPFrIM; ~. u A v 1 1 r
(i-3 (-Lfc^E •JT
SJL* I TP S ILFUM. to/L
dlS'lLtATE SULFUW/ U/L
sJu* A if s JLFUH, u/i.
PH
s:>^^ IM " 'in»v I T Y
LI5JO-* FMDn
S JLf I Tt S ILFl/n. I./L
M I";JL» I TC s IL( uwi I
68,0
12.4
5,70
1.139
6,0
-------
«M»UMU ^SUMPTION PILOT PI.AMT TEST NO.RST-SR ,?-3i-M
U»S TO SC-iU~IT£ SJLfJM. U/L
BISJL'" ITE S (LTUM, U/L
U/L
S'ECIUC
rp=D. RK1
' T F )M4«n FLO* TO 0-3
G-l
a-2
G-3
H5CIRCUI _A'MU Llb
G-l f-i E«E1T
SJLFUh, U/L
SIJLFUM. B/L
SJL'ATE S'LFU"- «/t
0-2
TO ICHIWHill ELFNENT3
SULFUH, Q/L
U/L
G-3 El E'lEIT
SJLf I IE S ILfu*, U/L
BIS'iL^ATE SULFUH. U/L
SJUAlfc SILFOR, U/L
PH
S°E(-I» I" TRAVITY
RrCIRCULAl IMG LlUI'Ofl FH01 SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
G-l FI.E*E IT
SJLr I TF S IL^UX, U/L
B I S'IL> Alt S'lLF UH, U/L
SJL> A'K S )(.*" UN, U/L
PH
S°f=rl( I ; JSAVI TY
G-? feLE^b^T
SJLtl'E SILFUH. U/L
HlSHLFATE SULFUH, U/L
SJL' ATE s ILFOH, U/L
PH
Q-3 ELE-'E-IT
SJLflTE SJUFUK, U/L
«IS"L* ATt SULtuW. U/L
SJL* A'E S >\.r\>», U/L
PH
SPpr It I - 'iHAVITY
ST LUJO'< FHOH
JLrUW. G/L
HI SJLr I TE S ILFUH, C./L
SJLFA'E SJLfjw, (,/L
PH
BLE?OOFF,
A
2900,
180,0
0,3786
2800,
4,
1160,
450.
300.
471.
110,
110,
89,29
28.9
44.4
5,6
1.144
5,0
12.
30.
18,
18,
30,0
75,7
B.I
1,160
30,7
58,1
10,0
1.142
22,9
51.6
6,4
1,120
26,6
84,9
8,3
1,172
25.2
63,3
11.3
1,140
21,6
53,5
4,7
1,118
18,8
80.9
15.1
1', 160
5,4
SAMPLE PERIOD
B C
2900,
1BJ.O
0,3786
2800,
4,
1160,
440,
300,
471,
109,
109,
«9,29
26,9
43.7
8,2
1.146
5,0
12,
30,
18,
18.
27.7
75.1
9.0
1.156
35.6
52.2
9.0
1,140
24,1
4V. 6
5.1
1.114
24.0
84,2
11,6
1.166
26.1
62.0
10.7
1.140
19.9
51,6
7.3
1.116
22.3
75.7
13,7
1,158
5,4
2900,
180,0
0,3786
25JO,
4.
104(1,
420,
270,
471.
109,
110,
89,53
29,2
43,7
5,9
1,146
5,0
12,
30,
18,
11,
26.4
73.1
11,3
1,158
32,9
56,8
4.0
1.138
23,5
<9.0
3,4
1,112
25,3
82,9
9,6
1,162
26,4
61.4
10,0
1,140
17.3
51,6
7.9
1,110
?4,3
73.8
11.7
1,156
5.4
D
2900,
180,0
0,3786
2560,
4,
1040,
410,
270.
471.
109,
110,
09,53
29.2
43.7
5.9
1.144
5.0
12,
30.
IB.
18.
24,3
73.8
12.7
1.154
31.3
47.5
6.0
1.138
14,8
39,8
6,2
1.110
24,6
H2.3
8,9
1,160
27.4
61.4
8.0
1,140
17.3
50.9
8,6
1,110
24,3
73.8
12.7
1.154
5.4
MEAN
2900,
180,0
0,3786
2690,
4.
lion,
430,
285,
471,
109,
110,
89,41
28,5
43,9
6,4
1,145
5,0
12,
30,
18,
18,
27,1
74,4
10,3
1.157
32,6
74,4
7,3
1,140
21.3
47,5
5,3
1.114
25.1
83,6
8,8
1.165
26,3
62,0
10,0
1.140
19,0
51,9
M
1.114
22,4
76,1
13.3
1.1*7
5.4
0-9
-------
AMNOMM AUSOHPTION PILOT PLANT TEST NO.RST-6 ,JAN ?6, 1971
SAMPLE PERIOD
B C
MEAN
QAS TO S
HATE, CFM AT 120 r
F
DJST, GHAINS/CU,FT..ORY BASIS
502. PPM
EXCESS A|H, PfcRCbNT OXYGEN
2704,
206,0
0,4320
2532,
».
2704.
206,0
0.4320
2532.
7,
2704.
209,0
0.4320
2532.
6,
2704,
210,0
0,4320
2532,
6,
27Q«,
208,2
0,4320
2532,
7,
QAS FROM
0-1 EL
S02,
0-2
S02, PP*
0-3 ELEMENT
S02. PP1
NH3, PPi
DUST, imiNS/CU.FT,
TEMPERATURE, F
HFT-aJL1)
PERCENT S02 REMOVAL
MAKEUP LI°UOR TO SCRUBBEH
SJLFITE SJLFUR. 0/L
BISULFITE SULFUR. U/L
SJLFATE SJLFUR. 0/L
PM
SPECIFIC ORAVITr
F3HARD FEED. GPM
PERCENT F3W»«D FLOW TO ««S
RECIRCULATI8N RATE. 8PM
0-1
0-2
0-3
RECIRCUIATHO LI8UOR TO SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
0.1 ELEMENT
SJLFITE SULFUR. S/L
91 SULK ATE SULFUR. 8/L
SULFATE SJLFUR. «/L
PH
SPECIFIC URAVITY
0-2
SULF1TE SULFUR, i/L
BISULFATE SULFUR. 8/L
SULFATE fJLFUR. i/L
PH
SPECIFIC 3RAVITY
0-3 ELEMENT
SULFITE SULFUR. 8/L
BISULFITE SULFUR. a/L
SULFATE SULFUR, 8/L
PH
SPECIFIC
RECIRCULATJ1Q LIOUOR FROM SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
0-1 ELEMEMT
SULFITE SJLFUR. 0/L
BISULFATE SULFUR. 0/t
SULFATE SULFUR, B/L
PM
SPECIFIC 3RAVITY
0-2 ELEMENT
SULFITE SULFUR, 0/L
BISULFATE SULFUR. 8/L
SULFATE SULFUR, 8/L
PH
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
0-3 ELEMENT
SULFITE SULFUR. «/L
BISULFATE SULFUR. 8/L
SULFATE SULFUR, 8/L
PH
SPECIFIC ORAVITY
PRODUCT L10JO" FROM SCRUBBER
SULFITE SJLFUR, 0/L
BISULFITE SULFUR, 0/L
SULFATE SJLFUR, 0/L
PH
S»EC|F|C BRAVITY
PRODUCT BLEEDOFF, UPM
460,
0,0106
99,
too,
ei.83
27,4
52,6
12,2
»,10
1,136
3,0
«,
27,
18,
1».
12,5
70,1
13,4
9,60
1.134
13. »
93, »
13,2
5,70
1,120
l.«
32,5
»,»
5,40
1.0«2
12,1
77.2
14,9
5,50
1.144
13,0
56,4
12.6
5,70
1,120
3.2
33,1
9.8
5,40
1,064
10,3
70,7
16,2
5. SO
1.136
3,5
460,
0,0106
99,
100,
81,83
27,4
53,2
11,6
6,10
1.13H
3.0
6,
27,
18,
18,
10,2
71.4
13.4
5,60
1,132
14.9
55,2
10,9
5,70
1.120
2,5
32,5
8,0
5,40
1.060
11.0
76,6
11.6
5, -SO
1.142
14.3
55.8
11,1
5,70
1,120
-1.0
32,5
13.6
5,40
1,062
9,9
71,4
13,9
5.60
1,136
3,5
460,
0,0106
99,
100,
81,83
27, «
53,2
12,6
6,10
1.13S
3,0
6,
27,
18,
18,
10,2
71.4
13,6
5,60
1,136
14, «
54,5
12,1
5,70
1,118
2.9
SO. 5
8,7
5,40
1,060
8.9
78,6
13,7
5,40
1,142
10, T
57.1
12.4
5,70
1,118
1.5
31,8
8.8
5,40
1,069
11,'
71,4
12,3
5,60
1.136
3,5
460,
0,0106
99,
100,
81,83
28.7
52,6
10,9
6,10
1,138
3.0
6,
27,
18,
18,
12. »
70.7
8,6
5,60
1,134
15,3
54,5
10,4
5,80
1,116
3,3
30,5
6,3
5.40
1.058
8,6
77.9
12.7
5,40
1,140
12,7
56,4
12,1
5.70
1.118
-1.7
31.1
12.7
5,40
1,060
13.1
70.1
11.0
5,60
1,136
3,5
460,
0,0106
99,
100,
81,83
27,7
52,9
11,8
6,10
1,138
3,0
*,
27,
18,
18,
11,5
70,9
12,2
5,60
1,134
14,7
70,9
11,7
5,73
1,118
2,6
31,5
8,2
5.40
1,060
10,1
77.6
13,2
*,«5
1,142
12,7
56,4
12,1
5,70
1,119
0,5
32,1
11,2
5,40
1,062
11,2
70,9
13,4
5,60
1,136
3,5
G-10
-------
AHMIH1A AbSOHPTION PILOT PLANT TEST NO.RST-6R ,3-31-71
a«S TO SCHU-tB = H
FLCM "Aft, CFM »T 120 f
T?MPEHATu-IE. F
DJST, QWAINS/CU.FT.,UF)Y BASIS
SD2. F-PM
UAS Flo
S-l FLE^EVT
502, PP1
G-2 EIE«F>JT
SO?, HPH
0-3 ELEMENT
SO?, PP»
N H 3, P P 1
DUST, GRAINS/CO.FT.
TEMPERATURE. F
S02 REMOVAL
MAKEUP LIOUIR TO SCRUtHHER
SJLFITE S ILrUf*. li/L
HISJLFITE s ILFUR, U/L
SJLFATE SJLFJH, U/L
p-(
S'ECIt 1C 5R4VITY
FjrfARi1 ^e-o• OPH
P;RCEKT FT«»»O FLO* to Q-J
«ECIRCULAT1TN RATE. UP"
0-1
0-2
G-3
«5C[RCULAT MQ LIOUOH TO SCRUHHER ELEMENTS
0-1 ELE'iE-iT
SJLFJ1E SJLFUW. B/t
BISI'LFATE SULFUR. Q/L
SJL» ATE s ILFUR. «/L
PH
S'ECIF II 1RAVITY
Q-?
SJLFITE J'lLFUP, (*/L
tmt'LFATE SHLFUH. u/
SJLMTE SJLFUH, U/L
0-3 ELEMENT
SJL» ITE s ILFUH, u/u
HIStLMIE SULFUR. 8/L
S IL' ATE S 'LFUM. U/U
p-l
in MAVITT
HECIRCULATI
G-I FI EI-F.^T
SJLF I '6 S ILFUH, U/L
BISI'LF A TE SULFUR. U/L
SJLFATE SJLFU". U/L
PM
S"tl' IF 1 " 1RAV I Ty
B-2 FLE.'EVT
s JLF i TC s ILFUH, U/L
BISI'LFATE SULFUH. U/L
SJLFAtE SJLFUR, U/L
P^
S"Ef IF I~ GRAVITY
0-3 EIE*E*T
SJLF |TE S JLFUR. U/L
tilSULFATE SULFUR. B/t
SJLF ATE S JLFUH. U/L
PH
L1UUUR FHOH SCRUBREH ELEMENTS
P^OTUCT L1QJO-* FROM SCNUURER
SJtriTE SJLrU«. G/L
BISi/LF ITE S ILFUP. U/L
SJLFATE SJLrU». 0/L
P^
S'ECir (<". TR*VI TY
B.E-OOFF, uPM
A
2900,
210.0
0,5542
2640,
4,
1520,
650,
525,
no!
80,11
35,3
54.8
8.7
1.147
3.0
6.
30,
18,
18,
87,5
10,4
1.166
27,4
58,8
8.6
1.135
8.5
45.7
6.7
1.088
17.1
95.3
1,172
65,9
9.5
1.138
8,5
47.0
5,4
1,090
19,2
»8,8
10,8
1,166
3.3
SAMPLE PERIOD
R C
2900,
210,0
0,5542
2640,
4,
1520,
650,
«!:
110,
111.
80,30
34.6
55.5
8,7
1.147
3.0
6,
30,
IB!
22.8
84.9
9.1
1.1A4
26,7
58,8
8.3
1.136
6.8
44,4
4, 7
1.083
19.1
94,0
m.7
1.172
22,4
64,6
9.8
1,138
6.2
45,0
5.7
l.OBB
20.5
87,5
7,8
1.1A4
i.i
2900,
210,0
0,5542
Z720,
4,
1520,
650,
530,
421,
110.
111.
80,51
35,6
55,5
7,7
1.147
3,0
6,
30,
18,
Kl',6
10.4
1,162
6o!l
1.134
7.2
42,
-------
AMMONIA ABSORPTION PILOT PLANT TEST NO.RST-7 ,2-1.71
OAS TO SCRU9BFR
FLOW RATE, CFM AT 120 r
TEMPERATURE, r
DJST, GRAINS/CU,FT.,ORY BASIS
S32, PPM
EXCESS AH, PERCENT OXYOEN
SAMPLE PERIOD
A
2964,
1*0.0
3,7600
2*40,
5,
B
2964.
180,0
3,7600
2650,
5.
C
2964,
1(10,0
3,7600
2660,
«,
D
2964,
181.0
3,7600
2660,
7,
Mf«N
2964,
HO, 2
3,7600
2653,
«.
HAS FROM SCRUBBER
0-1 ELEMENT
S02, PPH
0-2 ELEMENT
S02, PPH
0-3 EL6«ENT
S02, PP1*
NM3, PP1
DUST, ORAINS/C
TEMPERATURE, F
WET-BJLB
DRY-BJL1?
PERCENT S02 REMOVAL
MAKEUP LIQUOR TO SCRUBBER
SJLFJTE SJLFUH. G/L
BISULFITE SULFUR, U/L
SJLFATE SJLFUR. 0/L
PH
SPECIFIC SRAVITY
FOKARD FEED. OPM
PERCENT FOHARD FLON TO 8-3
RECIRCULATIJN RATE, SPN
0-1
0-2
G-3
RECIRCULATJNQ L1UUOR TO SCftUHMft ELEHENTS
0-1 ELEMENT
SULFITE SULFUR, y/L
BISULFATE SULFUH. 8/L
SULFATE SULFUR, B/L
PH
SPECIFIC GRAVITY '
0'2 ELEMENT
SULFITE SULFUR, «/L
BISULFATE SULFUR, 8/L
SULFATE SJLFUR, U/L
PH
SPECIFIC 3RAVITY
0-3 ELEMENT
SULFITE SULFUR, U/L
BISULFATE SULFUR, 8/L
SULFATE SULFUR, 8/L
PH
SPECIFIC ORAVITY
RECIRCULATMQ tlOUOR FROM SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
0-1 ELEMENT
SULFITE SULFUR, U/L
SlSULFATE SULFUH. 0/L
SJLFATE SJLFUR. U/L
PH
SPECIFIC ORAVITY
0-Z ELEMENT
SULFITE SJLFUR, 0/L
BISULFATE SULFUR, B/L
SULFATE SULFUR, 0/L
PH
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
0-3 ELEMENT
SULFITE SULFUR, Q/L
BISULFATE SULFUR, fl/L
SULFATE SULFUR, U/L
PH
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
PRODUCT LlOJOR FHOM SCRUBBER
SJLFITE SJLFUR. 0/L
BISULFITE SULFUR, 0/L
SJLFATE SJLFUR. 0/L
P*
S»ECIF|C 3RAVITY
PRODUCT BLEEDOFF. UPM
100U ,
720,
S30.
0,0022
»2.
»«.
79,92
31,8
^9.3
11,7
6,20
1,140
3,0
12,
24,
18,
18,
11.0
T2.0
11, e
».»o
1,136
12,2
58.4
13,2
5,80
1,122
«.Z
43.5
10,2
5,70
1,082
13,0
79,8
13,4
5,40
1,144
16,3
61,6
11.3
5,60
1,124
8,6
45,4
7,9
5,60
1,090
6,0
.»!•«
15,4
5,60
1,138
3,3
1'60,
680,
530,
0,0022
91,
93,
80,00
31,8
49,3
11,7
6,20
1,140
3,0
12.
24,
18,
18,
10,0
'2,7
12,1
5,50
1.140
15,0
59,1
10,7
5,80
1.124
7.2
44,1
7,6
5,60
1,088
6,2
81.1
13,9
5,40
1,146
16,3
62,3
10,6
5,70
1.126
12,9
42,2
8,0
5,60
1.090
11.6
73,4
10,8
5,60
1,138
3.3
1SBO,
720.
520,
0,0022
91,
94.
BO, 45
31, •
«»,3
11,7
6,20
1,140
3,0
12,
24,
18,
18,
10,6
74,0
14,2
5,50
1,142
15.0
59,1
11,7
5,80
1,126
7.5
44,8
9,6
5,60
1,090
8.1
83.1
12,6
5,40
1,146
12.4
61,6
12,8
5,70
1,126
6.3
46,8
10.8
5,60
1.090
11,0
74.0
12,8
5,60
1.140
3,3
I'OO.
710,
520,
0,0022
91,
94,
80, 4»
31,8
49.3
10,7
6,20
1,140
3,0
12,
24,
18,
18,
10,4
74.6
12,8
5,50
1,142
16,0
'9.1
11,0
5,80
1.126
2,3
45.4
13.2
5.60
1.090
9.5
81.8
11,5
5,40
1,146
15,6
61,6
9.*
5,70
1,126
4,7
45,4
12,6
5,60
1,090
11,6
73,4
11.8
5,60
1,140
3,3
1705,
707,
525,
0,0022
»1,
94,
(0,21
31,1
49,3
11,4
«,20
1,140
3,0
12,
24,
18,
IB,
10,5
73,3
12,7
5,53
1,140
14,6
73,3
11,6
9,80
1.1Z5
5,3
44,5
10,1
5,62
1,088
9,7
81,5
12,9
5,4Q
1,146
15,1
61,8
11,1
5,68
1,126
8,2
45,0
9,9
5,60
1.090
10,6
73,0
12,7
5,«0
1.139
3,3
C-12
-------
»HMONi* ABSUHPTION PILOT PLANT TfciT NU,H5I-B ,2-1-71
SAMPLE PERIOD
e c
OAS TO SCHU9BER
FLO* HATE, CFM AT 120 F
TEMPERATURE. F
OUST, OHAINS/CU,FT.,DRY BASIS
S32, PP«
EXCESS AM, PERCENT OXYGEN
2964,
210,0
3,2200
2760,
2«64,
210,0
1,2200
2760,
2944,
210,0
3,2200
2720,
2964,
210,0
3,2200
276n
29*4,
210,0
3,2200
4750,
GAS FRO*
0-1 ELEMENT
S02. PP^
0-2 ELEMENT
S02. PPH
G-3 ELE^EMT
502, PPH
NH3. PP1
DUST, Q3AINS/CU.M.
TEMt-EHATlHE. F
D»Y-f)JL'
PERCENT SO? REMOVAL
MAKEUP L1QUDR TO SCRUBBER
SJLFITE SJLFUR. O/L
BISULFITE SJLFUR. U/L
SJLFATE SJLFUR. U/L
PH
S'ECIFIC 3RAVITY
FDHARP FEED. GPM
PERCENT FIWARD FLOW TO 0-3
REC1RCULATI3N *ATE, UP*
0-1
G-2
G-3
KECIRCULATlio LIOUOR TO SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
0-1 ELEMENT
SULFITE SULFUR. Q/L
8ISULFATE SULFUR> 0/L
SJLFATE SILFUR, 0/L
PM
SPEC1FI5 URAVITY
0-2
SJLFITE SULFUR. 0/L
BISULFATE SULFUR. 8/L
SULFATE SULFUR. «/L
PM
SPECIF]; SRAVITY
0-3 ELE*EMT
SULFITE S'JLFUR. 0/L
BISULFATE SULFUR. H/L
SULFATE SJLFUH. U/L
PH
JC 1RAVITY
I 40 LIQUOR FHOh SCHUBRER ELEMENTS
S-l FLE1EVT
SJLFITE SJLFUR. U/L
BISULFATE SULFUH. 0/L
SULFATE SJLFUR, G/L
PH
SPECIFIC SRAVITY
G-2 ELEMENf
SJLFITE SJLFUH. U/L
BISULFATE SULFUR. U/L.
SULFATE SJLFC/W, U/L
PH
IC 3RAVITY
0-3 EL6«6'JT
SJLFI'E SJLFUR, tt/L
8ISULFATE SULFUR. 0/L
SULtATt SJLFJR, U/L
PH
SDEC1F1; GRAVITY
PRODUCT LlOJO-l FWOM bCWUbBER
SJLFITE SJLrU«. G/L
BISJLFITE SJLFJR, U/L
SJLFATE SJLFJH, G/L
PH
SPECIFIC 3R4VITY
PRODUCT BtEEOOtF, UPH
I'^D,
460,
340,
0,0028
94,
96,
67,68
?9,4
48.7
12,7
6,20
1.138
5.0
«.
24,
IB,
ia,
22,5
«2,3
9.0
5,90
1.136
22,1
•52,6
9.1
5,90
1,122
6,9
37,6
8,4
5,80
1.088
6,9
«3,1
18,8
5,50
1.156
•1.2
71,8
14,2
5,70
1.126
4,6
37.6
13,7
5,60
1,090
15,8
64,9
14,1
5.70
1.138
6,0
1*00 ,
410.
335,
0.002B
93,
96,
87,86
30,8
49,3
11.7
6,20
1,140
9.0
*.
24,
18.
18,
13,4
»1.7
11.7
5,80
1.136
20.6
53.2
20,0
5,90
1.124
7,S
36,3
8.1
5.40
1.076
7.5
82.4
18,9
5,50
1,156
3.8
71,8
11.2
6,00
1.12*
4.3
37,6
8,0
5,70
l.OflO
17.7
64.3
11.8
5,70
1.138
6,0
14BO,
410,
330,
0,0028
94,
96.
87,87
29,8
49.3
12,7
«,10
1,140
5,0
6,
24,
18,
18,
17,4
64,3
14,1
5,80
1.136
21,1
53,2
12,5
5,90
1,124
7,7
37,0
11.2
5,70
1,074
15.3
84,4
11.1
5,50
1,156
10.7
57,1
18,0
6,00
1,126
6,2
37,6
7,1
5,70
1,078
V7.7
64,3
11,8
5,70
1,138
6,0
1«00,
410,
320,
0,0028
95,
97,
88,41
30.4
48.7
12.7
6,10
1,140
5.0
6,
24,
18,
18,
18,8
63,6
12,4
5,80
1,136
18,7
55.2
11.9
5,90
1,124
7.7
37,0
8,2
5,70
1,076
11,3
85,7
13.8
5,50
1,160
12,1
57,6
16.1
6,00
1,128
6.1
38,6
7.2
5,70
1,080
18,1
63,6
12.1
5,70
1,136
6.0
1470,
427,
331,
0,0028
94,
96,
87,95
30,1
49,0
12,4
6,15
1.140
5,0
»,
24,
18,
IB,
18,0
63,0
11.8
5,83
1.136
20,6
63,0
13,4
5,90
1,124
7,4
37,0
9,0
5,65
1.079
10.3
R3.9
15,6
5,50
1.157
6,4
64,6
14,9
5,93
1.127
5,3
37,9
9,0
5,68
1,082
17,3
64,3
12,4
5,70
1.138
6,0
-------
«MHOVI* ABSORPTION PILOT PLANT TEST no.RST-9
SAMPLE PERIOD
B C
GAS Tj <>c«U3BER
FICM WATF, TM *T i?o r
THMSF'-ATUJE, F
DJST| GKAlNS/Cu.tT.,DRY HASIS
SD2. PPM
EXCESS AM, pF»,cfcNt UXYGfcN
2912,
188,0
3,3400
2440.
6,
291?.
204,0
3,3400
2440,
6,
2912,
212,0
3,3400
2440,
6,
2912,
210,0
3,3400
2440,
6,
2912,
203, b
3,3400
2440,
»,
GAS Flo
G-l El E^E^T
S02. PP"
G-2 rLEilfc'IT
S02, PP1
G-3 FLEMEVT
S32. PP1
NH3, PP1
OJST, G^AIMS/CU.t T.
WTT-i) JL I
[1WY-H JL ->
P?H:EVT so? REMOVAL
I IOU1R TO SCHUHHEH
SJLrU». U/L
BISJLF ITS S ILFUH. U/L
SJLFATE S ILFlJR. (./I
PH
S'tCl' 1C, ",H«YITY
F1HAHI FEC0. RPM
P = RCF'-T FIHAHtl FLON TO 8-3
RATF. UPN
B-l
G-2
G-3
R5CIRCUI AT I -JG LIOUOR TO SCHUHIICII ELEMENTS
6-1 RLE IE1T
sjuf I ifc s ILFUR. a/t
B!S"L»«re SULFUH, U/t
PH
0.2 El
SJLF
; 1RAVITY
S JLFUR. U/L
E SULFURt U/L
SJLtA'E SJLFUH. Q/t
PH
SPFCIM- 3RAVITY
G-J ELEMENT
SJL' HE s JLFOR. Q/L
BISHLFATE SULFUR. 8/L
SJLFATE SJLFU1, U/L
P^
Sffin- T9AVITY
RrCIHCULAT | MO LIUUOW Fi«OM SCNUBRER ELEMENTS
G.I 61 E^E^T
SJlF I Tg SJL» URi l»/C
Bl^i'tfATt 5ULFUH, 0/L
SJL* ATE s JLFOH, U/L
0-2 FLF»FJT
bJI F I It S JL'UW, U/L
BISi'LFATE SULFUH, U/L
SJL' ATE S IL» UW, U/L
PH
s;'^'•|^ I : SWAY! TY
G-3 Fl bME VT
SJL' I Tf S 1LFUM, U/L
Hisi'L* »TE SHLFUH. u/L
s j i ' A 1 1 s ) L ' u w , U/L
b3Fr I' I "
I rr
PRODUCT LliJItH FHOM bCHUbRfcR
S JLr |TE S JLr JM« U/L
RISJL' I TE S ILf UH. U/L
S JL^A'E S JLFJH, G/L
P <
S'ECIMt ",H\\H TY
P-IOOUCT H '„ E c I) 1 1 F F , KPH
'60,
320,
840,
320,
840,
?60,
800,
260,
860,
290,
200,
(1,0042
104,
106,
91,80
•S9.T
5J.5
29,5
6,00
1.206
3.0
6,
30,
18,
18.
48,9
78,6
15.2
6,00
t.204
54,7
61,6
14.5
6,10
l.l'O
33,9
45,4
11,5
6,10
1,142
31.8
»5,0
10,0
5,70
1.184
39,3
At. 0
12.5
5,90
1.172
14,9
35,7
8,2
5,80
1,090
51.9
68,3
20,5
6,10
1.204
3,6
200,
0 ,0042
104,
106,
91,80
51.5
54.1
34.1
6,40
1.206
3,0
6.
30.
18,
1«.
49.4
75, V
14,4
6,10
1.204
54.3
61,6
13.9
6,10
1.192
37,4
46,1
11.3
6,00
1.146
32.3
87,0
14,4
5, BO
1.194
42.6
62.3
12,»
5,90
1.174
17,1
36.4
7,4
5,90
1.096
41.2
68,3
33,2
6,10
1,204
3.6
200.
0,0042
104.
106,
91,80
45,1
57,3
35,3
6,00
1.210
3,0
«.
30.
18.
IS.
41,2
76.6
24,9
6,10
1,206
46, a
61,0
23.0
6,10
1,194
34,2
46.1
17.5
6,20
1.148
35,4
88,9
15,4
5,90
1.200
43.2
63.0
12,6
5,80
1.178
18.5
37,0
8,4
5 , 90
1,098
41,8
70.2
30,7
6,10
1.204
3.6
220,
0,0042
104,
106,
90,98
47,3
59,3
36,1
6,20
1.210
3.0
6,
30,
18,
18.
47.4
76.6
18,7
6,10
1,208
54,3
61.0
15.5
6.10
1.194
40,7
46.1
11.0
6,10
1.150
33.7
89.6
18,4
5,80
1,204
42.5
63.0
15.3
5,90
1,178
18,8
37.0
10,1
•5,90
1.100
46,1
71.6
27,0
6,00
1,204
3.6
205,
0,0042
104,
106,
91,60
50,9
56,1
33,8
6,15
1,208
3,0
»,
30,
18,
18,
46,7
76,9
18,3
6,07
1,205
52,5
76,9
16,7
6,10
1,193
36,5
45.9
12,8
6,10
1.147
33,3
87,6
14.6
5,80
1,196
41,9
62,3
13.3
5,88
1.175
17,3
36,5
8,5
5 ,H8
1.096
45,3
69,6
27.9
6,07
1.204
3,6
-------
AbSUHPTION PILOT PLANT TFST NO.RST-9R ,APRIL 2.1971
SAMPLfc PERIOD
B C
MEAN
0»S TO
><*rg, zr» AT 120 f
OJSr, QH«|NS/CU,FT. ,URT BASIS
S32. PP"I
EXCESS AH. Pt-HCfcNI OXTOtN
30«0,
210,0
3,6970
2600,
3,
3080,
212,0
3,6970
2600,
4,
3080,
212,0
3,6970
2720,
4,
3080,
210 ,0
3,6970
2720,
4,
3080,
211,0
3,6970
2660,
4.
QAS MlT<
G-l FLE"FMT
S02. PP1
Q-2 FLfcMEMT
SO?. PP^
G-3 fcLE«6NT
SO?. PPH
NH3, PPH
PJST, Q4AMS/CU.M.
D»r-9Jl.^
SII2
N»K5U° LI"U1N TO
SJLFJTe SJLFUR. U/L
B1SJLMTE SJLFUH. U/L
SJLFATt SJLFUR. G/L
PH
S=ECIF|C 3RAVITY
p=«CfcNT FIWA^D fUO* TO 0-3
"EC1RCULATIDN R»TE. UPK
0-1
0-2
0-3
RrCIRCULAt MG LIUUUR TO SrHuWBfR fLEMF.NTS
0-1 ELEMENT
SOLFITE SULFUR, U/L
8IS<'LF«rE SULFUR, 0/L
SULFATE JJLFUR. U/L
PH
Or? fLEMEMT
SULFITE SJL»ON. U/L
SULFUR. U/L
JLFUM. U/L
PH
SPECIF); n«AVITT
G-3
SULf ITE S'/LFU». U/L
8ISULFATE SULFUR, 8/L
SULFATK SJLFUM, 0/L
PH
S"EC|Fi; ORAVITT
R5C IRCUL AT I MG LIUUUR FHOH SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
0-1 ELE^E^T
SJLf ITb S'lLFuR. U/L
8ISULFATE SULFUH, U/L
U/L
0-2 FLEMEMT
SJLF1TE S'JLFUR. U/L
BISHLP»TE SULFUR. Q/L
SULMTE SJLFUt*. 0/L
PH
SPECIFI
0-3 ELEMENT
SULFJTfc SULFUR. U/L
BISULfATE SULFUH. U/L
SULF»T£ SULFUR, U/L
PH
1C GRAVITY
PRODUCT LIOJO1) FHOM SCHUbBER
SJLFITE S.ILFUR. 0/L
BISJLFITE SJLFUR, U/L
S ILFATE SJLFUR. G/L
PH
SPECIFIC 1RAVITY
PRODUCT BLEEDOFF, UPM
1040.
485,
1040,
490,
1040,
.130,
1040,
350.
1040,
305,
206,
0,1464
110,
113,
88,2?
76.9
70.1
11.0
6,20
1.229
3.0
6.
30.
18,
18.
47,0
103,0
8,0
5,70
1,233
55.3
75.7
9,0
6,00
1,201
27,7
53.2
1,0
5.78
1.122
49,0
109,0
8,0
5,70
1,241
56,2
77.8
7,0
5,92
1,202
24,7
53,9
5.1
5,80
1.124
48,0
104,0
7,0
5,75
1.231
3,4
240,
206,
0,1464
110,
111.
90,77
75.6
70.4
12.0
6,19
1.229
3.0
6,
30,
1",
1«.
51.0
104,0
6.0
5,76
1.235
59.0
74,0
6,0
6,00
1,202
26.1
50.2
3.0
5,81
1.120
51.0
111,0
6,0
5,70
1.242
58.6
75.4
6,0
5,95
1.204
25.5
52.2
6,2
5,81
1.123
49,0
104.0
9,0
5,7«
1.235
3,4
?40,
?06,
0.1464
109,
109,
91,18
7«,7
70,3
9.0
6,20
1,228
3,0
6,
30.
18,
18.
50.0
106,0
8,0
5,78
1,236
56,*
74.4
6,0
6,00
1,203
25,6
49,5
4,1
5,85
1,120
53,0
111,0
4.0
5 , *8
1,24,1
6U.6
'5.4
5.0
5,97
1,204
26,4
50,8
6,0
5,85
1,120
49,0
105,0
10,0
5,78
1,236
3,4
240,
206,
0,1464
109,
109,
91,18
79.4
70.6
9.0
6,22
1.229
3,0
6,
30,
18,
18,
53.0
106.0
6,0
5,75
1,236
58.7
73.3
4,0
5,98
1,202
26.2
48.4
5.0
5,88
1,118
54.0
111,0
6,0
5,72
1.243
60,6
74.4
5.0
5,95
1,203
27.2
49,5
5.9
5,85
1.120
50.0
106.0
10,0
5. 75
1.236
3,4
256,
206,
0,1464
110,
111,
90,35
77,6
70,3
10,3
6,20
1.229
3,0
6,
30,
18 ,
1".
50,2
104,7
7,0
5,75
1.235
57,9
104,7
6,2
5,99
1,202
26,4
50,3
3,5
5,83
1.120
51.8
110.5
6,0
5,70
1,242
59,0
75,8
5,8
5,95
1,2»3
26,0
51,6
5.8
5,83
1.122
49,0
104,7
9,0
5,77
1,235
3,4
C-15
-------
AKSOHh'TION PILOT PLANT TFST NO.RST-10 ,7-4-71
SAMPLE PERIOD
B C
U«S T n •sc-'U^H^H
FLOJ HA IF. TM «i i?u >
T^M^M/I!u'F. r
DjST, GKAINS/Cu.t T. ,()RY UASIS
SD2. fP*
EnCfSS *H, PFMCtNl OXYGEN
2*08,
188.0
2,8600
?480,
6,
286(1 ,
178.0
2.8600
2480,
6,
2R34.
180.0
2.8600
2600,
6,
2«08.
1«0.0
2.B600
2600.
6,
2*28,
181.1
7,8600
2540,
«,
SJ2, PPi
G-2 FLt«EJT
S02, PP*
G-3 FIE"EYT
NH3, PPH
DJST, r,3»INS/CU,» T.
Mt T-(j
S'>2
M»KrU° I |UUO» TO SCRUH9FH
S JL""ITE S ILrL)«, S/L
BISJLMTE SJLFUM, U/L
SJLFATt SJLfJ«, ta/L
P-)
FE=O.
't
TO H-3
R»TE, OPH
G-l
G-2
G-3
RrCfClM ATMQ LIUUOR TO SCKUbBfcR ELEMFNTS
Q-l FltMEVT
SJLFI '6 S ILfUH. tl/t
UlSi/L'tTE SULFuR< B/L
SJLfATg SILFOB, ti/L
P-l
r,-2 FLE^EMT
SJLf I i£ S)LFU». U/L
BISULFITE 5'H.fUR. U/L
SJLFATE S ILFl/H. «/L
PH
G-J FLE-'E'IT
SULFITE s ILFUH. O/L
BISI'LFATE SULFUR. O/L
SJL'ATt SJLFUB, «/L
P-l
S°FrlF|- -
RECl«rAIL»U 40 LIUUOR FROM SChUflBER ELFMENTS
G-l FLf-'EIT
SJLt ITE S JLFUR, U/L
HISnLF»ffc SIILFUH. U/L
sjLf ATE s ILFUW, U/L
PH
S^F^I* I ' "-HAV ITY
G-2 El t^E"T
SJL' I Tt S ILFII". l»/L
BISi'L* ATt SDLfUH, U/L
SJL' ATf S ILFUR. U/L
PH
S'EM* I " ATF SULFUM. u/L
SJLI AIE s IL» on. n/L
PH
sop. it i - n.)»v ITY
LlU '0-1 FnOM SCKUHREi)
^ I ft s ILFJP, O/L
a I S')L' I ' t S 'L' I'" • U/L
SJLfATf. •iJLfJ". 1./L
P -4
s->trif I'" TPAV ! TV
p?onijf T H.fc^ont r , uMM
ouo ,
230.
300,
0,0006
100,
107,
87,90
«5.1
57,3
35,3
6,00
1.210
5.0
12,
30,
18,
18,
26, «
79.3
21.2
5,80
1,182
36,1
•54.8
23, d
6,00
1.170
12,9
32,3
7.8
6,00
1.086
«6.0
8S.1
16.6
6.00
1.2K
•54.1
61,9
14.8
S,9C
1.194
35, J
45,2
14,3
5 ,90
1.146
13,2
74,1
36,5
">.90
1.182
5i.7
000,
315.
300,
0,0008
100,
102,
87.90
47,3
59.3
36,1
6,20
1.210
5,0
12.
30,
18.
18,
34.7
79,3
15.9
5.80
1.188
43.7
58,7
15,5
6,00
1.174
14.9
34.2
0.9
6,00
1,092
43.8
85.1
19,8
5,90
1.214
53.5
6?. 5
15.7
6,00
1.196
34,4
45.8
15,6
6,00
1.148
13.6
80,5
36,7
6,00
1.192
5,7
680,
410.
420,
0,0008
100.
102.
83.8?
59.7
53.5
29.5
6,00
1,206
5.0
12.
30,
18,
18.
38.1
80,5
17,1
5,90
1.196
48.3
58.7
11.8
6,00
1.176
10,1
35.5
17.3
5.80
1.096
44.8
H5.7
17.2
5,90
1.212
54.7
61,9
15.1
6,30
1.194
,<9,4
46,4
14,0
5,90
1,1^0
14.5
81. 2
40,0
5,RO
1,200
5,7
'60,
410,
480,
0,0008
99,
101.
81,54
'1.5
54.1
34.1
6.40
1.206
5.0
12,
30.
18,
18,
38,8
84,6
15,3
5,80
1.200
41. i
60.0
19.3
5,90
1,180
17,5
36.1
13,3
5.90
1,100
43,1
H3.8
21.8
6.00
1.214
51,2
61.2
21.3
6,30
1.196
38,5
46,4
14,9
6,00
1,152
14,8
H9.6
70.3
5 ,BU
1.202
5.7
660,
341,
375,
0,0008
100,
102,
65,30
50,9
56,1
33,8
6,15
1,208
5,0
12.
30,
18,
1».
34,5
80.9
17,4
5,83
1,192
42,4
80,9
17,4
5,98
1.175
13,9
34,5
9,8
5,93
1,094
44,4
84. 9
IB. 9
5,V5
1,214
53,4
61.9
16,7
6,13
1.195
36,9
46,0
14, 7
5,95
1.149
14,0
81,4
45,9
5.B8
1,194
5.7
0-16
-------
PHOT PLANT TEST NO.RST-JOR ,APK(L 2,1970
OAS TO SCRU1B5R
FLOW RATE, CFM AT 120 F
TEMPEWATuiE. F
DJST, GRAINS/CU.FT..DRY B«S|S
S02. PPM
EXCESS An, PEWCtNT OXYGEN
B«S
0-1 EL
S02,
PP1
0-2 ELEMENT
SO?, PM
0-3 ELEMENT
SD2. PPi
NH3, PPi
OJST, 0*AtNS/CU,» T.
TEMPERATURE. F
PERCENT so? REMOVAL
HAKEUP LI'lUDR TO SCHU8HER
SJLFITE SJLFUR. G/L
BISULFITE SJLFUH. S/L
SJLFATE SJLFUd U/L
PH
SȣCIFJC 3RAVITY
FOMARD FEED. GPM
PERCENT FDWARD FLOW To 0-3
REC1RCULAT1DN RATE> UP*
0-1
Q-2
0-3
RECIRCULATIYQ LIQUOR TO SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
0-1 feL£«EVT
SULFITE SJLFUR, 0/L
BISULFITE SULFUR. 8/L
SULFATE SJLFUR. 8/L
PH
SPECIF 1C 3RAVITT
B-2 ELEMENT
SUL* I IE SULFUR. ta/L
BISULFATE SULFUR. 8/L
SJLFATE
SPECIFIC
0-3 tL6"E HE SULFUR, U/L
BISULFITE SULFUR, G/L
SJLFATE SJLFUH, (i/L
P-<
I- OHAVITY
0-2 FL6MEVT
SULFITE SJLFU", U/L
BIStlLFATE SUL'ufl, B/L
SULFAlE S/LFUR, U/L
PH
SPFClFi; GR
0-3 FlE^E-a
SULFITE SJLFUR, U/L
BISULFAtE SULfUH, U/L
SULfAlE SJLFU», U/L
FHOM SCHUB8ER
SJLFJTt SJLFUW. U/L
8ISULf|Tfc SilLFUH, 1,/t
SJLFATE SJLFU". C./L
P 4
S3tC|f 1C ".RAVI TY
HLEfl)nff, UPM
A
3090,
1»0.0
«,1475
2T20,
4,
700,
200,
7Z,
393,
0,7639
ill,
U?,
97,35
65,9
68,3
9.9
1,232
5,0
12.
30,
18,
18,
»0,6
92,8
11,3
1,234
67,5
72.2
11,0
1,216
46,2
S6.1
l.s
1.162
59,9
102,5
10,3
1.244
67, »
7J.7
10,5
1,214
47,9
«!(,4
7,!>
1.164
62,9
»0,2
11,6
1.232
5.6
SAMPLE PERIOD
B C
3050,
180,0
4,1475
2720,
3,
700,
200,
72,
393,
0,7639
110,
lit.
97,39
93,1
69,0
11, «
1.232
5.0
1?.
30,
18,
18,
63,6
90,2
10.9
1.236
69,8
70,2
9.7
1,212
47,2
56.7
9,V
1.164
57.0
103.0
9.9
1.244
66,1
73.7
11.9
1.214
47.8
56.1
7.9
1,170
63,9
»0,2
11.6
1.2.14
5.0
7050,
180,0
4,1475
2720,
4.
700,
180,
77,
393,
0,7639
108,
108,
97,35
83,1
«9,0
12,6
1,331
5.0
12.
30,
18,
18,
64,1
9U.9
11.7
1.V36
«4,2
72,2
13.3
1.214
50,2
57.3
7,3
1,168
59,0
103,1
9.4
1.244
69. 1
72.8
».o
1,214
50.7
54.1
9,0
1.170
ft2.2
1i.fl
10.7
1.236
5.6
C
3090,
180,0
4,1475
2720,
4.
700,
180,
72,
393,
0,7639
108,
108,
97,39
84.0
68,7
11,3
1,232
5,0
12,
30,
18,
18,
63.1
92,2
11.4
1,238
65,8
72,2
11.7
1,214
51,7
57.3
5.8
1,170
63.2
99,9
9.6
1,243
69.7
72.2
9.»
1,216
51.6
57,4
7.8
1.174
63,2
92,6
8,7
1,238
5.6
MEAN
3050,
182,5
4,1475
2720,
4,
700,
190,
72.
393,
0,7639
109,
110,
97,35
83,9
68,7
11,4
1,232
9,0
12,
JO,
1»,
i«,
»2,9
91,5
11,3
1.23*
66,8
91,5
11,4
1,214
48,8
54,8
6,1
1,166
59,8
102,3
9,9
1.244
68,6
73,1
10,5
1.215
49,5
56,3
8,0
1.170
63,0
91,5
10,7
1.235
5,6
0-17
-------
AHSOHCTION PILOT PLANT TFST NO.RST-11 ,FEB 12, 1971
SAMPLE PERIOD
B C
WFAN
UAS TD
FLO.J
ATE, CFH »T 120 t
AUME. F
iiXAiN"i/ru,M , ,uwr BASIS
S32. PP"1
EKCFSS *M, PFHCfcNT OXYGEN
2704.
212,0
0,6625
2640,
4,
2756,
210,0
0,662*
2A40,
4,
2704,
212.0
0.6625
2640,
4,
2704,
209,0
0,6625
2640,
5,
2717,
210,8
0,6625
?640,
4,
»S FHO>< SC IU-IHEH
G-l f( EMEIT
SO?, PP»I
G-2 ELEMENT
SO?, Ppx
Q-3 El 6"t^T
ST2. PP-
SH3. HP<1
LUST
Hi T-H IH
UI-f-bJL '
PER:ENT 502 REMOVAL
MAKEUP LP'UDR TO SCRUHBFK
SJLFITE SJLFUR. li/L
8ISULF|TE SJLFUH, WL
SJLFATE
PH
SPECIFIC
FLON to O-J
8PH
G-l
G-2
0-3
REC1RCULATMO LtUUOR TO SCAUBREK ELEMENTS
G-l FLE16NT
SJLF HE SJLFUR, H/t
BISi'LFkTE SUIFU*» B/L
SJLf»TE SJLfUR. y/t
PH
i; 1RAVITT
0-2 EtfertE^T
SJLFITE S ILFUR. b/L
8ISULFATE SULFUR. 8/L
SJLFATE s ILFOR. U/L.
P4
i: 3HAVITT
SJLFITE SJLFUR. «/L
BISULFATE SULFUR. B/L
SJLtATE SILFUH. «/L
PH
S°FCI> I 3 1RAVITT
mo LIUUUR FHOK SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
G-l F-l k"fVl
S.ILF i TE s ILFUM, U/L
B1SULI-ATE SHLFUH. li/L
SULFAIE S ILFUW, U/L
PH
SPETIFJ-:
0-2 H EME^T
SJLFHE SJLFUR, U/L
BISULFATE SULFUR. U/L
S JLF ATE S H.FUW, U/L
PH
S°RCl* I : 19AVITY
0-3 Fl fENT
SJLFITE SJL'UH. U/L
BTSUL* ATE SULFUW. l»/L
SJLFATE S ILFUP. b/L
PH
PRODUCT LIOJOH FHCIH bCKUURER
SJLFJTt SJLrU«. (-/L
BISJLF HE s ILFUH. t,/L
SJLFATE bJLFJH. G/L
PH
SPECIFIC -,H»«lly
520,
0,0010
105,
105,
80,30
50,1
B3,B
17,8
6,00
1,220
3,0
12,
30,
18,
18,
14,2
98,6
6,0
6,10
1,200
22,3
77.3
6,5
6,20
1.180
11.5
54,8
13.5
6.10
1,116
29, e
101,8
13,1
5.90
1.1»8
32.7
83.1
15.9
6,00
1,180
13,9
55,4
10,5
6,00
1,116
25,2
100,5
16,0
5,90
1,200
3,6
520,
0,0080
105,
106,
80,30
53,8
83,1
14,1
6,?0
1,218
3.0
12,
30,
18,
18,
13,3
101.8
7.9
6, (10
1,204
28,2
75.4
5.8
6,20
1,182
14.2
55.4
•5.1
6,10
1,116
34.1
100.5
14.1
5,80
1.204
30.0
81.2
17.5
6,00
1.1BO
15.8
56.1
7,9
5,90
1,116
30.8
99.2
14.7
5,90
1,204
3,6
520.
0.0080
104,
106,
80,30
53,1
83,8
13,8
6,20
1,218
3.0
12,
30,
18,
1»,
26,7
100,5
21,5
6,00
1,208
31,5
79,3
17,9
6,20
1.184
14.5
54.8
18,5
6,10
1,118
26,7
107,6
18.4
5,80
1,212
36,3
81,8
12,6
6,00
1,184
13,2
56.1
13.5
5,90
1.1?2
28,8
102.5
17.4
5,90
1.206
3,6
*20,
0,0080
104,
105.
80,30
*4.5
83.1
13.1
6,20
1,214
3.0
12,
30,
18,
18,
15.6
102,5
29.6
5,90
1,210
18,4
80,6
30.7
6,20
1.186
4,3
54,1
22,4
6,10
1.120
15.0
105,7
32.0
5,80
1,216
18.2
83.1
29,4
6,00
1.190
3.7
56.7
23.4
5,90
1.122
-3.4
105,7
47,4
5,90
1.210
3.6
520,
0,0080
105,
105,
80,30
52.7
83,6
14,7
6,15
1,218
3,0
12,
30.
18.
18.
17.5
100.9
16.3
6,00
1.206
25.1
100,9
15,2
6,20
1,183
11.1
54,8
12,3
6,10
1,117
26,4
103,9
19,4
5,83
1,207
29,3
82,3
18,9
6,00
1.183
11.6
56,1
13,8
5,»3
1.119
20,3
102,0
24,4
5,90
1,205
3,6
C-18
-------
AMMONIA ABSORPTION PILOT PLANT TEST NO.RST-IZ ,FEB 12, 1971
SAMPLE PERIOD
B C
MEAN
GAS TO
FLO* HATE, OFM AT 120 F
T?M»EWATu-tE, F
DJST, G«AINS/CU,fT.,URY BASIS
502, PPM
EXCESS An, PF-KCfcNI OXYGEN
2704.
180,0
0,4951
2480,
4.
2600,
160,0
0,4951
2480,
4,
2600,
180 ,0
0,4951
2480,
4,
2600,
110,0
0,4951
2480,
5,
2626,
IflO.O
0,4951
2480,
4,
GAS T^u"
G-l ELEMENT
S02, PP-<
G-2 ELEMENT
SO?, PP1
G-3 ELEMENT
S3?, HP1
NH3, PPi
OUST, G'AINS/CU.M,
PER;E^T so? REMOVAL
MAK5U" Ll'JUIR TO SCRUS9EH
SJLHTE SJL^UW, U/L
8ISJLMTE SJLFUR. U/L
SULFATE SJLFUR, G/L
P-l
SPECIFIC SRtvlTY
FDHARP FEED, GPM
PERCENT FOHARP FLON TO G-3
R5CIRCULATMN RATE,
G-l
G-2
G-3
RECIRCULATI VQ L1UUOR To SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
G-i ELEMENT
SJLFITE SJLfUR, U/L
BISULFATE SUUroR. B/L
SOLFATE S )LfUR, 0/L
PH
SPECIFIC
G-Z ELt"£NT
SJLf HE S /LFUH, G/t
BISbLfATE SULFUR, B/L
SULfATE SJLFUR, 0/L
PH
SPECIFj; 5RAVITT
G-3 ELEMENT
SJLFITE SJLfuR. U/L
BISULFATE SULFUR, 8/L
SJLFATE SULFUM, U/L
PH
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
RECtRCULATJMG
G-l ELEMENT
SJLF | TE SJLFUH, U/L
BISULfATE SULfUH, (,/L
F MOM SCNUBRER ELEMENTS
PH
SBFCIF|; ".RAVITY
G-2 FI t«ENT
SJLf I TF SJLFUR, (*/L
aiS"L>"«TE StiUfUW, a/L
SJLFAFE SJLfUS. U/L
PH
)«»VITY
G-3 ELEMENT
SJL' I TE S /LFUK. G/L
B IS''L* ATE SULfUH. G/L
SJLFATE S JLFUK, U/L
PH
PRODUCT LlOJO-l FWOM bCHUBRhR
SJLF I It SJLFUH, U/L
81 bJLF I Tt S JLfUK, U/L
SJLF«Tt S ILfUW, G/L
PH
1040,
550,
1040,
550,
1160,
605,
1160,
605,
1100,
577,
505,
0,0050
98,
100,
79,64
53.1
63,8
13,8
6,?0
1,218
5.0
6,
30,
18,
18,
45,1
97,3
10,3
6,20
1,208
40,9
82,5
16,3
6.00
1,196
?2,6
58,6
10,6
6,00
1.132
35,7
104,4
16,6
5,80
1,212
39,9
83.1
16.7
5,90
1,196
17.5
60,0
15,3
5,90
1.132
37,7
94,7
21,3
6,10
1,212
5,7
505,
0,0050
98,
100,
79, ««
'4,5
83.1
13,1
6,20
1,214
5,0
6,
30,
1«,
18,
38,0
98,6
14,1
6,20
1.206
44.8
82.5
12.4
6,10
1.196
21.6
59,3
9.9
5,90
1,132
39.3
99.9
15,5
5,90
1.212
42.5
83,1
15.1
6,00
1,195
21.8
60,0
13,0
5,90
1.132
37,7
97,3
16,7
6,10
1.212
!>.?
550,
0,0050
99,
101,
77,82
50,1
83,8
17,8
6,00
1,220
5,0
6,
30.
IB,
18,
46,4
92.8
12.5
6,10
1,209
43,1
82,?
15.1
«,!0
1.198
21.1
59,3
13.4
5.90
1.134
P7.3
102.5
26,9
5,90
1.212
36,4
81.8
22,5
IS, 00
1,196
19,4
58,6
15,6
5.90
1.134
40,5
95,4
14,6
6,00
1,21?
5,;
550,
0,0050
100,
102,
77,82
53,8
83,8
14,1
6,20
1.218
5.0
6,
30.
18.
18,
37,0
»4,1
18.6
6,10
1,210
41.2
81,8
17.7
6,10
1.198
20.1
59.3
13.4
5,90
1.134
30.6
103.1
?0.0
5,80
1,214
43,8
H2.5
13,4
6,00
1,196
23,5
59,3
11.0
5,90
1,132
38,0
95.4
16,3
6,00
1.208
5.7
527,
0,0050
99,
101,
78,73
52,9
83,6
14,7
6,15
1,218
5,0
6,
30,
18,
18,
41,6
95,7
13,9
6,15
1,208
42,5
95,7
15,4
6,07
1.197
21,3
59,1
11,8
5,93
1,133
33,2
102.5
19.8
5,85
1,213
40,7
02,6
16,9
5,98
1,196
20.5
59,5
1,5. B
5,90
1,133
38,5
95,7
17,3
6,05
1,211
5,7
0-19
-------
AHMJHPriON HILOT PLANT TEST NO, HP-?
,2-17-71
SAMPLE PFHIOD
H C
U » S TT M; x j i j u: ,<
*T
I) 1ST, G-?, "Pi
G-J FLEit-MT
SI?. PP-I
NH3, PPH
UUST, G-IAINS/CU ,^ T ,
so?
TO
SJLFIT= SJLflJ".
BISJLFITE
SJLT»TE
P-I
SPECIFIC in*virr
PERCENT FJWA^D FLO« TO t)-3
RrCIRCULATI ON ^AFE. UPH
Q-l
G-3
RrCIHCULAt Ma LIUUOH TJ SCHUdREH ELFMENTS
Q-l tLE"1SVT
SJLF i rt j ILFJH. J/L
BISULFnTg SULfuM. 0/L
SJLF»(F; S ILFUH. U/L
PH
SJL* |TE SJLFUH. U/L
9ISULF»TE SULFUH. B/L
SJLF»TE s I
Pr(
G-3 ELt'lENT
SJLFITE s ILFUR. U/L
BISULF»TE SULFUM. 0/L
SULF»TE
p-i
R5CIRCUI »T
B-l ELEMENT
SJLF I TF s ILFUH. U/L
BIS'lLf »rE SULFUH. Q/L
SJLFA'E SJLFUH. U/L
f-1
i: 3RAVITT
LIUUOW FHOM SCHUBBER fcLEMFNTS
-2 ELEMEMT
SJLf I IE S)LFUW. U/L
8ISULFATE SULFUR. U/L
SJLFAT6 SJLFUB. U/L
PH
S'ECIF I ;
0-3 ELEMENT
SJLFITE SJLFUR, U/L
8ISULFATE SULFUR. Q/L
SJLFATE SJLFUB. U/L
PH
SPECIFIC TRAVITY
PRODUCT LlUlO* FHOM iCHUbHtH
SJLFITE SJLFUM, G/L
BISULFITE S'lLFUH. U/L
SJLFATE SJLFUW, U/L
P-I
SPECIFIC 3RAVITY
BI.ECOOFF, UPM
l^UU 4
600,
400,
0,0092
108,
109,
83, «7
43,«
^6,5
18.7
4,30
1.1RO
4,0
9,
30 ,
18,
in,
ib. 3
79.4
15,0
•>, BO
1.1R6
36, «
60.3
12.'
»,!«
1,166
21.^
45.7
10.7
•5,80
1.1?0
?7,4
88. J
18,0
5,90
1.18B
34.1
61,6
15,1
».10
1.162
20.5
45,7
11,6
6,70
1,118
23,7
80,6
23,5
5,90
1,186
5.4
1'U (1 ,
600,
4on,
0,0092
10H,
109,
83,87
3d, 6
56.5
23.7
6.30
1.1HO
4.0
9,
30,
11,
18.
30.6
83.2
13,9
5,30
1.1H4
36.1
61.0
14.7
6,10
1 .166
19.8
45.1
12.0
5.50
1,118
25.9
87,6
18,2
5,90
1.1P9
34,1
62,2
14,5
6,10
1,162
21.4
45,7
10,7
6,20
1.118
29,9
81,3
17,6
5,90
1.186
5,4
1200,
520.
490,
0,0092
1118,
110.
«1 |44
43,6
56,5
18.7
6,30
1.1HO
4,0
9,
30,
18,
J.B.
29,4
80,6
18,7
5,60
1.1B4
34.1
59.7
17,0
6,10
ia«6
1S.4
43,8
17,7
5,*0
1,116
28.1
89.5
15,1
5,80
1,188
28,6
«2,2
19,0
6,70
1,164
18,6
45,7
12,6
6,10
1,118
?8,4
Hl.J
21,1
1,90
1. 186
5,4
1200,
550,
•>io,
0,0092
109,
110,
80.A8
38,6
56.5
23. 7
6,30
1.180
4,0
9,
30,
18,
18,
30,6
80.6
17,5
5,60
1,186
21.1
60.3
30,4
6,10
1,166
10.0
43.8
23.1
9,80
1,118
28,1
87,6
16,0
5,80
1.188
34,9
61,6
14,3
6,20
1.164
20.4
45.1
10.4
6,10
1,118
?8,B
80.6
18,4
5,90
1,186
5,4
1200,
567,
450,
n,oo92
108,
110,
82,47
41,1
56,5
?1.Z
6,30
1,180
4,0
9,
30,
18,
18,
31,5
81,0
16,3
5,68
1.185
32,0
81,0
18,7
«,10
1,166
16,7
44,6
15,9
5,65
1.118
?7,4
SB, 3
16,8
5,85
1,188
32,9
61,9
15,7
6,15
1.163
?0,2
45,6
11,3
6,15
1,118
27.7
81,0
20,1
5,90
1,186
5,4
C-20
-------
AMMO-JJA ABSORPTION PILOT PLANT TEST NO.WST-13 ,2-19-71
SAMPLE PEH10D
8 C
MEAN
OAS TO SCWU98ER
FLO* HATE, CFM »T 120 F
TEMPERATURE, F
DJST, GRAINS/CO,FT.,DRY BASIS
SD2. PP«
EXCESS AH, PERCENT OXYdEN
2750,
212,0
0,5487
Z520,
5.
2758,
214,0
8,5487
2520,
5,
2700,
211,0
0,5487
2400,
5,
26*0,
210,0
0,5487
2400,
5,
2715,
211,9
0,5487
2460,
5,
OAS FRO*
Q-l ELEMENT
S02, PP*
0-2
SO?, PP1
Q-3
S32. PPi
DUST, G*AINS/CU,fT.
TEMPERATURE, F
(1RY-BJLS
PERCENT sr>2 REMOVAL
MAKEU3 LIUU1R TO SCRUBBER
SJLFITE SULFUR. U/L
BISULFITE SULFUR, U/L
SULFATE SULrUR. U/L
PH
•-.RAVITY
t-'£;D, OP"
PERCENT FJrfARD FLO* TO Q-3
R5CIRCULAT1DN RATE. UPN
G-l
0-2
0-3
RECIRCULATI VQ UUUOH TO MCMUBBEft ELEMENTS
0-1 ElE*61T
SULFIIE SJLfUR, U/L
9ISULFATE SULTUM, «/t
SOLfATg SULFUR, U/L
Prf
i: JRAV1TT
0-2 E
SULFME SJLFUH. U/L
BISIILFATE SULFUR. 3/L
SULFATE S/LFUR, U/L
PH
S"F'IF]; GRAVITY
Q-.1 EI-E^'StT
SJLFJTE SULFUR. U/L
dlStLFATfc SULFUM, U/L
SUL> *T? s I
rCIR^ULAf I V(i LIUUOH FMOfl SCrtUIIBER
B-l Fl t':T LI^IU' CHO
s ILH rt s iLF'jw. (,/L
BIS ILr I T- S ILFiJrf, b/L
S /LrA ft 3 ILr JM- u/L
0 I
S'eriM': mwi r»
PRODUCT ^_(.-l)'l^ F , u>"<
500,
115,
590,
115,
540.
95,
540,
565,
105,
62,
0,0051
109,
109,
97,54
31,8
29,8
13.]
6,60
1,116
5,0
12.
30,
18,
1«,
11,3
54,0
18,5
6,30
1.1?8
17.2
36,2
19,5
6,50
1,110
14,5
29,0
9,6
6,ftO
1,084
19,0
61.2
12.6
6.10
1.1.12
?4.6
36.1
11.5
6,5l)
1,112
12. a
?8, 1
12,8
ft , SO
1.084
12.5
54,0
18,3
A. 30
1. 1?6
">, '
62,
0,0051
107,
10S,
97,54
31,6
29,8
12.5
6,60
1,116
5,0
12,
30,
1C,
18,
14,0
49,5
IV. 3
6,50
1.122
24,8
33.0
10,1
6,70
1.1"8
9,2
25.4
16,3
6,70
1.080
18.0
59.3
11.5
6,10
1.1^8
?5.0
34.8
11,1
6,^0
i.ina
16,9
27,1
7.9
6.50
1 . 0 fl 0
16.0
53.1
13,7
6,40
l.l->4
;>. ;
29,
0,0051
107,
108,
98,79
26,8
Z9.B
16,3
6,30
1,118
5,0
1?,
30.
1".
18.
16,7
50,8
18,3
6,40
1,120
18,2
33,0
14.7
»,60
1.106
10,8
24,1
13.0
6,70
1,074
14.0
59.3
12.5
»,10
1,128
22.9
34,2
10.8
6,50
1,106
17.5
24,5
6.9
* .^O
1.078
18.9
50 .8
12,1
* , 40
1.1??
5.7
29,
0,0051
108,
108,
98,79
28,6
29, 6
14.5
»,o>0
1,118
5.0
12,
30,
18,
IS,
19.0
48,9
13,0
6,40
1,122
27.1
31,7
9,1
6,60
1,106
13,5
22.3
11.1
6,60
1,074
12.1
58,0
15.7
6.20
1.123
19,4
32,9
15,6
6,30
1,106
]».a
22,6
9,5
6,50
1.076
?O.H
49,5
6,6
6.30
1,1??
5,7
45,
0,0051
108,
108,
98,17
29,7
29,8
14,1
6,52
1.117
5,0
12,
30,
1»,
IK,
15,2
50,8
17,3
6,40
1.123
21,8
50,8
13,3
6,60
1.107
12,0
25.4
12.5
6,65
1,078
15,8
59,4
U.l
6,13
1.128
2J,0
34,7
12,3
6,45
1,108
15,8
25,6
9,3
6,45
l.OHO
17,1
51,6
I?.*
6.35
1.124
b.7
C-21
-------
AHSUHPTION PILOT PLANT TFST NO.KST-14 ,2-19-71
0«s IT ' c"ii in'- x
F LdJ ''AH , TH »T 1?(J (
Tl-H*'t "A I (J )(-. (
nisr, UNA i N-;/ru.t T .. iiwr HASIS
ST2, 1'PI
F«L>S^ A|), Ptiai-N
0-1 ELEIfcMT
SO?. PP*
G-2 tLE"EMT
S02. PPH
G-3 FLt"EMT
SJ2. PPi
NH3. PP<
DJST. G^AINS/l'
TEhf E-UTlHF, F
NF-T-BJL-I
P-'Y-HJL-i
PrHJENT
REMOVAL
MAK5U3 ili'UiR TO SCKUHBEH
SJLFITfc S ILFJR. U/L
BISJLM1E SJLFUK, U/L
SJLFATE SJLFUH. G/L
PH
SPECIFIC 3RAVI7Y
FDWARIl FE?D. •"
P:RCE"'T FTWAUI) FLOW TO 0-3
RECIRCULAT MN RATE. UPM
G-l
G-2
G-3
HECIHCUI »T| MQ LIQUOR TO SC"UBBER ELEMENTS
G-l FlE^E-iT
SJLflrE S/LFUR. U/L
BIS"LFATE SULFUH, 8/L
SILFUR, G/u
SPFCJF l; .iBAVITY
G-Z FLE^EIT
I'E
»/L
s ILFUH. u/t
|; JRAVITY
G-3 ELEHE1T
SULf ITE S ILFO". U/L
BISI'LMTE SdLFuH. 8/L
SULt»'E SJLFUR. U/L
PH
1RAVITY
R5CIRCUI AT] MG LIO"UW FHOM SCHUBBfcR ELEMENTS
G-l FlE-'E'JT
SJL* I 'E S /LFU». U/L
BISt'L'ATE SULFUM, S/L
SJLFATE SJLFU». U/L
P-l
: GRAVITY
-
s JLF I 't s ILFL/WI U/L
BlSi'L^ATE SMLFUH, (J/L
SJL< ATE s ILFUH. U/L
PH
SPfcf|F|; iRAVlTY
G-3 (-1 t I 'E S ILFUW. U/L
H is"Ll Atf SI'L' lJ"» "/L
SJL' ATE s ILFUK, »/L
PH
S=^l l( 1" i'AV ITY
LlOJO' Fwnn
S JLF I Tt S ILrUK. 0/L
K| !> IL* I fE i 'LFUH, U/L
S JLFATfc S ILCUW. b/L
p^
S'ECI' I' GRAVITY
P-tOl)l)' T -HEf-DOF F , UPM
SAMPLE PFHIOn
I
it>to.
iso.o
H.3V97
2*80,
f,
805,
180,
125.
n.ooso
IDA.
ion,
9«,96
?6,6
29.8
16,3
«,30
1,116
3.0
A.
30,
18.
18.
14,8
60,3
12.7
5,90
1.128
23,3
36,8
11.8
6.30
1,110
12.7
25,4
7.8
6,30
1.074
11,8
66,1
11,9
5, HO
1.132
16,3
40.7
1«. 9
6,30
1.112
».«
27.3
11.2
6,?0
1,074
10.3
'»,!
17,4
5,90
1,128
3,6
H
IfittC' .
179,0
o,3vv;
2«8n,
^ t
805.
180,
125,
0,0050
107.
107,
94,96
28,6
29.8
14,5
6,60
1.118
3,0
6.
30,
11.
18.
13,5
61.6
12.7
5,90
1,128
24.9
37.5
8.5
6,30
1,110
11.4
26.7
8,8
6,20
1.074
9,0
66,7
15.9
5,80
1.132
17.6
40.0
14,3
6,20
1,110
10,0
27,3
10,6
6,10
1.072
8,5
60.3
18,0
5,90
1.1?8
3.6
r
tttfiV ,
110.0
n, Jv<>;
2400 ,
5.
fllO,
190,
140,
0,0050
106,
107,
94,17
31,8
29,8
13,3
6,60
1.116
3,0
6,
30,
18,
IB.
15,8
59.1
12.9
5,80
1,128
16,0
39,4
14.5
6.30
1.110
11,0
77.3
6,6
6,20
1,070
10,6
66.0
16,2
5,80
1,128
22,1
39,0
10,8
6,20
1.106
10.0
?7.9
9,0
6,?0
1.068
9.4
59.1
19.3
5 ,90
1.178
3.6
n
<;ft60.
180.0
n , J997
2400,
5,
810,
190,
140.
0,0050
106,
107,
94,17
31,6
29,8
12.5
6,60
1.116
3,0
6,
30.
18,
18.
9,7
60.9
16.2
5,90
1,126
17,9
38,1
13.9
6,30
1.110
5,8
28,0
10,1
6,10
1.072
11.8
IS4.8
15.2
5,80
1,121
19.8
40,0
12,1
6,30
1,106
9.3
?6.6
9,0
6.20
1.070
10.7
59,1
i;,o
5,90
1.128
3.6
MF AN
2*60 ,
179, 7
0 , 1V97
2440,
5,
808,
185,
132,
0,0050
106,
107,
94,56
29.7
29,8
14,1
6,52
1.117
3,0
6,
30,
18.
1».
13,5
60,5
13,6
5.88
1.127
20,5
60,5
12,2
6,30
1,110
10,2
?6,9
8,3
6,20
1,072
10,8
65,9
14,8
5,80
1.130
19,0
39,9
13,0
6,25
1.109
9,7
27,8
9,9
6,18
1,071
9, 7
59,4
17,9
5,90
1,128
3,6
C-22
-------
A1"iQM«
PILOT PLANT TFiT NO.RST-15 ,?-?6-71
SAMPLE PERIOD
B C
MEAN
UAS T]
> F
niST, CHAINS/TO.* T. ,URY BASIS
S1<>. KPM
excess «n. pt-HctM OXYGEN
3150.
195,0
4,9059
2480,
9,
Jioo,
195,0
4.9059
2480,
5,
3C16,
190,0
4,9059
24BP,
5,
3016,
190,0
4,9059
Z480,
5,
3070,
192,5
4,9059
2480,
5,
GAS F><0'
G-l ELEMENT
so?, »p<
CJ-2 FlF'iEMT
SD2. P(M
G-3 FlfiEIT
SI?, PP<
NH3, "P<
OJST,
wt- T-H JLJ
SJLFIT6 SJLFUK,
BISJLFITE S ILFU
SJLFATE S l\.rt!H,
U/L
, U/L
U/L
S=E;:IFK PRIVITY
FIHAR'i ffc=D. GPM
PJRCf'T FDWAI»n FUON 10 0-S
0-1
G-2
G-3
RECIHCULATI MG L1UUOR TO &CRUBPER ELEMENTS
0-1 Ht"EMT
SJLFITg J ILFUB, b/L
BISl'tfATE SULFUR. 8/L
SJLFATf
PH
i:
IE SJL' "«• l»/L
SULFUW, 8/L
S.ILFOH, U/L
G-l El fc"
S.^L^ I T
BISI'LFATE
S JLFA1E S
pw
SJLFI TE S ILFUN, U/L
BIS'JLFATE S'ILFOR« 8/L
SULtATE SJLFUR, G/L
P 1
s»triF i :
fHOH
1,/L
SULFUR. 0/L
Lf U"« I"/L
G-? Fl E"EVT
suLf iTfc s ILFUR. U/L
B ISi L> ATE SI1LFUH. G/L
SOL' ATS b-JL( 0", li/L
P-l
S°fer|F I" 1»AV 1 TY
SUL' I f£ S JLFUK, U/L
H I Si'L( » 't SUt-f U«> Q/L
SJL' AIE S IL' UK, Ij/L
P^
S°fr|r i" •;.<»* i TV
P'O'IUHT Lli)IO-< FHOh SCMUWRER
SJLFMt SJLru", (,/L
RI SJL' I 'E s JLFUR, U/L
S ILfATfc •, PLF JH, li/L
P^
S'tri'ir -, H nn\>< T HLF e')i*f t , (JP«
ELENFNTS
760,
600,
0,0060
105,
11?.
75.81
56,4
83,2
11.1
6.?0
1.216
3.0
6,
30,
18,
18,
32,0
99, 7
12,0
5,80
1,206
35,2
83,8
13,7
6,00
1,190
16,6
60,9
8,3
6,00
1.1?6
31,8
10?, 2
13,7
5,80
1,206
33,6
85,7
17,4
6.00
1,192
17,1
61,6
10.1
6,10
1,126
27,6
100,9
16,2
6,10
1.204
3,6
HBO ,
760,
600,
0,0060
105,
112.
75,81
58,4
82.5
9.8
6,40
1.218
3,0
6,
31,
18,
18,
31.7
104.1
13,9
6,10
1.212
36.0
85.1
13.8
6,00
1.194
18.7
63,5
H.6
5,80
1.132
33.6
106,0
13.1
5,flO
1.214
36,4
87.0
15,3
6,?0
1,194
18,7
64,1
10.0
5.80
1.134
31.0
104,8
13.9
6.10
1.216
3.6
1480 ,
730,
600,
0,0060
106,
115.
75,81
43, »
84,5
23,4
6,20
1,216
3,0
6,
31,
18,
18,
41,9
94.6
?*,2
6,10
1.216
41,2
83,8
12.7
6,20
1,196
21,2
63,5
10,1
5,90
1,136
31,1
109,2
3,4
6,10
1.2JO
36,1
87,6
14,0
6,00
1.108
?0,3
66,7
11,8
5 , P 0
1,140
33,9
105,4
12.4
5,flO
1.216
3,6
1«BO.
730.
620,
0,0060
106,
116,
75,00
46,0
83,1
22,6
6,?0
1.218
3,0
6,
31,
18,
18.
45,3
95,9
13,5
5,80
1,220
42,8
HI, 3
15.6
6,00
1.196
21.9
64.1
10,8
5,90
1,140
37,7
108.6
13,4
5,90
1.2?2
41,2
87.0
12,5
6,00
1,196
21,3
67,3
9.2
6,?0
1.142
32.4
107.9
11,4
5,00
1,220
3,6
14BO,
745,
605,
0,0060
105,
114,
75,60
51.1
83,3
16,8
6,25
1.218
3,0
6,
31,
18,
18.
37,7
98.6
16,9
5,95
1,214
39,0
98,6
14,0
6,05
,1V4
19,6
63,0
9,4
5,90
1.133
33,5
106,5
10,9
5,88
1,216
37,3
86,8
14,8
6,05
1.195
19,3
64,9
10,3
5,98
1,136
31,2
104, 7
13,5
5,98
1.214
3,6
C-2
-------
«MMOM|» »dbt)HPTION PILOT PLANT TEST NO.RST-16 ,?-?6-71
SAMPLE PFHI01)
B C
MEAN
G»s TO SCHu'Rm
FLOH HATE, CFM AI 120 (
T CMPhh ATUH • F
DJST, GHAINS/CU.F1..DRY BASIS
sr>2, PPM
E«C?SS AM, PERCENT OXYGEN
Joi6,
210.0
7,8035
2520,
5,
3016,
214 .0
7,8035
2520,
5,
2917.
216.0
7,8035
2480,
5.
3IH6,
217,0
7,8035
2<80,
5,
29VO,
214,?
7,8035
2SOO,
5,
GAS F»o
G-l FLEMEMT
SO?, PPl
0-2 ElEMEMT
S02. PPl
G-3 ELEMENT
SO?, PPl
NH3, PP^
OJST, G^INS/CU.f T.
F
D'JT
SJLMTfc SILFUR, U/L
BISIILFATE SULFUR. B/L
SULFATE SJLFUR, U/L
PH
SPEC|F|; BRAVITY
Q-3 ELEMENT
SJLFITE s ILFUR, U/L
BISl'L^ATE SULFUR. Q/L
SJLFATE SJLFUR, U/L
PH
S"Er.|l 1C 1RAV1TY
PRODUCT LIOJO^ FHOM SCHUbBER
SJflTE SJLFU", U/L
BISJLFITE S'JLFUR, U/L
S ILFATF •; JLFUH. (,/L
PH
5°EC[F1C 1RAVI1 Y
PRODUTT HLE^DntF, UPM
1160,
530,
1160,
530,
1160,
510.
1160,
510.
1160,
520,
410,
0,0053
108,
109,
83,73
43,6
84,5
?3,6
*,20
1,218
5.0
12,
30,
1C.
18,
41,6
98,4
15.'
5,90
1,216
44,4
83,2
12,1
6,30
1,196
?8.5
«3,S
11,8
6,00
1,150
38,5
106,2
16,0
5,90
1.222
40,8
83,0
15,9
6.10
1,196
28,9
64,7
11,2
6,10
1,152
32,4
99,9
22,4
5,90
1,216
5,7
410,
0.0053
108,
108,
83,73
46,0
83.1
22,6
6,?0
1.218
5.0
12,
29,
18,
18,
41.6
98.4
15,7
6,00
1.216
40,3
85,1
15,o
6,10
1,200
28,9
63,5
10.4
6.10
1.150
37.0
105.5
17.2
5,90
1.222
42,4
83.0
15.3
6,20
1.198
31.2
64,7
9,9
6,00
1.152
34,3
90.6
21,8
6,00
1,216
5,7
400 ,
0,0053
109.
109,
83,87
56,4
83,2
11.1
6,20
1,216
5.0
12.
29,
18,
ie,
35,6
101,2
17,9
5,90
1.218
40.1
83.2
1^,4
6,10
1,196
23.3
63,2
17,3
6,00
1.151
30,6
106,6
25,5
6,00
1,222
35,2
84,5
21,0
6,10
1,198
24,0
64,8
16,0
6,00
1,152
35,2
97,4
22,1
6,00
1,216
5,7
400.
0,0053
109,
109,
S3, 87
58.4
82.5
9,8
6,40
1,218
5,0
12.
29.
18,
18.
37.5
98,6
16.6
6,00
1.214
41,2
82,5
17,0
6,10
1.198
27.5
61.9
15.4
6,10
1.151
34,9
106,6
19.?
5,90
1,222
40,2
83,2
17,3
6,10
1,196
31.1
65,4
8,3
6,00
1,153
32,4
98,0
24,3
6,00
1,220
5.7
405,
0,0053
109,
109,
83,00
51,1
83,3
16,8
6,25
1,218
5,0
12,
29,
1».
18,
39,1
99,1
16,5
5,95
1,216
41,5
99,1
15,5
6,15
1,198
27.1
63,0
13.7
6.05
1,151
35,3
106,2
19,5
5,93
1,222
39,6
83,4
17,4
6,12
1.197
28,8
64,9
11,3
6,03
1.152
33,6
98,5
22,7
5,98
1.217
5,7
-------
«"M0>J|» »HSOWHT|ON PILOT PLANT TEST NO.SST-1 7-7-71
WAS T,1 •iC-'U^R
FLOW MATg, CFn AT 120 F
THMafl-AllHE. F
DJSf, G«AtNS/r.O.» T..nnr
S3?, CPU
E»C6SS AH. PFHCfcM OXYOfcN
2800,
269.0
2860.
3.
2800,
275.7
0,3177
2860,
3,
2800,
279,3
0,3177
2840.
3,
2800, 2800,
260.7 28?./
2860. 2BDO,
3. 3.
GAS F
B-l
S92, PP*
2
95,80
91,?6 80,63
70,28
58,33
MAK:U" I IOU1H TO SCHUK8EH
SJLF1TE S ILFUH, U/L
BISULFITE s JLFUH. U/L
SJLFATE SJLrUR. U/L
P-l
S'ECH 1C (3RAVI TY
P9WCE 'T FDR-IARD
»ECI":UI AI i IN RATE, UP
o-i
0-2
G-3
TO u-3
H5CIRCUI AT|\i(,
G-l El E"EMT
SJL^ITE S ILFUH. y/L
BISHLFATE SULFuRt 0/L
SJL> ATE s IUFUH, U/L
PH
1: IRAVITT
SJLF i re s JLTU». W/L
BULfUR. U/L
TO SC«UbBER ELEMENTS
i: JRAVITT
s ILFUM, U/L
BIS"LFATE SULFUH. 0/L
SJL» ATE b 'LFUW, b/L
PH
-CAVITY
R=CIR:ULATI JB LIUUOR
G-l H E''E^T
s n t i TF s ILFUM. U/L
BIS"L> ATE SULFUR. U/L
SJL* ATfc S IL» UR, U/L
PH
S^FCIfn SUAVITY
6-2 FI.E^fJT
SJLI I Tf S ILFUC, U/L
BISllLFATF SULFUH. G/L
SJLf ATE S ILFU", U/L
PH
S3(.(-|f | - -jcijv I TY
G-3 FLh 1E^T
SJIF i TE s ILFUU, U/L
8IS"L* «Tfc S'lLFuH, (i/L
SUL1 ATfc S JL» UM, U/L
PH
SPFC'l* I" 'i*AV I 1Y
PRODUCT LI'JII)-' FHPM bCHUL'RfcR
b ILF I Tt S ILr'JH. (i/L
ntS'/Lr ITE S IL^UI- , I./L
S ILFATt S )Lr'J"' I./L
PH
S'FCI< 1C TR1VI1Y
P50UIH T H.E-D'lt F , UHM
SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
26,
21,
in.
21.6
58.7
«2.3
5,60
1.190
23.8
«0.5
37.1
5,82
1-160
15,0
25,4
23.6
5.90
1.110
19.6
65,3
45.3
5,48
1.190
23.8
40.5
37.1
5.82
1.1*0
11.2
27.5
26,7
5,78
1.110
31.2
39,6
39,4
5.95
l.IRO
« .79
27.9
«6,1
«2.»
5,79
1.180
6,9
10,
26,
21.
18,
18. 3
66,6
43.7
5,47
1.190
20.4
50,4
37.8
5,63
1.170
12.9
34,4
26,4
5,70
1.120
17.5
71.9
«5.5
5,40
1.200
20.4
50.4
37.8
5,63
1,170
12.4
36.3
27.2
5, AS
1.120
18.3
67.4
40.2
5.43
1,190
4, S3
25.5
52.6
38,1
5.75
1.160
6,4
10,
26,
21.
18,
15.7
69,3
40,4
5,40
1,190
16.3
53.6
34.5
5,60
1.170
1«.7
<2,5
28,1
5,70
1,140
15.9
74,6
40.7
5,40
1,200
18.3
53.6
34,5
5,60
1.170
12,6
43,8
26.7
5.60
1,130
16,9
69.4
38,6
5,45
1,190
4,74
_
57.5
52.3
5.70
1,190
6.0
10.
26.
21,
16,
16.4
73.5
40,3
5,40
1.200
15,7
59.1
35.8
5,50
1,170
8.7
44.8
26.4
5,40
1.120
16,2
77.8
41.2
5.35
1.200
15,7
'9.1
15.8
J.50
1.170
9.9
5.7
-------
f'L»NI T( ST NU.bST-2
,7-8-71
U A S T)
FLIM
T - H Je
DI^T,
SI?, "r» 1
* A I Nl/ru.t T . .UHY HASIS
1
AM, PH'ttNt JXY'tL-H
uts F-to1' ->r:-'ii
''.-I H t 't JT
S'V, HP1
r. -> H FjMFMT
(,. 5 (-i p -IFMT
SJ?, I'P-I
N-M. ''P*
u IST , ;; (AMs/rj.t T .
HI \ - J II '
n IY-H IL <
1»K:U-> L T'J 1H Til Sc
3 JLM Tfc S ll.-"l|1, J/L
^l SJLf I Tt S /Lf UH, U
S JL^ ATe S l|_rll'<. ^/L
^'^
s:>t:!r ii' s^v i rv
F3WARH I E=U. Wi
IN
TO G-J
0-1
Q-2
5-3
UrC IRCULAT | -Jij |_ I JUO« TO SCRUtlSER ELEMENTS
G-l ELE^FMT
S )L^ 1TE S ILFoH, U/L
IM'UH, U/L
s ILFUH. U/L
p-l
S3E''I> i: THAVl TY
G-2 El c"E^T
S ILf I T£ S ILFU«. U/L
tfISUL» ATt SULFUH. U/L
SJL1A!6 SJLFU». U/t
P-l
S^EHIf i; ISAVITY
G-3 FLtrtE^T
s ILFUH, U/L
IILFUM. U/L
SJLfATE S 1LFUW, U/L
TCHCIHATMG UTJUOH F^OM SCRUBBER FLEMFNTS
U-l (-t EMtMT
SJL> i TE s ILF jw. U/L
HISIlLl «TE SIJLFUH. J/L
sJLf»rt s IL> o«. u/i.
p-l
S°Fr IM •; -,m I TY
0-2
I 'E j ILFUK,
SJLI ATF 5 ILFU", U/L
P 1
S^fflM' '. ^ « V I T V
-i H L'1L-JT
S /Ll ! "-1 S ILFD4, IJ/L
H i s 1 1 L t » r E SIILFU". U/L
s JL' » TF s ILF u". U/L
p-<
S " F C I M - T ^ A v I T Y
P^O'lUCT uIOJl)) > ^nM iC^U
S ILF|Tt i )Lru». U/L
4ISJLF I ' r S )L' U>J. U/L
3 ILFA 1 t S ILrU«. u/L
" -I
S^F- ^ IF I 0 '.RAV IT Y
P30IHI" f H^E -!)'!> ' . UP1
2 7 0 r, .
22V, 0
-
.5070,
;< .
-
46?,
5,0001)
0,0075
U".
120,
B4.V5
34. V
(1.0
9.5
7,42
l.OHO
1.4
J 0.
21'.
2?!
in.
2.8
54,4
11.5
5,10
l.ino
8,6
31.7
9.1
5.78
1 .070
•0.5
20,1
7.J
5,12
1,040
2.6
56.9
11.1
5, 00
1.100
8.6
31.7
9. 1
5,78
1,070
0.7
?2.0
6,0
5.45
1. 140
4,9
5?, 3
9.0
5 , 25
1 , 0 qO
0 ,HH
268T ,
224,0
-
3020,
3 t
1920,
685,
4,0000
0,0075
119,
119,
77,32
30.9
9.5
6,6
6,80
1.090
1.5
10,
2«,
22J
18,
5.6
54.1
9,8
5,10
1.100
9,6
35,2
6.4
5,65
l.OBO
«.o
21.8
4.5
5.35
1,040
4,5
55.5
12,1
5,10
1.100
9,6
35.2
6,4
5,65
1,080
j ?
21J9
6.5
3,10
1,050
6,3
54,8
8,7
5.25
1,100
2.17
26bO ,
214,0
0,3254
2940 ,
'•
-
1240,
3,oono
o.oono
119,
118,
57,82
27.8
14.7
7.5
6 60
1 .090
1.4
1 0
2H,
27 ,
18.
3.8
54.8
11.2
5,15
1.100
5,4
39,1
3.2
5,40
l.ono
0.0
22. J
6.8
3,10
1.040
4 ,3
57,5
7 ,H
5,00
l.ino
5.4
39,4
3.2
5, 10
1 ,080
0.8
2 1,9
6.7
J.i.b
1. O'O
4 .8
5^.4
9 , 5
5.15
l.ino
2, 1 7
0-26
-------
»MMOMt» AHSOHPTION PILOT PLANT TEST NO.SST-i
.7-9-71
S»M=L6 PEH] 10
S»S TO SCHUW<
FlO* "Alt. CFH AT 120 >
TEMOF0»T'ne. F
OJST, (JHA IN3/CU.FT. .DRY U»blS
SD2. PP'H
EXCESS AM. PF-HCENi OXVnEN
•(700.
225. 0
_
2840,
3,
2660,
225.0
0,2059
2870,
3,
2660,
226.0
0,2059
2920,
3,
2660 ,
229,0
-
2960,
3.
2660 ,
2.50.0
2920.
UAS F30*i
G-l tL
S3?.
SCIu-iBEP.
G-2 FLte«ENT
S02. PP1
G-3 tLENBNT
S02. PP^
N H 3 , P P *1
DJST, G**INS/CU.» T.
TEMPERATURE. F
53
0
-
-
3%
,0000
,0079
H9,
119.
1200,
51,
25,
23,0000
o.oono
iiv,
119.
1460,
180,
65,
2,0000
0,0000
119.
11',
1660,
410,
190,
5,0000
0 ,0000
119,
119,
198C,
555,
365,
0 ,0000
0 ,0000
121,
120,
PERCENT SO? REMOVAL
98,77
99,13
97,77
93,58
87,50
MAKEUP LIUUTR TO SCRUB8EH
SJLHTE SJLFUR. U/L
BisJLf HE s ILFUR, U/L
SJLFATR SJLFJR. li/L
S'ECIFJC 3HAVJTY
F3*ARU >E?D. RPt
PERCENT FTR^ARU FLOW TO U-3
50.2
16.1
8,0
6, BO
1.130
2,0
70 ,
49,5
19.6
8.4
6,65
1.120
2,0
70,
48.8
23,1
8,8
6,40
1.130
2.0
20,
44.7
28.5
8.5
6,50
1.130
2.0
20,
39,2
33,7
10,6
6,25
1,130
2,1
70
RECIRCULAT]DN RATE, UPN
G-l
G-2
G-3
27,
24.
12,
27,
25,
12,
28,
25,
11,
2C,
26,
11,
27,
2*,
11 ,
REC1RCULATIVG
0" TU SCWuHRER ELEMENTS
G-l FLE"E^(T
SULFI IE s ILFUW. U/L
BISL'LFATE SULFUR. U/L
SULFATE SJLFUH. li/L
PH
3RAVITT
U-2 FLE^EMT
SDL' HE s JLFUH. U/L
8ISULFATE SULfUH. B/L
SJLFAIE SJLFUW. U/L
G-J tLEi'E'JT
SJLF1TF SILFUP. U/L
HISl'LFATE SULFUR. G/L
SUL* ATE S ILFUP, U/L
PH
I: TRAVITY
16.3
61.4
b.8
5,60
1.120
27,5
24.8
7.7
6,30
1.090
16,7
14.4
5.0
6,45
1.060
14,8
68.6
14,1
5,60
1.140
26.7
35.0
e.t
6.10
1.110
16.0
18,3
B.O
».25
1.070
18,4
72,5
10,9
5,60
1.150
26.4
36,9
8.1
6,10
1.110
17.S
22.1
5,2
6,35
1.080
16,4
77,3
11.2
5.50
1.15U
22.4
46,7
8.0
5,95
1.110
14.4
27.5
6,0
6. CO
1.070
13. b
79.1
7,6
5,38
1.150
15,7
50.6
10,0
5,70
1.120
8.8
32.3
8,3
5,75
l.OflO
RrCIRCULAl I 4Q LIUUUR F ROM SCRUBBt* ELEMENTS
G-l ELEMEYT
SJlMIE SJLFUH, U/L
BISI'LFATE SULfUR. U/L
SULFATE SJLFUR. U/L
PH
S"FCIF|J -.
G-2 bLt"fcMT
SUL» HE s ILFU«, O/L
BISI'LFATE SULFUR, (./L
SJLFATR SJLFUM. U/L
PH
|3 TRAVITY
n-3 ELEMf-wT
SJLFITE s ILFUR. U/L
UISt'LFATfc SULFUR. U/L
SJLFATE s ILFUR, U/L
PH
S»EMF I - TR«V I TY
11.7
66.0
11.3
5,50
1.170
27.5
24. B
7.7
6,30
1,090
16,3
14.4
5.4
6,40
1.060
11.3
74,5
15.4
5,50
1.140
26.7
35,0
8.5
6,10
1.110
17,2
19.6
6.3
6,30
1.070
17.8
78,4
11.3
5. 55
1.150
26.4
36.9
H.I
6,10
1.110
14 ,4
24,1
(1,6
6,10
1,080
15.8
82.2
11.1
5.40
1.150
?2.4
46, /
8.0
5,P5
1.110
14.6
29.1
5.5
5,95
l.OflO
12.3
B4. 7
10,9
5,32
1.150
15. ;
50 ,6
10 .0
5,70
1.1?0
9.1
34.3
7. 0
5,75
1,080
PRODUCT LlO^ FROM bCHUHPfcR
SJLFIIfc SJLFUH. 0/L
SISULF i TE s ILFUH, U/L
SJLFATfc SJLrU«/ U/L
S'EC!< !C 3R
P30DUTT Hlfc
UPM
18.5
63,7
8,0
5.AO
1.130
1,97
12.0
70.6
16,4
5,60
1,140
2,03
IV, 4
73.9
9,9
5,60
1.150
2,08
17.0
78,3
10,3
5.55
1.140
2,09
14,4
81.0
IP.')
5,18
1.150
1.97
C-27
-------
ABRUPTION PILOT PLANT TFST NO,SST-«
B»S TO
DJST,
SD2, P
*T i?o r
liMAINS/ru.f T ..DRY B»S1S
PM
»!*, pFHCbNl OXYRfcN
2800.
259,0
0,5869
2800,
2800,
265,0
0,0000
2760,
3,
2800,
269,0
0,0000
2760.
1.
0,0000
2800,
277,0
0 ,OOnO
2800 ,
UAS F"(H' ^C-*UI
o-i n FIEVT
so?, »p->
G,2 ElMtlT
SD2, °P»
G-3 FLb^ENJT
S3?, PPt
DJST,
TEMPE> »'F S IL^U". <»/U
PH
SP6f|F|; -)R»v|T«
O-J ELfEMT
TO SCRUBBfcR ELEMFNTS
1 If S ILFl'R. «/t
l'UFdTt SULfu«. 0/t
* »'F s ILFU», «/u
|t in TRAVI TY
R5CIRCULAT I
G-l ElfElT
I'R S ILFU". U/L
f »rF SULFUH. G/L
ii/L
LlUUUH FHOM SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
S JL' «'E S
PH
S^H IM ~
|TY
G • 2 F I fc M E v T
S JL' I ' f S IL^ul., U/L
BIS''L» »'b S'lL' I'H, G/L
S Jl I » ' F S IL* Uti , U/L
P. (
S " F '" I M T i>f»VlTY
S.I (-1 b-'E^T
s Ji M ' F s ILFU", "/L
B I SI'L*" ATE SIILFUW. G/L
"5 ii i » rt s ILI u». i>/L
p -J
S.1^llfl• 1HAVITY
'T Ll'Jjnt (HUM SlJHUHRfaR
S JLF I IF S ILr.HJ. Ij/L
H iS'Ji i nt s IL> ij"- I-/L
S IL'A I t S ILr JM, 1,/L
M-l
S-'tCI'll "i K » V I T Y
p'onin T H^t^n»> i • I.PI
190 ,
0,
0,
0 ,
(t,
85 ,
585,0000
O.OH22
119.
ll'l
96,96
46,3
16,2
10.3
6.71
1.120
6,8
20,
30,
27,
30.1
36.9
11,0
6,12
36.7
16,7
11.0
6,60
1,110
26,0
H.O
7 , 7
6,71
1,080
31,9
40.2
12.5
6,10
1.130
36.7
16.7
11,0
6,60
1.110
26.5
11.1
9.6
6,70
1.080
36,5
34, J
6,7
6 ,24
5,68
1HO,
364,0000
0,0000
120,
120,
93,46
44.5
22.9
8.7
6,50
1,170
6,8
?0.
30,
27,
18,
35.2
38,2
9,0
6,15
1.130
37,8
20.7
8,2
6,50
1.110
29.1
14.4
5.2
6.60
1. 090
33.3
44,5
9,2
6.05
1.130
37,8
20,7
b,2
6,50
1.110
29.1
14,4
5,5
6,50
1.080
31.1
40.1
11.9
6.15
1 . 1 ,1 0
5 . 90
140 ,
778.0000
0,0000
119.
119,
94 ,9J
«2.B
?7,9
7,3
6,40
1 ,130
6.6
20 ,
31,
27,
18.
29.0
44.0
11.9
6,00
1.130
33,9
25.0
9 7
6,30
1.110
25.5
17.5
7,0
6,40
1,080
27,1
50.5
11 ,9
5.95
1,130
JJ ,9
25,0
9,7
6,30
1,110
25.9
18,6
6,1
6,40
i, ORQ
29.4
45,6
10,8
6.00
1 , 1 S 0
5,14
140.
189,0000
0,1106
119,
120 ,
95,00
40,2
32.5
«,3
6,25
1.130
6,5
30,
31,
28.
IH.
30.3
45,6
9,7
6,00
1,130
30,9
29.2
10. •>
6,?5
1.120
20. a
23.9
6 , b
6,. 15
1,080
24.5
52.6
13.9
5 , PO
1 , 140
50 ,9
?9.2
10.5
f, , • •
1.1?0
?4,5
?1 .9
5.9
6,30
1.0,0
76,7
49.2
11 .0
5 , Tb
1.110
4.H6
0 ,
158,0000
0,0000
119,
121 .
100,00
36,4
38,3
7,8
6.15
1,130
6, 7
20
26,
2ft ,
If'.
24 ,8
49 . 7
12 ,4
5 , P5
1.130
30 .9
33.5
7.3
6,15
1,110
22.4
25,6
6,3
6,20
1 ,090
24,7
56.2
10,2
5.PO
1,140
30 .9
33,5
7.3
6,15
1.110
21.5
26,5
6,9
6 ,10
1 . OBO
76,1
57,5
10,5
5 , 0 C
1. 140
ft, 66
-------
inSOHHTjON PILOT PLANT TrST NO.SST-5
.7-13-71
SAMPLE Mf*! JU
GAS TT SC''J^8cR
FLOd xATg. CFM AT 120 F
TiN^F^A'd )£. F
OJST, G-(i INS/KU.FT. ,bMY BASIS
S3?, PP«
Excess «i-),
2500,
227,0
0,2075
2700,
3,
2500.
22!>,0
2730,
2500,
227.0
2720.
3,
2500,
222,0
2720,
3,
GAS FRO'' ->C^U 'BEH
G-l FLEiE-JT
SO?, ff"
G-2 Fl EMEVT
S3?, fPl
G-3 El E -IE VT
S32. PPH
DJS'. G=A!NS/CU.> T,
1360,
*/*:,
Wi T-8 IL •*
PWY-9JL-I
HC«OVAL
4K5U3 IIDUIR TO SCRUHBEH
SJLFJTE SJLFJR. G/L
8ISUL' I 'E S JLFU«, U/L
SJLFATE S JLrU». 1>/L
P-l
SPECIFIC :,«»v|Tr
P=WCeKT FDHWAUU
TO G-3
RATE, (jPI
G-l
a-z
G-J
HECIRCUI *T[MG L1UUUH 10 SCNUbBtW fLEhfNTS
G-l H EIEMT
SULF ITE S ILFUh, U/L
BISULFITE SULFuM. U/L
SJIMTE S*LfU», U/L
PH
i; 1»AV|TY
G-2 FIE«EVT
SilL* I IE S 1LFUH U/L
8ISULFATE SULFl/K, Q/L
SJLUtfc SJLfuw. U/L
PH
SBErlF|: -.OAVITY
SUL* I 'E S ILHJ". U/L
BISIJLMTE SOL'UH, U/L
SULFATb SJUFUH, U/L
PH
If II 1RAVI FY
KrClflCUl AM MC LlOUOH FHOH 8CHUBREH ELEMENTS
G-l ELE"EMT
SJLF ITE S ILFU*. U/L
HISl'LfAT£ SULFuH. 0/L
sjtf ATE s ILFUH. U/L
PH
S°fr It I : GRAVITY
G-2 (-1 f'EMT
SJi.f 1 IE s ILFUK, G/L
tnsi LI «TE SDL* UH. G/L
SUL> ATfc S ILFUW, U/L
?t-r IF | -
VI TY
C.-3 H E^ENT
SJi r i TF s IUFUH, U/L
sisi'Lt Ait SIILFUH, G/L
SJLFATE s ILFUH, U/L
PH
S°M IM - ~,KAV i TY
^nnuCT LlOHH FMflM SL
S JLF I Tfc S )LF 1JH, G/L
HIS JLf Iff 3 llf OHi U/
s JLF*TE s )
i'ECIF 1C -,H«V1 TY
P'JODIK T nt
_
9,0000
0,0753
117,
118,
-
40,4
20,0
38,3
6,45
1,170
2.0
10,
27.
26,
IB.
8.8
62,6
37,2
5,?2
1.170
16.3
40.9
30.8
5,72
1.140
7.0
27.1
16, V
^.^2
1.079
1U.1
68.7
37.2
5,32
l.lfiO
14.6
44.0
32.1
5.C.7
1.150
4,3
28.3
17,4
5.51
1,080
10.2
62.?
35,6
5..M
1,170
2,15
440 ,
6,0000
0,0893
lie,
llfl,
83.88
39.5
23,2
38,6
6,33
1.167
1.9
10
27,
26,
1".
12,7
68,8
37.9
5,30
1.1SO
16,0
44,8
31.9
5.57
1.146
3.8
31.3
17, b
5,08
1.083
1U.6
72.5
39.7
5.22
1,185
16, 0
47,2
29,9
5,58
1.147
i,0
30 ,6
17.8
5,43
l.OflS
12.8
67,2
37.2
5,, 13
1.177
2,13
H35,
685.
580.
0,0693
117,
119,
78,68
35,6
29,7
37,4
6.17
1,168
1.3
10,
27,
26,
IS,
12,7
71,0
38,2
5,30
1.184
12,3
48,5
32.9
5,43
1,146
5.0
30,6
17,4
5,03
i.OM
11,6
74.9
38,4
5,?5
1.187
13.5
51,5
29.8
5,50
1.147
4, 7
32.4
17.4
5,32
1.085
11.2
7i,a
38.5
5,?7
1,18?
2,01
1520.
790 ,
666,
5,0000
0,0893
118,
119.
74,78
55.0
55-2
57.6
6.07
1.167
1.5
10.
26.
26.
18,
10,7
70 .A
35.4
5.72
1.178
11.0
49.8
32.7
5,40
V.147
5.1
31.2
16.3
5,?0
1,084
10.2
72.V
38.3
5,?0
1.183
10 .5
51.7
3Z.U
5,S3
l,14b
5.1
32.b
16.3
5.1V
1.0S4
11.7
69. >i
56.lt
S.27
1.173
2.06
C-29
-------
ABSORPTION PILOT PLANT TEST NO.SST-6 .7-14-71
SAM'LE PEKi:.,
o»s TD SCWU^BCH
FLOJ "A'F:. TM »T 1?0 F
T=n3(-c» t j^t, r
DjSt, (JW» INS/CU.F T. ,l)HY BASIS
S32. MPf
EXCESS *n. PFHCtNi OXYOEN
2650,
267,0
0,2228
2640,
3,
272.0
2680,
3,
273,0
2660,
3,
275.0
2780.
3.
2801.
27H.3
27?0 ,
3.
Q*S FR
Q-l
0-2 FL
S32.
0-3
N-13, PP1
DJST, b'AMS/CU.M.
P=R:E^T so? REMOVAL
MAK=U» IIQJ3H Tn S
SJLF1TE SJLFUR. b/L
BISJL' i TE s ILFUK, U
SJL^ATE SJLrU". U/L
PH
S»6CI>1C 3B«V|TY
tLUh TO B-3
RATt, UPM
0-1
G-2
0- 3
R6CIRCULATMQ uluUUR TO iCRUBRbR ELEMENTS
G-l ELE^fcvT
SJLTITE S )Lf o". U/L
BIS»LFATE SULFUR. B/L
SdLFATE SJLFUR. U/L
PH
S°ECIfI- 5RAVITT
B-2 ELE«EMT
SJLF ITE s IL> "o". U/L
BISi'UMTE SULFUH, S/L
G-3 FLE^FMT
SJLFITE SJLFUH, 0/L
BISULFATE SULFUR. U/L
SULFAIE SJLFUW, U/L
PH
1 ; TRAV I TY
R?C|RCULAT | MO LIUUUH FrtOM SCHUBBER FLEMENTS
0-1 f( E'^E^'T
SJL' ITE S ILFUM, U/u
9tS"LF»TE SULFuM, (,/L
SJLF Atg S ILFUW, b/L
P-l
S°EC IM ; T^»v 1 I Y
SJLFUR, b/L
8IS'lLfATfc SULFUR. U/L
SJL( ATE S ILFUM, U/L
P-l
S'ECU I" '.HAV I TY
0.3 ELE«E^T
SJLF IT6 S ILFUO, b/L
BISULMTt S'lLFuM, U/L
SJL1 ATE S ILFUM, U/L
PH
S^EMf I" TRAV I TY
Llu'CH fHOM iCHUbPtR
SJLFI T6 S ILrJW. U/L
BISJLf I IF S ILFUh, b/L
SJLFATE •ilLrJ». b/L
P-l
S3EC!f|C -,R»VIT»
p^onucr MtE^nruF, I.PH
l?0n.
76,
72,0000
0,1845
121,
122.
97,12
54.7
11.1
37,0
6,80
1.180
1.7
20.
26,
26,
1».
14,3
29'. 7
5,50
1.150
23.B
22.9
?4.3
6,15
1.120
15.3
12.7
14.0
6,31
1.080
12.2
50.5
29,1
5.40
1,160
24.3
24.7
24.1
6,10
1.170
14,7
13,7
15,2
6.25
l.OBO
18,5
52.2
31.2
5,55
1.17U
1280,
300,
168,
56,0000
120,
121.
93,73
50.9
16,6
36,0
6.61
1.180
1.8
27.
26.
1".
17.7
62,1
36,6
5,53
1.190
25,3
29.7
27.2
6,04
1.1*0
16,1
18.1
16.7
6.10
1.100
20.5
6B.O
36,4
5,50
1.1VO
24.7
34.5
26.8
5,93
1.1*0
15.6
20.2
17.i
6,10
21. H
63.1
35,8
1,200
1 ,90
1720.
770,
1840.
'10 ,
31S,
-
-
120,
121,
88,16
46,6
20,6
37.7
6,45
1.1HO
1.7
20,
27,
26.
1ft.
22,1
69.7
38,8
5.50
1.200
25.9
37,3
25.5
5.89
1.150
15,0
23.4
17.4
5.09
1.100
20.5
74,4
41.0
5,44
1,210
23.2
40. V
27,2
5,85
1.150
14.3
24,9
17.8
5.P9
1.100
20.9
70,0
39,4
5,S4
1,200
1 ,P9
590.
20,0000
-
120,
122,
78,78
44.9
26.2
36.8
6,30
1.1PO
1.5
20.
27,
26,
18,
21.5
73.4
38,7
5,48
1.200
20.7
*4.U
27.9
5,79
1 .150
36.3
29.0
-6.6
5,80
1.100
21.6
79.6
3B.4
5.40
1.210
19.1
4b.3
26.9
5.7fl
1.150
11.6
31.1
17,4
5.74
l.ino
20 ,9
74.3
38,7
5.50
1.210
1,67
611.
1 6 , o o n o
0,1466
120,
127.
77,46
42.7
31.1
36,5
6,?2
1.190
1.6
20.
27.
26,
Ifl.
16,6
77.1
41.2
5.19
1.210
14. 7
51.0
29.9
''.55
1,160
9.5
32. d
1H.O
5.64
1.100
18.5
81,2
40.3
5,40
1.210
IB. 7
46.4
31.4
5.50
1.1AU
7.5
34, 7
1H.3
5.54
1. 090
19.3
76, b
39.0
5,4i)
1.200
1 .83
c-30
-------
«MIOMI» »HSOHPTION PILOT PLANT TFST NO.SST-?
,7-15-71
SAMPLE PE*MD
Q*S T-) scwiHBEr)
FLO* HATE, CFM AT 120 f
TEMPFWAtu'E. r
njST, G-iMNS/cu.f T..URY BASIS
Sll, PPM
EXCESS «!•». PEMrtNl OXYGFN
2600,
265.0
2680,
3,
2600,
267,0
2670.
3.
2620,
269.0
2790,
2620,
271.0
2800 ,
3.
GAS F^O-
G-l tl E
S3?.
G-2 EL
St)?,
U-3 Flfc
S3?,
NH3,
. G'Al
H»TU-I
r-fl JL-I
.f T.
2080.
1120,
1080,
3?,0000
0,0911
120,
121,
2180,
1400,
1380.
10,0000
119,
119,
2220,
1500 .
3.0000
0,1066
119.
120,
2260,
1520,
1660 ,
8,0000
12?.
12?.
So?
59,70
48,31
46,?4
40,71
AKFU3 I I'JUIR T') SCRUHHEH
SJLFITE SJLrU"> l>/t
HISULf I TE S'lLFUW, 1,/L
SJL*"»TE s IL^UH, G/L
PH
FLOW TO G-3
P?RCF"JT
U/L
G/L
SJLFUH, (,/L
PH
SPtClf I • TRAVITY
SJLFITE SJLFUR, O/L
BISULfATE SULFUR. U/L
SJLFATE s I
PH
G-J ELEHE'U
SULf 1TE SJLTUH, U/L
BIS»LfATE SULFUR, G/L
SULfATE SJLFOR, O/L
PH
i: TRAVITY
3,4
33,9
42.9
5,00
1,140
4,6
24,9
35,1
5,35
1,120
1,8
8.9
14.0
4,60
1.050
4,4
3«.l
49,5
4.99
1.160
4,2
28,5
38.3
5,?0
1.120
0.8
13.8
19,9
2,75
1,060
3.2
45,0
56,0
5,04
1.180
1.2
29.7
40.4
5,03
1,120
0.2
16.2
20.9
5,00
1.070
4,6
45.4
58.2
5.13
1.180
1.7
30,0
39.9
5,10
1.130
0.4
15,9
?1.3
4,73
1.070
RECIRCULAT MO LIUt'UR F Hon SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
G-l El E^EYT
SJLFITE SJLFUB, U/L
BISI'LMTE SULFUH, G/L
SULfATE SJLFUR, U/L
PH
SBEC|F|-; THAVITY
G.J fcLE"EMT
SJLFITE S.JLFUR, U/L
81S''LFATE SULFUR, B/L
JlfLiW, U/L
1.9
31,0
38,9
4,40
1,130
4,4
23,1
31.2
5,15
1.100
4.0
42.2
50.7
4.91
1.160
3.6
30.2
38.1
5,05
1,130
-2,6
49.2
65.7
5,no
1.180
2.2
31.5
38,5
5,12
1.130
4,0
47,8
60.7
5,13
1.190
1.5
31.5
39.2
5,10
1.130
G-3 ELEWFNT
SJLFITE SJLFUR, U/L
e ISULt A fF SULFUK, li/L
suLf Aies JLFUR, U/L
PH
0.4
9.1
16,3
2.65
1,050
1,2
16,0
19,3
4.55
1,070
0.0
16,6
21.4
4,70
1.070
0.1
16.8
21.7
4,70
1.070
PRODUCT LlUJO-l FKOM
S.JLFITe SJLFU", U/L
BISJLFiit s JLFUK, U/
SJLFATF SJL<"U», G/L
PH
S»ECI* K 5RAVITY
HwEcnn>F, bP
1.8
2B.fl
37,1
4,flO
1.1PO
1,80
2.4
40,5
51,7
4,84
1,160
1,62
3. 7
45.0
56.5
5.05
1.180
1 .44
4.1
45,3
58.2
5,?0
1.190
1.47
c-31
-------
• M-«3\i|« AbSUMPTlON PILOT PLANT TEST NO.SST-8
,7-16-71
SAM'lE t'
a«s T i '.
» t 120 F
E. F
P.IST, tt'PM
PCMCE'>T Fi(H»Pl' tLOh TO G-3
R;CIR,~UIA
G-l
G-3
HrCISCULAT I MG UUUHH TU SCRUBflER FLFMENTS
G-l Hf'EXT
SULf I 'fc S ILFUR, U/L
9IS'.LfATfc SULFUM, S/L
SJLF ATE s ILFUR, U/L
PH
S^bi'lf I: i»AV ITY
G-2 ELb«E>IT
SJLFIIE SJLFUK, U/C
6 ISI LFATE SHLFuP., U/L
SJLFAIE SJLUlR, U/L
PM
- -JRAVITY
r.-3 FLE 'EVT
SJL» I 'b S JLFuM. «/u
t)!Sl'L>*TE SULFUH, B/L
SJL> AfE S /LFU». «/t
H5CIRCU1 At | MQ LIUUUH F^OM
G-l H E"E»JT
SJL» I IE S JL' Ut- , l«/L
BIS'iLf ATE S"LFU«. U/L
SOLfATE SJLFUR, U/L
PM
SPfr |F |- ',«»» | TY
SJL* I 'E S M U" . U/L
HISI Lr ATb SI'Lt u". U/L
S JLr ATE s ILFl», U/L
PH
SD^^ if 17 JM»V 1 1 Y
G-J H b 'F-uT
SJL> I 'E s JLFUM. U/L
MISi'Lt ATf SllLFUP, B/L
S JLF AlE b ILFu^, li/L
PH
S3brIM : -.IAV MY
P-lnnuCT L I a 10 ' FhciM ir«UbnfcR
SJLrl'E SJLrU». U/L
HISJL1 I 'f S ILFUM, U/L
S JLFATb S !(.( J». U/L
p ^
S'ECP If -,»«v I T Y
P^ODur I H.FrIKU F . UP*
SCHU8HEH ELEMENTS
2AOO,
225,0
0,798*
2720,
S.
-
-
(1 .
193,0000
0,0000
lift,
11B,
100,00
2«,1
3,6
61. <
6,99
1.1BO
5.6
10,
25,
25,
IB.
9.7
24,}
52.1
5,66
1.160
16.8
7.8
50.4
6.43
1.150
V.6
4.7
2H.5
6,57
1 . 0 9 0
9.2
31.7
56.6
5,51
1,170
18.2
10.5
5?. 9
6,30
1,150
9.6
4. 7
28.7
6,53
1,100
1?,7
24.4
54.9
5,76
1.170
5,31
2600 ,
221.0
_
2760,
3,
-
85,
31,
156,0000
0,3210
U7,
117.
9S.R6
24,7
8.4
61.9
6,53
1.1*0
5,5
10,
25,
26.
IP.
12.4
29.1
61,9
5,f3
1.1HO
17.7
14.5
55.8
6,?b
1, 160
11.4
9.1
3B.O
6.7B
1.010
10.3
35.2
62.0
5.50
1.1VO
la.o
13. b
55.8
6,15
1. 1*0
11.1
10.0
3H.3
6,22
1. 110
12.3
30.6
61.2
5 ,*8
1 . l«n
5, OH
2600 ,
223.0
_
2760 ,
1,
1020 ,
20?.
5B,
6,0000
0,1242
117.
117,
97,90
21.3
13,8
62,2
6,25
1,180
5.2
10,
25,
26,
18,
8,4
36,5
62.4
5,55
1,190
13,9
19.1
5B.1
5,98
1.170
9.8
14.1
38.3
5,99
1.1?0
8,1
40,8
63,6
•-,33
1,200
14.2
22,5
56.5
5,85
1,170
8,3
15.8
39.4
5,fi4
1,120
10,1
36.1
63.2
5,50
1 .1VO
4.S6
260",
??6.0
2740,
1220.
270.
15.0000
0,12-12
11H,
90,15
19.1
19.1
70.0
6,no
1.100
5.3
10.
21'.
2->.
in,
8.5
40.3
62.1
5,32
1.190
12.8
25,3
57.2
5.72
1.170
7.0
20.5
34.0
5,f>8
1,120
/.O
44.3
64.4
5.P5
i,?no
10.5
29.5
57,1
5,M
1.170
6.1
22.2
39,3
5,f>0
tt.7
39,6
62,S
5,,19
272C.
2?B . 0
2720 ,
570,
57?,
7,0000
116,
IIP,
78.P6
16.2
?4.4
62.0
5.R6
1.1BO
5.5
10,
0,
IP,
7.3
41.2
63,0
5.35
1.19C
10.5
29,4
56.7
5.65
1,170
4.1
25.2
38 ,9
5,45
1.120
5.9
46.1
64.0
5.JO
1.200
8,8
33.7
56,4
5.49
1.170
3,2
26.0
40,1
5.34
1,130
4;, 4
V.6
1 . 100
5. If,
4,0000
il".
iifi.
68,
13. 1
27.2
6?,9
5.76
1.1HO
0.0
10,
6.5
43.9
62.7
5.75
1 .190
6.4
33 .8
56.7
5.«6
1.170
2.9
27. 4
19.1
5, 30
1.1 ?0
c-y.
-------
1USURHTIOH PILOT fLANT TFST NO,SST-»
.7-20-71
T EM?^ w * T u*f, r
DjST, C.H* I NS/CU ,M . . L/MY 0AIIS
51}, "»-
HCESS «l<, PtNClM UKVOfcN
0-1 K
SJ7.
G-2 FLE-EN1
SO?. "<"•
SD2. 'Pi
NHJ, PP <
DJST. S>*l1*/CU,t T.
AHrUo LI'.UIH TO SCHUhSfK
SJLFI'E SJLrJ». G/L
B1SJL' I'F S ILFUf. U/L
SJLF»TE sJLru«. O/L
PH
S'ECl' If TUVITY
F5^»«n 'E:0. OP*
P=I;F*T rt«nt.u FLUX TO 0-3
P.5CI«CUL»'I IN *«TF, UP*
0-1
0-2
G-}
• !CII1CUL«T|»0 IIUUOH TO SCHUHPtS ELEHENTS
0-1 Hfc"f«T
SJL' I'E S ILFU". U/L
§iS''LF«iE SULFUH. a/L
SUL'«'e SJLfUK. tt/L
»ISl'Lf»Ti
s ^i,r*TE s J
8I?"Lr.Tf SULFUX. B/L
SULr*TE S^L^UN. U/L
ECl'CUl.tTING LIUUOR '«0h ICDHISC* ELEMENTS
0-1 (I ("e^T
SJL'I'E SJLFU", U/L
SISl'Lf»'E SULtU*. U/L
SJLfUTt SILF(/H. U/L
P-l
G-J FLt"E>'E 5'L»U», U/L
P'OOUCT LlOJO)
5JLrI't SJLfU
eisjL' I if s IL
0» »C»UH»ll<
U/L
?650,
206,0
-
2620,
4 ,
250,
16,
23,
-
-
Ill,
112.
99,12
55.9
17.3
56,1
6,55
1,210
5,8
20.
26.
31.
1».
15,3
42,2
50.4
',90
1,200
41.4
21.7
46,1
6.31
1.190
30.7
14.1
31,9
6,41
1.140
11,1
47.0
51,4
',83
1.210
40,11
22,8
46.7
6.76
1.190
31,2
15,1
34,9
6.41
1.150
29.5
37,2
43.5
5,95
1.1"0
5,05
77on,
215.0
-
2600,
3,
235,
50,
68.
-
-
112,
113,
97,36
50.5
23.9
54.1
6.35
1.210
5.9
70,
26,
31.
18,
37,6
43,3
52. t
5,95
1.220
42.7
24,5
48, B
6,28
1,200
33.4
16,6
36,8
6,30
1,160
36,5
48.8
53.1
',B7
1.220
42,0
25.0
48,2
6,24
1.200
33.4
16,0
16.5
6,40
1.160
37,2
42 , 9
52,7
5 ,96
1.210
5,29
2700.
219,0
-
260(1,
2,
270,
-
27,
-
-
113,
114,
98,96
«6,3
27,9
54.0
6,26
1.270
5,'
20,
26,
31,
18,
32,6
45,2
'7.5
',90
1,270
46.1
28.2
43,6
6.15
1.200
32.0
18.'
36,8
6,30
1.160
35.0
50,8
93,7
',84
1.220
39,9
29.2
49,0
6, 14
1.200
31. »
19,3
36,2
6,76
1.150
37.3
44,1
52,7
'.95
1.220
5,16
2700,
219,0
-
2600,
2,
-
-
46 ,
-
-
114,
U4,
98,23
45.5
32.3
53.2
6,15
1.220
5.5
0,
31,
18,
35,1
47. »
'J.I
'.8J
1.220
38,8
32.3
49.1
6.06
1.190
29.7
23.0
16,6
6,18
1.150
11.8
51,2
51,8
5.80
1.220
18,1
33.1
46.6
6, ne
1 ,1<0
29,9
22, 7
36.2
6,15
1.150
34,9
48,1
53,0
5,85
1.210
5,18
2700,
218,0
-
2600,
1,
370,
10,
30,
-
-
113.
114.
V8.85
39.9
39.6
53.5
6,15
1,216
_
70,
25.
32,
18.
31.6
51.6
'4.7
'.85
1.222
37.2
35.2
4H.9
6,10
1.202
28,8
25.5
37,1
6,18
1,196
32.0
57.0
54.5
',80
1.221
36,7
37,1
49,0
6,03
1.202
27,7
26.6
36, »
6,14
1,160
33.4
50.6
53, •>
5 ,RU
1,220
0,00
2700.
722,0
_
254(1,
4 ,
1000.
-
228,
-
-
115,
115.
VI, 02
34,4
48,9
54. J
'.94
1.270
6.0
20.
29.
27.
18.
25.7
66,5
'4.5
5,*5
1.278
28.9
50.5
4».2
5.82
1.209
22,4
18,4
37. a
'.US
1.165
30,0
68,9
51.1
',85
1,165
28,3
'1.2
49 ,5
5,60
1.231
21,1
40,0
38.6
5. BO
1.166
26,2
64,5
54,0
5,«2
1.225
4,92
7700,
275.0
0,6171
2600.
4 ,
1040.
''0(1.
340.
.
-
114.
115.
86. 02
35.7
49.6
53,0
',«!>
1.270
6.1
20.
29.
27,
1".
75.5
67,4
'4,2
5,65
1.279
26.9
53,7
48.9
5,75
1,209
19.5
42,5
38,0
5.75
1.165
24,4
71,4
'4,7
5,58
1,231
26,4
54,6
49.0
5. 74
1,202
19,7
42.5
37.7
5,75
1,167
75.7
67,1
54,7
5,63
1.234
5,13
270(1.
277.0
0,61?1
2561.
4 ,
1700.
640 ,
470,
4,0000
-
115.
116.
81,64
31,6
55.8
53.5
5,00
1.225
5.7
?0,
29,
76.
1«.
23.6
70,2
'4.6
',56
1.214
25.2
58.4
48. B
5,65
1.210
is.i
45.7
36.6
5,67
1,167
76,8
20.1
'4.9
5,55
1.233
75.2
57.8
49.8
5,7B
1.204
IB. 3
45,6
17,6
5,68
1.166
23.6
70.2
54, C
5,5(1
1.234
5,16
27on ,
2?"J.O
n , * 1 7 1
256''.
4 .
1401.
750,
^•> ,
4 , r) c n o
0 , 09?5
115,
116,
74,02
29,9
59.6
54.0
5,70
1,230
5 , 7
70.
2» .
26.
1",
22.3
74 . 2
5?,9
5,50
1.235
72. 7
61.6
45 .7
5.59
1.213
16.1
4R.6
34,0
5,60
1.168
2? , 7
76.6
55,4
5,46
1,240
22.9
61.8
49,6
5.59
1.713
15.1
49,9
36,9
5,55
1.172
22. »
72.9
55,2
5.M
1.23]
5,16
-------
• MHOM|« «HSOHPT|ON PILOT PLANT TEST NO.SST-10 7-21-71
G»s T i <;ou '«<-»
FLOJ UAH , -FN AT i?u f
TCM=>M'Al \J-<1 , I
DJST, (."AINWCU.l T, ,UHY BASIS
SI?, vox
F«cts^ AH, Bmct-Ni OXYGEN
UAS Flo- ^C'U IBH<
0-1 ElftvT
S02. PP*
0-2 flH^FVT
SO?, Ppt
G-3 ELE"E>lT
SJ7, PP«
NH3, PPt
OJST, (HAI'JS/CU.f T.
TEMPERATURE. F
uM-H IL I
ORY-BJL1
PE«:EXT 502
AKCU" L|UUD« TO SCHUP-8EH
SJLFITE SJL^JP" li/U
SJLrATt SJLrU«. U/L
P-l
SPECIFIC ~,R«VITY
F3KARH 'E?D. f,PH
pcRCEM FDRURD (LU« TO G-J
RECIHCuLATHN
G-l
0-2
S-3
«:CI»SUL»'I»a LIUUO" T0 SCRUbBEB
G-l ELE^E^IT
SUUF |TE S'JLfUH, U/L
SISULfATE SULFuH. 0/L
SUL' ATE s ILFUR. WL.
p^
SPEC it i: TRAV ITY
G-2 FLSi'EIT
SJLt HE S /LTUB. U/L
BISULfAtt SULFuH, Q/L
SPECIF i ; J«AVITY
0-3 ELEMENT
fc/L
SULFU*. »/L
SJLFATfc
PH
SPfCIMC 1RAVITT
G-l ELfE'lT
SJLFI'E SILTUM, U/L
BISI'L'ATE SUL'UM. U/L
SJLfATE s ILFUR, U/L
P-I
SPEflFI^ TRAVITY
G-2 Hf-EMT
SU1.F 1 IE S 'LFURf U/L
BISIIL* AIE SIILfUH, U/L
SULFA'E SJLFUU, U/L
PH
spffi'i: GXAVITY
0-3 tLfc«EMT
SUL> I IE s ILCUP. <*/L
BIM'L'ATE SUL'URt U/L
SULf AlE S JLlU"> U/L
PH
SPEC I' I : .TRAV I TY
P100UCT LlOJO-' FHnn SCRUBP.ER
SJLFITE SJLFU". G/L
BISUL* I 'E S ILTu". U/L
SJLfATt SJLrU", U/L
PH
UMM
P'ODUTT
2600,
248,0
2640,
5,
940,
60.
40,
47,0000
-
11B,
119,
98,48
67,7
14,9
12,8
6,84
1,162
I./
10.
28.
25,
18.
35.2
76,6
23,0
5.72
1.203
39,6
35.2
14.2
6,20
1.146
18.3
21.;
12,2
6,18
1.092
35,1
82,1
22,0
5,69
1.200
38,4
37,3
14,6
6,18
1.145
19,8
23. B
12,9
6,16
1.100
36.7
77,2
20, U
5,74
1.201
1.77
2650,
253.0
2600.
4,
860,
45,
63,
103,0000
-
118,
118,
97,58
65,6
21,0
13,2
6,60
-
1.6
10,
28.
25,
18.
36,3
77.8
18,1
5,73
38. B
35,1)
12.5
6,20
17,9
19,6
11.3
«,70
35,0
82.0
18,5
5,70
38,2
36,6
12,5
6,19
19,4
20,2
10.3
6,72
37. S
77,9
16,6
5,7'i
1,93
2650,
255,0
2560,
4 ,
-
50,
117.
92,0000
-
118,
118.
95,62
62,1
26,6
14,0
6,55
1.168
1.5
10.
2".
25.
18,
36,6
12.0
16.6
5,74
1,200
38,2
37,7
12.2
6,?0
1,144
17,3
22.9
8,2
6,20
1.082
39.2
65,0
13.3
5.70
1.200
37.4
39,5
12.0
6,13
1.140
20,0
71.3
8,3
6,72
l.ons
36.5
79.6
16.5
5.73
1.200
1.5?
2650 .
25S.O
2800,
4 .
1460.
210,
29B,
21.0000
-
lie.
no.
89, 36
60,5
31.3
13,5
6,43
1,170
1.5
10,
29,
25.
18,
33.9
87.5
16. B
5,65
1.199
35,0
43,2
17.0
6,04
1.134
17,9
24,5
7.2
6.12
1 .OH4
35.0
89. i
16.5
5,65
1.204
34. /
44.7
11,9
6,00
1.140
13. i
75.5
12.0
5,96
1 ,OH2
36.4
86, 1
14.9
5,70
1 .2"!
1.52
2650,
260,0
2760,
4,
-
350,
780 ,
20,0000
0. 1407
lin.
tin.
89,06
57.5
36. 7
14.3
6,34
1,172
1.5
10,
2°,
25,
in.
32.7
94,5
16.2
5. SB
1,201
32.1
51.0
17.0
5,90
1.142
16,0
28.7
7. 7
5,99
1.086
32.6
97 ,9
16.7
5.60
1 ,206
31.7
51,5
12.0
5,90
1.148
15,4
30.7
7,9
5,95
1,100
32,0
91 ,9
16.4
5,f.2
1 .201
1 , 70
<'65n ,
i * 1 . 0
2770,
4 ,
156H ,
410,
425,
in , o o oo
0.1407
nn.
HP.
S4.66
54. «
43.0 .
14.4
6,75
1,177
1.4
10 .
29,
25.
in.
30.1
99.0
18.0
5,53
1.21?
28.1
57.4
17.6
5. CO
1.153
10.7
33,3
10.4
5,71
1.089
36 ,d
96,3
17.4
5,50
1 .21»
77,5
5V, 5
13,0
5,64
1.155
12.7
35.6
8,2
5, 74
1 .090
30 ,fl
97,5
I 7.V
5,*0
1 . jnn
1 ,?7
/651 ,
262. 1'
f 7 6 1) ,
4 .
i H 4 n ,
710,
710,
17,0000
113,
l?n ,
/4.7I)
51. '
4H.J
15,1)
6,1 '
1 . 1 B 4
1 ,4
1C
2° .
2->.
1«.
79. '
100.3
17.T
5.55
1 .21 }
25. .'
61.1)
1^.')
5.70
1.154
10,.?
37, !
a. ')
5, f, 5
1 . 0 » 5
35. 0
99. !
17.')
5,50
1.717
75. I
63.9
!
1.031
?V.''
100,0
17.H
5.^2
i . : 1 4
1 .no
-------
ABSOHHT10N PILOT PLANT TEST NO.SST11R 8-23-71
li»S TO '•C-'UIHEH
FLCU H*TE, CFM *T 120 f
TEM°FK*TJ^F, r
OJST, UH»[NS/CU,>T..DRY BASIS
SD2, t>P"
*H. PENCtNT OXYGEN
2700,
278,0
1900,
2700,
288,0
1920,
2700,
286.0
2000,
2700,
287.0
2020,
2700,
287.0
2055,
G»S F*
Q-l
G-2 EL
SO?.
''Pi
G-3 Elb'iEMT
SU?, PP»
NH3, >'P-t
DUST, G^A INS/CU.F T.
TEMPERATURE, f
17,
16,
12?.
130,
30,
32,0000
127.
126,
320,
190,
9,0000
660,
51A,
12,0000
125.
126.
890.
81?,
13,0000
123.
P£R;EVT S"2 REMOVAL
99,16
98,44
90,50
74,46
60,49
MAKEUP Ll'JinR TO SCRUB8EH
SJLFITE SJLFIIK. G/L
B1SJLF1TE SJLFUR. U/L
SJLFATE SJLFUR- G/L
PH
S'ECIHC 3BAVITY
TDMARTI FEED, C>PH
PERCENT nsJAHD KUM TO 0-3
?8.7
1.6
107,8
7.03
1,290
5.6
20,
24.7
11.6
107,9
6.20
1,257
5.4
20,
21.2
16.4
109.6
6,10
1,251
5,7
20,
17.5
19.9
103.3
5.88
1,240
540.0
20.
15.9
25.9
110,6
5,90
1,292
5,3
20.
RECIRCUlAT|DN RATE. UPH
0-1
Q-2
G-3
30,
24.
19,
22,
26,
19,
20,
28.
19,
20.
29.
19,
20.
29.
19,
TO SCRUBBER tLE 1ENTS
G-l (-1 E"EVT
SJL> |T£ SJfUR. U/L
BISI'L'ATE SULFUH. Q/L
SJLTATE s ILFUR, O/L
PH
S'ECIF|; 1RAVITT
B-2 FL61EST
SULFITE SJLFUH, tt/L
81SULFATE SUiruH. 8/L
SJLFATi SULFUR, «/L
PH
|C 1RAV1TY
0-3 ELEMENT
SULMTE $JLFO«. u/t
8ISULFATE SULFUH. 8/L
SJLFATE S'JLru". tt/L
PH
14.1
28.6
105.9
5,62
1.258
19.4
12.2
94.3
6,14
1.228
15.3
8,1
73,2
«,37
1.1B1
13.2
34,1
112.0
5,33
1.296
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,00
0,000
11.4
12.4
'2.1
5.94
1.182
11.1
3U.6
115.1
5,50
1,307
12,3
28.9
97.9
5,63
1.239
7.2
23,3
71,9
5,55
1.184
9,1
41,3
113,8
5,45
1.304
10,2
30.3
94.3
5.56
1,250
6,9
24.9
74.2
5.45
1.184
9.5
42.«
116.5
5,38
1,310
2,4
27.7
90.5
5,15
1,216
6.1
28,0
73.1
5,39
1,189
REC!RCULAT[MQ LluUUM FHOH SCRUB8E" ELEMENTS
0-1 fLE«E*T
SJLfJTE SJLFUR, U/L
BIS'ILFATE SI'LFUH. U/L
SULFATE SJLFUR, U/L
PH
I: "SUAVITY
G-2 ELEMENT
SJL* |T£ S JLFUH, U/L
BISULf ATE SULFUR. G/L
SJLFATE SJLFUH. U/L
PH
I: GRAVITY
G-3 fcLE«E1T
SJLFITE SJLFUR, U/L
BIS"L>'ATE SULFUH. G/L
SJLFATb S aFuH, U/L
P-l
SPECIF]; -.SAVITY
12.5
33.0
110.6
5.51
1,292
16.8
16.0
92.0
5,99
1.225
14.5
9.9
73.0
6,13
1.185
11.2
37.7
114.5
5,45
1,300
13,8
23.0
93.1
5,72
1.299
10,1
15.9
70,6
5,82
1.180
10.6
39.9
113.2
5.50
1.303
10.7
20,7
76.2
5.70
1.192
11.9
28.4
95.8
5,60
1.235
9.2
43,9
115.5
5,45
1,315
8.9
32,6
93.8
5,40
1,230
6.5
27,0
74,1
5,40
1.188
7.8
46.0
118.5
5,sa
1.314
6.4
34,9
94.«
5,38
1.243
5,5
29.3
74,9
5,35
1.196
PRODUCT LlOJO-» FROM SCRUBBER
SJLFITE SJLFUR. U/L
8ISJLFITE SJLFUM, U/L
SJIFATE
PH
S°EC|F|r;
14,1
29,0
106.6
5,62
1.263
5,SB
13, u
34,5
110,3
5,50
1,292
5,62
10,9
37.9
113.9
5,50
1,300
5,70
10,2
41.7
114,9
5,48
1,306
5,54
8,2
41.6
113.7
5,40
1,303
5,79
c-35
-------
PILOT PLANT TEST NO.SST-12 7-J9-71
OJST, [,.'» I ^WTU.l T , . UHT ItA&ll
ST?. • M •
G, 1 H fc"E .T
S3?. "»"
0-3 H-ft»T
S3?. "P"
N-IJ. *p«
OJS'. O^l
TCMi't *AtU*
wi- T -H JL <
D' r-a IL i
«;u» i i 'in11 Tn SCMURIJF
SJLM'e SJLru». U/L
SISJIt I It S IL'UH, U/L
SJLr«'E S ILr'J1'. U/L
P<
S'tm ic iu>»i ir
0-1
1-2
C-3
= C 1 WCU' * > 1 ^C L 1
r.-i ne-'EiT
SJL' I'F S IL'
BISi L> «'E 5'
SJLfn't SJL'
UI'UW TO STKUUOfcH
UM . U/L
'LFuH, 0/L
C«. U/L
FLFMENTS
S"FCI> I- -.»«H It
G-2 tl €-f «ie suLiui. U/L
S.JLI «'E S ILfu". U/L
0-3 HE-E-'T
SJL' I '6 S >
S JL' *TE S JLFU
P-»
S3(-r IF 1 " TB*» M V
0/L
. B/L
U/t
FHO« SC«'IH«€» ELCMENTI
I I't s ILFO«. U/L
8IS"Lf»'E
0.? Fl t f ^T
SJLl I 't S I
BISl'LXTE
s"EC|' i: ;
O-J Fl E^Fit
SJL' I 'F i I
SIV'L' »'E
SJl'A'E S I
p *
5>F(-|I [- i
P'0'U"T LlQ'l-1-' FHIIM
S JLf I U S JLf'I". U/
H I S (L ' I Tf= S a' 0",
S JLr » TE S 'U r J°. lj/
P-4
S'fl' |i ;»«KIIT
P*Ot"T T fl.F - D'1' ' .
U/L
U/L
U/L
«. U/L
U/L
joon.
224,0
0 ,4587
2940,
7 ,
507,
65,
54,
1,0000
0,1542
11",
118.
»«,!«
32,7
7,5
10,6
6,90
1.090
5,4
20,
29,
26,
16,
12,8
38,2
11.6
5.78
1.097
22.5
14,6
10,1
6 ,46
1.0»3
IV. 0
6.4
8.5
6.58
1.061
11.2
40.8
10.7
5.IS8
1.098
21.8
15.3
10.0
6.40
1.080
16.4
9.6
7,8
6 .58
l.OM
12.5
35.7
10.7
5,78
1.001
4,05
3000.
219,0
28ao,
7,
610,
77,
78,
3,0000
-
119.
120.
97, ?9
30.5
11.8
8,8
6.70
1.072
5.4
20.
29,
26,
10,
11.7
45.4
8,1
5.67
l.OEO
21,3
19,4
8.3
6.35
1.075
16,6
13,0
5,5
6,48
1,058
12.6
42.5
8,3
5,75
I.OP5
19.4
18.0
9. V
6,35
1.0(1
16,5
12.6
4.3
6 , 4V
1.0*7
14.5
39,2
7,5
5. HO
1,0<>2
4,77
300(1.
221.11
2»80.
1.
73n,
20.
10.
3,0000
-
11V,
119.
99,. 18
28.3
16,6
7.8
6,->l
1.072
S.O
70,
29,
26,
18.
0.9
45.7
10.3
5.60
1.002
20.1
22.3
8.9
6,27
1.063
14,7
18,7
7.5
6,78
1.0f2
10.4
48.0
10,6
5,60
1,098
19,2
24,1
9,5
6,70
1.081
14,8
17.2
8,3
6,30
1.062
12,8
44,3
8,4
5,70
1,095
4,51
2860,
2,
-
-
-
-
-
-
25,5
20,5
9,1
6,35
1.094
"
6,1
47,9
13,8
5,37
1.101
20,8
21.5
9.6
6.70
1.088
14,5
23,7
1,4
6,05
1,076
10.2
47,2
10,4
5,55
1,09V
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,00
0.000
14.6
24.1
8.7
6,04
1,078
9,5
47,1
10,8
5,55
1,100
0,00
3 (1 Q 0 ,
221.9
040 ,
V .
1120,
-
130,
7,0000
117,
110,
»5,'2
21.7
26.6
9.9
6,15
1.097
2I>.
22.
10,
8.8
50.0
10,5
5,50
1.100
14. a
31. V
10.1
5.3V
1.008
11.8
26,1
8.7
5.«5
1.0 '8
8.1
52.6
10.6
5,«0
1.100
11,7
34.3
12.4
5.V5
1.004
11.6
27,0
8 .9
5,"0
1 .Or-8
9 , 1
49.5
10,5
5.54
1.115
o.ao
30or ,
227.0
2640 ,
7,
-
230.
6 , 0 0 0*0
~
117,
110,
-
20,2
29,9
9,7
6,05
1,009
5.8
20,
20,
23,
10,
5,0
51.5
13.7
5.77
1.112
12.2
36.4
9.6
5,75
1.090
9.0
79.3
8,5
5,78
1,076
6.7
54,9
11,0
5,33
1.102
11.5
37.6
10,0
5,70
l.OSV
0.7
2V. 6
8,8
5,77
1.071
7.8
51.4
11,0
5.49
1.103
4.03
JOOO,
277.0
26011.
1 ,
1720,
250.
320,
6,0000
117.
110,
87 ,ftv
17,5
33.4
11.1
5.95
1.095
5.6
70,
20,
23.
10,
6.6
53.8
11.4
5,35
1,100
7.0
39.7
13.5
5.51
1.086
6,2
32. *
9.0
5,65
1.077
5.8
56.6
11.3
5,75
1 . 1(12
'.0
41.8
11.9
5.50
1 . 005
6.5
33.3
8.8
5,63
1.071
6.7
53.8
10,9
5,35
1.104
4,03
JOOJt.
774.0
2 6 » (i .
1507,
-
536,
4,0000
116.
117.
HO , 00
16.1
36.4
10.5
5,00
1,098
4.8
70,
29.
23,
10.
6, 0
55.3
10,7
5,70
1.115
11.6
42.4
7.4
5,50
1.102
7.6
'2,9
9.6
5,45
1.008
6.9
57.7
9, 7
5,00
1 . Hi
b.5
43.9
10. (i
5.45
l.ini
4 . 7
35. •>
0 .4
5.40
1 .078
5.»
55.3
10.7
5.72
1.108
4,03
0-36
-------
«hMO\|4 AHSDHKTION PILOT PLANT TEST NG.SST-13 7-30-71
(US TO "-C-iMH-H
FLOH "»IF, cfM »T 120 f
T?M""Fi'»rulE, F
UJST, G»-AINS/CU,f T..UMV BASIS
SI?. PHf.
MCESS A|4, PFNCfcNI OXTOI-N
Z700.
255,0
0,5079
2*80,
3.
2650,
Z5H.O
2660,
s.
2650,
260,0
.
2800,
3.
2650,
260.0
.
2800,
3,
2650,
260,0
.
2800.
3.
2650 ,
260,0
.
2800,
-1 i
(i«S F^OI' SC-lU-tBFH
G.I tl E>"EMT
SD2. PP-l
0-2 ELEMENT
SO?, PP«
G-3 El E*EMT
S3?, >"P1
NH3. PPt
UJS'. G'AlNS/CU,>T,
TEMPEHATU-'E, F
PER:EIT 502
««KeU» LItiUJR TO SCHUfcflEH
SJLFITE s ILFUN. G/L
BISUV ME SILFyS. G/L
SJLFA1E SJLFUW, G/L
PH
SPECIFIC 1RAVITY
FDN«ni: FE:D, CPH
PERCF^T FIRrfAWfl FLO* TO 6-3
RATE, UPN
tlbUuR TO SCRUBBER ELEHiNTS
G-l ELE*E*T
SULFITE SJLFUR. S/L
8ISULFATE SULFUR. G/L
SJLFATE S'lLHiR. 0/L
G-l
G-2
G-3
0-2 ELE^'E'JT
SJLF HE S/LFUR, «/L
BISULFATE SULFUM. G/L
SJLFATE SJLFUR. U/L
PH
|: IRAVlTV
G-J FLE^E^
SJLFITE
BISHLfATE SULFUR* 0/L
SJLFATE SJLFUR. M/L
PH
s»Eri» i:
R;CIRCULAT|MQ LIOUUR FHOH SCHUBKE" ELEMENTS
B-l FLE-'E'fT
SOLFITE SJLFUH. U/L
(•IS'/LF«TE SULFUR. U/L
SJLFAIE SJLFUP. U/L
PH
l: THAVITY
SJLF HE S JLFUR, I./L
BISI'LFATE SULFUN. (i/L
SULFATg SJL'UH, li/L
S°FC|Fl; IRAVlTV
G.J F-lE'iE^T
SJLH'E SJLFUH, U/L
BISI'LF»Tfc SCLFUH, U/L
SJL* A rt s ILFUM, U/L
P-I
;T LIUIO1* FKl/H bCWUBPtH
S JLF]Tf S ILFJH, C/L
HlSJt' 1 fE S ILFUN, U/L
SJirjTE SJLru». I./L
p ^
S'triM'' 1H»V I TV
P-»OHUr T H.EH'nt f , UPM
1800,
490,
2020,
2160,
2240,
435,
6,0000
0,1416
121,
122.
83,77
32,3
5, a
10.3
7.0J
1.091
2.0
20.
28,
27,
18,
3.2
54.3
12.7
5,17
1,104
6.4
32.8
9.4
5.65
1,076
2.5
23.6
8.3
5.55
1.053
1.9
50,9
11.0
5.06
1.100
4.6
34.8
10.7
5,50
1.078
0.8
23.7
9,4
5.54
1.054
1 , '
4,< , V
10. <
•>,?<'
1 .OP*
I ,«1
490,
8,0000
0,0448
120,
121.
81,72
30,9
9,8
9,6
6.77
1,089
1.9
20,
28,
27,
18,
4,1
57,9
12,8
5,20
1,106
6,6
36,5
a. 9
5,55
1.078
3.3
25.3
7.4
5,55
1.056
2,2
59,0
14.0
4,99
1.110
4,6
38,5
10,4
5,42
1.081
•1.5
26.1
11,7
4 ,60
1.051
4 i 3
"•*> , '
) (' 1 1
'j , ? S
1 , 1 'M
1 . ' '
740,
8,0000
-
120,
121.
73,57
29,2
12.3
10,5
6,65
1.088
1,9
20,
28,
27,
18,
4,3
39,1
10.8
5,40
1.077
1.5
59,6
15.4
4,94
1.110
2.5
27.4
t),l
5.45
1,058
4,0
61.9
13,0
5,15
1,108
-0,5
40,7
15,3
4,70
1.082
2,2
28.4
7.8
5,39
1 .054
4.5
59,3
1?,?
5 i^S
1,109
1,76
8B5,
7,0000
-
119,
1ZO,
68,39
27.4
16,1
10,5
6,48
1.096
1.9
?0.
28,
2B.
18.
4.1
41.3
10,3
5,40
1.087
3,9
61.3
12.9
i.13
1.117
I,1}
28,9
8,6
5,35
1,056
1.8
62.8
15.2
4.88
1,123
1.2
45,9
10,2
5,33
1.087
O.t>
30.0
8,$
5,20
1,059
3.4
61.3
12,8
5,10
1.119
l.aj
loan.
8,0000
-
u«.
120,
61,43
27.3
18,5
13,2
6,40
1.003
1,8
20,
28,
2«.
18,
J.b
60,1
13,1
'.15
1.111
3.4
46.7
12.0
5,32
1.086
2.6
29,5
7.3
5,30
1.056
3.2
63.0
16,2
5,02
1.121
3.6
44.0
25.8
5,34
1,083
2.0
30.5
10.7
5,26
1.057
3,0
60,6
14,3
'.15
1.112
1,74
1173,
8,0000
-
119,
120,
SR.ll
23.9
20.9
14,3
6,35
1,093
1,7
20,
28,
28,
1",
3.9
61.7
13.7
5,15
1.117
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,00
o ono
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,00
0,000
3,5
63.9
15.6
5,12
1.120
2.3
45,1
11.2
5,24
1,099
-1.3
31.4
11,2
5,01
1.070
l.V
A2,7
17,0
">, 16
1.118
2,?1
0-37
-------
«HSUKPTION PILOT PLANT TEST NO.SST-14 8-2-71
S«M=>LE PEN I 3D
G«S TD "-.CWLMHbR
FLO* «A IE . "FH »i 120 f
TCH°(->.»TLHE, F
DJST, (jH»|MS/CU.f T..URY BASIS
SD2, PPM
EKCFSS M>, PFHCENT OXYnfcN
Q»S F9(u bc*u WH
li-1 FIE"EMT
SO?. PP»
G-2 Flfcf'F>U
S "I?, HP -i
G-3 fclfcMt^T
SO?. PP><
N H 3 , P P1
OUST, (,?A!*S/CU.t T.
TEMPERATURE, f
VI T-B /L-l
PERCENT SO? R-
AKEUP LIUljlR Tn SCHUHBEK
SJLMTE h-IL^Uf. b/L
BISJL' I 'E S IL> U«, U/L
SJLF»TE SJLFJM, G/L
P-I
SPECIFIC THtVlTY
F ih»(,r f f -D. fiPi
PERCF' T FIR^iWil tLUw TU G-3
RECIRCUlAlITN HATF, UH1
G-2
G-3
RrCIXCUL AT 1 MS I.IUUUR TU SCHUURER ELEMENTS
U-l ELtHEVT
JLFuH. 8/L
SULFUR. B/L
SJL'A'E SILFU». «I/L
PH
SPFCIf 1C ) IC TRAVITY
G.? FI S M F w T
SJLF MF 5 ILFUM, U/L
UISliLF»Tf SULFUR. (>/L
SJL' ATt S IL' U". U/L
S J F r I f| • '.RAVITY
G-3 Fl t-F^T
bJl ' Mt S ILFUH, U/L
Bl Si'L' ATE SULI OH, U/L
!>JL' AT5 SI
S o f. r i f i - -,H»VITY
PRODUCT LltJJO-' t MOM bCXUBRER
I Tt S ILrU». I./L
S JLFAT t S ll_r J" • li
p -t
snCP I ' ".WAV I T Y
r H.F-int r ,
260(1,
260,0
0,5453
3020.
3.
640,
120,
94,
47,0000
0,0719
120,
121.
96,89
27.0
12.4
6,7
6,53
1,084
5.0
10.
28,
25,
23.
12.7
36.2
9,1
5,77
1,094
19,6
16,8
6.5
6,37
1.07;
11.6
10.4
3,0
6,45
1,049
10. 3
43.2
12,1
5,63
1,098
16.2
17.9
9,5
6,27
1.077
11.5
10.7
6.C
6,42
1.0*0
12,3
37 , 1
9.9
5.7?
1,094
5,13
260(1 ,
P65.0
_
2920,
1,
1520,
280,
180,
12,0000
-
121.
121.
93,84
20,3
24 ,1
7,9
6,21
1.089
5.2
10,
28,
27.
?3.
7.6
47.6
9,9
5,40
1,09V
12,1
31,0
7.1
5,89
1.082
5,6
22,0
6.7
5,81
1.056
5,9
51.5
11.4
5,35
1.103
11.4
32,6
6.3
5,83
1,082
6.1
22,9
6,4
5,80
1.056
4,3
46,8
14,1
5,?;
l,U9i>
5,10
2600 .
265,0
-
2840 ,
7 '
1720,
600.
657,
7,0000
0,0705
121,
122,
76,87
15.6
32,6
10,8
5,95
1,088
5, 7
10
28,
2«,
"'
5,5
51,6
12,1
5,28
1,096
7.7
38,2
11.5
5,49
1,082
-4.0
29,3
14,0
3,40
1.079
4.1
53.9
14,4
5,20
1,101
7,0
39,9
8,6
5,51
1,090
1,6
28, 7
10,9
5,42
1.07U
4.8
'1.5
12,5
5,30
1 ,097
6,15
C-J8
-------
ABSORPTION PILOT PLANT TEST NO.SST-H 8-4-ri
PE«IOD
HAS TO SCHU«BFR
FLO* RATE, CTM AT 120 f
TEMPERATURE. F
OUST, Q,HAINS/CU,FT.,DRY BASIS
S02. PPM
EXCESS AH, PERCENT OXYGEN
2700,
222,0
0,4966
261)0,
3,
2700,
224,0
2720.
3.
2700.
227.5
2880,
4,
2700,
226,5
2820,
3,
QAS FROM SCRUBBER
0-1 ELE^E^T
S02. PP*
0-2 ELEMENT
S02, PP1
0-3 ELEMENT
S02, PPM
NH3, PP1
DUST, QUAINS/CU.FT,
TEMPERATURE, F
MET-8JLB
DRY-BJL*
380,0000
0,0999
119.
119.
300,
300,
224,0000
0,1131
120,
120,
735.
135,
40,0000
0,0000
118,
120.
B80,
•HO,
8,0000
0,0000
119,
121,
PERCENT SO? NeMUVAL
95,31
89,01
MAKEUP LIOUOR TO SCRUBBER
SJLFITE SJLFUR. 0/L
BISULFITE SULFUR. y/L
SULFATE SJLFUR, 0/L
PH
SPECIFIC 3RAVITY
FDWARD FEED. OPN
PERCENT F3R4ARU FLOM TO 0-3
51.4
22.3
9,8
6,60
1.135
4,6
10.
42.3
35.0
10,9
6,29
1,144
5.5
10.
37,0
46.1
10,0
6,05
1,145
5.4
10,
31,3
55.1
9,9
5,93
1.148
5.6
0
RECIRCULATJDN RATE. UPM
0-1
0-2
Q-3
27,
24.
27.
26,
17,
27,
27.
1",
27.
27,
18.
REClRJULATnO LIOUOR TO SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
0-1 ELEMENT
SULFITE SJLFUR. U/L
BISULFATE SULFUH. 0/L
SULFATE SULFUR. U/L
PH
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
Q»2 ELE«E1T
SULFITE SULFUR. 8/1
BISULFATE SULFUR. 8/L
SULFATE SJLFUR, O/L
P-I
SPECIFIC 8RAVITY
0-3
SULFME SJLFUR. «/L
BISULFATE SULFUR. 0/L
SULFATE SJLFUR. 0/L
PM
SPECIFIC 3RAVITY
36,8
44.0
10.1
6,08
1.139
44.2
23.1
10.4
6,45
1.123
42.9
22.7
8.6
6,45
1.121
30.4
56,6
10.7
5.85
1,151
38.3
33.6
8.9
6,21
1,133
37,9
32,4
8,7
6.25
1.128
25.8
65,0
10,7
5.72
1,152
33.6
41.7
9.6
6,05
1,133
31.1
42,3
9.4
6,04
1.132
19.8
71.9
10.8
5.55
1.153
22.0
52.8
14.0
5,74
1.137
22.1
50.9
11.5
5,77
1.131
RECIRCULAT (NO LlUUOR FHOM SCRUBBER ELEMENTS
o-i Ei.e"eiT
SJLFITE SJLFUH, 0/L
BISUL^ATE SULFUR, B/L
SJLFATE SJLFUH. (,/L
PH
i: ri*AviT*
0-2 ELfciEMT
SUL^MF S>ILFU», U/L
BISULFITE SULFUK, Q/L
SUI.FAT6 SJLFUS. U'L
PH
II DIUVITY
Q-3 FLE"ENT
SULFITE SJLFUH, Q/L
BlSULt »TE SULFUH. 0/L
SJLFATE SJLFUR, 6/L
PH
i; 1RAVITY
37.0
42.5
10,1
6.11
1,140
43,2
23,9
9.7
6,42
1.12/
42.3
23.4
9.2
6,46
1.124
31.2
54. b
10,3
5,90
1.147
38,5
33,8
8,7
6,20
1.131
38,2
33,1
6,5
6,?5
1.128
19.8
64,3
16.0
5,65
1.157
33,8
41.5
9,5
6,05
1,134
31.2
43,5
9,4
6,00
1.127
?2.0
69,5
10.1
5,-iH
1.149
25.7
54.5
9.3
5.78
1.138
25. b
51.9
9,1
5. "4
1.130
PRODUCT LIOJO1* FkOH
SJLFITE SJLFUR. G/L
BISULFITE SJLFUH, U/L
SJLfATE SJLrU«, G/L
PH
SPECIF 1C 5H*VITY
PRODUCT SUE^DOFF, UP1
36.5
43,6
11.7
6,10
1.140
26,9
53.7
15.2
5,flb
1,148
5,40
26,5
63.5
10,5
5,75
1,154
5,52
20,8
72.5
9,9
5,58
1.153
5,91
c-39
-------
AHIUMPMON PILOT PLANT TFST NO.SST-16R 8-74-71
U«S TO
"Ait.
4i i?o f
OJST, Q'-AINS/CU.FT. ,URT BASIS
S3?. PP"
E«C:SS AH, PFHCtNt OXYflEN
2700,
221.0
2560,
3,
2700,
225.0
2610,
3,
^70(1 .
230,0
2710,
3.
D
2700 ,
/32.0
2700,
^120 .
G-i Fl E"EMT
SJ7. PPI
G-2 ELEMENT
SO?. ^'P^
G-3 FLE»EMT
SD2, PPi
NH3. PPH
DJST, G-tAlNS/Cu.M.
TEMPERATURE. F
VH-T-.JJL4
D"Y-8JL(
2280,
1600,
121,
127,
2360,
1580,
1200.
7,0000
121.
122,
2500,
1870,
1490,
6.0000
121,
127,
1640,
6.0000
121.
12?.
2210,
1820,
A,0000
121,
12?.
54,02
45,02
39.?6
s.'i.ru:!. 1,/L
BISJU' I 'E SJL^ UW . U/L
SJLr»'E S ILrJI)' <-/L
P-l
S'tCIMt *,«•» 1 1»
PJWCF'T FORMED fLU*. TU G-3
21,6
3,1
93,9
6.75
.220
1.6
70,
27,7
2.6
108.3
6.90
1.250
1.5
70.
24.0
6,8
104.4
6.50
1.238
1.5
70.
22.6
9,1
10/.5
6. ?5
1.243
1.5
?U.
20, d
12.6
104. B
6.?0
1 .241
1.4
70
G-l
G-2
G-3
UP1
24,
2S,
17.
17.
23.
2«.
17.
23,
2«.
17.
17.
= CI«CUi A'I«G LlOUOM TO br
G-i HE*EMT
SJLF HE s ILFUK, U/L
S>>LFbH. U/L
ILFUh, U/L
PH
;a»vi rr
f H ELEMENTS
-2 Fl E'lENT
SJLF|T£ SILFOf, (,/L
TE SULfOR.'U/
S IL'Uh. w/k
1" JHAVITT
PH
G.J FLE«'F'IT
SJLFI'6 SlLFoP, U/L
SIILFUM. B/L
»y |TY
3.0
35,2
83.5
5,05
1,209
5.1
36.9
91.3
5,15
1.232
5.2
38,0
94,6
5,15
1.232
3.1
3H.3
99,1
5.00
1.245
4 .9
39.3
96.4
5,09
1 .240
3.9
30.2
76.9
5,40
1.190
1.6
23. H
56.8
5.P5
1.147
4,1
30,6
BO. 6
5,16
1.205
3.1
23,4
58.2
5.14
1.158
6,2
31,7
82.7
5,77
1.208
3,0
24,8
57,2
5,10
1.156
1.8
31.5
SB, 4
4,91
1.211
1.7
25.0
57.6
4,99
1.153
4,6
32.9
83.0
5.10
1.208
2.H
25. •>
57,6
5.03
1.152
RECIRCUI Al |MQ LlUUUH ( HOM StHIIBHEH FLUlFNTS
G-l Fl £"E IT
SJL' I 1 t S 'LfliW. l»/L
HlS'.L* ATt SHLFUW, (,/(.
SJLr Alt S IL' U", I>/L
PH
S=(-r |> I- -,i(«v |Tr
G-2 Fl t' EiT
SJLf PS S ILfU", U/L
BIRI'L* ATg S'lLF UM- i>/L
!> JLTA'E S IL* UK, U/L
Prl
- ;«A» I 1 y
G-J Fl t'-fc^T
SJL> I TE S I
BISHL> ATE
SJLI-" ATE S IL' uw,
PH
SJK IM " '^AV | [
3.0
36.2
86,0
5,05
1,212
3.6
31,7
76.7
5,?0
1,194
2,0
24.8
57.3
5,10
1,151
4,6
38,6
93.3
5,10
1.233
5 . 6
31. B
82.3
5,?5
1.214
1.4
24.2
79.5
4.03
1.155
4.7
38.7
96.1
5.10
1.236
4.4
37.9
83.4
5.17
1.216
2,0
25.8
5b.B
5.05
1.1*4
4.8
40.0
99.4
5.11
1.246
4.6
33.5
84.4
5.18
1.214
l.B
?5.«
•>7,t)
5. rw
1.154
4.1
40.4
98.6
5,05
1.243
4.6
34.4
82.6
5,15
1.209
1.4
?6 . 5
5H.4
4 ,95
1 . l'>3
tllfH (hnn bCHIIbHfclt
SJLT |T(. s ILru^. li/L
•us JLM i e s i\.' UN, U/L
S JL^Al F S ILrU«> 1,/L
PH
S'F"!* I1 iH«Vl TV
p'oiiu' T K_^'-ll«^ i , UH-<
3.7
35.9
84.7
5,10
,2?1
7,09
5, 7
37,3
93.4
5,73
1 .239
2.02
5.6
3/,7
9'>.1
5,?5
1.234
1 ,96
4. /
.19,2
99,3
5.?C
l.?46
1.95
4,6
39,^
96. 4
5 ,ro
1.241
J.15
0-1*0
-------
APPENDIX D - ANALYTICAL AND GAS SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The wet—chemical analysis procedures, flue gas sampling
procedures (particulate, S02, and NH3), and related calculations
used in this test work are presented in this appendix.
lodimetric Method for Analysis of Total Sulfites
Manipulations
Aliquot 25 ml of the scrubber solution into a 1000—ml
volumetric flask containing about ^00 ml of condensate water. Use
caution to see that the discharge end of the pipette is under the
water. Dilute to volume. In a 250-ml wide—mouth erlenmeyer flask
add 10 ml of 1-10 HC1 and 35 ml of 0.1 N I2 (more may be used if
necessary). Aliquot 20 ml of the diluted sample under the surface
of the iodine. Allow time to react and back titrate the excess
I2 with 0.1 N Na2S203.
Calculations
gm/1 total sulfites =
ml I2 - (ml Na2S203 x N Na2S203/N I2) x N I2 x 0. 016032^ x 1000
ml sample analyzed
D-l
-------
AJLkimetric Method for Analysis of
Total Bisulfite Sulfur and Total Sulfur
Manipulations
Aliquot 10 ml of sample to a 250—ml volumetric flask contain-
ing about 100 ml of de—ionized water and 10 ml of 30$ hydrogen peroxide.
Make to volume with de—ionized water and allow to cool and make to
volume again, mix thoroughly.
Take a 20-ml aliquot of the diluted sample into a 250—ml,
wide—mouth erlenmeyer flask. Add 8 drops of methyl red—methylene blue
mixed indicator to the flask. Titrate with approximately 0. 2 N NaOH
to the first green end point. Record the ml of NaOH used as the
titer Ta for calculating the grams per liter of bisulfite sulfur.
Add 10 ml of formaldehyde to the same sample. Add 1 dropper
of phenolphtalein—methylene green indicator, continue to titrate with
the 0. 2 N WaOH through the blue color, through the green color,, and
to the first dark 'blue color. Record the ml of WaOH used; this is
titer Tb.
Establish a blank on each new bottle of formaldehyde. Add
20 ml of de—ionized water to a 250—ml erlenmeyer flask, add 10 ml of
formaldehyde to the flask, add 8 drops of methyl red—methelene blue
indicator. Titrate to the green end point with 0. 2 W NaOH. The ml
of the 0.2 N NaOH used to titrate 10 ml of formaldehyde is the blank.
Calculations
gm/1 HS03 = ml NaOH (Ta) x N NaOH x 0.OJ2064 x 1000
ml of sample analyzed
gm/1 total sulfur = (Ta + Tb - blank) x N NaOH x 0. Ol6o^ x 1000
ml of sample analyzed
-------
Analysis of the Acidulator and Stripper Liquors
for Bisulfite, Bisulfate, and Total Sulfur
The total sulfites are determined by the iodimetric method.
It is assumed that when the pH of the acidulator is 2. 0 or below, that
all of the sulfites are in the form of ammonium bisulfite. The acidu—
lator and stripper also contain ammonium bisulfate and ammonium sulfate.
The acidulator and stripper are analyzed essentially the same way as
the samples from the ammonium scrubber pilot plant, as described above;
however, the calculations are somewhat different.
The total sulfites are calculated to ammonium bisulfites. A
separate determination is made for the ammonium bisulfate and total
sulfur alkimetrically.
Manipulations
Aliquot 10 ml of the sample into a 250—ml volumetric flask
containing about 100 ml of de—ionized water and 10 ml of 30$ hydrogen
peroxide; make to volume with de—ionized water. Take a 20—ml aliquot
into a 250-ml erlenmeyer flask. Add to it 10 drops of methyl red—
methylene blue mixed indicator. Titrate with 0. 2 N NaOH to the green
end point, and record ml used as the titer Ta for calculating the
ammonium bisulfate. Add 10 ml of formaldehyde to the sample, then
1 dropper of phenolphtalein—methylene green mixed indicator, continue
to titrate through the blue color, through the green color, and to a
dark blue color. This is the end point for the total sulfur, record
mis used as titer Tb.
Establish a blank on each new bottle of formaldehyde. Add
20 ml of de—ionized water to a 250-ml erlenmeyer flask, add 10 ml
of formaldehyde to the flask, add 8 drops of methyl red—methylene
"blue indicator. Titrate to the green end point with 0. 2 N NaOH. The ml
of 0. 2 N NaOH used to titrate 10 ml of formaldehyde is the "blank.
Calculations
Ammonium Bisulfate:
gm/1 (NH4HS03)(ml sample) = ml 0. 2 N NaOH due to
N NaOH x 99. 112
gm/1 NH4HS04 = (Ta-a) x N NaOH x 115.112
ml sample analyzed
Total Sulfur;
gm/1 total sulfur = (Ta + Tb - blank) x N NaOH x 16.
ml sample analyzed
D-3
-------
Ammonia in Exit Flue Gas Sample
(Direct Nesslerization Method)
Method
Wessler reagent and Rochelle salt solution are added to the
sample to be tested. The resulting color intensity is determined with
a spectrophotometer by taking the light transmittance at ^4-25 milli-
microns through a 2. 5—cm cell.
The NH3 concentration in the unknown sample is determined by
comparing its color intensity with the color intensities of samples
containing known concentration of NH3. The comparison is made from
a graph previously prepared by plotting the light transmitted through
the color developed in standard samples against the concentration of
ammonia in them.
Manipulations
1. From previous analyses of the same type samples, estimate
the concentration of NH3 in the sample. Then use the tabulation below
to determine aliquot to use.
Sample concentration, dilution, and aliquot to use
Approximate
concentration,
ppm WH3
0.0 to 1.1*
1.5 to 2.9
1). 0 to 7. 3
7. k to 1^. 5
Ik. 5 to 29.0
29.0 to 58.1
Ml of
original
taken
—
—
50
25
25
Volume
diluted
to, ml
—
—
500
500
500
Ml of diluted
sample
analyzed
—
—
100
100
50
Ml
original
analyzed
100
50
20
10
5
2.5
2. Transfer selected aliquot of filtered samples into
separate 100—ml Nessler tubes. If aliquot is less than 1.00 ml, dilute
to 100 ml with ammonia—free distilled water. Always test distilled
water for ammonia before using it. If sample is colored or turbid
and not water clear, transfer a duplicate aliquot into another Nessler
tube. Add 1 ml of Rochelle salt and determine light transmitted through
it to make sure it is not darker than reagent blank used to adjust instru-
ment as described "below. If its color is darker than reagent blank, adjust
instrument with it and determine light transmitted through portion of same
sample reacted with Nessler at the new instrument setting.
3. Prepare a reagent blank by adding 100 ml of ammonia—free
distilled water to another 100—ml Wessler tube.
V-k
-------
k. Add 1 ml of Rochelle salt solution to each sample and
reagent blank. Stopper each Messier tube with clean polyethylene
stopper and mix by inverting two or three times. Never use rubber
stoppers in this step and step 5 because a color other than ammonia
reaction may result.
5. Add 1 ml of Nessler reagent solution to each sample and
reagent blank; again, stopper and mix as in step k. Allow color to
develop 30 minutes.
6. Transfer sample containing Rochelle salt and Nessler
reagent into spectrophotometer test tube and read percent transmittance.
7. From transmittance reading determine mg NH4 and/or ppm
from a prepared chart.
Calculations
_ mg W.4. x 1000 __
ml of orig. sample used for comparison ^ 4
ppm NH4 x 0. 9hk = ppm WH3
ppm NH4 x 0. 777 = ppm N
-------
Preparation of Ammonia Reagents
(for Nessler Method)
Nessler Reagent
Dissolve 100 gm mercuric iodide (HgI2) and 70 gm potassium
iodide, (Kl) in a small quantity of ammonia—free distilled water and
add this mixture slowly, with stirring, to a cool solution of 160 gm
NaOH in 500—ml ammonia—free distilled water. Dilute to 1 liter with
ammonia—free distilled water.
Stored in Pyrex glassware and out of sunlight, this reagent
is stable for periods up to a year under normal laboratory conditions.
The reagent should give the characteristic color with mg/1
ammonia nitrogen within 10 minutes after addition but should not
produce a precipitate with small amounts of ammonia within 2. hours.
CAUTION; This reagent is very toxic; take care to avoid
ingestion.
Rochelle Salt Reagent
Dissolve 500 gm of reagent grade KNaC4H406- k-EsO in 1 liter
of distilled water. Boil off 200 ml or until free from ammonia. Cool
and dilute to 1 liter with ammonia—free distilled water.
D-G
-------
Preparation of Standard Ammonium Chloride and Ammonium
Sulfate Solutions for Calibrating Spectrophotometers
Ammonium Chloride and Ammonium
Sulfate Stock Solutions
Dissolve 1.1862 gm anhydrous reagent grade ammonium chloride
or 1.^652 gm ammonium sulfate, dried at 100°C, in ammonia—free distilled
water and dilute to 2000 ml with NH3 free distilled water. Mix well.
Standard Solution Containing 0. 002 _mg KH4 per ml
Pipet 20 ml of either stock solution and transfer into a
2000 ml volumetric flask. Dilute to 2000 ml with ammonia—free distilled
water and mix well. This solution is used for calibrating spectrophoto—
meters.
D-7
-------
Procedure for Sampling Inlet or Exit
Flue Gas for Particulate and Sulfur Dioxide
Apparatus (Fig, hh)
A. Environeering Dust Filter
B. Four 600-ml gas scrubber bottles arranged in order listed
below. (An additional scrubber bottle of peroxide may be
required for inlet determinations. )
1. Dry trap with short open—end sparger
2. 6/0 hydrogen peroxide solution with fritted glass
impinger (250 ml)
J. 6$> hydrogen peroxide solution with fritted glass
impinger (250 ml)
k. Dry trap with short open—end sparger
C. Dry test meter
D. Vacuum supply
Procedure
A. Insert Environeering sampling nozzle into gas duct
B. Pull approximately 0. 5 cfm sample for about 120 min
(increase vacuum to maintain flow)
C. Record pressure and temperature readings at meter
D. Record pressure and temperature readings of duct (wet
and dry bulb for exit gas sample)
E. Combine the peroxide bottles and analyze for S02
F. Dry the filter paper at 110°F and weigh
Calculations
A. Calculate duct loading of gas (gr/dscf at 70°F) as shown
in attached example
B. Calculate S02 content in gas (ppm) as shown in attached
example
D-8
-------
D-9
-------
Procedure for Sampling Exit Flue Gas for Ammonia
Apparatus (See Fig,
A. Stainless steel sampling nozzle
B. Four 60G-ml gas scrubter bottles arranged in order listed below
1. Dry trap with short open— end sparger
2. Distilled water with fritted glass impinger (250 ml)
3. Distilled water with fritted glass impinger (250 ml)
k. Dry trap with short open— end sparger
C. Dry test meter
D. Vacuum supply
Procedure
A. Insert sampling nozzle into gas duct
B. Pull approximately 0. 5 cfm sample for about 30 rain (increase
vacuum to maintain flow)
C. Record pressure and temperature readings at meter
D. Record pressure and temperature readings of duct (wet and dry bulb)
E. Combine the water bottles and analyze for WH3 (see analysis
procedure)
Calculations
A. Calculate NH3 content in gas (ppm) as shown in attached sample
D-10
-------
D-ll
-------
Sample Calculation Sheet for
Particulate and S0g in Inlet Flue Gas
Test Data
Test No ....................... RST-15
Date ......................... 2/26/71
Sample period ................ 10:30 - 11:50 a.m.
Dry test meter readings
Total volume through meter, ft3 .............. 23. 2
Temperature of meter, °F .................... 58
Vacuum on meter, in Hg ...................... 7
Dust collected during sampling period, gm .................. 5. 3320
Sulfur caught in peroxide during sampling period, gm ....... 1. 89
Average moisture of inlet gas during sampling period,
% [[[ 7. 75
Calculations
1. To convert the volume at meter conditions to the volume at standard
conditions, use the pressure— volume— temperature relationship expressed
in the ideal gas law.
TO Ti
where
P = initial pressure, in Hg
V = initial volume, ft3
T = initial temperature, °R or (460 + °F)
and Px, Vi, and T± = above values at standard conditions
Transposing,
Inserting test data values,
v = (29.92 - 7.of(23.2)(l+60 + 70)
(46o + 58X29.92)
a
-------
(22. 92) (23. 2) 530
(518) (29. 92)
= 18. 18 ft3
Converting from wet volume to dry volume, use the formula
v = v (100 — avg % moisture by volume)
vdry vwet 10Q
(l8.l8) (100 - 7.75)
100
= (18. 18) (0.9225)
= 16.78 ft3 (dry at 29.92 in Hg and 70°F)
2. To convert the weight of dust collected on the filter during the
sampling period into dust concentration in gr/dscfyo, merely
convert the weight in gm to gr by multiplying by 15.^3 (the
number of gr in 1 gm) and divide by the dry volume of gas at
standard conditions.
loading =
= 4.9030 gr/dscfy0
To convert the weight of sulfur caught in the peroxide bottles
into its equivalent volume of S02, divide the weight of the sample
by the gram molecular weight of sulfur and multiply the quotient
by the mol volume (in liters) divided lay 28.32 (the number of
liters in 1 ft3).
Vol. S02 sampled = Sample weight 22^
gm mol wt of S 28.32
0.791
= 0.04664
To convert the volume of S02 sampled to ppm in inlet gas, multiply
the volume by 10s and divide by the combined volume of S02 plus
inlet gas.
_ Vol. of SOP sampled x 10s
S02 in inlet gas - Vol> Qf QQs sampled + vol. of gas
= 0.04664 x 10s
0.O4bb4 + Ib. 70
= 2772 ppm
D-13
-------
(0.00282) x 100
(0. 002«2 + 0.0329)
3. To calculate the dust loading use the formula
Dust loading, gr/dscf7O = gm collected x 15. Iff
Vol. of gas, dscfyo
- 0.005 x 15.43
~ 12786
= 0.0060 gr/dscf7o
4. To convert the weight of sulfur caught in the peroxide bottles into
its equivalent volume of S02, divide the weight of the sulfur by
the gram molecular weight of sulfur and multiply the quotient by
the mol volume (in liters) divided by 28.32 (the number of liters
per ft3).
Vol. SO 2 sampled = Sample wt
^ *
gm mol wt of S
x 0.791
To convert the volume of S02 sampled to ppm in the exit gas,
multiply the volume by 106 and divide by the combined volume of
S02 plus exit gas.
S02 in exit gas =
0.000142 + 12786
= 633
D-15
-------
To convert the weight of ammonia caught in the sample into its
equivalent volume, divide the weight by the gram molecular weight
of ammonia and multiply the quotient by the mol volume (2.2. k liters)
divided by the liters per ft3 (28.32).
Vol. NR = - x
18 28. 32
= 0.000459 ft3
To convert this volume to ppm in the exit gas, multiply the volume
by 106 and divide by the combined volume of NH3 plus exit gas.
ppm NH3 = . 1Q6
PP 3
0. 000459 + 6.
= 71 ppm
-------
APPENDIX E - SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
These calculations were made using Johnstone's equations for the ammonia-
sulfur dioxide—water system as presented in "Sulfur Oxide Removal from
Power Plant Stack Gas"(l9).
Typical Chemical Analysis of a Forward Feed
Solution for Pilot Plant No. 1
Sulfite sulfur (S0§ as S) 21.33 gm/1
Bisulfite sulfur (HSOJ as S) 17.96 gm/1
Sulfate sulfur (S0| as S) .100. kj gm/1
Total 139.72 gm sulfur/1
pH - 6. 2
Specific gravity — 1. 248
Mols of Sulfur/Liter
Gm sulfur/I/molecular weight of sulfur = mol of sulfur/1
Sulfite sulfur = 21.33/32 = 0.67 mols/1
Bisulfite sulfur 17. 96/32 = 0. 56 mols/1
Sulfate sulfur 100.^3/32 = 3.14 mols/1
Total Grams of Salt/Liter
Mols sulfur x molecular weight of salt = gm of salt/1
Sulfate sulfur 0. 67 x 116 = 77. 7 gm (NH4)2S03/1
Bisulfite sulfur 0. % x 99 = 55- 4 gm NELjHSOa/l
Sulfate sulfur 3. l4 x 132 = klk. 5 gm (NH4)2S04/1
Total salt = 5^7-6 gm/1
(Total S02) Mols of S02/Liter as
Sulfite and Bisulfite
SO£ as Sulfite
Mols S02/l as sulfite = mols sulfite sulfur/1 x 1. 0
= 0.67 x 1. 0
= 0. 67 mols
SOP as Bisulfite
Mols S02/l as "bisulfite = mols bisulfite sulfur/1 x 1. 0
= 0.56 x 1.0
= 0. 56 mols
E-l
-------
Total SOP
Total S02 = S02 as sulfite + S02 as bisulfite
= 0. 67 + 0.56
= 1. 23 mols/1
(Active M3) Mols of MH3/Liter as Sulfite and Bisulfite
I\fH3 as Sulfite
Mols Ms/1 as sulfite = mols sulfite sulfur/ 1 x 2. 0
= 0. 67 x 2. 0
= 1.34 mols/1
NH3 as Bisulfite
Mols M3/l as bisulfite = mols bisulfite sulfur/1 x 1. 0
= 0. 56 x 1. 0
= 0. 56 mol/1
Active
Active MS = M3 as sulfite + M3 as bisulfite
= 1. 3^ + 0. 56
= 1. 90 mols/1
(Total KEa) Mols of Ms/Liter as Sulfite, Bisulfite, and Sulfate
M3 as Sulfate
Mols Ms/1 as sulfate = mols sulf ate/1 x 2. 0
= 3. 14 x 2. 0
- 6. 28 mols/1
Total M3
Total m.3 = MH3 as sulfite + KH3 as bisulfite + HH3 as sulfate
= 1. 31* + 0. 56 + 6. 28
= 8.18 mols/1
(Reaction Water) Grams HgO/Liter Combined with S0g and HH3
2M3 + S02 + H20 - ?~ (M4)2S03
M3 + S02 + H20 - ?- M4HS03
S02 + H20 + 1/202 - >
Reaction Water in Sulfite (Grams
Eeaction water (S03) = mols S02 as sulfite x 1. 0 x 18 gm HgO
gm. mol
= 0. 56 x 1. 0 x 18
= 10.1 gm/1
E-2
-------
Reaction Water in Bisulfite (Mols HgO/l)
Reaction water (HSO'J) = mols S02 as bisulfite x 1. 0 x 18 gm _HgO
gm mol
= 0.6? x 1.0 x 18
= 12.1 gm/1
Reaction Water in Sulfate (Mols H20/l)
Reaction water (304) = mols sulfate sulfur x 1. 0 x l8 gm HgO
gm mol
= 5. Ik x 1. 0 x 18
= 56. 5 gm/1
(Free Water) Grams HgO/Liter — Unreacted
Free water = (Specific gravity x 1000) — total salt gm/1
= (1.248 x 1000) - 547.6
= 1248 - 547.6
= 700.4 gm/1
C Value (Mols Total WHa/100 Mols H20)
c _ (mols total HHa)(l800)
(free water) + /reaction water (S03) + reaction water (HS03)
reaction water
C =
8.18 (1800)
(TOO. 4) + (10.1 + 12.1 + 56.5)
14;724 14,724
c ~ 700.^4 + 7577 TT97T
C = 18.9 mols total WH3/100 mols HgO
CA Value (Mols Active NH3/100 Mols H20)
The method used for calculating the C_^ value was altered after
a thorough review of Johnstone's data (3). The difference in the two
methods used was centered around the definition of "100 mols of water."
Method Wo. 1 defines it as the free water + the reaction water used in
forming (KH4)2S03 and NH4HS03 (l mol of H20 used per mol of S). Method
Wo. 2 defines it as the free water -f the reaction water used in forming
(WH4)2S03, NH4HS03, and (NH4)2S04 (l mol of H20 used per mol of S). All
the values reported under pilot plant Wo. 1 were calculated by using
method Wo. 1 and all values for pilot plant Wo. 2 were calculated by
using method Wo. 2.
E-3
-------
Method No. 1 .
(mols active KH3) l800
A (Free water) + /Reaction water (S03) + Reaction water (HS03j/
C ' = (1.90) (1800)
A 700.4 + (10.1 + 12.1)
CA' = 3^20 = 3420
700. h + 22.2 712.6
CA' = k. 73 mols active HHa/100 mols HgO
Method No. 2 (CA)
(mols active KH3) l800
I,, = (free water) + /reaction water (S03) + reaction water (HS03) +
C« =
reaction water (S04_)7
(1.90)(l800)
'A 700. k + (10.1 + 12.1 + 56.5)
C = 3^20 _ 3^20
A 700.4 + 78.7 779. 1
CA = ^-39 mols active NH3/100 mols HgO
A Value (Mols (MHjgSO^lOO Mols HP0)
_ (mols sulfate sulfur/l) (l800)
(free water) + /reaction water (SOf) + reaction water
reaction water (
(3.1^) (1800)
a ~ 700.4 + 78.7
A -
~ T79-
A = 7. 26 mols (MH4)PS04/100 mols H20
S Value (Mols SO^/100 Mols HP0)
(total SOP, mols/l)(l80Q)
_
S = (free water) + /reaction water (863) + reaction water (HS03) +
reaction water "
(1.23) (1800)
700.4 + 10.1 + 12.1 + 56.5)
c _
b -
_
~ 779.1
S = 2. Qk mols S02/100 mols H20
-------
S/CA Ratio (Mols S02/Mols Active NH3)
S/CA = (total S02) (active NH3)
S/CA = irf
S/CA = o. 65
S0g Vapor Pressure of Absorber Liquor (mm Hg) at 125° F
S02 vapor pressure = PgQ = M (2S-C +
2 (C-S-2A)
Where log M = 5. 865 - _ 2369
liquor temperature, °K
log M = 5. 865 - 236
~
log M = -1.
M = 0.0371
/I2 x 2.81Q - 18.9 + (2 x T.26)72
PS02 = °-°5Tl ^8<9 _ 2.81^ - (2 x 7.26T7
= 0. 0371 /1. 30/_ 0. 0371/1. 697
" "
PSO,
PS02 = 0- 0407 ram Hg
NH3 Vapor Pressure of Absorber Liquor (mm Hg) at 125°F
WH3 vapor pressure = %fj = N C(OS-2A)
2S-C + 2A
Where log N = 13.680 - ^987
Liquor temp., °F
log N = 13. 680 - ^987
524.7
log N = - 1. 679
N = 0.0209
E-5
-------
PAm_ = (0. 0209) (18. 9)/i8. 9 - 2.84 ~ (2 x 7. 26]/
/T2 x 2.84) - 18.9 + (2 x 7.2677
= (0.0209) (18. 9) (.1.^) = (0.609)
(1.30)
= 0. 468 mm
Vapor Pressure of Absorber Liquor (mm Hg) at 12^°F
H20 vapor pressure = P^ Q =
100
100 + C + S
Where PTT = vapor pressure of pure water at temperature involved
PH20 = 97
HoO
.20 I 100 ~j
1_100 + 18. 9 + 2. 84 I
r IPO i
= 97. 2 JJJL9. 74J
PH20 = T9'
-------
APPENDIX F - CORROSION DATA
Corrosion
Corrosion tests were made on metallic and nonmetallic
materials in pilot plant No. 1 during the following periods of
pilot—plant operation: period A, 109 hours of operating time using
the sieve—tray (Sly) absorber; period B, 89? hours of operating
time using the marble-bed absorber; and period C, 539 hours of
additional operating time using the marble—bed absorber.
The test specimens were installed in the flue gas ducts,
the absorber, the recirculation tanks, and the pipes for circulating
liquor. Table 12 lists the tradename, base type, and manufacturer
of each nonmetallic material tested. Tables 15 through 16 give
information about the location of test specimens, exposure conditions,
materials tested, and evaluation of test materials exposed.
F-l
-------
TABLE 12
NONMETALLIC MATERIALS TESTED IN THE PILOT PLANT FOR REMOVAL
OF SULFUR DIOXIDE BY THE AMMONIA-ABSORPTION PROCESS
Trade name
Base type
Atlac 382-05A
Atlac 711-O5A
Heresite
Hetron 197
Hetron 197-3
Lucoflex
Polypropylene
1580 rubber
Neoprene
Viton
Manufacturer
Propoxylated bisphenol—A fumarate
polyester resin with fiber
glass reinforcing
Polyester resin containing 5$
antimony with fiber glass
reinforcing
L-66 j Thermosetting phenol-formaldehyde
J resinous coating applied on
i carbon steel
i
j Styrenated polyester; Durez
Division
Styrenated polyester modified
j for hand or spray appli—
! cetion
*
i Polyvinyl chloride, rigid
1 Polypropylene, rigid
Butyl, Flexible
Chloroprene polymer, flexible
i Copolymer of hexofluopropylene
' and vinylidene fluoride i
Atlas Chemical Industries, Inc.
Chemical Division
Wilmington, Delaware
Atlas Chemical Industries, Inc.
Chemical Division
Wilmington, Delaware
Heresite and Chemical Company
Manitowac, Wisconsin
Hooker Chemical Corporation
New York, New York
Hooker Chemical Corporation
New York, New York
American Lucoflex, Inc.
New York, New York
American Viscose Corporation
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
Tank Lining Division
Akron, Ohio
E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company
Wilmington, Delaware
E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company
- -.4.
F-2
-------
TABLE
CORROSION TESTS CONDUCTED IN THE FLUE GAS DUCTS
OF
Test period
THE PILOT PLANT FOR REMOVAL OF SULFUR DIOXIDE
BY THE AMMONIA-ABSORPTION PROCESS
Number of pilot-plant runs
Operating time, hr
Idle time, hr
i
A
6
29
B • C A
Ite 33
897 339
6
29
979 7671 1677 979
Location of specimens
Gas
Temperature, °F
Flow rate, cfm
Velocity, ft/sec
Composition, % by volume
S02
S03
C02
N2
02
H20
Gas to cyclone
320
305
1*000 ' ^000
60 i 60
1
0.25 10.25
0.03 0.03
12 » 12
75
75
! 5 5
8 8
Fly ash, gr/std cu ft
Corrosion rate of metal
AISI stainless steel
Type 202, weld Type
Type UlO
Haynes alloy B6
Type 502 steel
Mild steel A-2&3
Condition of nonmetallic
Atlac 382-05A
Atlac 711-05A
Heresite P-U03 + L-66
Hetron 197
Hetron 197-3
Polypropylene
specimen, rails/yr
5.0 j 5.0
309
3000
60
0.25
0.03
12
Gas from
319
Uooo
60
0.25
0.003
-
75
5
8
5.0
i
i (
316 ,
-
17
1*9
5k
specimen0'
k
26
27
1.2
3
3 1
17
Ik 5lk
i
I Fair :Poor ',
Fair_
Poor
Fair
Fair
Fair
Lucoflex-rigid polyvinyl chloride
1580 rubber-butyl
Neoprene
Viton
I
-
i
Poor
Poor6
-
Poor
-
-
Poor
- - -
-
-
— ! —
1
i
Fair
—
~
— "
B '
106
537
7095
C
33
339
1677
cyclone to cooler
295
'*000
60
0.25
0.003
-
-
-
!
1.2
i
!
-
-
1
'
' 202
<
-
; —
-
-
i —
t —
—
i
1
292
Uooo
60
0.25
0.005a
12
75
1 -j
8
1.2
< b
3
17
, < 1
21
80
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
—
1 —
a Ammonia was added to neutralize part of sulfur trioxide.
k Pitted to depth indicated.
c Evaluation was based on change (if any) that occurred during indicated test period; good,
little or no change; fair, definite change, probably could be used; poor, failed, not
suitable.
d Nonmetallies were not tested in the gas upstream of the absorber during test period B.
e Abrasion had cut through the 5-mil coating.
F-3
-------
TABLE lit
CORROSION TESTS CONDUCTED IN TILE RECIRCULATIOH TANKS OF THE PILOT PLANT
FOR REMOVAL OF SULFUH DIOXIDE BY THE AMMONIA-ABSORPTION PROCESG
Teat period A B C
Number of pilot-plant runs 6 JO 33
Operating time, hr ' 29 l8o 339
Idli- time, hr 979
92k 1677
Location of specimens in tank No. j
F-l
Exposed in 1 Liquid
F-1L
Liquid in tanks j
Temperature, °F 129 121
pH 7.6 5.2-6.?
Retention time in tank, min 10. 6
Pressure, psi —0. 5
Composition of vapor, '
i« by volume
NH3
6.5
-0.5
_
SOP - i
Composition of liquor, % by wt
NH4HS03 0. 5
(mu)?so3 7.6
2k. 6
3.9
(NlLi)rS04 5.6 5.6
Solids 2.4 2.4
Corrosion rate of metal specimens,
125
5.8
8.5
-0.5
_
-
15.2
9-5
27.0
2.k
mils/yr
AISI stainless steel
Type 202, weld Type 308
Type 304L, weld Type J04L . 1
Type 316L, weld Type 316L 1
Type 410 -
-
< 1
< 1
—
Purimet 20 1 < 1
Mild steel A-285 e 393 I'OO
Condition of nonmetallic specimens
Atlac 382-05A Good
Good
< 1
< 1
< 1
—
< 1
413
Good*
Atlac 711-05A j Good Good Good
Heresite P-403 + L-66 Good
Hetron 197 j Good
Good
Good
A
6
29
979
B
130
724
7676
C
33
339
1677
Vapor
F-1G
129
—
-
-0.5
0. Ok
0.00
—
-
-
-
2
< 1
l
i
121
—
-
-0.5
0.04
0.06
—
-
-
-
125
—
-
-0.5
0.02
0.06
A
6
29
979
B
142
897
7671
C j A
33
339
1677
6
B
130
29 724
979 7676
C
33
539
1677
~ F-2
Liquid Vapor
F-2L
129
6.7 5
10.6
-0.5
-
-
- 0.07
-
1.7
J.Jt
- 1.6
1
f _
< i
< 1
-
< 1
< i < i < i
— — — —
nd
P. 9
• < 1
; 150
f
Good
' Good
—
Good
; Good
• Good
i Good
• Good
Good
Good
; Good
-------
TABLE iu (CONTINUED)
Test period (current)
Number of pilot— plant runs
Operating time, hr
Idle time, hr
B < C
156
794
8902
53
559
.1677
' " ""' a
Location of specimens in tank No. ' F— 5
Exposed in [ Liquid
Identification No.
Liquid in tanks
F-3L
h
Temperature, °F ' 116
pH 5. 0-7. 0
Retention time in tank, min.
Pressure, psi
Composition of vapor,
% by volume0
NH3
S02
Composition of liquor,
% by wt
NH4HS03
(NH4)2S03
(NH4)2S04
Solids
—
-0.5
120
5.9
10
-0.5
B C ! A 1 B
144
796
8752
53 6 i 150
339 29 ' 724 ;
1677 979 7676
" " " \"~ p!5 "
C
33
339
1677
Vapor i Vapor
F-3G F-5G
116
120
_ _
— _
-0. 5 -0. 5
~™ I ~"
—
0.02
- 0.04
17. 5 3- 8
5.1 | 2.4
5.2 5.8
1.0
Corrosion rate of metal specimens, [
mils/yr
AISI stainless steel
Type 202, weld Type 508 i -
Type 304L, weld Type 504L j < 1
Type 3l6L, weld Type 5l6L
Type 410
Durimet 20
Mild steel A-285
Condition of nonmetallic specimens6
< 1
< 1
361
Atlac 382-05A i Good
Atlac 711-05A 1 Good
Heresite P-403 + L-66 \
Hetron 197 Good
Hetron 197-5 Good
Polypropylene
Lucoflex (PVC)
Good
Good
1580 butyl rubber, Goodyear Good
Neoprene Good
Viton i Good
Natural gum rubber
< i
< i
< i
—
< i
512
Goodf
Good
—
Good
Good
Good
—
—
—
—
—
< 1
< 1
—
< 1
209
Good
Good
-
Good
Good
—
Good Good
Good Good
Good I Good
Good
Good
Good
—
—
—
—
—
90
_
_
—
0.02
0.00
70 i
_
_
-0.5
0.025
0.000
_ _
_ 1 _
_ • _
_ _
_ _
< 1 < 1 < 1
< ld
P. I4d
< 1
91
Good
Good
< 1
—
581
-
—
_
Good ! —
Good —
Good -
Good Good
Good Good
iood Good
Good Good
- j Good -
< 1
—
261
-
—
-
—
—
Good
Good
Good
Good
a During test A, specimens were not exposed in the liquid or the vapor in tank F-5.
80
_
—
—
0. 04
0. 04
—
_
—
—
—
< 1
< 1
—
—
233
~
—
-
—
—
—
Good
Good
Good
i Good
Good
^ Specimens were immersed about half the exposure period because the level fluctuated in
the storage tank.
c Values for percent by volume were estimated.
d Specimen was pitted during the test period to depth in mils indicated.
e Evaluation "good" indicates that little (if any) change occurred in material of
construction (see footnote "f") during test.
f The resin used to seal edges of disk failed apparently because of breakage; however, the
disk was in good condition.
F-5
-------
TABLE 15
CORROSION TESTS CONDUCTED IN VERTICAL SECTIONS OF PIPES CIRCULATING
LIQUOR TO THE ABSORBER AT THE PILOT PLANT FOR REMOVAL OF
SULFUB DIOXIDE BY THE AMMONIA -ABSORPTION PROCESS
Test period
Number of pilot-plant runs
Operating time, hr
Idle time, hr
A
6
29
106
537
7095
C
33
339
1677
" 7 1
6 I 106
29 | 537
979 ! 7095
33
339
1677
Test specimen located in
Identification No.
Liquor
Temperature, °F
PH
Velocity, ft/sec
Flow rate, gpm
Pressure, psi
Composition, $> by wt
NH
-------
TABLE 16
CORROSION TESTS CONDUCTED IN THE PILOT PLANT FOR THE REMOVAL
OF SULFUR DIOXIDE BY THE AMMONIA-ABSORPTION PROCESS
Test period
Number of pilot-plant runs
Operating time, hr
Idle time, hr
A
22
109
1667
B
106
537
L5151
C
33
339
1677 •
A 1
22 j
109
1667
— - —i
B
106
537
5151
c
33
339
1677
Location of specimens above absorber j First stage f Third stage
Gas -liquor mixture
Temperature, °F
Velocity, ft/sec
Flow rate, cfm
Pressure, psi
Composition of vapor, % by
volume (estimated)
S02
C02
i :
128 112
7.0 ! 7.0
3000 ' 3000
-0.5 -0.5
0.13 i 0.13
12 , 12
N2 69 69
02
5
H20 14
Composition of liquor, % by wt
NH4HS03
(NH4)2S03
(NH4)2S04
Solids
pH
Corrosion rate of metal specimens,
mils/yr
AISI stainless steel
Type 202, weld Type 316
Type 304L, weld Type 304L
Type 3l6L, weld Type 3l6L
Type 410
Durimet 20
Mild steel A-283
Condition of nonmetallic specimens
Atlac 382-05A
Atlac 711-05A
Heresite P-403 + L-66
Hetron 197
Hetron 197-3
Polypropylene
Lucoflex (PVC)
1580 rubber (butyl), Goodyear
Neoprene
Viton
5
14
16.7 23.5
26.6
3.2
7.5
5-1
2.4 2.4
6.9 5.2-6.6
_
< 1
< l
-
< 1
257
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
-
< 1
< l
-
< 1
126
1
1
128
6.4
2700
-0.5
0.13
12
69
5
14
15.2
9.5
129
7.0
3000
-0.6
0.08
12
69
5
14
14.2
10.8
27.0 6.2
2.4 1.6
111
7.0
3000
-0.6
0.08
12
69
5
-
120
6.4
2700
-0.6
0.08
12
69
5
14 14
18.6
5-8
4.2
1.6
5.6 6.2 5). 2-6.6
< i
lr
< i>
P. 7a
< 1
206
H
-
< 1
< l
-
< 1
348
Good ! Good"
Good j Good
Good Poor6
Good i Good
Good ! Good
Good
Good
Good Good
Good Good
Good Good
Good
Good
-
-
-
< l
3.8
2.4
5.8
1.0
22
109
1667
B
106
537
5151
3
16'
Mist eliminator
129
7.0
3000
-0.7
0.08
12
69
5
14
-
-
110
7.0
3000
-0.7
1
6
27
-C
1
0.08 o.
12
69
5
14
-
-
-
-
5.8 - 5;0-6.0 \
lb
< l < 1^
< l
154
-
-
-
P. 6"
< 1
186
-
-
" i
-
-
< 1
< l
-
< 1
695
Good
Good
Good
Good
_ I - Good
- i -
Good j - ,
Good | - j
Good - -
Natural gum rubber - : - Good [
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
i
- 'P.
< 1 IP.
< l i
-
P.
< 1 •
308 I -
r, Jd n
Good G'
Good "• G<
Good G
Good ' G
Good ' G
Good
Good
G
G
Good ; (Jr
Good • G
Good 1 G
I
_ ; - - ! G
i
a Specimen pitted during test to indicated depth in mils.
Stressed specimen showed no evidence of cracking.
c Evaluation was based on change (if any) that occurred during indicated test period.
or no change; poor, failed or severely damaged.
Resin used to seal edges of disk failed, apparently because of breakage.
e Abrasion had cut through the 5-mil coating.
Good, lit
F-T
-------
APPENDIX G - GLOSSARY
A value
C value
value
CA' value
the mols of ammonium sulfate present per 100
mols. of total water
the mols of ammonia present in the form of
ammonium sulfite, bisulfite, and sulfate
(total ammonia) per 100 mols of total water
the mols of ammonia present in the form of
ammonium sulfite and bisulfite (active
ammonia) per 100 mols of total water
the mols of ammonia present in the form of
ammonium sulfite and bisulfite per 100 mols
of total water'
Free water
Reaction water
S value
S/Cfl or SAV value
Total water
Total water'
the water of solution contained in the
absorbing liquor
the water used in forming ammonium sulfite,
bisulfite, and sulfate (1 mol of water used
per 1 mol of S)
the mols of SO^ present in the form of ammonium
sulfite and bisulfite per 100 mols of total
water
a mol ratio of the S02 present as ammonium
sulfite and bisulfite to the ammonia present
as ammonium sulfite and bisulfite
the free water plus the reaction water (water
of constitution) required when SOg and 13%
react to form ammonium sulfite, bisulfite, and
sulfate. One mol of water is consumed for
each mol of S02 that reacts
the free water plus the reaction water required
when S02 and KHs react to form ammonium sulfite
and bisulfite but not sulfate
Sample calculations using these terms are given in Appendix E.
G-l
-------
APPENDIX H - CONVERSION FACTORS
To convert from
English, units
cfm
°F
Btu/lb(°F)
Btu/hr(ft2)(°F)
inch
grains/ft3
gpm
mol/min(ft2)
psi
Ib/hr
ft
gal/hr(ft2)
ft3
To metric units
m3/min
°C
gm cal/gr(°C)
gm cal/sec(cm2)°C
cm
grams/liter
liters/sec
mol/min(cm2)
mm of Hg at 0°C
kg/hr
meters
liter/hr(m2)
liters
Multiply by
0.028317016
(subtract 32 and multiply by 5/9)
1
0.00013562
2.54
0.0022883^
0.0631
929.0341
51.715
0.^55
0.301*8
14.0.7^6
28.31625
H-l
-------
APPENDIX I
STACK PLUMES—CONDENSED MOISTURE
AMD/OR OPAQUE POLLUTANTS*
Introduction
Before May 1973^ the most troublesome problem encountered
by TVA in developing the ammonia scrubbing — bisulfate regeneration
process at their Colbert station in northwestern Alabama was the
presence of an opaque plume in the flue gas released to the atmos-
phere. The objectionable portion of the plume is an aerosol of
ammonia—based salt very difficult to remove from the flue gas. The
opacity of the plume is dependent in part on the quantity of the
salt aerosol and its size distribution. Plume opacity is also
dependent, in part, on the number of moisture droplets of light
scattering size which form on contact with humid, cold air. Opacity
from "uncombined" water should not be included in determining whether
overall plume opacity exceeds permissible specifications according
to regulations (20). However, as Crocker (21) noted, the meaning of
"uncombined" water may remain obscure for some time. Also opacity
of an emission from a stationary source is estimated visually by
a "qualified" observer. To quality as an observer a candidate must
complete a smokereading course conducted by EPA or equivalent. This
course, outlined in the Federal Register (20), does not qualify the
observer to distinguish between light scattering water droplets and
salt aerosols.
The situation outlined above suggested that objectionable
salt aerosol plume formation and opacity cannot be studied quantita-
tively in the presence of a water plume. The purpose of this appendix
is to consider factors influencing the formation of water plumes so
that they can be avoided. As we shall see, water plumes can be
avoided by reheating the scrubber exit gas before it is discharged
from the stack. However, the important consideration is not the
water plume that is eliminated but the non—aqueous plume that
remains. In the absense of a water plume, scrubber liquor composi-
tion, temperature, etc., may be varied within acceptable process
limitations to minimize or eliminate a non—aqueous plume. This is
an important and often critical factor in development of a new
process. It is also important that slip—streams from operating
scrubbers be tested from time to time to determine whether any
malfunctions have developed. To study non-aqueous plumes, water
must be eliminated. This study outlines a method for estimating
the temperature at the reheater exit to avoid a water plume from
the stack. The method described is applicable generally to aqueous
scrubbing systems vented to the atmosphere.
We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. L. I. Griffin
in the preparation of this appendix. Dr. Griffin was the ammonia
scrubbing - bisulfate regeneration project officer for EPA at the
time this study was made.
1-1
-------
Factors Relating to Plume Formation
Water plumes are formed when the temperature of the mixture of
flue gas and ambient air falls below the dew point temperature can be
estimated by the procedure described below. The data required are the
ambient air temperature and humidity along with the scrubber top stage
composition, temperature, and pressure. In estimating the dew point
temperature, mixing of the flue gas with ambient air is assumed to be
adiabatic. Further it is assumed that, the gas leaving the scrubber top
stage is saturated with water vapor and contains no entrained liquid.
Finally it is assumed that the molar heat capacities of air and flue
gas are equivalent.
Derivation of Mathematical Relationship
Limiting; the Formation of Water Flumes
If the mixture of ambient air and flue gas at the stack exit
is at its dew point, the conditions for Equation 1 are satisfied.
R x vp^A x FRH + pps
~ ^DP Equation 1
1 + R
Where
R = mols of ambient air/mol of flue gas
vp/y\ = vapor pressure of water at ambient air
temperature, psia
FRH = factional relative humidity
PPg = partial pressure of water vapor in flue
gas at stack exit
= vapor pressure of water at the dew point
temperature of the gas mixture, psia
Substituting known values of parameters into Equation 1 allows for
the determination of vpjyp. Subsequently, the dew point temperature,
Tpp, can be read from steam tables relating vapor pressure and tempera-
ture.
Heat balance considerations consistent with the assumptions
given earlier justify the following relationship:
RGpAA (TDP - TAA) = CpFQ (TEE - TDP) Equation 2
Where
R = mols of ambient air/mol of flue gas
C AA=Cpj^ = molar heat capacity of air and flue gas
= dew point temperature, °F
= temperature of ambient air, °F
= temperature of flue gas at reheater exit, °F
1-2
-------
The relationship on page 1—2, Equation 2, may be simplified as follows
and the required reheat temperature of the flue gas, T^-g, may be calcu-
lated.
TRE = R (TDP - TM) + TDp Equation 3
Discussion of Relationship Limitations and Implications
On hot dry days water plumes are not obtained; whereas, on
cold humid days, plumes will be obtained unless the flue gas is
reheated. Water plume formation boundaries, calculated from Equations
1 and 3? are shown in Figure 46 for a scrubber temperature of 120° F
and an ambient air temperature of 4o°F. The curves relate reheat exit
gas temperature required to avoid a water plume to the mols of ambient
air mixed with one mol of reheated flue gas. Curves are shown for
relative humidities of ambient air ranging from zero to 90$>. For
relative humidities of less than 100/o, the curves exhibit a maximum flue
gas reheat temperature required to avoid a plume at any ambient—air—to—
flue gas ratio.
More specifically, the water plume formation boundaries shown
on Figure 46 form envelopes for the several humidities indicated. When
reheated flue gas is discharged from the stack, it is mixed continuously
with ever increasing quantities of air. For any ambient—air—to-flue—
gas ratio, there is a calculable reheater exit temperature required to
avoid the formation of a water plume. This required reheater exit gas
temperature increases at first with the ratio of ambient air to flue
gas. However, since the flue gas is mixed with ever increasing quantities
of air, the air—to—flue—gas ratio will inevitably increase to and pass
beyond the critical value requiring the maximum reheater exit gas temp-
erature (see triangles, Figure 46) to avoid plume formation.
Thus, in predicting the formation of water plumes, the
critical flue gas temperature should be used rather than some lower
temperature. Reheater exit gas temperatures for zero water plume
potential, or critical flue gas temperature, are related to ambient
air temperatures in Figures 47 through 51. Each figure is for a single
scrubber temperature starting with 120°F and increasing in 5°F incre-
ments to l40°F. Also, each figure shows curves for constant relative
humidities ranging from zero to
Estimating Flue Gas Reheat Temperature to
Avoid Formation of a Water Plume
How can these curves be used to estimate the reheater exit gas
temperature required to avoid a water plume for a specific set of condi-
tions? Assume that the flue gas is being scrubbed with an ammoniacal
solution to remove SOX. The scrubber top stage temperature and pressure
are 127°F and 15.2 psia, respectively. Liquid composition on the top
stage is consistent with C=4. 0, S=3.2, and A=0.3 as defined by Johnstone
(3_). The ambient air temperature is 35°F and the relative humidity is
4-5%. What reheater exit gas temperature is required to avoid a water
plume?
1-3
-------
cc
guj
CC =3
UJ —I
0. O-
t cc
If
s
RELATIVE HUMIDITY OF
AMBIENT AIR, % V
SCRUBBER TEMPERATURE =120°F
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE =W°F
10/1 ISA 20/1 25/1
MOLS OF AMBIENT AIR/MOL OF FLUE GAS
FIGURE U6
Water Plume Formation Boundaries
I-k
-------
350
300
250
O-
1 £
uj a:
a= o
200
150
100
80
60
i—i—i—i—i—i—
-"RELATIVE HUMIDITY OF
AMBIENT AIR, %
SCRUBBER TEMPERATURE = 120°F
(vpo(H20 = 1.692psia)
30
40
50 60
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE, °F
FIGURE 47
70
80
Relationship of Factors Governing
Formation of Water Plumes From Stacks
1-5
-------
r^
«!
^1
S&
UJ O.
>- _J
in Q-
ER
fcS
2*
I1
UJ OC
I O
UJ U-
ce
400
90
c*J
t/»
C3
80
w
O
O
60
40
isj
cn
CD
20
»-.
en
O
*—
S
\
\
\
-RELATIVE HUMIDITY
. OF AMBIENT AIR, % .
ss^
^x
NN
N
NN
N
S
S
- SCRUBBER TEMPERATURE = 125°F -
-(vpolH20=1.941psia)
30
40
50 60
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE,°F
FIGURE 48
70
80
Relationship of Fsictors Governing
Formation of Water Plumes From Stacks
1-6
-------
T GAS TEMPERATURE,«F
TER PLUME POTENTIAL
c*> t*> -^ -a
§C/1 O
V
>
\
V
>
L
\
\
^
V
>
*
X
>
'
^
V
40
V ~
V
N
s.
\
V
>
^
<
\
^
s
^
s
\
w
\
s
y
s
^s
>
s
L
k,
^
s
w
V
t,
>t
^_
£
X,
s
s.
^
•x
X,
^
,
VI
S
v|
>,
>
v_
X
X
L>
•te.
*-»,
SJ
X,
'X
•>
i;
50 60
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE,°F
FIGURE 49
rX
X,
X.
^
X
X,
•»fc.
^
F -
xj
'X
•s,
^
X
X,
i
^
g
-X
*•»
i
70 8
Relationship of Factors Governing
Formation of Water Plumes From Stacks
1-7
-------
U fi-
3
wu.
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
OF AMBIENT AIR, %
SCRUBBER TEMPERATURE r 1J5°F
(vp of H?0= 2.536 psia)
100
50 60
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE,°F
FIGURE ^0
Relationship of Factors Governing
Formation of Water Plumes From Stacks
1-8
-------
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE,»F
FIGURE ^1
Relationship of Factors Governing Formation of Water Plumes From Stacks
1-9
-------
At 127°F the vapor pressure of water is 2.0^9 psia (see steam table)
(3)
pp of H20 above solution = 2. 0^9 x 100.0
100. 0 + 4. 0 + 3. 2 + 0. 3
= 1. 906 psia
Mol fraction of water vapor in flue = 1.906 = 0.125^
gas above scrubber top stage 15. 2
Partial pressure of water vapor in = 14. 7 x 0.125^
flue gas at stack exit,, psia = 1. 84j4 psia
Ambient air temperature, °F 35
Relative humidity of ambient air, $ 4-5
Case See Speci— See
Figure hi fied Figure 48
Water temp on scrubber top stage, °F 120 — 125
Partial pressure of water vapor in
flue gas at stack exit, psia 1.692 1.8434 1.941
Reheater exit gas temperature
for zero water plume potential, °F 232 251 263
By interpolation, the reheater exit gas temperature for zero water plume
potential is estimated to be 251°F for the conditions specified.
Accuracy of Estimated Critical Flue Gas Temperatures
How closely do the predicted critical temperatues associated
with incipient plume formation compare with the actual temperatures?
The answer to this question is suggested in part by TVA pilot-plant
studies at temperatures ranging from 57° to 85°F. While the pilot-
plant runs were not designed to test the precision of estimating the
"critical" flue gas temperature, the studies did suggest that the
estimating procedure is directionally reliable and reasonably accurate.
TVA has not operated at low ambient air temperature since this estimating
procedure was devised; hence, a validity check under severe conditions
must await later pilo1>-plant operations.
Crocker (2l) and Kalika (22) have suggested an alternative
procedure for estimating the "critical" flue gas temperature to avoid
a water plume when the flue gas mixes with cold air. According to
their procedure, a pschrometric chart can be used by constructing an
operating line tangent to the curve of 100% relative humidity. This
line tangent to the curve passes through the ambient air temperature
and relative humidity. The tangent, or operating line, is extrapolated
in a tedious procedure to estimate the critical flue gas temperature
necessary to avoid plume formation. Accuracy of the estimate is
inherently limited since an error in constructing a line tangent to
the saturation curve is magnified by the extrapolation required. Never-
theless, critical reheat temperatures, estimated according to this study
1-10
-------
and according to the procedure employed by Crocker and Kalika are
in surprisingly good agreement as shown by Figure 52. The twenty
comparisons plotted on Figure 52 are the scrubber temperatures
ranging from 120° to 1^0°F in 5°F increments. Comparisons are made
for ambient air of 40° and 60°F, and relative humidity of zero and
QCffo. In estimating the critical temperature according to Crocker
and Kalika, a typical molecular weight of 30.6 was assumed for dry
flue gas.
Data plotted in Figure 52 indicate that the two methods of
estimating the critical reheat temperature (this study versus
psychrometric chart) give almost identical temperatures at the 150°F
level. At the 400°F temperature level, the critical reheat tempera-
ture estimated from the psychrometric chart is 25° to 30°F higher
than estimates made from the procedure developed in this study. The
differences in the estimates for the two procedures are doubtless
accounted for, in part, by the assumptions made and by the mechanics
of using the psychrometric chart.
1-11
-------
150
200 250 300 350
CRITICAL REHEAT TEIVIPERATURE,0F - THIS STUDY
FIGURE 52
400
Critical Stack Gas Temperature, for* Zero Water Plume
Comparison of Estimates
1-12
-------
1 HLI'OH I NO
EPA-650/2-74-049-a
4. TITLE AND SUBTU Lb
Pilot-Plant Study of an Ammonia Absorption-
Ammonium Bisulfate Regeneration Process,
Phases T and TT
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
ij.sc read /Hiin/cfi
------- | |