-------
The exterior weir provided a means of measuring the quantity of slurry
taken up into the tube, which was later used to calculate the liquid/
gas ratios. The details of the external return apparatus and the 90°
"V-notch" weir are shown in Figure 2-5.
The liquid level in the scrubber was maintained by a level controller.
The slurry composition was maintained indirectly by adjustment of the spent
slurry flow rate. The level controller in turn maintained the desired
liquid level by adjusting the fresh slurry feed rate.
In order to avoid problems with solids settling, a mechanical mixer
was installed in the Dustraxtor to help keep solids in suspension. The
mixer specifications are listed in Table 2-1. The sump had a 3 inch.
gravity-feed drain which was used to empty the scrubber after each test.
Table 2-1. DUSTRAXTOR MIXER SPECIFICATIONS
Trade Name; Lightnin Mixer
Manufacturer; Mixing Equipment Company, Inc.
138 Mt. Read Boulevard
Rochester, New York 14603
Model; N33-33, Fixed Mounted Propeller Type
Serial No.; 7012653
Design Specifications; Motor - 1/3 HP/115V/60 Hz/1 phase/1750 rpm,
totally enclosed
Shaft - 304 SS, 3/4 inch diameter x 49
inches, 1750 rpm
Propeller - 316 SS, 3.8 inch diameter
The material of construction for the Dustraxtor and connecting ductwork
to the particulate collector was 304 SS. All piping to and from the
scrubber was galvanized steel. All sample ports on the scrubber were
either stainless steel or polyvinyl chloride. A stainless steel butter-
fly valve, located in the bottom of the exterior weir, was used to bypass
the measurement system.
15
-------
Downcomer
Exit
Weir Bypass Valve
Hopper
FIG. 2-5 DUSTRAXTOR OUTSIDE RETURN APPARATUS AND 90° V-NOTCH WEIR
16
-------
A slide gate valve, installed on the 10-inch diameter discharge duct
was used to control the flue gas flow rate through the entire pilot
plant. The pressure drop across the Dustraxtor was controlled by
adjusting the balance vent line control valve. Sample ports were pro-
vided in the connecting ductwork for particulate, S0_, and NO sampling
£ X
across the Dustraxtor, as well as across the entire system. Liquid
sample ports were provided on the Dustraxtor body for tube sheet and
hopper liquor sampling. A set of spray nozzles for gas saturating pur-
poses was installed in the ductwork between the particulate collector
and the Dustraxtor.
FLUE GAS EXHAUST SYSTEM
The scrubbed flue gas leaving the Zurn scrubber passed through an
induced-draft fan with an inlet damper control, to a vertical stack
containing sampling ports. The, induced-draft fan was a No. 10 Clarage
Blower; the fan curve is shown in Figure 2-6. The I-D fan had a paddle-
blade impeller which, because of particulate carry-over and subsequent
"plating-out" on the blades, became unbalanced and failed twice during
the study. A field review of the I-D fan failures indicated that the
cast stainless steel spider, which secures the blade, fractured due
to fatigue caused by the fan imbalance.
PILOT PLANT SCHEMATIC
Figure 2-7 shows the overall flow diagram of the pilot plant. The
location of thermometers and flow measuring devices are also shown
In this Figure. Additional Information concerning the monitoring
system is included in Section 3: Test Instrumentation and Procedures.
REACTANT HANDLING AND WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
The calcium based scrubbing slurry was prepared in mix tanks. The mix
tanks were equipped with steam coils and gear driven portable mixers.
17.
-------
24 i-
STATIC PRESSURE
BRAKE HORSEPOWER
1000
2000 3000 4000 5OOO
FLOW RATE OF AIR - scfm
6000
3450 RPM
Std. Air Wt. = 0.075 Ib/ft3
FIG. 2-6 NO. 10 CLARAGE BLOWER INDUCED DRAFT FAN CURVE
-------
The steam coils were not used during the study; however, they were
available for use if desired. The mixers had a 304 stainless steel
shaft, a 316 stainless steel 10 inch diameter propeller, and were driven
by a 1/3 HP, 115 volt, 1750 rpm, totally enclosed electric motor.
Detailed tank mixer specifications are shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. TANK MIXER SPECIFICATIONS
Trade Name;
Manufacturer:
Model;
Serial No.;
Design Specifications;
Lightnin Mixer
Mixing Equipment Company, Inc.
138 Mt. Read Boulevard
Rochester, New York 14603
ND-1, Portable Mixer
None, Mixco Order No. M315836
Motor - 1/3 HP/115V/60HZ/1 phase/1750 rpm,
totally enclosed
Shaft - 304 SS, 5/8 inch diameter x
48 inches, 1750 rpm
Propeller - 316 SS, 10 inch diameter
The scrubbing slurry from the mix tanks was fed by gravity to a high
silicon iron Mark II Durcopump manufactured by the Duriron Company, Inc.
The pump specifications are noted in Table 2-3. The slurry feed rate
from the pump to the scrubber was measured by a flowmeter located near
the scrubber. Excess slurry was returned to the mix tanks through a
recirculation line shown in Figure 2-7.
Table 2-3. SLURRY PUMP SPECIFICATIONS
Manufacturer:
Pump Design:
Performance:
Duriron Company, Inc.
N. Findlay and Thomas Streets
Dayton, Ohio 45401
Series - 1-1/2 x 1 H - 6/60; Size - Mark II GPI
Packing - Standard; Alloy - Superchlor
Impeller Diameter - 6 inches; Shaft Wet End - Superchlor
20 gallons per minute
36 feet of water total differential head
NPSH - 1.5 feet of water net positive suction head
0.9 maximum brake horsepower
19
-------
N>
O
•GAS OUTLET
NC£ MIX TANK
DRAIN^
SLURRY PUMP
GAS INLET
FLOW MEASURING ELEMENT
REACTANT8
FEED WATER
LEGEND
X Slurry Samples
o Temperature, Dry Bulb
& Temperature, Wet Bulb
O S02, NOX, And Partlculate Sample Point
NC-Normally Closed
NOrNormally Open
FM-Flow Measurements
M Mixer
FIG. 2-7 SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM OF FLUE GAS AND SLURRY SOLUTIONS WITH LOCATIONS OF SAMPLING POINTS
-------
The required quantity of the calcium-based reactant was weighed out
and dumped into each mix tank containing fresh or salt water depending
upon the location of the pilot plant. The amount of reactant was set
by the required slurry concentration. Adequate time was allowed for
proper mixing of the calcium-based reactant and the water before
pumping into the scrubber system. Fresh slurry was fed to the scrubber
through the flowmeter while the spent slurry, from the scrubber system,
passed out the level controller.
During the Key West testing, the spent effluent was deposited in a
holding pond where the liquid was allowed to evaporate or permeate the
coral soil. During the Shawnee testing, the effluent was deposited
in a storm sewer, mixed with other plant waters, and pumped to the
Mississippi River. Each disposal technique was satisfactory for the
pilot scale system.
Several operating problems concerning the reactant handling system were
noted during the study. Due to infrequent maintenance checks, the feed
pump packing developed a leak (a marked reduction of pump pressure was
experienced) and became progressively worse as the project continued.
A more serious problem was encountered at the Shawnee site. Settleable
solids in the waste material often clogged the flexible hoses. This
necessitated frequent flushing with a fresh water stream to prevent
back-up into the scrubber.
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS LABORATORY
During the Key West testing, the City Electric System power plant lab-
oratory was utilized for all chemical analyses. The laboratory was
equipped with instrumentation necessary for conducting the analyses
noted in Appendix A.
21
-------
SECTION 3
TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND PROCEDURES
In order to facilitate movement of the pilot plant, basic but highly
reliable instrumentation was utilized for this study. The SO. con-
centrations were determined with an electrochemical type sensor which
was calibrated daily with guaranteed-analysis calibration gas. All
temperatures were determined with properly calibrated thermometers,
and gas flow rates wete determined with a calibrated sharp-edge orifice.
Standard sampling techniques were employed for particulates, SO., and
NO . Details of the analytical techniques are in Appendix A.
X
Test procedures were established based upon the.experimental design
required for each phase of the test program. Day-to-day operation of
the pilot plant was held as constant as possible, with the only varia-
tion occurring in the level of the variable set for each test. The
test procedures employed at the two sites, Key West and Shawnee, were
varied only where necessary in order to comply with necessary conditions,
S02 MONITORING
One of the most important analyses of the test program was the measure-
ment of the SO. concentration in the flue gas. SO. sampling probes,
fabricated from 6 inch lengths of 1/4 inch diameter SS tubing, were
located in the entrance and discharge ducts of the Dustraxtor. Analyses
were performed for the most part by a Dynasciences Model SS-330 monitor.
Selection of this monitor was based in part on the results of limited
test work conducted earlier.
The Dynasciences monitor operated on the principle of a fuel cell.
SO. was absorbed on a sensing electrode to form activated species capa-
ble of undergoing electro-oxidation. The resulting current was directly
proportional to the partial pressure of SO. in the gas mixture. The
current was amplified and the output recorded on a meter and a 10 mV
recorder.
22
-------
The instrument specifications indicated linear response over the entire
range of SO. concentration. Overall accuracy was specified at + 1% full
scale with the use of an external potentiometric recorder. Response
time was specified as 90% of full scale in 1 minute. The instrument
was to exhibit no response to N_, 0_, NO , CO, CO^, water vapor or
hydrocarbons. In addition, the instrument was very portable and well
suited to the field environment experienced in pilot plant operations.
In operation, the Dynasciences Model SS-330 did not meet all the speci-
fications. Response time was not as rapid as claimed; the instrument
was sensitive to changes in sampling gas flow rate (slight changes in
operating pressure), and changes in ambient temperature. Also, the
instrument stability was considerably less than specified. Electro-
chemical cell life was better than claimed by the manufacturer and once
the initial operating problems were corrected, SO,, monitoring operations
were very reliable. In general, the instrument proved satisfactory for
the conditions experienced during the pilot plant operation.
NO SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
X
NO samples were taken randomly during certain test periods. NO probes
X X
were located at the entrance and discharge ducts of the Dustraxtor
virtually in line with the SO- sampling probes. The phenoldisulfonic
acid method was used for analysis.
A typical NO sampling and analysis consisted of adding 25 ml of an
absorbing solution (hydrogen peroxide and dilute sulfuric acid) to a
250 ml (nominal) evacuation flask. The flask was evacuated and attached
to a purged sample line; the stop cock was opened; and the gas sample
was drawn into the flask.
NO was converted to nitric acid by the absorbent solution and reacted
A
with phenoldisulfonic acid to produce a yellow compound which was
measured colorimetrically. Color was measured with a photometer and
compared with calibration curves from solutions containing a known
quantity of nitrate.
23
-------
A more complete and descriptive explanation of the phenoldisulfonic
acid method used in these tests is given in the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), Standard Method of Test for Oxides of
Nitrogen in Gaseous Combustion Products (Phenoldisulfonic Acid Proce-
dure) , ASTM Designation: D1608-60 (1967). The analytical technique
associated with this test procedure was very tedious and time consuming.
However,.since other procedures had not been adequately demonstrated
on power plant flue gases, it was necessary to use this method to
obtain reproducible data.
PARTICULATE SAMPLING
Particulate sampling was conducted at three points in the pilot plant:
the entrance to the dry dust collector, the entrance duct to the Dust-
raxtor, and the Dustraxtor exit duct. The sampling train consisted of
a stainless steel probe and nozzle, a glass fiber filter and a series
of three Greenberg-Smith impingers. During the first attempts at
particulate sampling, the glass fiber filter clogged as a result of the
high moisture content present in the flue gas (the filter was not
heated). The filter medium was therefore eliminated from the train
during the remaining tests. The remainder of the particulate sampling
system included a gas meter and vacuum pump.
Isokinetic sampling was performed by regulating the sample flow tate
to correspond with the calculated velocity at the sampling point.
This method was justified over the null balance procedure for this
study to conform with suggested EPA test method. Uniform flow rates
were demonstrated by observing the flue gas orifice over an extended
period of time.
SLURRY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
During each test, representative slurry samples were taken at the
following locations:
Slurry feed
Scrubber discharge
24
-------
External weir
• Hopper sump
Tube sheet
Figure 2-6 illustrates the various sampling points. During every test
at least one 100 ml slurry sample was taken for analysis -of the following
parameters:
• PH
• Calcium
Magnesium
Chloride
Nitrate
Nitrite
Sulfite
Sulfate
Sampling was performed in a manner to avoid oxidation; the samples
were placed in an ice water bath for transportation to the laboratory.
pH was measured in the field as well as in the laboratory. Standard
gravimetric, titrimetric, and colorimetric methods were used by the
chemist following procedures outlined in American Society for Testing
Materials (ASTM) 1970 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Part 23, Water;
Atmospheric Analysis, and the American Public Health Association,
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 12th
Edition. The slurry samples which contained solids and liquid were
not separated prior to the analysis.
•
OTHER MEASUREMENTS
Field measurements for pH of the slurry samples were made with a
Sargent-Welch Model PBX pH meter and laboratory ph measurements were
made with a Sargent-Welch Model LSX pH meter.
Flue gas flow rate was measured by an Ellison Instrument Division,
12 inch "Annubar," type 740. The Annubar is a primary flow element
utilising a form of the classical Bernoulli energy balance equation
to d«t«nd.n« flow rate. The equation used was:
25
-------
2 \/^r
Qn = 7.9 SND ' '
A full description of the symbols of this equation, and other equations
available for use with this flow element, were supplied by Ellison
Instrument Division, Boulder, Colorado, and are reproduced in Appendix B.
The Annubar included an interpolating tube with equal annuli segments, an
equalizing element, and a downstream element for measuring the down-
stream pressure (static pressure less the Impact pressure of the flow).
The system had a non-clog design which was desirable for operation in
the pilot plant. The unit was calibrated against standard pitot tube
traverses prior to initial testing in Key West. Detailed drawings and
specifications of the Annubar were supplied by Ellison Instrument
Division and are also reproduced in Appendix B.
GENERALIZED TEST PROCEDURE
A typical testing day in which three tests were usually completed is
described below. The experimental design established the operating
levels for the variables under study. These variables were set during
the test period.
In preparation for a run with a cold start (that is, the scrubber had
been idle long enough to allow the ducts to accumulate condensation),
the unit was first filled with salt or fresh water and allowed to run
for a minimum of 30 minutes to attain operating temperatures and to
flush the accumulated condensate out of the ductwork. Normal conditions
for this warm-up and flushing were a gas flow rate of 1000-1450 scfm,
liquid feed rate of 10-15 gpm and a AP of 9-12 in. H20.
While waiting for the system to reach operating conditions, the two
mix tanks were flushed and cleaned; the proper quantity of reactant for
26
-------
the test was calculated, weighed out, and mixed in one tank; and the
liquid for the warm-up operation was pumped from the remaining tank.
After warm-up, the system was shut-down (fan off, pump off, reactant
feed valve off, inlet damper closed) and drained immediately. While
the Dustraxtor was draining, the proper quantity of reactant was
weighed out and mixed in the second feed tank forming the scrubbing
slurry-
When the scrubber was drained, the drain valve and weir butterfly shut-
off valves were closed. Slurry was then pumped into the scrubber at
maximum flow rate until the Dustraxtor was full. The sequence of events
concerning the controls were as follows:
1. Hopper mixer - on
2. Reactant flow - 2-5 gpm
3. Level control - 50% open
A. Inlet damper - open
5. Fan - on
Once the system was in operation, the levels were set for the various
operating parameters. During the first hour of a test, the gas flow
rate, slurry flow rate, and pressure drop were monitored to assure that
the unit would approach equilibrium at the predetermined conditions.
Based upon preliminary test results, steady state was assumed after
the system had been in operation for 2 hours and the SO- concentration
at the pilot plant exit remained constant.
Prior to final data acquisition, the S0» monitor was calibrated and
the inlet SO- concentration was determined. During this time, the
inlet gas conditions were recorded (temperature, flow rate, pressures
and SO. concentration). The required stoichiometric ratio based
on the inlet SO,,, was calculated and adjusted as necessary. The
SO- monitor was then used to analyze the Dustraxtor outlet gas. When
the effluent SO- concentration stabilized, outlet conditions were
recorded (temperature, flow rate, pressure, and S02 concentration).
27
-------
During a test, several slurry samples were collected and placed in an
ice water bath for storage prior to laboratory analyses. The samples
collected and stored in 8-ounce plastic bottles included the following:
slurry feed, scrubber discharge, weir overflow, tube sheet, and Dust-
raxtor hopper samples.
After a test was completed, operating conditions were changed for the
next test. The unit was shut down, drained, and refilled with reactant
for another test. There was usually a working period of about 1/2 hour
before the system was ready for another test. Following this procedure,
about three 2 1/2 hour tests were completed every day.
TEST PROCEDURE FOR EXTENDED OPERATION
The start-up for extended operation did not differ from that of a normal
test day. Test conditions were specified to be held constant for approx-
imately an 8 hour period. No variables were changed during this test
period.
TEST PROCEDURE FOR ADDITIVE OPERATION
The start-up for additive experiments (catalyst—Fed- or inhibitor--
hydroquinone) did not differ from that of a normal test day.
All experimental procedures outlined above were followed with the
following additions and modifications:
1. Two identical reactant tanks were mixed: one contained the
the test additive, the other did not.
2. The scrubber was filled and started up on reactant without
the test additive.
3. Inlet and outlet conditions were recorded as outlined earlier.
During some experiments, scrubber effluent samples were not
taken at this time.
4. After stabilization of the outlet conditions, the correct
amount of additive was added to the scrubber weir simulta-
neously with changing the reactant feed to the tank with
additive. The feed rates remained constant.
28
-------
5. The outlet conditions were allowed to re-stabilize after
additive addition; they were recorded again and scrubber
effluent samples were collected.
29
-------
SECTION 4
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Results of both the short term and extended tests were consolidated
into one set of results for each test site. Because of the great
volume of data gathered during the test program, only a summary of the
results is presented in this report. An addendum, available through
EPA's Control Systems Laboratory, contains all test data taken during
the 10 months of field work. Appendices C and D contain scrubber
operating conditions and data summary tables, respectively.
SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS
A summary of the Important system operating conditions and character-
istics including data important to future design and optimization of
the Dustraxtor absorber is given below.
Liquid Entrainment Relationships
The relationships of the parameters governing liquid entrainment in the
Dustraxtor unit are presented in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Approximately
170 data points are represented showing the association between the
liquid entrainment and gas flow rate at selected pressure drops (AP)
from 6.5-14.0 in. H_0.
Figure 4-1 applies to a single 12-inch diameter Dustraxtor tube. Each
curve, representing a constant pressure drop condition, exhibits a
point of maximum liquid entrainment which becomes more apparent as
pressure drop increases. Thus, at a AP of 6.5 inches, a + 350 scfm
variation in gas flow rate about the maximum entrainment point results
in a 15 gpm reduction in liquid entrainment. Compared to this, at a
AP of 12.0 inches, a decrease in entrainment by 15 gpm is caused by a
gas flow variation of only + 170 scfto. Another characteristic of this
maximum point is its tendency to occur at progressively lower gas flow
30
-------
2100
1900
1700
to
3
1300
1100
900
TOO
500
40 80 120 (60 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480
LIQUID ENTRAINED-gpm
FIG. 4-1. SALT WATER ENTRAINED IN THE 12" TUBE AT SELECTED PRESSURE DROPS AND GAS FLOW RATES
-------
co
NJ
1000 -
900 -
800 -
I
8
O
700 -
600 -
500 -
400 -
300
20
40
60 80 100 120
LIQUID ENTRAINED -gprn
160
180
FIG. 4-2. RIVER WATER ENTRAINED IN THE 8" TUBE AT SELECTED PRESSURE DROPS AND GAS FLOW RATES
-------
rates as pressure drop increases. As an illustration, a maximum
entrainment of 112 gpm is realized at about 1300 scfm for a 6.5 inch
AP. At a 12 inch AP the maximum entrainment (396 gpm) has dropped to
900 scfm and at a 14 inch pressure drop the maximum has fallen to
700 scfm, nearly half of the flow rate and velocity of the gas stream
for the 6.5 inch AP maximum.
As gas flow rate and corresponding gas velocity increase above the
maximum entrainment point, all of the curves converge upward toward
a greatly reduced range of entrainment volumes. This trend is so
pronounced that if assumed to continue at the same rate, extrapolation
of the data would indicate a minimal gain of 50 gpm in liquid entrain-
ment at a 2700 scfm flow rate when the AP changed from 6.5 to 14.5
in.i.H-O.
Figure 4-2 is a corresponding plot of the scrubber characteristics
utilizing a single 8 inch diameter Dustraxtor tube. The same general
shape and trends appear for the 8 inch tube as were exhibited for the
12 inch tube. However, the maximum entrainment points occured at
lower gas flow rates and higher gas velocities and were 1/2 to 1/4
the order of magnitude found for the 12 inch Dustraxtor tube.
No attempt has been made to analyze the actual physical mechanism of
entraining and lifting the slurry from the surface within the hopper
or its transportation through the scrubber; hence, a complete under-
standing of the dynamic principles illustrated by the data of Figures
4-1 and 4-2 is not possible. The development of a model to establish
the analytical relationship of liquid entrainment as a function of
AP and gas flow was not attempted.
Liquid/Gas Ratios
Figure 4-3 is a plot of liquid/gas ratios versus gas flow rates for both
the 8 inch and 12 inch Dustraxtor tubes. Two corresponding pressure
drops are depicted for each size tube (9 and 12 inches for the 8 inch
33
-------
co
3000
2600
2200
I
r
3 MOO
1000
600
200
100 200 300 400 500
LIQUID/GAS RATlO-gal/Mscf
600
700
800
900
RG. 4-3. UQUID/GAS RATIOS FOR 8 8 12 DIA. DUSTRAXTOR TUBES AT SELECTED PRESSURE DROPS AND GAS FLOW RATES
-------
diameter tube; 8.5 and 12 inches for the 12 inch diameter tube). These
curves were wholly derived from the data points shown in Figures 4-1
and 4-2. For the sake of clarity, the actual data points have been
eliminated. All of the curves show an expected maximum liquid/gas
ratio at some relatively low gas flow rate. The magnitude of this max-
imum increases with increasing values of AP; however, the point of max-
imum liquid/gas ratio occurs at a slightly lower gas flow rate than
the maximum entrainment volume (Figure 4-1 and 4-2). As an example:
maximum entrainment volume for a 12 inch AP and a 12 inch Dustraxtor
tube occurs at about 850 scfm while the maximum liquid/gas ratio,
680 gallons per thousand cubic feet (gal./Mcf), occurs at a significantly
lower gas flow rate of about 420 scfm. Also at high flow rates the
liquid/seas ratio:.seems to fall off very rapidly, approaching zero
for the 12 inch tube at 2700 scfm and at 1400 scfm for the 8 inch tube.
Therefore, from Figure 4-3, it would appear that liquid/gas ratio is
independent of pressure drop at higher gas flow rates.
Finally, Figure 4-3 exhibits the same trend as Figures 4-1 and 4-2
regarding tube diameter; that is, increasing tube diameter results in
an increased liquid/gas ratio.
Characteristics and Analysis of Feed Reactants and Discharge
While lack of sufficient instrumentation and funds prevented a detailed
study of the chemical reaction kinetics and mechanisms occurring during
the scrubbing process, analyses were made of the chemical constituents
important to the understanding of the chemical processes occurring in
• I I I
the Dustraxtor absorber. These analyses were made for pH, Ca , Mg ,
Cl , NO, , N02 , SO. , and SO, . A summary of the chemical analyses
results for the scrubber feed and discharge streams of each reactant
tested during the test program are shown in Tables 4-1 through 4-11.
Characteristics and SOp Analysis of Influent Flue Gases
A summary of the influent flue gas characteristics for both the oil-
fired Key West unit No. 3 and coal-fired Shawnee units No. 9 and 10 is
35
-------
Table 4-1. SUMMARY OF SALT WATER TESTS
CHEMICAL ANALYSES
(Key West)
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
PH
Feed
7.6
7.8
7.4
Discharge
2.6
2.9
2.3
Ca
(mg/1)
475
1040
410
432
530
420
Mg
(mg/1)
1385
1510
1215
1375
1440
1360
Cl
(ms/1)
23,207
25,000
19,800
21,667
23,500
20,000
N03
(tng/1)
0.40
0.60
0.02
0.20
0.80
<0.01
NO,
(mg/D
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
SOo
(mg/1)
1
1
1
32
127
3
S04
(mg/1)
2640
2740
2125
3171
3840
2800
Table 4-2. SUMMARY OF CORAL MARL
CHEMICAL ANALYSES
(Key West)
PH
Ca Mg
(mg/1) (mg/11
Cl N03
(mg/11 (mg/1)
N02 S03 S04
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Scrubber Feed
Average 7.7 541
Maximum 8.0 2180
Minimum 7.5 400
Scrubber Discharge
Average 5.5 1614
Maximum 6.4 2800
Minimum 4.7 880
1431 22,400 0.9
1920 30,000 16.0
1340 19,000 0
1471 23,180 3.0
1875 30,000 15.2
584 12,500 0
2 2872
7 3840
1 2220
0.14
0.40
0
2.27 6419
10.40 40,000 6100
0 1110 3500
36
-------
Table 4-3. SUMMARY OF FREDONIA LIMESTONE
CHEMICAL ANALYSES
(Key West)
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
PH
Feed
7.6
7.9
7.1
Discharge
5.6
6.1
4.5
Ca
(mR/1)
492
600
400
1551-
1960
1120.
Mg
(mR/1)
1401
1460
1340
1498
1940
875
Cl
(OR/D
22,520
26,500
20,000
22,900
31,500
15,000
Table 4-4. SUMMARY OF
N03
(ma/l)
0.50
2.80
0
1.60
5.80
0
HYDRATED
N02
(mg/1)
0.20
0.60
0
2.20
7.92
0
LIME
SOo
(mg/1)
1
2
1
5601
23300
900
S04
(mg/1)
2810
3040
2750
5183
5400
3700
CHEMICAL ANALYSES
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
PH
Feed
11.4
11.6
11.1
Discharge
8.3
8.7
7.7
Ca
(mg/1)
2800
2960
2680
80
100
56
(Key
Mg
(mg/1)
158
267
97
2697
3340
2330
West)
Cl
(mg/D
20,900
21,500
20,500
21,200
22,000
20,500
N03
(mg/1) 1
0.70
0.80
0.60
0.70
1.20
0.20
NOo
taxi)
0.08
0.15
0.01
0.22
0.35
0.13
S03
(mg/1)
2
3
1
25,400
37,300
11,900
S04
(mg/D
2815
2840
2760
4203
4850
3660
37
-------
Table 4-5. SUMMARY OF DOLOMITE
CHEMICAL ANALYSES
(Key West)
Ca
pH (mR/1)
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Feed
7.6
7.7
7.5
Discharge
5.2
5.4
4.9
485
560
440
599
840
116
Mg
(mg/1)
1386
1410
1340
1563
1850
1410
Cl
(rng/1)
21,500
21,500
21,500
20,100
21,500
18,000
N03
(mg/1)
1.20
1.60
0.80
2.70
3.20
1.80
N02
(me/1)
0.50
0.90
0.10
0.03
0.09
0.01
SO 3
(mR/1)
2
3
1
515
600
450
SO*
(mR/1)
2963
3000
2920
4740
6740
4050
Table 4-6. SUMMARY OF PRECIPITATED CALCIUM CARBONATE
CHEMICAL ANALYSES
(Key West)
PH
Ca Mg Cl
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
N03 N02
(mg/1) (mR/1)
S03 SO*
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Scrubber Feed
Average 7.6 467
Maximum 7.6 480
Minimum 7.5 440
Scrubber Discharge
Average 5.9 1133
Maximum 6.2 1640
Minimum 6.0 880
1355 21,300
1385 22,500
1340 20,500
1360 16,200
804 20,500
655 13,000
1.10 0.10
1.20 0.14
1.00 0.07
0.90 0.18
1.40 0.27
0.40 0.09
2 2800
2 2840
2 2760
1919 3677
3500 41200
1000 3250
38
-------
Table 4-7. SUMMARY OF SHAWNEE NO. 9 FREDONIA
LIMESTONE CHEMICAL ANALYSES
(Paducah)
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Feed
8
8
8
pH
.2
.5
.0
Ca
(mg/1)
24
32
12
Mg
(mg/1)
4.9
7.4
3.5
Cl
(mg/1)
14
15
13
NOo
(mg/1)
3.30
5.50
1.50
NO 2
{mg/1)
0
0
0
.27
.35
.16
SOo
(mg/D
4
5
2
so4
(mg/1)
43
131
0
Discharge
5
5
5
.3
.6
.0
1063
1440
600
Table 4-8.
61.9
97.0
48.5
373
800
100
7.50
15.50
3.50
SUMMARY OF SHAWNEE NO.
0
0
0
9
.10
.16
.09
1585
2600
950
1654
2479
910
ARAGONITE
CHEMICAL ANALYSES
(Faducah)
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Feed
8
8
8
pH
.1
.1
.1
Ca
(mg/1)
36
38
34
Mg
(mg/1)
11.3
12.0
9.5
Cl
(mg/1)
60
90
30
N03
(mg/U
3.9
5.0
2.5
NO 2
(mg/1)
0
0
0
.20
.22
.18
S03
(mg/1)
2
2
1
so4
(mg/1)
108
156
41
Discharge
6
6
5
.1
.3
.8
570
1000
360
48.6
48.6
48.5
211
350
150
3.8
5.5
3.0
0
0
0
.34
.55
.16
478
780
300
1061
2060
580
39
-------
Table 4-9. SUMMARY OF SHAWNEE NO. 9 SALTWATER/FREDONIA
LIMESTONE CHEMICAL ANALYSES
(Paducah)
PH
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Feed
8.
8.
8.
2
2
1
Ca
(mg/1)
60
60
60
Mg
(mg/1)
8.
8.
8.
5
5
5
Cl
(mg/1)
12,000
12,000
12,000
N03
(mg/1)
2
2
2
.50
.50
.50
NO?
(mg/1)
0.40
0.40
0.40
SOo
(mg/1)
1
1
1
S04
(mg/1)
58
58
58
Discharge
5.
5.
5.
Table
6
7
4
4-10
1040
1280
800
48.
48.
48.
. SUMMARY
CHEMICAL
5
5
5
OF
9,500
10,000
9,000
SHAWNEE
3
3
2
NO.
.30
.50
.00
0.17
0.17
0.16
10 ARAGONITE
865
1150
580
2120
2880
1360
INJECTION
ANALYSES
(Paducah)
PH
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Feed
7.
8.
7.
9
1
8
Ca
(mg/1)
58
92
24
Mg
(mg/1)
2.
3.
2.
7
5
4
Cl
(mg/1)
10.8
13
10
N03
(mg/1)
35
52
1
.20
.00
.60
N02
(mg/1)
0.17
0.18
0.16
803
(mg/1)
4
8
2
804
(mg/1)
125
205
24
Discharge
7.
7.
7.
8
9
4
520
600
440
60.
72.
48.
7
9
5
200
250
150
3
8
1
.90
.00
.60
4.20
6.00
3.00
37
80
15
1021
1230
740
40
-------
Table 4-11. SUMMARY OF SHAWNEE NO. 10 FREDONIA LIMESTONE
INJECTION CHEMICAL ANALYSES
(Paducah)
Ca
PH (mg/1)
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Scrubber
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Feed
7.9
8.1
7.4
Discharge
5.8
6.9
4.9
37
64
28
643
1320
320
Mg
(mg/1)
5.7
6.0
5.0
33.6
48.6
24.3
Cl
(mg/1)
15
15
15
135
200
100
N03
(mg/l)
2.00
3.10
0.20
5.20
7.50
2.40
NO?
(mg/1)
0.39
1.50
0.20
0.61
3.60
0.18
S03
(mg/1)
2
2
1
557
1700
100
SO,
(mg/1)
61
80
24
1200
2080
310
presented in Tables 4-12 and 4-13, respectively. In addition, plots of
the variation in entering SO- concentration with time at both test
sites are shown in Figures 4-4 and 4-5. The major variations in inlet
SO concentration at the Key West site were attributed to a change in
sulfur content of the fuel oil. This was either due to stratification
of different sulfur content fuels in the fuel storage tank or a change
in the total sulfur content in the tank, the latter resulting from
the mixing of fuel oil shipments in the tank. Similarly, S0? variations
at the Shawnee test site were attributed to the wide variation of sulfur
present in the coal supplied to the plant. In addition, during the
month of July, TVA was conducting precipitator efficiency tests on
Shawnee No. 10. These tests frequently increased dilution air leakages
into the flue gas upstream of the pilot plant entrance.
Scale Deposition
Deposition of scale in piping, fans, pumps, tanks, sumps, and on the
absorber internals varied from nondetectable to moderately heavy during
the Key West and Shawnee No. 9 test programs. The degree and rate of
41
-------
I
CC
Ul
O
CD
3
CC
O
en
o
UJ
<
oc
Ul
o
CO
1000
500
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
TIME
APR.
MAY
FIG. 4-4. VARIATION OF INLET S02 CONCENTRATION, KEY WEST - 1971
-------
2500
1. 2000
ex
r
UJ
U
CO
1500
O
£
m
§
8
U 1000
in
500
JUN.
JUL.
TIME
AUG.
FIG. 4-5. VARIATION OF INLET S02 CONCENTRATION, PADUCAH - 1971
43
-------
Table 4-12. SUMMARY OF INLET FLUE GAS CONDITIONS
(Key West Unit No. 3)
Average Dry Bulb Temperature 231°F
Average Wet Bulb Temperature 130°F
Average SO- Concentration 703 ppm
Table 4-13. SUMMARY OF INLET FLUE GAS CONDITIONS
(Shawnee Units No. 9 and 10)
Average Dry Bulb Temperature 191°F
Average Wet Bulb Temperature 119°F
Average S0? Concentration 1699 ppm
44
-------
deposition was not quantified except in terms of how rapidly the
scrubbing system was affected. While scale deposits did occur, the
only interference with the system operation was a fan failure caused
by build-up on the blades.
The deposits resulted primarily from precipitation of calcium salts and
deposition of the reactant material. The composition of the deposit on
the tube was identified by x-ray diffraction and is presented in Table
4-14. Deposits were not found in the mix tank, pumps, or related
piping. Deposits were found on the weir hopper and inside scrubber
wall at the water line, the tube at the liquid/gas interface, the mist
elimination section, and in the fan housing. It should be noted that
all deposits except those found on the tube and in the fan were very.
minor and did not interfere with the system performance over a 6 month
period. The deposits on the tube occurred moderately fast and the rate
of formation appeared to increase with slurry concentration. The tube
deposits took the form of stalactites which grew directly into the gas
path, rf allowed to grew for-an extended time period, these deposits
would interfere with system performance. Table 4-15 summarizes the
degree of deposition at various locations in the pilot plant during
both the Key West and TVA Shawnee Unit No. 9 tests.
/Table 4-14. X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSES OF SCALE
FORMATION ON THE TUBE
(Key West)
Compound
CaSO, •
CaC03
MgCO
• 2H20
Quantity (wt%)
30.5
68.0
1.5
45
-------
Table 4-15. DEGREE OF DEPOSITION AT VARIOUS SYSTEM LOCATIONS
(Key West Unit No. 3 and Shawnee Unit No. 9)
Rate of
Location Degree Formation
Mix Tanks negligible
Pumps & Related Piping negligible
Weir Hopper (water line) slight slow
Absorber Body (water line) slight slow
Tube Before moderately heavy moderate
After negligible
Mist Eliminator slight slow
Fan slight very slow
Mote the change when wash water was added to control scale formation
at this location.
-------
The deposits at the tube lip were controlled later in the test program
by continually washing the tube with a small spray of fresh water in
the vicinity of the tube lip. Fresh water was used because it was
readily available at the pressure required. It is assumed that salt
water would be entirely suitable for this purpose. The design require-
ments to control scale at the tube lip necessitated a ring attached to
the tube approximately 6 inches above the bottom of the lip. The ring
had a series of 1/16 inch diameter holes drilled in such a manner
that the tube was continually wetted down to the lip. Once this
modification was installed and adjusted, stalactite-type growth into
the gas stream was eliminated. However, during the limestone injec-
tion testing on Unit No. 10 the scale deposition was so heavy that
the spray ring proved ineffective. Therefore, operation in this
manner for extended periods of time (16-24 hours) was not possible.
The deposits during testing on Unit No. 10 resulted primarily from
impaction of calcined limestone on the exterior surface of the tube.
This resulted from the heavy particulate loading to the absorber and
an inadequately designed entrance for this heavy loading. This deposi-
tion interfered with the operation because calcined limestone impacted
on the tube at the entrance, built up, and fell in large cakes into the
hopper. Table 4-16 summarizes the scale and sludge deposition locations
in the pilot plant while scrubbing flue gas from TVA Shawnee Unit No. 10,
Settling Characteristics
Table 4-17 summarizes the results of one test to determine the settling
characteristics of the slurry effluent. This was done by measuring the
time required for the turbid portion of a slurry sample (interface
between slurry and clarified liquor) to settle in an undisturbed
graduated cylinder. The exact location of the Interface was defined
by the graduations on the side of the cylinder. The majority of
the settling appeared to occur during the first 10 minutes. These
data were collected to aid in the design of a clarifler or other
solid-waste handling equipment which might be required on a larger
sized unit.
47
-------
Table 4-16. DEGREE OF DEPOSITION AT VARIOUS SYSTEM LOCATIONS
(TVA Shawnee Unit No. 10)
Location
Mix Tanks
Pumps &. Related Piping
Weir Hopper (water line)
Absorber Body (water line)
Tube3
Mist Eliminator
Fan
Degree
negligible
negligible
slight
slight
severe
slight
slight
Rate of
Formation
-
-
slow
slow
rapid
slow
very slow
a
Scale at tube lip controlled by wash water. Major depositing occurred
by impaction of calcined limestone carried in gas stream from Unit No.
10 during limestone injection test program.
Table 4-17. SETTLING RATE OF LIMESTONE SLURRY EFFLUENT
Interface Location
(ml in 500 ml graduated cylinder)
500
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
48
Time
(Minutes)
0
3.5
4.6
5.8
7.3
8.5
9.7
10.7
144.0
Note: sample taken from scrubber discharge during test P-32 which
utilized 325 mesh Fredonia Valley limestone in a 3% slurry
concentration.
48
-------
Pry Collector
No attempt was made at quantifying the operating parameters or the
performance of the dry collector regarding S0_ or NO removal. While
£ X
an attempt was made to quantify the particulate removal efficiency of
the dry collector during the Shawnee No. 9 tests, procedural errors
and equipment malfunctions caused the tests to be voided. Since suffi-
cient data had been obtained concerning particulate removal across the
entire pilot plant (dry collector and Dustraxtor scrubber) no further
attempt was made to measure the removal in the dry collector separately.
The dry collector was bypassed, when not in use, by means of built-in
dampers and gas ducts at both the Key West and Shawnee No. 10 test sites.
The fly ash collected from Shawnee No. 9 flue gas had the character-
istics expected of coal fly ash; however, the ash was not chemically
analyzed.
S02 ABSORPTION: KEY WEST PROGRAM
In this section some of the more general results of the Key West pro-
gram are summarized. An addendum to this report, available through
EPA1s Control Systems Laboratory, contains all the data collected.
Section 5 is a more complete analysis of the data collected during
the factorial design experiments.
Salt Water Tests
A total of forty three preliminary tests were conducted with no reac-
tant in the salt water feed using a 12 inch diameter tube size. The
purpose of this series was to determine the operating characteristics
of the equipment, to establish base line data and to calibrate the
Instrument system. Thirty of the tests provided useful data from
which S02 removal efficiencies could be calculated. Two levels of
gas flow and pressure drop were used, these being the same as would
later be utilized in the experimental design tests. The arithmetic
average SO. removal efficiency was 39.6% with sea water alone. Figure
4-6 summarizes the effects of the two gas flow and pressure drop levels.
49
-------
50
b 40
30
"tt
I2X)
4-6. ABSORPTION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION OF GAS FLOW AND PRESSURE
SALT WATER
50
-------
Three levels of salt water feed flow rate were tested during the pre-
liminary shakedown period; these were 2, 5, and 10 gpm. Little change
in absorption efficiency was measured between the two lower rates.
Figure 4-r7 summarizes the effects of the 2 and 10 gpm levels.
Coral Marl Tests
A total of thirty six tests were conducted with coral as the reactant of
which thirty four provided useful data. All tests were conducted with a
12 inch diameter tube. Sixteen of these were the factorial experiment,
ten were Independent data for validating the derived prediction equation,
and eight were centerpolnt and additive tests. Except for the last eight
tests, each of the five independent variable factors was tested at two
levels. The average SO. removal efficiency using coral was 74.3%;
Figure 4-8 illustrates the absorption (expressed as SO- absorption
efficiency) as a function of the Independent variables studied during the
experiments with the coral reactant. The independent variables were: gas
flow rate, stoichiometry, reactant particle size, slurry concentration,
and scrubber pressure drop. An increase in stoichiometric ratio or a
decrease in gas flow rate at a fixed pressure drop, produced a signifi-
cant increase in SO, absorption efficiency in the Dustraxtor. It should
be noted 'that the pilot plant system was operated in a once-through con-
figuration. These results should not be extrapolated to a closed-loop,
recycle system with different ionic strength scrubbing slurries.
Four centerpoint experiments were conducted in which four of the
variables were at the midpoint of the high and low level. The fifth
variable, particle size, was not centered because of the unavailability
of the proper size reactant. The average SO. removal efficiency for
the centerpoint experiments was 71.1%. This compares closely with the
74.3% average SO- removal for all Key West coral tests and indicates
there is a linear response to all variable factors within the range
tested. Extrapolation beyond this range, however, is not recommended.
51
-------
90
40
30
I2X>
FIG. 4-7. ABSORPTION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION OF FEED FLOW RATE AND
PRESSURE DROP: SALT WATER
52
-------
100
90
60
e 70
I
o
bj
O 60
b.
U.
U
D.
CC
O
m
CD
40
o"
CO
30
20
10
6.5" A P
I
LEGEND
100 Or 325 Refer* To Particle Size (Mesh)
1000 Or 20OO Refers To Gas Flow Rote (ACFM)
?) Refers To Slurry Concentration (Wt.% I
12" Diameter Tube
I
I
I I
I
I
LO 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0
CaC03 TO S02 STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
3.0
FIG. 4-a SUMMARY OF CORAL SALT WATER EXPERIMENTAL I'ESIGN POINTS
53
-------
Three tests were conducted In which additions were made to the slurry
to test the effect of Fed., as a catalyst, and hydroquinone, as an
inhibitor. These compounds were recommended by EPA because they have
been reported to affect SO- absorption by influencing the oxidation of
sulfite to sulfate in the scrubber medium. Results were inconclusive
concerning this claim since there did not appear to be a significant
change in the S02 absorption capability with the additives tested.
When the. FeCl3 was added directly to the mixture in the weir, an im-
mediate decrease in SO- outlet concentration was observed on the SO.
monitor. This response, however, was only temporary and the outlet
concentration soon returned to its original level.
No noticeable results were detected in the case of the addition of
hydroquinone nor in the case of the addition of both catalyst and in-
hibitor.
Fredonia Valley Limestone Tests
A total of forty three tests were conducted with limestone as the re-
actant of which forty one provided useful data. Sixteen of those were
the factorial experiment, nine were independent data for validating the
derived prediction equation, four were centerpoint tests, and twelve were
comparative tests of the 8 inch and 12 inch scrubber tubes. The average
SO. removal efficiency using Fredonia Valley limestone was 73.72.
Figure 4-9 illustrates the absorption efficiency as a function of the
five independent variables studied during the experiments with Fredonia
Valley limestone. An increase in stoichiometry, a decrease in gas flow
rate, or an increase in pressure drop each resulted in an increase in
SO. absorption during the limestone tests. These same variables caused
similar effects on SO. absorption during the coral reactant tests.
Four centerpoint experiments were conducted in which four of the vari-
ables were at the midpoint of the high and low level. As before, par-
ticle size was not centered. Three of the tests resulted in high S02
54
-------
100
90
80
H
•
u
y
70
60
^ 50
a:
o
CO
m
M
O
CO
30
20
IO
65" A P
1.0
12.0" A P
LEGEND
IOO Or 325 Refers To Particle Size (Mesh)
IOOO Or 2OOO Refers To Cos Flow Rate (ACFM)
l)or(T) Refers To Slurry Concentration (Wt %)
12" Diameter Tube
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
CaC03 TO S02 STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
FIG. 4-9 SUMMARY OF FREDONIA VALLEY LIMESTONE
SALT WATER EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN POINTS
55
-------
removal efficiencies, ranging between 84 to 86%. These values are con-
siderably higher than expected results. It is suspected that a malfunction
of the S02 monitor occurred. The fourth value was 70.6% which is much
closer to the average value from all of the tests in this series.
Twelve tests with limestone demonstrated the increased absorption
efficiency of the 12 inch scrubber tube. This series consisted of seven
tests with the 12 inch tubes at various gas flow rates, all other variables
held constant, and five similar tests with the 8 inch tube. The results
of the experiment are shown in Figure 4-10.
Secondary Reactant Tests
Four tests with each of three secondary reactants were conducted. These
were designed for factorial experiments', but one test for one reactant
was voided due to carry-over into the sampling line rendering that test
series inadequate for analysis. One final test was conducted with spent
reactant. All tests were conducted with a 12 inch tube diameter. The
average SO. removal efficiencies for the four reactants are shown in
Table 4-18:
Table 4-18. S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR SECONDARY
REACTANT TESTS
(Key West No. 3)
Reactant • Per Cent Removal (%)
Hydrated Lime 93.0
Dolomite 46.8
Precipitated Calcium
Carbonate 78.3
Spent Reactant 69.9
Figure 4-11 summarizes the results of the hydrated lime and dolomite for
which adequate data were available.
56
-------
Ul
100
3? 90
o
UJ
o
Ul
o
a.
§70
w
CQ
UJ
a
x
2 60
Q
CC
u.
50
40
SCFM (I2"DIA)
L/6 (12 DIA)
SCFM (8 DIA)
TEST CONDmONSKEY WEST,
M3 STOtCHIOMETRY
12
1% SLURRY CONCENTRATION
325 MESH FREDONIA VALLEY LIMESTONE
L/6 (8 DIA)
500 1000 1500
GAS FLOW RATE-scfm AND LIQUID TO GAS RATIO- gal/Mscf
2000
FIG. 4-IQSO2 ABSORPTION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION OF GAS FLOW RATE AND LIQUID/GAS RATIO
-------
120
100
90
S
O
UJ
1
t
§
(O
Q
70
60
50
40
LEGEND
Hydroted Lime (Co(OH)2)
Dolomite (Co^MgCOj)
1000
12.0
1000
ln. H20)
1000 Or 2000 Refers To Gas Flow Rate (ACFM)
Particle Size - No Control, Agricultural Grade
Slurry Concentration 1% By Wt.
STOICHIOMETflIC RATIO
(Ca(OH)2 Or CaC03-MgC03)
(To S02 )
FIG. 4-11 SUMMARY OF SECONDARY REACTANTS SALT WATER EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN POINTS
58
-------
S02.ABSORPTION: PADUCAH PROGRAM
In this section some of the more general results of the Paducah program
are summarized. An addendum to this report, available through EPA's
Control Systems Laboratory, contains all the data collected. Section 5
is a more complete analysis of the data collected during the factorial
design experiments.
Fredonia Valley Limestone Tests
A total of thirty five tests were conducted with limestone reactant in a
fresh water medium at the TVA Shawnee No. 9 unit. Thirty three provided
useful data. Of these, sixteen were the factorial experiment, eight
were centerpolnt tests, five were additive tests, and four were tests with
the dry collector bypassed. No tests were run for independent validating
purposes.
The average SO. removal efficiency for the sixteen factorial experiment
tests was 57.1%. This compares badly with the 73.8% average removal i.
efficiency obtained in the sixteen factorial experimental tests conducted
at Key West using Fredonia Valley limestone with a salt water medium.
The variation in results is not entirely unexpected since there were many
differences in the two test series, nanely: tube size, stoichlometric
ratio, slurry concentration, slurry medium and gas flow rate.
Figure 4-12 illustrates the absorption (expressed as SO- absorption
efficiency) as a function of some of the more important parameters studied
during the experiments on Unit No. 9. An increase in stoichlometric ratio
or decrease in gas flow rate for each pressure drop produced a statistically
significant increase in SO. absorption efficiency in the Dustraxtor. Again,
it should be noted that the pilot plant was operated in a one-through con-
figuration. The results should not be extrapolated to a closed-loop, re-
cycle system with different ionic strength scrubbing slurries.
Five additive tests were conducted. In three tests 200 ppm of Fed. were
added at the weir to study the catalytic effects (see Coral Marl Tests
paragraph above). There were none: the average SO- removal efficiency
was 67.9% before the addition of the catalyst and 65.2% after. Similarly.
59
-------
a*
•
>-
z
bJ
u
u.
b.
bJ
g
Q.
g
OT
ID
Q
x
o
o
oc
CO
100
90
80
70
60
*>
40
30
20
to
6.0"
12.0" A P
LEGEND
100 Or 325 Refers To Porticle Size (Mesh)
500 Or 800 Refers To Gas
(Flow Rate (scfm)
8" Diameter Tube
Slurry Concentrdtion 3% By Wt.
I
I
1.0
ZO
1.0
2.0
CaC03 TO S02 STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
FIG. 4-12 SUMMARY OF FREDONIA VALLEY LIMESTONE
RIVER WATER EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN POINTS
60
-------
hydroquinone was tested in two cases as an inhibitor. Before addition
*
the mean removal efficiency was 69.4%. After addition it was 66.4%.
Based on knowledge of the SO- monitor's accuracy, drift characteristics,
and response time, it was decided that effects on removal efficiencies
amounting to less than 5% could not be separated from Instrument and ex-
perimental error.
A total of twelve centerpoint tests were conducted. Four tests were per-
formed at centerpoint conditions with the dry collector bypassed. This
was done to evaluate the effects of coal fly ash on SO. absorption ef-
ficiencies. The average SO. removal efficiency for the four tests was
65.7%. The remaining eight centerpoint tests were conducted with the
dry collector in line and resulted in an average SO. removal of 63.4%.
The difference in average S0« removal for the two centerpoint test series
is within instrument and experimental error. Therefore, no conclusion
can be made concerning the effect of fly ash on S02 removal efficiencies.
Aragonite Tests
Eight tests were conducted with aragonite using an 8 inch diameter tube.
Four of these were the factorial experiment, two provided independent data
at centerpoint, and two were dry collector bypass tests. All were at a
3% slurry concentration. The average S02 removal efficiency was 76.2%.
The two tests with the dry collector bypassed, at centerpoint, showed an
average of 67.7%.
Simulated Key West Salt Water Tests
Three tests were conducted with Fredonla Valley Limestone in simulated
salt water using an 8 inch tube diameter. /
ciency of 76.5% was obtained at centerpoint
salt water using an 8 inch tube diameter. An average SO. removal effi-
Injection Tests
In this test series conducted on TVA Shawnee Unit No. 10, the mobile
pilot plant received flue gas laden with calcined limestone or aragonite,
61
-------
as supplied from the boiler:, injection system. A total of seventeen in-
jection tests were conducted; four with aragonite injection, thirteen with
limestone injection. During all injection tests only river water was
used as the scrubbing medium. The recorded stoichiometry is the injection
stoichiometry of dry reactant to SO- as determined by TVA equipment op-
erators. The tests conducted with aragonite injection resulted in an
average S02 efficiency of 85.9%. The limestone tests gave an average SO
efficiency of 77.1%.
PARTICULATE COLLECTION IN THE SCRUBBER SYSTEM
Since the city of Key West was using fuel oil exclusively, no particulate
testing was conducted at this site, and no quantitative results were
available. From deposits observed above the scrubber mist eliminator
section and in the fan and fan ductwork, it was concluded that particu-
lates were generated during the scrubbing processes.
A number of tests utilizing the apparatus described in Section 3
Particulate Sampling paragraph, were conducted to quantify the particulate
removal at the Paducah test site (Shawnee No.9). The results of the
successful tests are presented in Table 4-19. The average result was dry
collector and Dustraxtor. No attempt was made to determine the size
range or composition of the particulates.
NO ABSORPTION
Tables 4-20 through 4-23 present NO absorption data. Tables 4-21 and
A
4-23 present individual test results. Tables 4-20 and 4-22 show the
average inlet and outlet measurements. Although these averages show a
reduction in NO across the scrubber, the conclusion that significant
absorption occurred is unwarranted because of the large standard deviations
of the measured concentrations and of the experimental error associated
with the analytical techniques.
SULFUR BALANCE
Table 4-24 shows sulfur balances from selected factorial design tests.
These were selected as representative of both the Key West (coral and
limestone) and the Paducah (limestone) tests. The consistently low exit
62
-------
Table 4-19. PILOT PLANT PARTICULATE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
(PADUCAITUNIT NO. 9)
Test
Number
P-2
P-5
P-7
P-12
P-17
PA-5
PA-6
AP
(in. H.O)
L
6.0
12.0
6.0
12.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
Gas
Flow
(gcfnO
422
620
617
417
520
520
520
Particulate Loading v Particulate
(gr/scf) .Removal
Influent Effluent Efficiency^
5.83
4.77
5.21
5.16
5.62
4.92
5.76
Average
0.13
0.08
0.11
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.09
97.77
98.32
97.89
99.03
98.75
98.37
98.44
98.37%
Table 4-20. AVERAGE OF NO MEASUREMENTS
A
(KEY WEST UNIT NO. 3)
Average NO
(ppm)
Standard Deviation
(ppm)
Key West
Pilot Plant Entrance
Pilot Plant Exit
440.9
390.6
97.0
85.4
63
-------
Table 4-21. TEST RESULTS OF NO DURING THE KEY WEST TEST SERIES
A
Test No.
S-38
C-19
C-26
C-27
C-28
C-29
C-30
P-3
F-4
F-5
F-16
F-17
F-20
F-21
F-22
F-23
F-24
F-25
F-26
F-27
F-28
HL-1
HL-2
D-3
D-4
PC-1
PC- 2
Influent Effluent
Concentration Concentration
(ppm) fppm}
357
425
387
195
392
645
475
392
475
417
547
388
195
310
416 -
407
536
512
501
187
462
462
425
510
175
416
489
Average NOx.
310
401
362
404
356
596
452
307
504
398
415
300
228
247
374
408
402
400
472
325
551
475
376
472
365
392
471
Absorption (ppm) .
NO
j£
Absorption
(ppm)
47
24
25
-
36
49
23
85
-
19
132
88
33
63
42
-
134
112
29
-
-
-
49
38
-
24
18
. . 54
Removal
(T)
13.2
5.6
6.5
-
9.2
7.6
4.8
23.2
-
4.6
24.1
22.7
-
20.3
10.1
-
25.0
21.9
5.8
-
-
-
11.5
7.5
-
5.8
3.7
64
-------
Table 4-22. AVERAGE NO MEASUREMENTS
(PADUCAH TEST SERIES)
Unit No. 9
Pilot Plant Entrance
Pilot Plant Exit
Unit No. 10
Pilot Plant Entrance
Pilot Plant Exit
Average -NQX '
(ppm)
710.8
672.0
76A.O
723.5
Standard Deviation
(ppm)
176.6
173.4 .
101.8
108.2
Table 4-23. TEST RESULTS OF N0x DURING THE PADUCAH TEST SERIES
Test No.
P-5
P-7
P-8
P-16
PA-5
PA-6
IP-6
IP- 7
IP- 8
••
Influent Effluent
Concentration Concentration
( ppm) (ppm)
437
178
782
645
892
798
836
700
692
Average NO
402
811
741
608
846
763
800
845
647
Absorption (ppm) . . .
NO
Absorption
(ppm)
35
41
37
46
35
36
-
45
. . 39
Removal
(%)
4.2
-
5.2
5.7
5.2
4.4
4.3
.
6.5
65
-------
Table 4-24. SULFUR BALANCES FOR SELECTED TESTS AT
KEY WEST AND PADUCAH
Test
Number
C-20
C-21
C-22
C-23
C-34A
F-8
F-18
F-20
F-26
F-42
P-l
P-2
P-3
P-5
P-8
P-13
P-20
P-21
P-22
P-23
. . Liquid Stream
Sulfur Flow
Feed
0.0432
0.0140
0.0288
0.0173
0.0200
0.0080
0.0320
0.0064
010033
0.0189
0.0002
0.0004
0.0000
0.0001
0.0005
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0003
0.0003
(Ibs/min)
Disch
0.0600
0.0200
0.0445
0.0245
0.0242
0.0143
0.0489
0.0104
0.0053
0.0222
0.0055
0.0085
0.0065
0.0067
0.0084
0.0066
0.0074
0.0104
0.0198
0.0082
Gas St
Sulfur Flew
Influent
0.0486
0.0486
0.0989
0.0988
0.0932
0.0267
0.1027
0.1004
0.0513
0.0912
0.0902
0.0826
0.0822
0.1030
0.0896
0.1146
0.0084
0.0861
0.0877
0.0812
:ream
(Ibs/min)
Effluent
0.0071
0.0131
0.0431
0.0249
0.0247
0.0072
0.0532
0.0508
0.0128
0.0268
0.0432
0.0379
0.0245
0.0395
0.0558
0.0729
0.0345
0.0323
0.0303
0.0303
Total
1 Liquid & Gas Stream
Sulfur Flow ""• (Ibs/min)
Influent
0.0918
0.0626
0.1277
0.1161
0.1132
0.0347
0.1347
0.1068
0.0546
0.1101
0.0904
0.0830
0.0822
0.1031
0.0901
0.1148
0.0885
0.0861
0.0878
0.0813
Effluent
0.0671
0.0331
0.0876
0.0494
0.0489
0.0215
0.1021
0.0612
0.0181
0.4900
0.0487
0.4640
0.0310
0.0462
0.0642
0.0789
0.0419
0.0427
0.0413
0.0342
Sulfur
Accounted
For (X)
73.1
52.9
68.6
42.5
43.2
62.0
75.8
57.3
33.2
44.5
53.9
55.9
37.7
44.8
71.3
68.7
47.3
49.6
47.0
42.1
Key West:
Average Sulfur Accounted for 55.3%
Maximum Sulfur Accounted for 75.8%
Paducah:
Average Sulfur Accounted for 51.8%
Maximum Sulfur Accounted for 71.3%
Total Average Sulfur Accounted for 53.57%
66
-------
sulfur values might be attributed to the analytical technique used on the
liquid discharge stream. Slurry samples were sometimes allowed to stand
up to 24 hours before the total sulfur analysis (as SO, ) was performed.
This time period allowed sulfur to crystallize out of solution as the
dihydrate, CaSO,.2H.O. Although slurry samples were thoroughly mixed
prior to aliquot removal, the rapid settling that occurred made rep-
resentative sampling difficult. In addition, it is suspected that the
CaSO,.2H.O may not have been completely digested in the time allotted.
Either of these two situations could account for the low sulfur results
shown in Table 4-24.
-------
SECTION 5
DATA ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Five factorial experiments were conducted with the reactants to
determine the effects of the several independent variables. The five
factors investigated were: gas flow rate (GF) ; pressure drop (AP);
stoichiometric ratio (SR) ; particle size (PS) ; and slurry concentration
(SC). These experiments are summarized in Table 5-1.
TABLE 5-1. SUMMARY OF FACTORIAL EXPERIMENTS
Key West
Key West
Paducah
Type of
Design
Reactants
Studied
Factors
Studied and
Their Levels
Factors found
Statistically
Significant
at 95% level
Half Replicate of
a 2^ • 16 Runs
*-
Coral (C) and
Fredonia Valley Lime-
Stone (FVL)
GF(scfm) 1450 775
AP(in.H-O) 12.5 6.5
SR(mole7mole) 1:3 1:1
PS (mesh) 325 100
SC(%) 5 1
FG.tf.SR )
GFSC, PSC)
GF,/!P,SR for FVL
Half Replicate of
a 2 -4 runs
Dolomite (D) and
Hydrated Lime (HL)
GF(acfm) 2000 1000
AP 12.0 6.5
SR 1:3 1:1
PS Uncontrolled
SC 11
GF.AP.SR for D
£P,SR for HL
Full Replicate
of a 2 "16 runs
Fredonia Valley
Limestone (FVL)
GF(scfm)600 400
Ap 12.0 6.0
SR 1:2 1:1
PS 325 200
SC 33
GF,AP,SR for FVL
A factorial experiment is designed to test the significance of a number
of different operating factors simultaneiously. The proper application of
the method permits a rapid and Inexpensive method for determining the effects
of. each of the factors over the specified range. The interpretation,of the
results is difficult, however, and sound engineering judgement must be used
in assigning statistical significance to the conclusions. This judgement
68
-------
Table 5-2. KEY WEST TEST PROGRAM EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
REACTANTS:
Coral (C)
Fredonia Valley Limestone (FVL)
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Factors
GF AP SR PS SC
+
+
+
+ + - + -
+
+ - + +
+ + +
+ + +
+
+ . - + +
+ - + +
+ + - - +
+ + +
+ - + - +
+ + - +
+ + + + +
Responses
C
64.6
56.5
73.1
70.6
85.3
67.6
90.1
88.8
77.5
58.2
80.5
55.6
83.3
74.7
93.3
75.0
(% SO- Removal)
2FVL
71.1
48.3
76.6
76.4
78.9
74.4
90.4
82.6
73.7
50.0
75.0
49.4
88.5
68.7
90.5
86.0
Total Response. .
Average Response,
1195.2
74.7
1180.5
73.8
69
-------
may be based on knowledge of and experience with the physical and chemical
processes involved and the methods in which the factors act; comparison
of results with other similar experiments; or conducting additional tests
of factors whose significance is questionable.
In treatment of the data, classical analysis of the variance techniques
are used, details of which may be found in any elementary statistics text.
Important assumptions Involved in the use of these techniques include:
o Independence of the tests
o Normal distribution of the experimental errors
o Linearity of response (percent SO. removal) to each of the factors
in the range tested.
In general the analysis showed that in these experiments the three factors
GF, AF and SR were statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.
This means that one can be 95% confident that SO. removal efficiency is
different for the two levels tested for each factor. No conclusion can
be reached concerning the effect of levels outside the range tested nor
can it be concluded that one factor is more effective than another.
KEY WEST TESTS
The main test series at Key West consisted of half-replicate 2 factorial
experiments for each of two reactants, coral and Fredonia Valley limestone
(FVL). The factors and levels are listed below:
Factor Design Levels
High (+) Low (-)
GF - Gas flow (scfm) 1450 775
AP - Pressure drop (in.H.O) 12.0 6.5
SR - Stoichiometric ratio 1:3 1:1
PS - Particle size (mesh) 325 100
SC - Slurry concentration (%) 5 1
Table 5-2 shows the experimental design and the response measured as per-
cent SO. removal for the main Key West test program.
70
-------
A half replicate 2 factorial experiment permits determination of all
main effects and two-factor interactions. Each main effect is aliased
with a four-factor interaction and each two-factor interaction is aliased
with a three-factor interaction. If all third order and above interactions
are considered small (to be shown in the analysis of the Paducah tests,
following), the design permits independent estimates of the main effects
and two-factor interactions. However, if all two factor interactions are
considered Important, there remain no degrees of freedom to estimate the
error. Thus, the investigator must estimate the error mean square by the
engineering judgement mentioned above or by assuming, a priori, that some
specific two factor interactions are negligible.
The means of the response from the two reactants, 74.7% for coral and
73.8% for Fredonia Valley limestone, were tested for significant difference.
There was found to be no significant difference at the 99% confidence level.
Furthermore, the correlation coefficient between the sixteen pairs of data
points was calculated to be 0.89. These facts might indicate that the
physical and chemical processes involved were similar for each of the two
reactants and that any main effect or interaction that is assigned to ex-
perimental error in the one case should be so assigned in the other case.
In view of the lack of substantiating information concerning the estimation
of the error, an a priori judgement was made that differences in average
effect of less than 2% are within the range of experimental error.
Tables 5-3 and 5-4 show the analysis of the variance for the Key West coral
and limestone tests respectively. If the calculated effect is below this
value in either test, the values are used for the estimate of the error.
With this scheme only three main effects and two Interactions would remain.
An exception to this scheme is made in the main effect of particle size.
It has been shown that coral undergoes certain physical changes in the
presence of sea water in which the particles are retained in a colloidal
suspension, regardless of the original particle size distribution. For this
reason, particle size main effect is assigned to the error sum in the case
of coral but not in the case of limestone.
71
-------
Table 5-3. CORAL REACTANT ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE
KEY WEST TEST PROGRAM
Total
GF
AP
SR
PS
SC
GFAP
GFSR
GFPS
GFSC
APSR
APPS
APSC"
SRPS
SRSC
PSSC
Total Effects
1195.2
-101.2
58.8
122.0
-14.4
2.0
7.2
8.4
6.0
-42.0
12.8
25.2
-38.4
-36.8
-12.0
7.2
Average Effects
74.7
-12.7
7.4
15.3
-1.8
0.3
0.9
1.1
0.8
-5.3
1.6
3.2
-4.8
•^4.6
-1.5
0.9
TOTAL
Sum of
Squares
640.1
216.1
930.2
13.0
0.3
3.2
4.4
2.3
110.3
10.2
39.7
92.2
84.6
9.0
3.2
2158.8
Mean
Square
640.1
216.1
930.2
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
110.3
Error
Error
92.2
Error
Error
Error
F Ratio
37.7
12.7
54.7
6.5
5.5
Error sum of squares - 169.9
Error mean square - 17.0
FQ>95 (1,10) - 4.96
FQ 99 (1,10) = 10.04
72
-------
Table 5-4. FVL REACTANT ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE
KEY WEST TEST PROGRAM
Total
GF
AP
SR
PS
SC
GFAP
GFSR
GFPS
GFSC
APSR
APPS
APSC
SRPS
SRSC
PSSC
Total Effects
1180.5
108.9
73.3
139 . 5
43.1
-16.9
32.7
35.7
32:5
-38.3
4.7
14.3
-33.3
-5.9
31.7
-8.7
Average Effects
73.8
-13.6
9.2
17.4
5.4
-2.1
4.1
4.5
4.1
-4.8
0.6
1.8
-4.2
-0.7
4.0
-1.1
TOTAL ....
Sum of
Squares
741.2
335.8
1216.3
116.1
17.8
66.8
79.7
66.0
91.7
1.4
12.8
69.3
2.2
62.8
4.7
2884.6
Mean
Square
741.2
335.8
1216.3
116.1
Error
Error
Error
Error
91.7
Error
Error
69.3
Error
Error
Error
F Ratio
21.2
9.6
34.8
3.3
2.6
2.0
Error sum of squares - 314.2
Error mean square - 34.9
0.95
0.99
10'60
73
-------
Some further justification for the 2% cut-off value is provided by tests
conducted with limestone in Paducah. In this test series, where aliasing
does not occur, all interaction effects are small. A comparison of the
average effects for the two Key West and the one Paducah test series shows
considerable stability from one test to another.
As can be noted in the case of coral, three main effects and two inter-
actions are statistically significant at a confidence level of 95% pr
greater. In the case of limestone, only the three main effects are
significant. This is determined by comparing the F ratio, defined as
p m Factor Mean Square
Error Mean Square
with the significance values in the tables. For instance in Table 5-3
the F ratio for GF is
. 640.1 m
F 17.0 37'7
which is greater than Fn QQ • 10.04. Therefore, gas flow rate has a
U . yy
statistically significant effect on percent SO. removal by coral.
Prediction equations have been developed for relating response to the
significant factors:
Y- - 74.7 + I-12.7GF + 7.4AP 4- 15.3SR - 5.3(GFoSC) - 4.8( PoSC)] (5-1)
c
YFVL - 73.8 + [-13.6GF + 9.2AP + 17.4SR ] (5-2)
where Y_ and Y are percent SO. removal for coral reactant and limestone
L r VL> f.
reactant, respectively.
„,, gas flow (scfm) - 1112
GF " 675
AP pressure drop (H^O) - 9.25
or - 5.5
CD stoichlometric ratio - 2
SR . -
cr slurry concentration - 3
J>L - ^
These equations are given in this way to show their deviation. As can be
74
-------
Seen, the basic equations Include the average total response, Table 5-2,
and the average effects of each of the significant factors and inter-
actions, Tables 5-3 and 5-4, The constants in the definitions of the
variables are the average of the test design levels and the range of test
design levels.
There were nineteen additional tests in the coral and limestone series
at Key West which were not part of the factorial experiment. These
tests provided independent data to examine the accuracy of the prediction
equations. Figure 5-1 is a plot of predicted response versus actual re-
sponse for these' nineteen data points.
Figure 5-2 illustrates the response expected from the two significant
interactions in the coral reactant series. It appears that high slurry
concentration increases the change in response due to changes in gas flow
rate and decreases the change in response due to pressure drop changes.
Two additional reactants, dolomite and hydrated lime were tested in
half-replicate 2 experimental design programs at Key West. Table 5-5
shows the design criteria and the results of the tests. In this experi-
mental design each main factorial effect is allased with a two-factor
interaction. Further, the second order Interaction cannot be estimated
nor can the error mean square. A partial analysis of the variance is
given in Table 5-6.
75
-------
90
80
70
60
50
40
O Coral
& Limestone
30 40 50 60 70 80
ACTUAL RESPONSE-(%)
90
FIG. 5-1. PREDICTED RESPONSE VS. ACTUAL RESPONSE FOR INDEPENDENT DATA FROM THE
MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION FORMULA
76
-------
u
70
60
80
I
70
L H
SLURRY CONCENTRATION
60
i_
L H
SLURRY CONCENTRATION
RG. 5-2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT INTERACTIONS IN CORAL EXPERIMENTS
77
-------
Table 5-5. SECONDARY REACTANT TEST PROGRAM
AT KEY WEST TEST SITE
SECONDARY REACTANTS:
Dolomite (D)
Hydrated Lime (HL)
TEST PROGRAM
Response (% SO,, Removal)
Test No.
1
2
3
4
AP
6.5"
12.0"
6.5"
12.0"
Stoichiometry
1:1
1:1
1:3
1:3
Gas Flow Rate
2000 acfm
1000 acfm
1000 acfm
2000 acfm
D
32.6
51.8
51.7
51.2
HL '
86.4
94.9
93.4
97.5
Slurry concentration - 1% by wt.
Particle size - no control due to use of commercially
available materials.
Table 5-6. SECONDARY REACTANTS— ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE
KEY WEST TEST PROGRAM
Effect
Total
Gas Flow
Pressure
(GF)
Drop (AP)
Stoichiometric Ratio
(SR)
Total
Dolomite
Total
Effect
187.3
-19.7
18.7
18.5
Mean
Effect
46.8
-9.8
9.4
9.2
Mean
Square
97.0
87.4
85.6
270.0
Hydrated Lime
Total
Effect
372.2
-4.4
12.6
9>6
Mean
Effect
93.0
-2.2
6.3
4.8
Mean
Square
4.8
39.7
23.0
67.5
78
-------
Prediction equations for the secondary reactants are:
Y - 46.8 + [-9.8GF + 9.4AP + 9.2SR] (5-3)
and D
- 93.0 + [-2.2GF + 6.3AP + 4.8SR] (5-4)
where Y_ and Y_ are percent SCL removal for dolomite reactant and hydrated
u tlL /
lime reactant respectively.
„_ gas flow (acfm) - 1500
GF " 1000
AT> pressure drop (in.H,.0) - 9.25
AP . -_-*-, y-*
co stoichiometric ratio - 2
SR - -
An analysis of the variance in response to the two different reactants
showed a significant difference of the means at the 99.51 confidence
level.
PADUCAH TEST PROGRAM
4
A full replicate 2 factorial test program was conducted on the No. 9
unit at Paducah, using FVL as a reactant. The factors and levels are
listed below. Slurry concentration was constant at 3 in this test series.
Factor Design Level
High (+) Low (-)
GF - Gas Flow (scfm) 600 400
AP - Pressure drop (in.H.O) 12.0 6.0
SR - Stoichiometric ratio 1:2 1:1
PS - Particle size (mesh) 325 200
Table 5-7 shows the experimental design and the response measured as per-
cent SO- removal. The full replicate design permits determination of all
main effects and Interactions. With the criteria established earlier, i.e.
that effect values less than 2% in any test are considered error, all two-
factor Interactions would be used to estimate the error mean square.
Further, if all two-factor interactions are so considered, certainly higher
79
-------
Table 5-7. PADUCAH TEST PROGRAM EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
REACTANT: Fredonia Valley Limestone
SLURRY CONCENTRATION: 3% wt.
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Factors
GF AP SR PS
+
+ +
+ _ +
+ + +
+ + - +
+ + + +
+ - - +
+ - + +
+
_
+ +
+
+
+ - +
+ +
+ + +
Response (% SO. Removal)
Z
52.0
54.0
70.2
83.7
61.7
67.3
34.7
37.8
53.2
46.3
73.9
70.0
36.3
42.1
62.6
67.7
Total Response 913.5
Average Response 57.1
RO
-------
order interactions should be as well. Table 5-8 shows the analysis of the
variance for the Paducah limestone test program. It is seen that the three
main effects, gas flow, pressure drop, and stoichlometric ratio, are signi-
ficant at the 95% confidence level. A prediction equation for this test
series is given below:
Yp - 57.1 + [-11.6GF + 25.1AP + 5.7SR]
where Y is percent SO. removal.
__ gas flow rate (scfm) - 500
GF " 200
AP - pressure drop (in.H?0) - 9
6 *"^
SR - stoichtometric ratio - 1.5
No independent data are available for testing the accuracy of the prediction
equation.
LIQUID/GAS RATIO
Some evidence has been seen that only three factors are significant in
determining the S0« removal efficiency. Two of these factors, gas flow
and pressure drop (for a given size scrubber tube), uniquely determine the
liquid/gas ratio. Figure 5-3 is a plot of absorption efficiency versus
liquid/gas ratio for five of the reactants. The efficiencies for high and
low levels of stoichiometrlc ratios are shown as envelopes around the
mean response for each reactant. As can be noted, the efficiency Increases
rapidly with liquid/gas ratio up to about 140 gal/Mcf. After that point,
little additional Increase is achieved. Furthermore, it would appear that
increased efficiency is gained by increased reactivity of the slurry above
that from Increased stoichlometric ratio.
The three Paducah salt water simulation test points lie on the Key West
Limestone curve indicating that the difference in this curve and the
Paducah curve results from the different media (salt water and river water)
rather than the different size tubes.
81
-------
Table 5-8. FVL REACTANT - ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE
PADUCAH TEST PROGRAM
Total Effects
Total
GF
AP
SR
PS
GFAP
GFSR
GFPS
APSR
APPS
SRPS
GFAPSR
GFAPPS
GFSRPS
APSRPS
GFAPSRPS
913.5
-93.1
200.7
45.9
9.3
16.1
-6.7
-23.7
10.3
9.1
2.5
-6.7
1.1
-6.9
17.7
-11.3
Sum of
Average Effects Square
57.1
-11.6
25.1
5.7
1.2
2.0
-0.8
-3.0
1.3
1.0
0.3
-0.8
0.1
0.9
2.2
-1.4
TOTAL
541.7
2517.5
131.7
5.4
16.2
2.8
35.1
6.6
4.1
0.4
2.8
0.1
3.0
19.6
8.0
3295.0
Mean
Square
541.7
2517.5
131.7
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
F Ratio
62.3
289.4
15.1
Error sum of squares - 104.1
Error mean square - 8.7
FQ>95 (1,12) = 4.75
F (1,12) = 9.33
82
-------
oo
u>
100 120 140 160
LIQUID/GAS RATIO-gol/Mcf
200
FIG.5-3. ABSORPTION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION OF UQUID/GAS RATIO
-------
Further, at a given liquid/gas ratio, residence time in the 8 inch tube
is longer than in the 12 inch tube (Figures 4-1 and 4-2).
84
-------
SECTION 6
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based upon field observations and analysis
of the data.
PILOT PLANT EQUIPMENT
(1) Locating the scrubber fan at the outlet of the system caused solids
build up on the blades which ultimately resulted in fan failure due
to imbalance.
(2) Corrosion and pitting were experienced on the interior walls of the
316-SS scrubber body and the non-PVC piping and valving. This
corrosion and pitting appeared to be more severe, both in degree
and rate, when using silt water. However, this corrosion and
pitting did not result in failure of the scrubber body during the
ten months of pilot plant operation.
(3) Condensation was experienced in the non-insulated dry collector
and ductwork.
(4) The long hoses used to transport scrubber waste discharge frequently
clogged due to low flow rates.
(5) The pilot plant spray nozzles, intended for precontacting the
inlet flue gas, were rendered useless due to clogging and corrosion
before an evaluation could be made.
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
(1) An "ice-trap" condenser immediately following the S0_ sampling
probe operated in a satisfactory manner with the Dynasciences
SS-330 monitor.
(2) The Dynasciences SO- monitor performed satisfactorily.
(3) The use of one SO. monitor to measure both inlet and outlet flue gas
proved cumbersome and reduced the accuracy of the calculated
scrubber efficiency.
85
-------
(4) The phenoldisulfonic acid analysis for determining concentrations
of NO proved limited.
x
(5) The Annubar velocity measuring device performed very well, pro-
ducing accurate readings in a minimal length of time.
(6) The use of a non-heated probe and filter in the particulate
sampling train caused condensation and ultimate clogging of
the filter.
S02 ABSORPTION EFFICIENCY
(1) Absorption efficiency increased significantly with increased pressure
drop across the scrubber.
(2) Absorption efficiency increased significantly with decreased gas
flow rate through the tube.
(3) Absorption efficiency increased significantly with increased stoi-
chiometric ratio.
(4) There was no significant change in absorption efficiency resulting
from a change in reactant particle size.
(5) There was no significant change in absorption efficiency resulting
from a change in slurry concentration.
(6) The analysis of the factorial experiments showed no significant
interaction between or among the five factors listed above.
(7) Absorption efficiency is an increasing function of liquid to
gas ratio.
(8) For a given tube size and gas flow rate, liquid to gas ratio
increased with increasing pressure drop.
(9) For a given tube size and pressure drop, liquid to gas ratio was
a function of gas flow rate with maximum value near 600 scfm.
(10) For a given pressure drop and gas flow rate, liquid to gas ratio
increased with tube size.
86
-------
(11) Absorption efficiency was different with different reactants with
decreasing efficiency as follows:
Hydrated Lime
Precipitated Calcium Carbonate
Limestone
Coral
Spent Coral
Dolomite
(12) In the tests conducted, residence time within the tube had no
apparent effect on absorption efficiency.
(13) Addition of the catalyst (FeCl3> and/or the inhibitor (hydroquinone) to
the slurry produced no significant effect on absorption efficiency.
NO AND PARTICULATE REMOVAL
X
(1) NO removal in the Dustraxtor scrubber utilizing limestone type
reactants was negligible.
(2) Particulate removal by the total pilot plant system (dry collector
and Dustraxtor) was excellent though evidence of re-entrainment
of slurry solids was noted.
SCALE FORMATION
(1) Except during the injection tests, all scale formation that threatened
the operation of the pilot plant was eliminated by the Installation of
an annular fresh water spray ring around the lower few inches of the
Dustraxtor tube.
FULL SCALE SYSTEM
As Indicated by results of the pilot test program on a single-tube
open-loop Dustraxtor, scale-up to a full size unit (capable of handling
50,000 to 60,000 scfm) should not present any problems other than those
already encountered and discussed on the pilot scale level. However, to
handle larger quantities of boiler stack gases, the designer should
consider the potential unequal gas distribution in the scrubber as the
87
-------
number of tubes is increased. One solution might be to investigate the
possibility of using fewer tubes of larger diameter (e.g., 16 or 18 inch)
to increase scrubber capacity.
88
-------
APPENDIX A
DETAILS OF ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
S02 APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE
Sampling of flue gas for SO. determination was accomplished by passing
the sample gas through a Dynasciences Model SS-330 S0~ monitor, the
output of which was continuously recorded on a strip chart recorder.
Once the instrumentation was "debugged", operation of the equipment
was simple and required little operator time. Based upon wet chemical
analyses, it was found to be very accurate.
The complete sampling train is shown in Figure A-l. The sampling
probe used at all three sample locations consisted of stainless steel
tubing 6 inches long x 1/4 inch O.D. A 500 ml flask was placed after
the sampling probe to trap any moisture which may have condensed in
the sampling tube. The dry trap was completely immersed in an ice
bath to cool the sample gas to approximately 32°F. A single acting
diaphragm pump drew the gas sample through approximately 15 feet of
Tygon tubing. A tee located in the sample line was fitted with a 1/4
inch needle valve. Excess gas, pumped by the diaphragm pump, which
did not flow through the monitor was vented.
The Dynasciences SO. monitor is an electrochemical gas analyzer. The
sample gas is passed over a selective permeable membrane, where the
SO. Is absorbed on a sensing electrode to form activated species
capable of undergoing electro-oxidation. The resulting current: is
directly proportional to the partial pressure of S02 in the gas mixture.
The current is amplified and the output of the amplifier recorded.
The sampling procedure is as follows:
1. Connect the sampling train to zero gas (nitrogen) and zero
the SO. monitor.
2. Connect the sampling train to the calibration gas (guaranteed
analysis gas - sulfur dioxide and nitrogen) and calibrate the
SO. monitor.
89
-------
1/4" SS Probe
Ice Bath
Tubing
Needle Valve
Vent
Oynasciences
SS-330
Monitor
FIG. A-1. S02 SAMPLING APPARATUS
90
-------
3. Connect the sampling train to the pilot plant making sure
that all joints are gas-tight. Make sure the appropriate
sampling line is open and connected with the sampling train.
4. Turn on the pump and adjust the gas flow rate through the
SO, monitor (approximately 1 scfm).
DUST LOADING APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE
The patticulate sampling train is shown in Figure A-2. The probe,
consisting of 1/4 inch stainless steel tubing, was connected to the
first Greenberg-Smith impinger by a 4 foot length of Tygon tubing.
Impingersf:No. 1 and No. 2 were each filled with 200 ml of distilled
water. Impinger No. 3 was dry and used as a water trap.
In operation, the gas velocity through the duct was calculated before
the start of the particulate sampling by means of the Annubar flow
measuring element. The apparatus was assembled and the probe inserted
into the center of the duct, open end upstream. Initial dry gas meter
readings were recorded and the vacuum pump started. The flow rate
through the dry gas meter was determined with a stop watch by measuring
the time required for 0.1 ft3 of gas to be pulled through the meter.
The flow was then regulated by means of a gas control valve until
the flow rate through the probe equalled the flow rate through the
duct and an isokinetic condition existed. Between 10 and 20 standard
cubic feet of gas was drawn through the train. The temperature
and pressure inside the dry gas meter were recorded from the attached
thermometer and vacuum gauge; the vacuum pump was shut off and the
final dry gas meter reading was recorded.
NITROGEN OXIDE APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE
Principle
Stack gas samples are collected in evacuated flasks containing an
absorbent consisting of hydrogen perioxide in dilute sulfuric acid.
The nitric acid formed by the oxidation and absorption of nitrogen
oxides Is used to nitrate phenoldisulfonic acid which, when
91
-------
Pnbi la Duel
Impinger No.l
(H20)
Tomporoton
Impinger No.2
(H20)
Impinger No. 3
Dry
Drr Gis Motor
Vacuum Pump
FIG. A -2. PARTICULATE SAMPLING TRAIN
-------
reacted with ammonium hydroxide, forms a yellow compound (5-nitro,
6 hydroxy, 1, 3-benzenedisulfonic acid, triammonium salt). The
intensity of the color produced is proportional to the concentration
of nitrogen oxides in the sample and is measured spectrophotometri-
cally at 420 my.
Interference
Inorganic nitrates, nitrites, or organic bearing compounds easily
oxidized to nitrates and interfere with this method. Reducing agents, such
as S0_, when present in high concentrations, may Interfere by reacting
with the hydrogen peroxide in the absorbing reagent to leave an in-
sufficient amount for reaction with the nitrogen oxides. Halides tend
to Interfere, if present, and give lower results.
Reagents
Hydrogen peroxide solution - Dilute 10 ml of 30 percent
H-O- to 100 ml in a 100 ml volumetric flask with water.
Sulfuric acid (0.1 N) - Dilute 2.8 ml of concentrated H.SO, to
£• •§•
1 liter with water.
Absorbing reagent - Dilute 6 ml of 3 percent H_0. to 1 liter with
0.1 N H.SO,. This solution is stable and may be used for at
least 30 days. Analyses in this laboratory have shown that
the percent H.O. in the absorbing reagent remained constant
over a 49 day period.
Sodium hydroxide (1 N) - Dissolve 40 gm of NaOH pellets in water
and dilute to 1 liter.
Ammonium hydroxide (concentrated)
Sulfuric acid (fuming)
93
-------
Phenoldisulfonic acid solution - Dissolve 25 grams of pure
white phenol in 150 ml of concentrated H.SO. on a steam bath.
Cool and add 75 ml fuming sulfuric acid. Heat to 100°C for 2
hours. Store in a dark stoppered reagent bottle.
Potassium nitrate solution (standard) - Dissolve 0.5495 grams
of KNO- in 1 liter of water in a volumetric flask. Dilute
100 ml of this solution to 1 liter in a volumetric flask.
One ml of the final solution is equivalent to 0.025 mg NO..
Collection of Samples
Emission sources containing oxides of nitrogen are sampled by a grab
sampling technique using an evacuated 250 ml flask.
The following procedure is used for the collection of samples: Add
25 ml of absorbing solution to the sample flask. Evacuate the flask
to the vapor pressure of the absorbing solution (approximately 20 mm
Hg). Disconnect the vacuum pump line and accurately measure the
vacuum in the flask. Connect the flask to the sample line and allow
the flask to fill with a sample of stack gas until there is very little
or no vacuum left. Measure precisely the final vacuum in the flask
and record the flask temperature. Shake the flask for 15 minutes and
allow to stand overnight to ensure complete reaction and absorption
of the nitrogen oxides.
Analysis
Transfer the contents of the collection flask to a 250 ml beaker.
Wash the flask three times with 10 ml of water and add to the beaker.
For a blank, add 25 ml of absorbing solution and 30 ml of water to a
250 ml beaker. Proceed as follows for both the sample and blank:
Add 1 N NaOH dropwlse to the beaker until the solution is alkaline to
litmus paper. Evaporate to dryness on a steam bath and allow to cool.
Add 2 ml of phenoldisulfonlc acid solution to the residue and triturate
thoroughly with a glass stirring rod. Make sure all the residue comes in
94
-------
contact with the solution. Add 1 ml HO and 4 drops of concentrated
H-SO, . Heat the solution on the steam bath for 3 minutes with occasional
stirring.
Allow the solution to cool, add 20 ml H.O, mix well, and add 10 ml of
concentrated NH.OH, dropwlse, with constant stirring. Transfer the
solution to a 50 ml volumetric flask. Wash the beaker three times with
5 ml portions of water. Dilute to 50 ml and mix thoroughly. Transfer a
portion of the solution to a centrifuge tube and centrifuge for several
minutes. If no centrifuge is available, filter the solution.
Determine the absorbency of each sample at 420 my. If the absorbency
is outside the range of the calibration curve (e.g., absorbency >0.6),
make a suitable dilution of the sample and blank and determine the
absorbency. Obtain the number of milligrams of N0» present in the
sample from a previously prepared calibration curve, where absorbency
was plotted versus concentration.
Calculations
Calculate the concentration of oxides of nitrogen as N0_ in parts per
million by volume as follows:
ppm
s
where C = concentration of N0~, mg
V = gas sample volume at 70°F and 29.92 in. Hg, liters
o
Calculate the volume of gas sampled at standard conditions of 70 °F,
29.92 in. Hg.
Vf(Pf-P±) x 530°R
Volume of gas sampled = Tf x 29.92 in. Hg
where Vf = flask volume, liters
Pf = final flask pressure, in. Hg
P. = initial flask pressure, in. Hg
T- = flask temperature, °R
95
-------
CALCIUM—EDTA TITRIMETRIC METHOD
Principle
When EDTA (ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid or its salts) is added to
water containing both calcium and magnesium, it combines first with the
calcium that is present. Calcium can be determined directly using EDTA
when the pH is made sufficiently high so that the magnesium is largely
precipitated as the hydroxide and an indicator is used which combines
with the calcium only. Several indicators are available that will give
a color change at the point where all of the calcium has been complexed
by the EDTA at a pH of 12-13.
Interference
Under conditions of this test, the following concentrations of ions
cause no interference with the calcium hardness determination: copper,
2 tog/1; ferrous iron, 20 mg/1; ferric iron, 20 mg/1; manganese, 10 mg/1;
zinc, 5 mg/1; lead, 5 mg/1; aluminum, 5 mg/1; tin, 5 mg/1. Ortho-
phosphate will precipitate calcium at the pH of the test. Strontium
and barium Interfere with the calcium determination and alkalinity
in excess of 30 mg/1 may cause an indistinct endpoint with hard waters.
Reagents
Sodium hydroxide, IN- Dissolve 40 g NaOH and dilute to 1 liter
with distilled water.
Murexide (ammonium purpurate) was prepared by mixing it with NaCl.
a. Analytical reagent grade disodium ethylenediamine tetraacetate
dihydrate, also called (ethylenedinitrilo) tetraacetic acid disodium
salt (EDTA), Na0H0C. -H.. 00QN • 2H.O, is commercially available. Weigh
/ L 1U J.Z o i /
3.723 g of the dry reagent, dissolve in distilled water, and dilute
to 1,000 ml. Check the titer by standardizing against standard calcium
solution.
96
-------
b. The technical grade of the disodium salt of EDTA dlhydrate may
also be used if the titrant is allowed to stand for several days and
is then filtered. Dissolve 4.0 g of such material in 800 ml distilled
water. Standardize against standard calcium solution. Adjust the
titrant so that 1.00 ml - 1.00 mg CaCO..
Because the titrant extracts haedness-producing cations from soft glass
containers, store preferably in polyethylene and secondarily in Pyrex
bottles. Compensate for gradual deterioration by periodic restandardi-
zation and a suitable correction factor.
Procedure
Because of the high pH used in this procedure, the titration should be
performed immediately after the addition of the alkali.
Use 1 ml of sample diluted to 50 ml with water.
Add 2.0 ml NaOH solution, or a volume sufficient to produce a pH of
12-13. Stir. Add 0.1-0.2 g of the indicator mixture selected (or
1-2 drops if a solution is used). Add EDTA titrant slowly with continuous
stirring to the proper endpolnt. When using murexide, the endpoint may
be checked by adding 1 or 2 drops of titrant in excess to make certain
that no further color change occurs.
Calculation: 1 ml EDTA = 0.4008 mg Ca"*"1"
_l_l_
Ca mg/1 or ppm = Vol. EDTA x 0.4008 x 1000
MAGNESIUM—EDTA TITRIMETMC METHOD
Principle
EDTA and its soldum salts form a chelated soluble complex when added to
a solution of certain metal cations. If a small amount of a dye such as
Eriochrome Black T is added to an aqueous solution containing calcium and
magnesium ions at a pH of 10.0 + 0.1, the solution will become wine red.
97
-------
If EDTA is then added as a titrant, the calcium and magnesium will be
complexed. After sufficient EDTA has been added to complex all the
magnesium and calcium, the solution will turn from wine red to blue.
This is the endpoint of the titration. Magnesium ion must be present
to yield a satisfactory endpoint in the titration. A small amount of
complexometrically neutral magnesium salt of EDTA is therefore added
to the buffer, a step which automatically introduces sufficient
magnesium and at the same time obviates a blank correction.
The sharpness of the endpoint increases with increasing pH. The
pH, however, cannot be increased indefinitely because of the danger
of precipitating CaCO~ or Mg(OH)2» and because the dye changes color
at high pH values. The pH value of 10,0 + 0.1 recommended in this
procedure is a satisfactory compromise. A limit of 5 minutes is set
for the duration of the titration in order to minimize the tendency
toward CaCO- precipitation.
Interference
Some metal ions interfere with this procedure by causing fading or in-
distinct endpolnts. This interference is reduced by the addition of
certain inhibitors to the water sample prior to titration with EDTA.
Suspended or colloidal organic matter in the sample may also interfere
with the endpoint but may be overcome by evaporating the aliquot to
dryness on a steam bath, followed by heating in a muffle furnace at
600°C until the organic matter is completely oxidized. Dissolve the
residue in 20 ml 1 N HC1, neutralize to pH 7 with 1 N NaOH, and make
up to 50 ml with distilled water; cool to room temperature and continue
according to the general procedure.
Titration Precautions
Titrations are best conducted at or near normal room temperatures. The
color change becomes impractically slow as the sample approaches freezing
temperature. Indicator decomposition presents a problem in hot water.
98
-------
The. pH specified in the recommended procedure may result in an environ-
ment conducive to CaCO_ precipitation. Although the titrant can
slowly redissolve such precipitates, a drifting endpoint will often
yield low results. A time limit of 5 minutes for the overall procedure
minimizes the tendency for CaCO- to precipitate. The following three
methods also combat precipitation loss:
a. The samples can be diluted with distilled water to reduce the
CaCO- concentration. The simple expedient of diluting a 25 ml aliquot
to 50 ml has been incorporated in the recommended procedure. If pre-
cipitation occurs at this dilution, modification b or c can be fol-
lowed. Reliance upon too small an aliquot contributes a systematic
error originating from the buret-reading error.
b. If the approximate hardness of a sample is known or is ascertained
by a preliminary titration, 90 per cent or more of the titrant can be
added to the sample before the pH is adjusted with the buffer.
c. The sample can be acidified and stirred for 2 minutes to expel
C0? before pH adjustment with the buffer. A prior alkalinity deter-
mination can indicate the amount of acid to be added to the sample
for this purpose.
Reagents
Buffer solution - Dissolve 1.179 g disodium salt of EDTA di-
hydrate and 0.644 g MgCl2 • 6H20 in 50 ml distilled water.
Add this solution to 16.9 g NH^Cl and 143 ml cone. NH.OH
with mixing and dilute to 250 ml with distilled water.
Eriochrome Black T is mixed with NaCl and used as an
Indicator.
Standard EDTA titrant, 0.01M. Analytical reagent grade
disodium ethylenediamlne tetraacetate dihydrate, also
called (ethylenedinitrilo) tetraacetic acid disodium
salt (EDTA), Na2H2C10H12°8H2 * 2H2°' is commerclally
available. Weigh 3.723 g of the dry reagent, dissolve
in distilled water, and dilute to 1,000 ml. Check the
titer by standardizing against standard calcium solution.
99
-------
Procedure
The aliquot of sample taken for the titration should require less than
15 ml of EDTA tltrant. The duration of titration should not exceed
5 minutes measured from the time of the buffer addition.
Dilute 1 ml of the sample to 50 ml with distilled water. Add 1-2 ml
of buffer solution. Add an appropriate amount of dry-powder indicator.
Add EDTA to the endpoint.
Calculation
11
1 ml EDTA « 0.2431 mg Mg (The calcium concentration, determination
by the EDTA method, is required for this calculation since the volume
11 [ |
of EDTA used in the above titration is consumed by both Ca and Mg
ions.)
Vol. EDTA Mg""" - Total EDTA Vol. - Vol. EDTA Ca""" (from prior Ca"""
titration)
mg Mg"""/! - Vol. EDTA Mg""" x 0.2431 x 1000
CHLORIDE—ARGENTOMETRIC METHOD
Principle
In a neutral or slighly alkaline solution, potassium chromate can be used
to indicate the endpoint of the silver nitrate titration of chloride.
Silver chloride is quantitatively precipitated before red silver chromate
is formed.
Interference
Substances in amounts normally found in potable waters will not interfere.
Bromide, iodide, and cyanide register as equivalent chloride concentrations.
Sulfide, thiosulfate, and sulfite ions interfere. However, sulfite can
be removed by treatment with hydrogen perdxide in a neutral solution,
while sulfite and thiosulfate can be removed by treatment with hydrogen
peroxide in alkaline solution. Orthophosphate in excess of 25 mg/1
100
-------
interferes by precipitation as silver phosphate. Iron in excess of
10 mg/1 will interfere by masking the endpoint.
Reagents
Chloride-free water - If necessary, remove any chloride
impurity from distilled water by redistillation from
an all-pyrex apparatus or passage through a mixed bed
of ion-exchange resins.
Potassium chromate indicator solution - Dissolve 50 g
K2CrO^ in a little distilled water. Add silver nitrate
solution until a definite red precipitate is formed.
Allow to stand 12 hrs , filter, and dilute filtrate
to 1 liter with distilled water.
Standard silver nitrate titrant, 0.0141 N - Dissolve 2.396 g
AgN03 in distilled water and dilute to 1,000 ml. Stan-
dardize against 0.0141 N NaCl. Store in a brown bottle.
Standard silver nitrate solution, exactly 0.0141 N, is
equivalent to 0.500 mg Cl per 1.00 ml.
NITRITE
Principle
Diazotized sulfanilic acid, formed by the reaction between sulfanilic
acid and NO., forms a reddish-purple azo dye by coupling with riapthy-
lamine hydrochloride at pH 2 to 2.5. The nitrite concentration is
determined by spectrophotometrically measuring this dye at 520 m .
Interference
This method is not interfered with by relatively large amounts, up to
1,000 times, of the alkaline earths, zinc, nickel, arsenate, benzoate,
borate, bromide, chloride, fluoride, iodate, molybdate, nitrate, phosphate,
101
-------
sulfate, and thlocyanate. Numerous heavy metals such as gold, lead,
bismuth, iron, or mercury interfere by precipitation and others because
of colored salts. Aliphatic amines react with nitrites to liberate
gaseous nitrogen. Ammonia does not interfere in the small concentrations
usually encountered. Strong reducing or oxidizing agents should be
absent.
Reagents
Sulfanilic acid solution - Dissolve 0.60 g sulfanilic acid
in 70 ml hot distilled water, cool, add 20 ml cone. HC1,
dilute to 100 ml with distilled'water, and mix thoroughly.
Naphthylamine hydrochloride solution - Dissolve 0.60 g 1-
naphthylamine hydrochloride and 1 ml cone. HC1 in
distilled water and dilute to 100 ml.
Sodium acetate solution, 2M - Dissolve 16.4 g NaC2H,02 or
27.2 g NaC2H302 • 3H20 in distilled water and dilute
to 100 ml. Filter if the solution is not clear.
Stock sodium nitrite solution - Dissolve 0.492 g NaN02 in
1,000 ml nitrite-free distilled water.
Standard sodium nitrite solution - Dilute 100.0 ml stock
sodium nitrite solution to 1,000 ml; then dilute 50.0
ml of this solution to 1,000 ml with sterilized nitrite-
free distilled water, add 1 ml chloroform, and preserve
in a sterilized bottle; 1.0 ml = 0.5 ug [N] or 1.6 yg
N0~.
Manganese sulfate solution - Dissolve 480 g MnSO, • 4 H90 or
400 g MnS04 • 2 H20 or 364 g MnSO^ • H20 in distilled water,
filter, and dilute to 1 liter.
Potassium permanganate solution - Dissolve 0.4 g KMnO, in 1
liter distilled water.
102
-------
Ammonium oxalate solution - Dissolve 0.9 g
in 1 liter distilled water.
Nitrite-free water - Add 1 ml cone. H_SO, and 0.2 ml man-
ganous sulfate solution to 1 liter distilled water and
make pink with 1 to 3 ml potassium permanganate solution.
After 15 minutes decolorize with ammonium oxalate solution.
Procedure
Using appropriate dilutions of standard sodium nitrite solution,
prepare a curve for various N0~ concentrations ranging from 0.05 to
1.4 mg N0~/I and plot against absorption at 320 m on a spectrophotometer
using a light path of 2 cm.
Place a 10 ml sample In the tube. Measure 1.0 ml sulfanilic acid
solution into the diluted sample, mix, and allow to stand at least 3
minutes and not more than 10 minutes for diazotization. The pH of
this solution should be about 1.4
Add 1.0 ml napthylamine hydrochloride solution and 1 ml sodium acetate
solution. This should buffer the system to a pH of 2.5. Dilute to
50 ml and mix well. After 10 minutes, but before 20 minutes, measure
the intensity of the reddish-purple color in a spectrophotometer, a
filter photometer, or by comparison in Nessler tubes.
Calculation
Read N0= mg/1 directly from the calibration curve.
NITRATE—BRUCINE METHOD
Principle
The reaction between nitrate and bruclne yields a sulfur yellow color
employed for colorlmetric estimation. The color system does not obey
Beer's law, although in plotting transmlttance against nitrate concentration
103
-------
a smooth curve Is produced. It is necessary to develop color simulta-
neously in a series of standards and samples. The intensity of the
color is measured at 410 m .
The intensity of the maximum color produced varies more or less inverse-
ly with the temperature, while the rate of color development varies
more or less directly with the temperature. The temperature generated
upon mixing sulfuric acid with water can be controlled by adjusting
the acid concentration. Both the acid concentration and the reaction
time have been selected to yield optimum results and to compensate for
any normal variations in room temperature.
Interference
All strong oxidizing or reducing agents interfere. The presence of
oxidizing agents may be determined by the addition of orthotolidine
reagent as in the measurement of residual chlorine. The interference
by residual chlorine may be eliminated by the addition of sodium arsenite,
provided that the residual chlorine does not exceed 5 mg/1. A slight
excess of sodium arsenite will affect the determination. Ferrous and
ferric iron and quadrivalent manganese give slight positive interferences,
but in concentrations less than 1 mg/1 these interferences are minimized
by the use of sulfanilic acid. Chlorides do not interfere.
Reagents
Stock nitrate solution - Dissolve O.Z218 g anhydrous potas-
sium nitrate, KNO-, and dilute to 1,000 ml with distilled
water. This solution contains 100 mg/1 N.
Standard nitrate solution - Dilute 100.0 ml stock nitrate
solution to 1,000 ml wi.th distilled water; 1.00 ml =
10.0 pg N.
104
-------
Sodium arsenite solution - Dissolve 5.0 g NaAsCK and dilute
to 1 liter with distilled water. (CAUTION: Toxic; take
care to avoid ingestion.)
Brucine-sulfanilic acid - Dissolve 1 g brucine sulfate and
0.1 g sulfanilic acid in approximately 70 ml hot distilled
water. Add 3 ml cone. HC1, cool and make up to 100 ml.
This solution is stable for several months. The pink
color that develops slowly does not affect its usefulness.
(CAUTION: Brucine is toxicj take care to avoid ingestion.)
Sulfuric acid solution - Carefully add 500 ml of cone. H SO,
to 74 ml distilled water. Cool to room temperature before
use. Keep tightly stoppered to prevent absorption of
atmospheric moisture.
Procedure
Prepare a calibration curve by plotting concentrations from 0.1 to
2.6 mg/1 N0~ against absorption at 410 m on a spectrophotometer using
a light path of 2 cm.
Color Development
Carefully pipet 2.00 ml of sample containing not more than 10 mg/1
nitrogen Into a 50 ml beaker. Add 1.0 ml brucine-sulfanilic acid reagent,
using a safety plpet. Into a second 50 ml meaker measure 10 ml H.SO,.
(An automatic buret Is convenient for this purpose. The intensity of
color Is affected slightly by the heat capacity of the containers. The
concentration of H-SO, has been chosen so that normal variations In
heat capacities of beakers will not affect the result. It is important,
however, that only 50 ml beakers be used.) Mix the contents of the two
beakers by carefully adding the sample with brucine-sulfanilic acid
reagent to the beaker containing acid. Pour from one beaker to the other
four to six times to ensure mixing. Allow the treated sample to remain
In the dark for 10+1 minutes. (The beaker may conveniently be covered
105
-------
with a cardboard carton during this period.) While the sample is
standing for color development, measure 10 ml distilled water into the
empty beaker. After 10 minutes, add the water to the sample and mix as
before. Allow to cool in the dark for 20-30 minutes. Set the blank at
100 per cent transmittance at a wave-length of 410 m**. It is advisable
to run a series of standards with each set of samples. With a proper
arrangement of work, as many as twelve samples may be determined in a
batch along with eight standards.
Calculation
Read NO.mg/1 directly from the calibration curve.
SULFITE
Principle
An acidified water sample containing sulfite is titrated with a
standardized potassium iodide-iodate tltrant. Free iodine is released
when the sulfite has been completely oxidized, resulting in the
formation of a blue color in the presence of starch Indicator.
Interference
The presence of other oxldlzable substances in the water such as organic
matter and sulfide will result in higher titratlon values for sulfite
than are actually present. Nitrite, on the other hand, will combine with
sulfite in the acid medium to destroy both, leading to low results. No
interference occurs with the Dual-Purpose Dry Starch Indicator Powder
because the sulfonic acid in this proprietary compound destroys the
nitrite. Copper ion rapidly accelerates the oxidation of sulfite solution.
Certain heavy metals may also react in a manner similar to coppper. Proper
sampling and Immediate fixing by acid addition should minimize those
difficulties.
106
-------
Reagents
.Sulfuric acid, 1+1.
Starch solution - To 5 g starch (potato, arrowroot, or
soluble) In a mortar, add a little cold distilled water and
grind to a paste. Pour into 1 liter of boiling distilled
water, stir, and allow to settle overnight. Use the clear
supernant. Preserve by adding either 1.3 g salicylic acid,
4 g zinc chloride, or a combination of A g sodium proplonate
and 2 g sodium azide to 1 liter of starch solution.
Standard potassium iodide-iodate titrant, 0.0125 N - Dissolve
0.4458 g anhydrous potassium iodate, KIO, (primary stan-
dard grade dried for several hours at 120°C) , 4.35 g
potassium iodide, KI, and 0.31 g sodium bicarbonate,
NaHCO., in distilled water, and dilute to 1,000 ml.
J «.
This titrant is equivalent to 0.500 rag SO- per 1.00 ml.
Procedure
Collect a fresh water sample with as little contact with air as possible.
Cool hot samples to
filter the samples.
Cool hot samples to 50 C or below in the cooling apparatus. Do not
Add 1 ml H.SO, (or 1 g dual-purpose starch indicator) to a 250 ml
Erlenmeyer flask or other titrating vessel, then measure 50 ml water
sample in a graduated cylinder, and transfer to the flask. Add 1 ml
starch Indicator solution or 0.1 g starch powder. Titrate with potassium
iodide-iodate titrant until a faint permanent blue color develops in the
sampel, signaling the end of the titration. View the color changes against
a white background.
107
-------
Calculation
mg/1 S0° equals A x N x 40.000
ml sample
where: A = ml of titrant used for sample
N - normality of KI-KIO..
SULFATE -- GRAVIMETRIC METHOD
Principle
Sulfate is precipitated in a hydrochloric acid medium as barium sulfate
by the addition of barium chloride. The precipitation is carried out
near the boiling temperature and, after' a period of digestion, the
precipitate is filtered, washed with water until free of chlorides,
ignited or dried, and weighed as BaSO,.
Interference
The gravimetric determination of sulfate is subject to many errors, both
positive and negative. In potable waters where the mineral concentration
is low, these may:be of minor importance. The analyst should be familiar
with the more common interferences, however, so that he may apply
corrective measures when necessary.
Reagents
Methyl red indicator solution - Dissolve 0.1 g methyl red
sodium salt in distilled water and dilute to 100 ml.
Hydrochloric acid- 1+1.
Barium chloride solution - Dissolve 100 g BaCl2 • 2H20 in
1 liter distilled water. Filter through a membrane filter
or hard-finish filter paper before use; 1 ml of this
reagent is capable of precipitating approximately 40 mg
S0=
108
-------
Asbestos cream - Add 15 g acid-washed medium-fiber asbestos,
which is prepared especially for Gooch crucible determina-
tions, to 1 liter distilled water. Remove the fine
material from the asbestos before use by repeated decan-
tations.
Silver nitrate-nitric acid •>• Dissolve 8.5 g AgNO» and 0.5 ml
cone. HNO_ in 500 ml distilled water.
Procedure
Adjust the clarified sample — treated if necessary to remove inter-
fering agents — to contain approximately 50 mg of sulfate ion in a
250 ml volume. Adjust the acidity with HC1 to pH 4.5-5.0 using a pH
meter or the orange color of methyl red Indicator. Then add on additional
1 to 2 ml HC1. Lower concentrations of sulfate ion may be tolerated if
It Is Impractical to concentrate the sample to the optimum level, but
In such cases It Is better to fix the total volume at 150 ml. Heat the
solution to boiling and, while stirring gently, add warm barium chloride
solution slowly until precipitation appears to be complete; then add
about 2 ml In excess. If the amount of precipitate is small, add a total
of 5 ml barium chloride solution. Digest the precipitate at 80°-90°C,
preferably overnight but for not less than 2 hours.
Prepare an asbestos filter mat in a Gooch crucible by using suitable
suction apparatus. Wash with several portions of hot distilled water,
dry, and ignite at 800°C for 1 hour. Cool the crucible in a desiccator
and weigh.
Mix a small amount of ashless filter paper pulp with the barium sul-
fate, and filter at room temperature. The pulp aids filtration and
reduces the tendency of the precipitate to creep. Wash the precipi-
tate with small portions of warm distilled water until the washings
are free of chlorides, as indicated by testing with silver nitrate-
109
-------
nitric acid reagent. Dry the filter and precipitate and Ignite at
800°C for 1 hour. Do not allow the filter paper to flame. Cool In a
desiccator and weight.
Calculation
»g/l S0; equals mgBag°4 * 411'5
ml sample
110
-------
APPENDIX B
ANNUBAR FLOW ELEMENT, CALCULATION EQUATIONS,
AND ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS
Supplied by
Ellison Instrument Division
Boulder, Colorado
111
-------
SECTION C
ELLISON
ANNUBAR FLOW
CALCULATION REPORT
• TUX +m-mo» • CABLB i
Annubar Primary Elements, like other differential mea-
•uring flow elements, utilize a form of the classical
Bernoulli energy balance equation to determine flow
rate. But, unlike most other flow elements, Annubar's
differential pressure signal is consistent and uniform
for • given pipe size and flow condition. Since it is
uniform, only the operating range of the Instrument or
control system needs to be sized. This feature reduces
calculations and also allows future changes to a sys-
tem's flow rate without the necessity of resizing and
changing primary elements.
Sizing the operating range of the instrument to be used
with an Annubar element is made easy with the charts
and formulas shown below. If you prefer to have Elli-
son compute your instrument's operating range there is
a small charge for this engineering service.
HELPFUL HINTS FOR SIZING
1. Select one of the calculation methods shown below
according to your accuracy requirements.
2. When flow Is liquid, check your result against the
•Quick-Size* chart in the Annubar catalogue, E-100.
This is a fast way to double check calculations. ,
3. If your system's flow rates are extremely high or ex-
tremely low, it may be desirable to change the pipe
•tee for the metered section. Changing diameters of
the metered section will not affect accuracy providing
sufficient upstream and downstream lengths of pipe
are provided see Table II.
4. Contact your local Ellison Engineering Representative
or our factory if you need any further information
or help In sizing your instrument's operating range
.... we are here to serve you.
EASY INSTRUMENT SIZING
Select flic calculation method that meets your needs:
A. QUICK-SIZE CHART - fastest sizing for water
flows — see chart on the fold-out section of the
Annubar catalogue, E-100.
8. STANDARD 'PLANT* EQUATIONS - for general
industrial metering needs .... see "B" below.
C. PRECISE "THEORETICAL" EQUATIONS - for
highest accuracy requirements and laboratory work
.... see *C~ on next page.
D. SLIDE RULE CALCULATOR - convenient for fast
sizing of gases, liquids, and steam. Request form
E-A7 from your Ellison Representative.
-B" STANDARD 'PLANT" EQUATIONS
lb. Liquid volume flow rate.
.or b, =
Q.Gi
SND*
2b. Liquid weight flow rate,
.or
3b. -Gas volume flow rate at standard condition,*
= 7.9SND'-
4b. Cat or steam weight flow rate,
.or
h.=
112
-------
-pai T!W 4 t«e
2-to2'i-Plpe -Kf.O.tT*
3- to 4- Pipe _ Kf - 0.877
5- lo 6" Pip. _ Kf • O.S7*
8' Pipe - Kf « 0.8*7
10- Pipe - Kf « O.tM
12- Pipe - Kf - 0.90*
14- Pipe - Kf - O.tIT
16- Pipe - Kf - O.SM
18- Pipe - Kf - O.MS
20- Pipe - K* •» O.S4*
24* Pipe - K« . O.M*
F. = Velocity distribution factor:
F, = 0.82 IDT tnmlUoci «nd nubuleu Bov.
V. = Gas adiabatic compression factor. Velocities below
12,000 ft/min. use 1.00.
k = lUUo of ifecllk kwb. or tamtroolc txpoateL CUM wkkk
follow dM perhcl *M law (Diatomic faeet vaA u Oiyfta,
Hy^rofta, NBrofem. Air am) etc.) ban k = 1.40 naw
(M4)
P. = Upnnui itttlc piwrare to
P, = T«erf »r Imptcl pfeMun
• Mr** vWi dlf Hal wulpmtM h raraeoMwM.
W. = Weight flow rate in convenient unit*. See Table L
(p. 148)
. 113
-------
r, =Specific weight at flowing conditions in pounds per
cubic foot Including compressibility.
T, = 14.7+ PSIG of line 520
14.7 460 +line temp («F) X r'
Abo, 1, = specific gravity of gas at flowing conditions
times the weight of air (*/ft.3) at conditions equal to
flowing condition*. See Figure 1 and 3. (p. 333,372)
7i = Specific weight of gas at base conditions in pounds
per cubic foot. 7, = Specific Gravity of gas at base
conditions times the weight of air ('/ft.') at base
conditions. Air = .0765*/ft> at standard (60'F./
14.73 psia) base conditions. (p. 78)
TABLE I - Factor "N" Values for Various "n" Units
Qi, Volume
GPM
GPH
CFM
CFH
LPM
"hn- Units of Differential Pressure, Dry Calibration
IN. of H,0»
5.667
340.0
0.7576
45.46
21.45
IN. of Hg. •
20.88
1252.0
2.791
167.5
79.02
Kg/cm
112.5
6750.
15.04
902.5
425.8
P.S.L
29.84
1790.
3.990
239.4
113.0
W., Weight
PPM
PPH
47.25
2835.
174.1
10440.
938.0
56280.
246.8
14930.
•Column readings corrected to 68* F.
FIGURE 1. VALUES OF
FOR AIR
100 200 300
TEMPERATURE. °F.
400
500
114
-------
LOCATED 3/16"
UPSTREAM FROM
WELD COUPLING ON
OPPOSITE SIDE
"C~-SENSING PORTS ARE
LOCATED IN APPROPRIATE
CENTERS OF CONCENTRIC
ANNUL!.
ASMS PAR UW- IS DRILL OR BURN
TWO 1" DIAMETER HOLES AND
PROVIDE 1/4" MINIMUM WELD
BEAD • ALIGN TO PIPE AXIS. (TYPICAL)
2-ASTM SPEC. AtOB GRADE NO. 2
2/3000 LBS. 1/2" MPT FORGED
STEEL WELD COUPLINGS
ARE SUPPLIED.
REFER TO
SECTION DETAIL
TOP FLAT ON HEX
TO BE SET PARALLEL
TO PIPE AXIS
PERMANENT METAL
TAO WITH 3" CHAIN.
2MOP.8.I
RATED METAL
COMPRESSION
FERRULE
0)3 TO 4 PIPE DIAMETERS IS RECOMMENDED FOR DOWNSTREAM SIDE.
6 OR MORE PIPE DIAMETERS IS F.JCOMMENDED FOR UPSTREAM SIDE
AFTER VALVES. ELBOWS * ETC.-SEE FORM E-TfL
PERMANENT TAG SHOWING MIN., NORM. * MAX. DESIGNED FLOWS, METER
READINGS FOR DESIGNED FLOWS, TAG NO., LINE SIZE.SER. NO.ft METERED FLUID
OI*T>HieM •TAMOAHO OOHVOKATION
LklBOM IMSTHUMBMT OIVIBION
741 TO 744 ANNUBAR FLOW ELEMENTS
* SPECIFY PIPE SCHEDULE OR I.D. ft O.D.
1961-OIETERICH STANDARD CORP., BOULDER, COLO.
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS
116
-------
TABLE C-l. SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS—SERIES S-XX—KEY WEST INITIAL SALT WATER TESTS
Test
Number
SI
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
Sll
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
PURPOSE
Preliminary
Preliminary
Preliminary
Preliminary
-
-
'-
-
-
-
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
-
Break in
TUBE
SIZE
(inches)
.12
12
12
12
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
-
12
GAS FLOW
RATE
(scfm)
2000
1013
1013
935
-
-
-
-
-
-
1572
788
783
789
1538
1538
1652
-
784
PRESSURE
DROP
(inches H20)
8.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
V
V
V
V
V
V
12.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
12.0
12.0
12.0
V
6.5
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
/ Ib-mole reactant \
\lb-mole entering SO./
. . -
-
- ,•
1:1 '
) I D
) I D
) I D
) I D
) I D
) I D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
) I D
-
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
-
-
-
325
-
-
-
-
-
-
• -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- •
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weight %)
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
TABLE C-l (contd). SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS—SERIES S-XX—KEY WEST INITIAL SALT
WATER TESTS
Test
Number
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
PURPOSE
Break in
-
-
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
TUBE
SIZE
(inches)
12
-
-
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
GAS FLOW
RATE
(scfm)
778
-
-
795
795
1496
1478
1483
1495
1488
1480
1492
1507
1486
810
776
776
1500
PRESSURE
DROP
(inches H20)
6.5
- V 0
- V 0
12.0
12.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
(Ib-mole reactant \
Ib-mole entering SO./
-
ID
ID - ;
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weight %)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
00
-------
TABLE C-l (contd). SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS—SERIES S-XX—KEY WEST INITIAL SALT
WATER TESTS
Test
Number
S38
S39
SAO
S41
S42
S43
PURPOSE
Break iu
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
Break in
TUBE
SIZE
(inches)
12
12
12
12
12
12
GAS FLOW
BATE
(scfin)
1468
784
782
781
780
778
PRESSURE
DROP
(inches HjO)
6.5
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
6.5
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
(Ib-mole reactant \
Ib-mole entering SO./
-
-
-
- •
-
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
-
-
-
-
-
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weijrht X)
-
-
-
-
-
-------
TABLE C-2. SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS—SERIES C-XX—KEY WEST CORAL
Test
Number
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
CIO
Cll
C12
C13
C14
CIS
C16
C17
CIS
C19
PURPOSE
-
Shakedown
Shakedown
Shakedown
Shakedown
Statistical
Duplicate C6
Statistical
Extra
Extra
-'
Duplicate C6
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
TUBE
SIZE
(inches)
-
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
-
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
GAS FLOW
RATE
(scfm)
-
781
779
1468
1467
1463
1478
775
779
1477
-
1370
721
1470
771
1452
772
1498
1460
PRESSURE
DROP
(inches H20)
- V 0
6.5
6.5
6.5
• 6.5
12.0
12.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
- V 0
12.0
12.0
12,0^
6.5
6.5
12.0
6.5
12.0
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
(Ib-mole reactant \
lb-mole entering SO-j
1 D
1:1.9
1:1,8
l:l'
1:1
1:0.9
1:1
1:1
1:3
1:1
ID
1:1
1:3
1:3
1:3
1:1
1:1
1:3
1:3
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
-
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
-
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
100
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weight %)
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
5
5
5
5
1
1
ro
o
-------
TABLE C-2 (Cont.) SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS-cSERIES C-XX-—KEY WEST CORAL
Test
Number
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
C28
C29
C30
C31
C32
C33A
C33B
C34A
C34B
PURPOSE
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Statistical
-
Duplicate C17
Centerpoint
Catalyst
Centerpoint
Inhibitor
Inhibitor
Inhibitor +
Catalyst
TUBE
SIZE
(inches)
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
-
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
GAS FLOW
RATE
(scfm)
794
794
1457
1483
788
1482
1146
1152
788
-
782
1120
1120
1120
1120
1120
1120
PRESSURE
DROP
(inches H20)
6.5
12.0
6.5
6.5
' 12.0
12.0
9.0
9.0
6.5
- V 0
12.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
(Ib-mole reactant \
Ib-mole entering SO.j
1:3
1:1
1:1,
1:3
1:3
1:1
1:2
1:2
1:1
ID
1:1
1:2
1:2
1:2
1:2
1:2
1:2
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
100
100
100
100
100
100
325
325
100
-
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weight %)
1
1
1
1
5
5
3
5
5
-
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
-------
TABLE C-3. SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS—SERIES F-XX--KEY WEST FREDONIA VALLEY LIMESTONE
Test
Number
Fl
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
Fll
F12
F13
F14
F15
F16
F17
F18
PURPOSE
_
T
Statistical
Extra
Extra
Extra
Statistical
Duplicate F3
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Extra
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
TUBE
SIZE
(inches!
_
-
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
GAS FLOW
RATE
(scfm)
_
-
776
766
1462
1476
1475
777
1468
769
1497
1469
694
781
1480
798
796
1468
PRESSURE
DROP
(inches H.O)
- V 0 I
- V 0 I
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
12.0
6.5
12.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
12.0
12.0
12.0
6.5
12.0
6.5
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
(Ib-mole reactant \
Ib-mole entering S02j
D _
D
1:1'
1:3
1:1
1:1
1:1
1:1
1:3
1:3
1:1
1:3
1:3.3
1:1
1:3
1:3
1:1
1:1
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
-
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
100
100
100
100
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weight Z)
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
Ni
ts>
-------
.TABLE C-3 (Cont.). SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS-SERIES F-XX—KEY WEST FREDONIA VALLEY LIMESTONE
Test
Number
F19
F20
F21
F22
F23
F24
F25
F26
F27
F28
F29
F30
F31
F32
F33
F34
F35
F35A
PUBPOSE
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Centerppint
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Statistical
Duplicate F7
Duplicate F9
Duplicate F22
Duplicate F19
Special
Special
Special
Special
Special
Special
TUBE
SIZE
(inches)
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
GAS FLOW
RATE
(scfm)
.800
1453
1460
765
1107
1140
1152
790
1440
1445
778
778
1317
1110
678
784
455
1452
PRESSURE
DROP
(Inches H20)
6.5
12.0
6.5
12.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
.6.5
12,0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
(Ib-mole reactant \
Ib-mole entering SO,/
1:1
1:1
1:3,
1:3
1:2
1:2
1:2
1:1
1:1
1:3
1:3
1:1
1:3
1:3
1:3
1:3
1:3
1:3
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
100
100
100
100
100
325
325
325
325
325
100
100
325
325
325
325
325
325
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weight %)
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
5
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
N>
OJ
-------
TABLE C-3 (Cont.). SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS—SERIES F-XX—KEY WEST FREDONIA VALLEY LIMESTONE
10
Test
Number
F36
F37
F38
F39
F40
F41
F42
PURPOSE
Special
Special
Special
Special
Special
Special
Centerpoint
TUBE
SIZE
(inches)
12
8
8
8
8
8
12
GAS FLOW
RATE
(scfm)
1093
1052
755
557
486
1320
1129
PRESSURE
DROP
(inches H-O)
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
9.0
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
(Ib-mole reactant \
Ib-mole entering S0? j
1:3
1:3
1:3;
1:3
1:3
1:3
1:2
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
325
325
325
325
325
325
100
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weight X)
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
-------
TABLE C-4. SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS—SERIES HL-XX--KEY WEST LIME, DOLOMITE, PRECIPITATED
CaCO,, AND RECYCLED LIMESTONE
Test
Number
HL1
HL2
HL3
HL4
Dl
D2
D3
D4
PCI
PC2
PCS
PC4
XI
PURPOSE
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
-
Recycle
TUBE
SIZE
(inches)
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
-
12
GAS FLOW
RATE
(scfo)
1445
790
782
1455
1430
1430
772
772
1431
778
773
-
1110
PRESSURE
DROP
(inches HjO)
6.5
12.0
6.5
12.0
6.5
12.0
6.5
12.0
6.5
12.0
6.5
- V 0
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
(Ib-mole reactant \
Ib-mole entering SO*/
1:1
1:1
1:3
1:3
1:1
1:3
1:3
1:1
1:1
1:1
1:3
ID
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weight %)
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
—
3
ts>
in
-------
TABLE C-5. SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS—SERIES P-XX--PADUCAH-SHAWNEE NO. 9 LIMESTONE
Test
Number
Pi
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
Pll
P12
P13
P14
P15
P16
P17
P18
PURPOSE
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
-
—
TUBE
SIZE
(inches)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
-
—
GAS FLOW
RATE
(scfm)
442
422
420
426
620
620
617
615
415
415
417
417
617
618
619
619
-
—
PRESSURE
DROP
(inches H20)
6.0
6.0
12.0
3
' 12.0
12.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
12.0
12.0
6.0
6.0
12.0
12.0
- V 0
- V 0
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
(Ib-mole reactant \
Ib-mole entering SO-/
1:1
1:2
1:1.
1:2
1:1
1:2
1:1
1:2
1:2
1:1
1:2
1:1
1:1
1:2
1:1
1:2
ID
E D
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
-
^
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weight %)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-
'
to
-------
TABLE C-5. (Cont.) SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS—SERIES P-XX- —PADUCAH-SHAWNEE NO.9 LIMESTONE
Ki
Test
Number
P19
P20
P21
P22
P23
P24
P25
P26
P27
P28
P29
P30
P31
P32
P33
P34
PURPOSE
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Catalyst
Catalyst
Catalyst
Inhibitor
Inhibitor
Dry collector
Bypassed
Dry Collector
Bypassed
Dry Collector
Bypassed
TUBE
SIZE
(inches)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
GAS FLOW
RATE
(scfm)
518
518
517
520
520
520
520
520
522
522
522
517
517
523
620
619
PRESSURE
DROP
(inches H20)
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
' 9.0-
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
6.0
12.0
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
(Ib-mole reactant \
Ib-mole entering SO./
1:1.5
1:1.5
1:1*5
I:lv5
1:1.5
1:1.5
1:1,5
1:1.5
1:1.5
1:1.5
1:1.5
1:1.5
1:1.5
1:1.5
1:1
1:1
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
325
325
325
325
200
200
200
200
325
325
200
325
325
325
325
325
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weight X)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-------
TABLE C-5. (Cont.) SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS—SERIES P-XX- —PADUCAH-SHAWNEE NO.9 LIMESTONE
to
oo
Test
Number
P35
PURPOSE
Dry Collector
Bypassed
TUBE
SIZE
(inches)
8
GAS FLOW
RATE
^scfm)
524
PRESSURE
DROP
(inches H20)
9.0
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
/ Ib-mole reactant \
\lb-tcole entering SO./
1:1.5
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
325
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weight 7.)
1
-------
TABLE C-6. SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS—SERIES PA-XX, and PS-XX—PADUCAH-SHAWNEE, NO. 9
ARAGONITE AND SIMULATED KEY WEST LIMESTONE
Test
Number
PA1
PA2
PA3
PA4
PAS
PA6
PA7
PAS
PS1
PS2
PS3
PURPOSE
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Dry Collector
Bypassed
Dry Collector
Bypassed
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Simulated
Salt Water
Simulated
Salt Water
Simulated
Salt Water
TUBE
SIZE
(Inches)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
GAS FLOW
RATE
(scfm)
620
620
386
386
520
520
522
522
525
525
525
PRESSURE
DROP
(inches BLO)
6.0
6.0
12.0
12.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
/ Ib-mole reactant \
\lb-mole entering SO./
1:1
1:2
1:1;'
1:2
1:1.5
1:1.5
1:1.5
1:1.5
1:1.5
1:1.5
i.-2
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weight %)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
VO
-------
TABLE C-7 SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS—SERIES IPA-XX AND IP-XX—PADUCHA-SHAWNEE NO. 10
ARAGONITE AND LIMESTONE INJECTION
Test
Number
IPA1
IPA2
IPA3
IPA4
IP1
IP2
IP3
IP4
IPS
IP6
IP7
IPS
IP9
IP10
IP11
IP12
IP13
PURPOSE
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Statistical
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Centerpoint
Special
Special
Special
Special
Special
TUBE
SIZE
(inches)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
CAS FLOW
RATE
(scfm)
615
622
419
421
516
525
523
513
522
526
512
513
618
618
614
617
368
PRESSURE
DROP
(inches H20)
6.0
12.0
6.0
12.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
6.0
6.0
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
/ Ib-mole reactant \
\lb-mole entering SO./
1:104
1:2
1:2 ,-
1:1
1:1.85
1:3.0
1:0.68
1:1. li
1:2.46
1:1.31
1:1.47
1:1.47
1:0.95
1:0.95
1:1.45
1:0.99
1:0.99
PARTICLE
SIZE
(mesh)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SLURRY
CONCENTRATION
(weight X)
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA
131
-------
Table D-l. DATA CONSOLIDATION — SERIES S-XX—KEY WEST INITIAL SALT WATER TESTS
Teat
Hunber
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
Sll
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16;
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
GAS HIWIDITY
(Ib/lb dry air)
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.130
0.078
0.085
0.085
0.086
0.069
0.089
-
0.106
0.084
-
-
0.093
OUT
-
-
-
-
. -
-
0.072
0.071
0.063
0.050
0.092
0.084
0.076
-
0.078
0.066
-
-
0.059
DEW POINT
CP)
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
138.0
118.8
121.5
121.3
121.8'
115.0
123.0
-
128.6
120.8
-
-
124.2
OUT
- -
-
-
-
-
- •
116.0
115.7
112.2
104.5
124.0
121.0
118.0
-
118.5
113 5
-
'
110.0
DRY GAS
FLOW HATE
(Ib/nln)
-
-
-
-
-
. -
107.12
56.29
55.57
55.99
109.05
110.78
116.81
-
54.58
55.26
-
•
56.01
LI00ID FLOW
RATE
Ub/Bln)
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
2644.9
656.9
656.9
656.9
2644.9
2644.S
2644.9
VOID
656.9
656.9
VOID
VOID
3764.8
GAS VELOCITY
(ft/.ec)
-
-
-
-
-
46.26
21.58
21.67
21.71
44.56
44.56
46.90
-
21.81
21.88
-
-
22.88
LIQUID/GAS RATIO
(gal/lOOOft3)
-
-
-
-
-
-
142.20 -
75.71
75.42
75.27
147.62
14 7'. 62
140.27
-
74.90
74.68
-
-
340.45
Ub/lb)
• -
; -
-
-
- -
21.85
10.83
10.90
10.81
22.33
22.33
20.79
- '
10.88
10.96
-
-
61.50
ABSORPTION PARAMETERS
;ntering SO;
;oncentratla
(DPS)
-
-
-
-
-
505
470
510
495
520
510
460
-
655
805
-
.
672
Leaving S02
3onc2ntratior
fpoml
-
-
-
-
-
245
350
360
305
320
290
190
-
485
540
-
-
375
SO, Removal
Efficiency
(Z)
-
-
-
-
—
51.5
25.6
29.4
38.4
38.4
43.2
58.7
i
26.0
32.9
-
-
44.2
ho
NOTE: Tests Si through S4 were preliminary tests. No calculations were performed.
-------
Table D-l (cont) DATA CONSOLIDATION~SERIES S-XX — KEY WEST INITIAL SALT WATER TESTS
Test
Number
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
S38
S39
SAO
S41
S42
S43
CAS HPMIDITT
(Ib/lb dry air)
IN
0.094
0.089
0.086
0.093
0.091
0.092
0.088
0.086
0.092
0.078
0.074
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.089
0.081
0.086
0.082
0.085
0.084
OUT
0.078
0.100
0.090
0.077
0.090
0.088
0.079
0.087
0.077
0.068
0.046
0.060
0.068
0.087
0.083
0.069
0.061
0.045
0.076
0.055
DEW POINT '
CF)
IN
124.7
122.8
121.8
124.3
123.7
124.0
122.5
121.8
124.0
118.7
117.0
121.4
121.3
121.3
122.8
119.8
121.7
120.1
121.5
121.0
OUT
118.5
126.5
123.3
118.1
123.1
122.3
119.2
122.0
118.0
114.0
102.0
110.5
114.0
122.0
120.5
114.8
110.7
101.9
117.8
107.7
DRY GAS
FLOW RATE
(Ib/nln)
55.96
105.78
104.79
104.47
105.51
104.92
104.76
105.79
106.26
106.14
58.07
55.07
55.07
106.45
103.80
55.84
55.45
55.58
55.35
55.26
LIOUID FLOW
BATE
(lb/Bln)
3764.8
750.8
750.8
750.8
750.8
750.8
750.8
2883.8
2883.8
2883.8
3131.2
2883.8
2883.8
2644.9
802.0
3131.2
3131.2
3131.2
3131.2
802.0
GAS VELOCITY
(ft/sec)
22.88
43.40
43.71
43.61
43.33
43.71
42.95
42.65
43.12
42.87
22.07
21.88
21.94
43.18
43.29
21.75
21.77
21.79
21.71
21.84
LIQUID/GAS RATIO
(gal /1000ft3)
340.45
43.03
42.72
42.82
43.10
42.72
39.29
167.33
166.34
167.33
352.88
327.84
326.89
152.33
46.08
358.05
357.70
. 357.35
358.75
91.35
(lb/lb)
61. 5(
6.5:
6.6(
6.5!
6.5:
. 6.5'.
6.5!
25. 1<
24.8!
25. 2(
50. 2(
48. 2(
48. 2(
22.91
7.0!
51.8;
52.01
52. o;
52.1:
13.3!
ABSORPTION PARAME
entering S02
;oncentratla
(ppro)
690
565
622
620
630
630
625
518
505
500
, 482
465
510
465
450
443
445
465
480
410
Leaving S02
Concentratioi
(oonO
405
408
438
430
462
450
445
325
290
260
225
270
254
257
322
236
242
210
242
220
ERS
SO. Removal
EEficiency
«>
41.3
27.8
29.6
30.6
26.7
28.6
28.8
37.3
42.6
48.0
53.4
41.9
50.2
44.7
28.5
46.7
45.6
54.8
49.6
46.3
U)
-------
Table D-2. DATA CONSOLIDATION—SERIES C-XX—KEY WEST CORAL
Test
Number
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
CIO
Cll
C12
C13
C14
CIS
C16
C17
C18
C19
GAS HfMIDITY
(Ib/lb dry air)
IN
_
0.076
0.087
0.029
0.087
0.089
0.091
0.094
0.085
0.087
.'
0.095
0.089
0.094
0.079
0.092
0.091
0.075
0.078
OUT
— -
0.073
0.083
0.094
0.097
0.103
0.103
0.091
0.077
0.093
•" J
0.103
0.077
0.103
0.093
0.106
0.097
0.068
0.072
DEW POINT
(°F>
IN
—
117.9
122.0
122.7
122.3
122.6
123.5
124.8
121.2
122.2
-
124.9
123.0
124.5
119.0
124.0
123.5
117.5
118.7
OUT
' —
116.5
120.5
124.6
125.5
127.8
128.0
123.6
118.0
124.4
.-
127.8
118.2
127.8
124.2
128.8
125.6
114.1
116.0
DRY GAS
FLOW RATE
(Ib/min)
-
54.87
55.18
104.47
104.69
104.40
104.31
54.75
54.93
104.82
-
95.99
51.03
103.46
55.02
102.57
54.39
107.30
104.29
LinUID FLOW
RATE
(Ib/mln)
V 0 ID
704.4
704.4
807.5 .
807.5
2439.6
2439.6
704.4
704.4
807.5
VOID
2903.5
2663.0
2983.4
723.6
829.4
2982.4
807.5
2903.5
GAS VELOCITY
(ft/sec)
21.75
21.81
43.29
43.39
43.39
43.93
22.05
21.84
43.18
-
46.26
23.58
44.14
22.11
42.44
21.35
41.97
40.95
LIOUID/GAS RATIO
(gal/1000ft3)
-
80.00
79.77
46.08
45.97
138.88
137.20
78.92
79.69
46.19
-
155.05
279.03
162.50
78.69
47.00
335.98
47.52
175.13
(lb/lb)
- » -
11.71
11.74
7.14
7.15
21.66
21.44
11.80
11.74
7.10
—
27.52
47.97
7.08
12.19
7.42
50.17
7.00
25.83
ABSORPTION PARAMETERS
intering SOj
;oncentrattor
(ppm)
438
465
454
436
492
436
435
414
415
^
695
690
960
960
980
980
920
715
Leaving SOj
Concentration
(Dora)
97
100
173
174
154
128
147
75
180
-
240
67.5
240
155
410
191
298
80
SO. Removal
Efficiency
(H
77.9
78.5
61.9
60.1
68.7
70.7
64.6
81.9
56.6
-
65.5
90.2
75.0
83.8
58.2
80.5
67.6
88.8
-------
Table D-2 (cont) . DATA CONSOLIDATION — SERIES C-XX —KEY WEST CORAL
Test
Number
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
C28
C29
C30
C31
C32
C33A
C33B
C34A
C34B
CAS HUMIDITY
(Ib/lb dry air)
IN
0.074
0.075
0.081
0.081
0.081
0.082
0.088
0.084
0.081
. - •
0.083
0.083
0.083
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.085
OUT
0.061
0.069
0.084
0.088
0.089
0.103
0.101
0.101
0.088
-
0.095
0.094
0.094
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101
DEW POINT
CF)
IN
117.0
117.5
119.6
119.6
119.6
120.2
122.4
121.0
119.6
. -
120.5
120.5
120.5
121.3
121.3
121.3
121.3
OUT
110.6
114.8
121.0
122.4
122.9
128.0
126.9
127.0
122.4
- .
124.8
124.5
124.5
126.9
126.9
126.9
126.9
DRY GAS
FLOW RATE
(Ib/min)
56.92
56.87
103.78
104.95
56.13
105.47
81.10
81.83
56.13
-
55.60
79.63
79.63
79.48
79.48
79.48
79.48
LIOUID FLOW
RATE
(Ib/mln)
704.4
2903.5
807.5
829.4
2735.4
2982.4
1689.2
1689.2
723.6
.V 0- I D
2982,4
1436.7
1436.7
1436.7
1436.7
1436.7
1436.7
GAS VELOCITY
(ft/aec)
21.50
21.43
41.59
42.55
22.28
42.29
32.25
32.47
21.75
21.75
32.36
32.36
32.57
32.57
32.57
32.57
LIOUID/CAS RATIO
(Ral/lOOOft3)
80.95
334.65
47.96
46.88
295.24
169.59
127.63
126.80
80.00
-
329.76
108.20
108.20
107.49
107.49
107.49
107.49
(lb/lb)
11.52
47.49
7.20
7.26
45.08
26.14
19.14
19.04
11.92
. . -'
49.53
16.66
16.66
16.66
16.66
16.66
16.66
ABSORPTION PARAME
entering SO;
:oncentratla
(ppm)
735
735
815
800
750
750
780
825
770
-
810
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
Leaving SO,
Concentratlot
(npra)
108
198
355
202
48
128
225
243
166
-
45
262
230
312
265
265
255
ERS
SO. Removal
Efficiency
(Z)
85.3
73.1
56.4
74.7
93.6
82.9
71.2
70.5
78.4
-
94.4
73.8
77.0
68.8
73.5
73.5
74.5
U>
(j:
-------
Table D-3. DATA CONSOLIDATION — SERIES F-XX — KEY WEST FREDONIA VALLEY LIMESTONE
Test
Number
Fl
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
Fll
F12
F13
F14
F15
F16
F17
F18
F19
GAS HI'MIDITY
(Ib/lb dry air)
IN
-
-
0.092
0.077
0.091
0.090
0.085
0.079
0.092
0.087
0.093
0.094
0.092
0.079
0.080
0.075
0.075
0.082
0.077
OUT
- .
-
0.099
0.088
0.094
0.093
0.098
0.083
0.103
0.093
0.110
0.099
0.082
0.075
0.072
0.061
0.070
0.091
0.088
DEW POINT
CF)
IN
' -
-
123.9
118.2
123.5
123.2
121.4
119.0
123.9
122.1
124.3
124.7
124.0
119.0
119.5
117.5
117.5
120.5
118.2
OUT
' -
-
126.3
122.5
124.6
124.2
126.0
120.6
127.5
124.2
130.0
126.3
120.5
117.5
116.0
111.0
115.5
123.5
122.7
DRY GAS
FLOW RATE
(Ib/min)
-
-
54.72
54.77
103.18
104.27
104.68
55.45
103.51
54.22
105.46
103.39
48.94
55.79
105.52
57.16
57.02
104.47
57.20
LIOUID FLOW
RATE
(Ib/raln)
VOID
VOID
704.4
704.4
704.4
807.5
2903.5
704.4
2982.4
723.6
829.4
807.5
2903.5
2735.4
2903.5
704.4
2903.5
807.5
723.6
CAS VELOCITY
(ft/aec)
-
22.49
22.22
43.46
43.08
43.25
21.94
43.12
22.07
45.16
44.77
20.39
20.99
41.06
21.43
21.43
43.08
22.13
LIOUID/GAS RATIO
(gal/lOOOft3)
-
-
77.36
78.32
40.04
46.31
165.85
79.30
166.30
78.85
44.17
44.55
351.72
313.45
174.68
81.19
334.70
46.31
78.62
Ub/lb)
-
-
11.79
11.94
6.26
7.10
25.56
11.77
26.38
12.22
7.20
7.14
54.33
45.49
25.48
11.46
47.37
7.14
11.75
ABSORPTION PARAMETERS
Entering S02
;oncentratia
(ppm)
-
491
494
465
415
415
413
414
414
414
414
510
920
775
780
780
840
775
Leaving S02
Concentration
(DDIH)
—
142
83
210
172
97.5
111
52
48
207
116
49
460
135
165
183
435
143
SO- Reir.oval
Efficiency
-
—
71.1
83.2
54.8
58.6
76.5
73.1
87.4
88.4
50.0
71.9
90.4
50.0
82.6
78.8
76.5
48.2
81.5
OJ
-------
Table D-3 (cont). DATA CONSOLIDATION — SERIES F-XX—KEY WEST FREDONIA VALLEY LIMESTONE
Test
Number
F20
F21
F22
F23
F24
F25
F26
F27
F28
F29
F30
F31
F32
F33
F34
F35
F35A
F36
F37
CAS HliMIDITT
(Ib/lb dry air)
IN
0.086
0.088
0.078
0.085
0.085
0.084
0.083
0.088
0.081
0.090
0.089
0.077
0.086
0.092
0.092
0.089
0.089
0.082
0.088
OUT
0.110
0.10
0.073
0.088
0.088
0.088
0.089
0.095
0.103
0.094
0.103
0.080
0.070
0.069
0.069
0.069
0.069
0.076
0.062
DEW POINT
CD
IN
121.6
122.5
118.7
121.5
121.3
121.0
120.5
122.5
120.0
123.4
123.0
118.5
121.5
123.8
123.8
123.0
123.0
120.0
122,5
OUT
130.0
126.5
116.5
122.5
122.5
122.6
122.8
125.0
127.7
124.6
127.6
119.5
115.5
115.0
115.0
114.7
114.7
118.0
111.5
DRY GAS
FLOW RATE
(Ib/nln)
103.02
103.33
54.64
78.56
80.90
81.83
56.17
101.91
102.93
54.96
55.01
94.16
78.77
47.81
55.28
32.17
102.66
77.78
74.45
LIOBID FLOW
RATE
Ub/min)
2982.4
829.4
2735.6
1689.2
1689.2
1689.2
2982.4
2903.5
2982.4
2982.4
723.6
2663.0
2783.2
2439.6
3152.6
1846.9
2293.6
2663.0
755.9
GAS VELOCITY
(ft/.ec)
42.06
42.76
21.16
31.41
32.04
32.57
21.60
42.23
42.23
21.96
22.17
38.51
31.62
18.67
21.75
12.43
42.95
31.83
68.05
LIOUID/GAS RATIO
(gal/lOOOft3)
170.53
46.65
310.93
131.08
128.48
126.38
332.02
169.85
169.85
326.57
78.47
170.80
217.45
322.73
358.05
366.89
131.92
2.06.67
61.75
(lb/lb)
26.66
7.38
46.44
19.82
19.24
19.04
49.03
26.19
26.80
49.78
12.08
26.26
32.56
46.73
52.22
52.72
20.51
31.6^
9.33
ABSO PTTON PARAMETERS
entering SO;
:oncentratler
(ppm)
830
830
720
780
780
820
780
810
800
855
855
922
965
1015
1015
1015
1015
1000
965
Leaving SOj
^oncencratloi
Coom)
420
260
30
120
110
122
195
185
112
82.5
225
204
155
57
70
38
180
144
286
SO- Removal
Efficiency
(I)
49.4
68.7
95.8
84.6
85.9
85.1
75.0
77.2
86.0
90.4
73.7
79.4
. 83.9
94.4
93.1
96.3
82.3
85.6
70.4
-------
Table D-3 (cont) . DATA CONSOLIDATION—SERIES F-XX—KEY WEST FREDONIA VALLEY LIMESTONE
Test
Number
F38
F39
F40
F41
F42
KAS HlftlDITY
(Ib/lb dry air)
IN
0.088
0.086
-
0.086
0.086
OUT
0.058
0.054
-
0.070
0.101
DEW POINT
CF)
IN
122.3
121.7
-
121.8
121.5
OUT
109.0
107.0
-
115.3
126.8
DRY CAS
FLOW RATE
(Ib/mln)
53.43
39.49
-
93.33
80.05
tlOUID FLOW
RATE
(Ib/rain)
953.5
919.2
859.0
438.1
1436.7
CAS VELOCITY
(ftysec)
47.56
34.34
30.66
85.96
33.74
LIOUID/CAS RATIO
(gal /1000ft3)
111.45
149.23
155.76
28.33
103.77
(lb/lb)
16.40
21.43
22.95
4.34
16.53
ABSORPTION PARAMETERS
Entering SO;
:oncentratici
(DPHI)
965
975
975
965
970
Leaving SOj
Concentrator
(ppm)
183
116
94.5
415
285
SO- Reaoval
Efficiency
(2)
81.0
88.1
90.3
57.0
70.6
00
-------
Table D-4. DATA CONSOLIDATION— SERIES HL-XX, D-XX, PC-XX, AND X-XX—KEY WEST LIME,
DOLOMITE, PRECIPITATED CaCOg, AND RECYCLED LIMESTONE
Test
Number
HL1
HL2
HL3
HL4
Dl
D2
D3
D4
PCI
PC2
PC3
PC4
XI
CAS HIWIDITY
(lb/lb dry air)
IN
0.080
0.088
0.085
0.087
0.089
0.089
0.085
0.085
0.085
0.100
0.083
-
0.088
OUT
0.096
0.077
0.077
0.089
0.094
0.086
0.081
0.094
0.094
0.092
0.087
- .
0.097
DEM POINT
CF)
IN
119.5
122.5
121.6
122.1
123.0
122.7
121.2
121.2
121.5
126.5
120.4
• -" '
122.5
OUT
125.5
118.1
118.1
123.0
124.5
121.7
120.0
124.6
124.5
124.0
122.3
-
125.5
DRY GAS
FLOW RATE
(Ib/nln)
103.02
55.91
55.50
102.36
101.11
101.11
54.79
54.79
101.55
55.42
54.96
-
78.56
LinUID FLOW
RATE
(Ib/nln)
807.5
2903.5
704.4
2903.5
807.5
2903.5
704.4
2903.5
807.48
2903.5
704.4
VOID
1689.2
GAS VELOCITY
(ft/aec)
41.59
21.81
21.75
41.91
42.44
42.44
22.03
'22.03
42.44
21.90
21.92
-
31.62
LIOUID/GAS RATIO
(Ral/lOOOft3)
47.96
328.79
80.00
171.14
47.00
169.00
79.00
325.63
47.00
327.52
79.38
-
130.20
(lb/lb)
7.26
47.73
11.70
25.92
7.33
26.37
11.85
48.84
7.33
48.47
11.83
-
19.76
ABSORPTION PARAME
Entering SO-
:oncentratlor
(own)
750
216
775
815
860
860
880
830
860
825
830
-
860
Leaving S02
Concencratloi
(oon)
102
40
51
20
580
420
425
400
280
120
150
-
258
•ERS
SO. Removal
Efficiency
a>
86.4
94.9
93.4
97.5
32.6
51.2
51.7
51.8
67.4
85.5
81.9
-
70.0
VO
-------
Table D-5. DATA CONSOLIDATION — SERIES P-XX — PADUCAH-SHAWNEE NO. 9 LIMESTONE
Test
Number
PI
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
Pll
P12
P13
P14
P15
P16
P17
P18
P19
CAS HliMIDITY
(Ib/lb dry air)
IN
0.071
0.074
0.072
0.048
0.059
0.051
0.061
0.077
0.059
0.061
0.054
0.054
0.060
0.051
0.051
0.051
—
- _ •
0.059
OUT
0.054
0.049
0.051
0.040
0.065
0.063
0.060
0.066
0.033
0.053
0.059
0.059
0.066
0.058
0.068
0.068
—
_
0.068
DEW POINT
CF)
IN
115.9
117.0
116.0
103.0
110.0
105.1
111.0
118.3
110.0
110.8
107.0
107.0
110.5
105.5
105.5
105.5
-
_
110.0
OUT
107.0
104.5
105.0
97.5
113.0
112.0
110.5
113.1
92.0
106.3
110.0
110.0
113.5
109.5
114.0
114.0
-
-
114.0
DRY GAS
FLOW RATE
(Ib/mln)
31.78
30.256
30.17
31.30
45.08
45.42
44.78
43.97
30.17
30.12
30.46
30.46
44.82
45.15
45.22
45.22
-
-
37.66
LIOUID FLOW
RATE
Ub/min)
281.0
281.0
800.4
698.2
698.2
698.2
289.5
289.5
289.5
289.5
698.2
698.2
289.5
289.5
698.2
698.2
VOID
VOID
604.6
GAS VELOCITY
(ft/sec)
26.02
24.83
24.59
24.11
36.76
37.62
37.25
37.58
24.64
24.64
24.02
24.02
37.58
37.24
37.24,
37.24
-
-. -
31.13
LIOUID/GAS RATIO
(gal /1000ft3)
60.55
63.46
182.52
162.38
106.49
104.06
43.59
43.20
65.89
65.89
163.02
163.02
43.20
43.59
105.13
105.13
-
<-
108.90
(lb/lb)
8.26
8.65
24.75
21.29
14.63
14.63
6.09
6.11
9.06
9.06
21.75
21.75
6.09
6. Of
14.65
14. 6f
-
- -
15. 1<
ABSORPTION PARAMETERS
Entering SO;
^oncer.tratior
(prrc)
2450
2350
2350
1900
1995
1500
1500
1750
940
940
2200
2200
2230
1450
1470
1470
-
-
1900
Leaving S02
Concer.tratioi
(ran)
1175
1080
700
310
765
490
980
1090
440
505
575
660
1420
840
550
475
-
-
730
SO- Removal
EEficiencv
(X)
52.0
54.0
70.2
83.7
61.7
67.3
34.7
37.7
53.2
46.3
73.9
70.0
36.3
42.1
62.6
67.7
-
-
61.6
-------
Table D-5 (cont). DATA CONSOLIDATION-.-SERIES P-XX — PADUCAH-SHAWNEE NO. 9 LIMESTONE
Test
Number
P20
P21
P22
P23
P24
P25
P26
P27
P28
P29
P30
P31
P32
P33
P34
P35
GAS HIiMIDITT
(Ib/lb dry air)
IN
0.061
0.060
0.053
0.056
0.060
0.'055
0.054
0.059
0.059
0.054
0.059
0.062
0.069
0.077
0.076
0.069
OUT
0.068
0.068
0.058
0.056
0.056
0.061
0.061
0.065
0.065
0.063
0.068
0.065
0.072
0.074
0.072
0.072
DEW POINT
CF)
IN
111.0
110.5
106.6
108.1
108.0
107.0
107.0
109.7
109.7
107.0
110.0
111.5
114.5
118.1
117.7
114.6
OUT
114.0
114.0
109.3
107.9
107.9
110.7
110.7
113.0
113.0
111.7
114.4
113.0
116.0
117.0
116.0
116.3
DRY GAS
FLOW RATE
(Ib/oln)
37.59
37.56
38.02
37.92
37.77
37.84
37.99
37.95
37.95
37.66
37.59
37.48
37.60
44.33
43.30
37.74
LIOUID FLOW
RATE
(Ib/roln)
604.6
604.6
604.6
604.6
604.6
604.6
604.6
604.6
604.6
604.6
604.6
604.6
604.6
289.5
698.2
596.3
CAS VELOCITY
(ft/sec)
31.27
31.42
30.94
31.42
31.61
31.61
31.61
31.27
31.27
30.84
30.80
30.80
31.23
37.91
38.10
31.27
LIOUID/GAS RATIO
(gal/1000ft3)
108.40
107.90
109.57
107.90
107.25
107.25
107.25
108.40
108.40
109.91
110.08
110.08
108.56
42.82
102.76
108.40
(lb/lb)
15.16
15.19
15.10
15.10
15.10
15.10
15.10
15.04
15.04
15.04
15.19
15.19
15.01
6.06
14.65
14.78
ABSORPTION PARAMETERS
Entering SO*
;oncentratiot
(ppm)
2050
2000
2025
1875
2025
1650
1850
1650
1700
1850
1730
1700
2100
2300
2420
2620
Leaving S02
;oncentratlor
fpotn)
800
750
700
700
775
525
715
500
550
775
560
590
760
1125
975
1040
SO. Removal
Efficiency
(Z)
61.0
62.5
65.4
. 62.7
64.2
63.2
61.4
69.7
67.6
58.1
67.6
65.3
63.8
51.1
59.7
60.3
-------
Table D-6. DATA CONSOLIDATION — SERIES PA-XX, AND PS-XX ~ PADUCAH-SHAWNEE
NO. 9 ARAGONITE AND SIMULATED KEY WEST LIMESTONE
Test
Number
PAl
PA2
PA3
PA4
PAS
PA6
PA7
PAS
PS1
PS2
PS 3
CAS Hl'MTDITY
(Ib/lb dry air)
IN
0.060
0.060
0.056
0.056
0.087
0.086
0.088
0.086
0.058
0.058
0.059
OUT
0.081
0.078
0.051
0.049
0.064
0.069
0.064
0.064
0.063
0.068
0.057
DEW POINT
<*F)
IN
110.5
110.5
108.0
108.0
122.2
122.0
122.3
121.7
109.0
109.0
110.0
OUT
120.0
118.7
105.0
103.7
112.5
115.0
112.0
112.3
112.0
114.2
108.3
DRY GAS
FLOW RATE
(Ib/mln)
45.04
45.04
28.15
28.15
36.84
36.87
36.94
37.01
38.21
38.21
38.17
LIOUID FLOW
RATE
(Ib/mln)
289.5
289.5
698.2
698.2
698.2
698.2
698.2
698.2
604.6
604.6
604.6
CAS VELOCITY
(ft/sec)
37.05
37.05
21.25
21.25
31.75
31.89
30.56
30.84
30.37
30.37
30.37
LIOUID/CAS RATIO
(Ba I/ 1000ft3)
43.81
43.81
184.27
184.27
123.31
122.75
128.13
126.93
111.64
111.64
111.64
Ub/lb)
6.06
6.06
23.49
23.49
17.44
17.44
17.37
17.37
14.96
14.96
14.96
ABSORPTION PARAMETERS
Sneering SO;
:oneentraflot
(pen)
2050
2050
1600
1200
2500
2700
2350
2100
2000
2020
2020
Leaving S02
Concentratloi
(DP:H)
780
700
160
84
820
860
600
590
450
525
525
SO. Removal
Efficiency
«>
62.0
65.9
90.0
93.0
67.2
68.1
74.5
71.9
77.5
74.0
74.0
-------
Table D-7. DATA CONSOLIDATION —SERIES IPA-XX AND IP-XX— PADUCAH-SHAWNEE
NO. 10 ARAGONITE AND LIMESTONE INJECTION
Test
Number
IPAl
IPA2
IPA3
IPA4
IP1
IP 2
IP3
IP 4
IPS
IP6
IP 7
IPS
IP 9
IP10
IP 11
IP12
IP13
CAS HIiMIDITT
(Ib/lb dry air)
IN
0.052
0.055
0.053
0.049
0.051
0.063
0.061
0.051
0.053
0.052
0.052
0.075
0.063
0.063
0.085
0.087
0.085
OUT
0.061
0.067
0.064
0.052
0.054
0.051
0.51
0.059
0.057
0.055
0.051
0.089
0.068
0.068
0.070
0.071
0.071
DEW POINT
CF>
IN
106.0
108.0
106.5
104.0
105.0
111.7
111.0
105.3
106.2
106.0
105.7
117.5
111.9
111.9
121.3
122.2
121.3
OUT
111.0
113.8
112.3
105.5
106.8
105.3
105.0
109.5
108.7
107.8
105.5
122.7
114.3
114.3
115.4
115.5.
115.5
DRY GAS
FLOW RATE
(Ib/oin)
45.01
45.40
30.64
30.90
37.80
38.03
37.96
37.58
38.10
38.50
37.48
36.75
44.77
44.77
43.57
43 = 71
26.12
LinuiD FLOW
RATE
(Ib/oin)
289.5
698.2
698.2
698.2
698.2
698.2
698.2
698.2
698.2
698.2
698.2
698.2
800.4
800.4
800.4
289.5
272.5
GAS VELOCITY
(ft/sec)
39.25
37.62
25.73
24.92
31.18
30.37
30.56
31.42
31.18
30.51
31.23
33.42
38.05
38.05
38.58
38.48
22.30
LIODID/CAS RATIO
(gal/1000ft3)
41.36
104.06
152.13
157.09
125.57
128.93
128.13
124.62
125.57
128.33
125.38
117.14
117.94
117.94
116.34
42.18
68.52
(lb/lb)
6.11
14.58
21.64
21.54
17.57
17.27
17.34
17.68
17.37
17.24
17.71
17.68
16.82
16.82
16.93
6.09,
9.62
ABSORPTION PARAMETERS
Altering SO;
;oncentratlot
(Don)
750
415
415
510
420
700
975
1080
420
495
250
2000
2625
2625
2450
1520
1250
Leaving S02
;oncentratioi
(oom)
180
31.5
73
30
37.5
46.5
262
285
40
75
30
600
1050
1050
460
540
350
SO- Removal
EEflciency
(X)
76.0
92.4"
81.2
94.1
91.1
93.4
73.1
73.6
90.5
84.8
88.0
70.0
60.0
60.0
81.2
64.5
72.0
u>
-------
APPENDIX E
UNITS OF MEASURE
It ±e EPA policy to express all measurements in metric units.
If undue costs or difficulty in clarity result from implementing
this practice, British units may be employed and a conversion table
provided. Such is the case with this document, the first draft
of which was submitted before promulgation of the EPA policy.
British
Metric
Length
Power
Volume
Pressure
Density
Mass
Temperature
1 inch (in.)
1 foot (ft)
1 horsepower (HP)
1 cubic foot (cf)(ft3)
1 gallon (gal)
1 inch of water (in.H-O)
1 inch of mercury (in.Hg)
1 pound per square inch
(psi)
1 pound per cubic foot
(Ib ft'3)
1 ounce (oz)
1 pound (Ib)
1 ton (T)
1 grain (gr)
1° Fahrenheit (°F)
1° Rankine (°R)
2.54 centimeters
0.3048 meters
746 watts
28.3161 liters
3.7853 liters
2419 dynes per square
centimeter
338639 "
689476 " "
0.0160 grams per
cubic centimeter
28.3495 grams
453.5923 grains
907.1846 kilograms
0.0648 grams
(5/9)(°F-32) °Centigrade
(5/9)(°R) °Kelvin
144
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Iiutraetioni on the reverse before completing)
'OUT NO. 2.
'A-650/2-74-077
LE AND SUBTITLE
ne/Limestone Scrubbing in a Pilot Dus traxtor- -
Cey West
THORis»Burke A Bell; Terrence A. LiPuma;
J. M. Craig, Ph.D.; and J. K. Allison
1FORMING OR«ANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
];ineering Science, Inc.
)3 Westpark Drive
Lean, Virginia 22101
ONSOMINO AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
A, Office of Research and Development
RC-RTP, Control Systems Laboratory
search Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
i. REPORT DATE
September 1974
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
LAB013; ROAP 21AQO-001
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
CPA 70-61
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; January-July 1971
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
IPPLEMENTARY NOTES
report gives results of a 7-month series of nearly 200 tests of the Dust-
tor limestone wet scrubbing system in 1971, both in Key West, Florida, and at
Vs Shawnee Plant in Kentucky. At Key West, No. 6 fuel oil containing 1-2.2% sulfur
burned; at Shawnee, 2-4% sulfur pulverized coal was burned. The tests included
tematic variation of stoichiometry, reactant particle size, slurry concentration,
ssure drop, and gas flow rate. Reactants tested included coral marl, Fredonia
ley limestone, dolomite, lime, aragonite, and precipitated calcium carbonate.
its also included evaluation of spent reactant material, boiler injection of dry arag-
:e, addition of an inhibitor and catalyst, and effects on particulate and NOx removal.
?r installing an annular fresh water spray ring to reduce scale formation, the
traxtor worked satisfactorily. SO2 removal efficiencies varied up to 90-plus %,
ending on the reactant used. Absorption efficiency increased significantly with
-eased pressure drop, decreased gas flow rate, increased stoichiometric ratio,
increased liquid-to-gas ratio. Other variables and an inhibitor and catalyst had no
lificant effect. NOx removal in the scrubber was negligible. Particulate removal
;he total pilot plant system was excellent.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Pollution Limestone Desulfurizatior
ubbers Marls Nitrogen
thing Dolomite Oxides
1 Oil Aragonite
1 Calcium
cium Oxides Carbonates
3TRIBUTION STATEMENT
imited
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Dus traxtor
Particulates
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
2O. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B , 07D
07A
13H
21D, 11H
07B
21. NO. OF PAGES
157
22. PRICE
arm J21O-1 (»-7J)
145
-------