EPA-452/F-03-029
Air Pollution Control Technology
Fact Sheet
Name of Technology: Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)- Wire-Pipe Type
Type of Technology: Control Device - Capture/Disposal
Applicable Pollutants: Particulate Matter (PM), including particulate matter less than or equal to 10
micrometers (|j,m) in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 |j,m in
aerodynamic diameter (PM2 5), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that are in particulate form, such as most
metals (mercury is the notable exception, as a significant portion of emissions are in the form of elemental
vapor). Wet ESPs are often used to control acid mists and can provide incidental control of volatile organic
compounds.
Achievable Emission Limits/Reductions:
Typical new equipment design efficiencies are between 99 and 99.9%. Older existing equipment have a
range of actual operating efficiencies of 90 to 99.9%. While several factors determine ESP collection
efficiency, ESP size is most important. Size determines treatment time; the longer a particle spends in the
ESP, the greater its chance of being collected. Maximizing electric field strength will maximize ESP collection
efficiency (STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996). Collection efficiency is also affected to some extent by dust resistivity,
gas temperature, chemical composition (of the dust and the gas), and particle size distribution.
Applicable Source Type: Point
Typical Industrial Applications:
Wet ESPs are used in situations for which dry ESPs are not suited, such as when the material to be collected
is wet, sticky, flammable, explosive, or has a high resistivity. Also, as higher collection efficiencies have
become more desirable, wet ESP applications have been increasing. Many older ESPs are of the wire-pipe
design, consisting of a single tube placed on top of a smokestack (EPA, 1998). Wet pipe-type ESPs are
commonly used by the textile industry, pulp and paper facilities, the metalurgical industry, including coke
ovens, hazardous waste incinerators, and sulfuric acid manufacturing plants, among others, though other ESP
types are employed as well (EPA, 1998; Flynn, 1999).
Emission Stream Characteristics:
a. Air Flow: Typical gas flow rates for wet wire-pipe ESPs are 0.5 to 50 standard cubic meters
persecond (sm3/sec) (1,000 to 100,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm)) (Flynn, 1999).
b. Temperature: Wet wire-pipe ESPs are limited to operating at temperatures lower than
approximately 80 to 90-C (170 to 190-F) (EPA, 1998; Flynn, 1999).
c. Pollutant Loading: Typical inlet concentrations to a wire-pipe ESP are 1 to 10 grams per
cubic meter (g/m3) (0.5 to 5 gr/ft3). It is common to pretreat a waste stream, usually with a
wet spray or scrubber, to bring the stream temperature and pollutant loading into a
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet
Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
Wire-Pipe Type
-------
manageable range. Highly toxic flows with concentrations well below 1 g/m3 (0.5 gr/ft3) are
also sometimes controlled with ESPs (Flynn, 1999).
d. Other Considerations: Dust resistivity is not a factor for wet ESPs, because of the high
humidity atmosphere which lowers the resistivity of most materials. Particle size is much less
of a factor for wet ESPs, compared to dry ESPs. Much smaller particles can be efficiently
collected by wet ESPs due to the lack of resistivity concerns and the reduced reentrainment
(Flynn, 1999).
Emission Stream Pretreatment Requirements:
When the pollutant loading is exceptionally high or consists of relatively large particles (> 2 • m), venturi
scrubbers or spray chambers may be used to reduce the load on the ESP. Much larger particles (> 10 • m),
are controlled with mechanical collectors such as cyclones. Gas conditioning equipment to reduce both inlet
concentration and gas temperature is occasionally used as part of the original design of a wet ESPs (AWMA,
1992; Flynn, 1999).
Cost Information:
The following are cost ranges (expressed in 2002 dollars) for wire-pipe ESPs of conventional design under
typical operating conditions, developed using EPA cost-estimating spreadsheets for dry wire-plate ESPs with
adjustments made to reflect wet wire-pipe ESPs (EPA, 1996). Costs can be substantially higher than in the
ranges shown for pollutants which require an unusually high level of control, or which require the ESP to be
constructed of special materials such as titanium. Capital and operating costs are generally higher due to
noncorrosive materials requirements, increased water usage, and treatment and disposal of wet effluent. In
most cases, smaller units controlling a low concentration waste stream will not be as cost effective as a large
unit cleaning a high pollutant load flow (EPA, 1998).
a. Capital Cost: $85,000 to $424,000 per sm3/sec ($40 to $200 per scfm)
b. O&MCost: $12,000 to $21,000 per sm3/sec ($6 to $10 per scfm), annually
c. Annualized Cost: $25,000 to $97,000 persm3/s ($12 to $46 per scfm), annually
d. Cost Effectiveness: $73 to $720 per metric ton ($65 to $660 per ton)
Theory of Operation:
An ESP is a particulate control device that uses electrical forces to move particles entrained within an exhaust
stream onto collection surfaces. The entrained particles are given an electrical charge when they pass
through a corona, a region where gaseous ions flow. Electrodes in the center of the flow lane are maintained
at high voltage and generate the electrical field that forces the particles to the collector walls. In wet ESPs,
the collectors are either intermittently or continuously washed by a spray of liquid, usually water. The
collection hoppers used by dry ESPs are replaced with a drainage system. The wet effluent is collected, and
often treated on-site (EPA, 1998).
In a wire-pipe ESP, also called a tubular ESP, the exhaust gas flows vertically through conductive tubes,
generally with many tubes operating in parallel. The tubes may be formed as a circular, square, or hexagonal
honeycomb. Square and hexagonal pipes can be packed closer together than cylindrical pipes, reducing
wasted space. Pipes are generally 7 to 30 cm (3 to 12 inches (in.)) in diameter and 1 to 4 m (3 to 12 feet) in
length. The high voltage electrodes are long wires or rigid "masts" suspended from a frame in the upper part
of the ESP that run through the axis of each tube. Rigid electrodes are generally supported by both an upper
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
2 Wire-Pipe Type
-------
and lower frame. In modern designs, sharp points are added to the electrodes, either at the entrance to a
tube or along the entire length in the form of stars, to provide additional ionization sites (EPA, 1998; Flynn,
1999).
The power supplies for the ESP convert the industrial AC voltage (220 to 480 volts) to pulsating DC voltage
in the range of 20,000 to 100,000 volts as needed. The voltage applied to the electrodes causes the gas
between the electrodes to breakdown electrically, an action known as a "corona." The electrodes are usually
given a negative polarity because a negative corona supports a higher voltage than does a positive corona
before sparking occurs. The ions generated in the corona follow electric field lines from the electrode to the
collecting pipe. Therefore, each electrode-pipe combination establishes a charging zone through which the
particles must pass. As larger particles (>10 • m diameter) absorb many times more ions than small particles
(>1 • m diameter), the electrical forces are much stronger on the large particles (EPA, 1996).
Due to necessary clearances needed for nonelectrified internal components at the top of wire-plate ESPs, part
of the gas is able to flow around the charging zones. This is called "sneakage" and places an upper limit on
the collection efficiency. Wire-pipe ESPs provide no sneakage paths around the collecting region, but field
nonuniformities may allow some particles to avoid charging for a considerable fraction of the tube length
(AWMA, 1992).
Wet ESPs require a source of wash water to be injected or sprayed near the top of the collector pipes either
continuously or at timed intervals. This wash system replaces the rapping mechanism usually used by dry
ESPs. The water flows with the collected particles into a sump from which the fluid is pumped or drained.
A portion of the fluid may be recycled to reduce the total amount of water required. The remainder is pumped
into a settling pond or passed through a dewatering stage, with subsequent disposal of the sludge (AWMA,
1992).
Unlike dry ESPs, resistivity of the collected material is generally not a major factor in performance. Because
of the high humidity in a wet ESP, the resistivity of particles is lowered, eliminating the "back corona" condition.
The frequent washing of the pipes also limits particle buildup on the collectors (EPA, 1998).
Advantages:
Wet wire-pipe ESPs and other ESPs in general, because they act only on the particulate to be removed, and
only minimally hinder flue gas flow, have very low pressure drops (typically less than 13 millimeters (mm) (0.5
in.) water column). As a result, energy requirements and operating costs tend to be low. They are capable
of very high efficiencies, even for very small particles. Operating costs are relatively low. ESPs are capable
of operating under high pressure (to 1,030 kPa (150 psi)) or vacuum conditions, and relatively large gas flow
rates can be effectively handled (AWMA, 1992).
Wet ESPs can collect sticky particles and mists, as well as highly resistive or explosive dusts. The continuous
or intermittent washing with a liquid eliminates the reentrainment of particles due to rapping which dry ESPs
are subject to. The humid atmosphere that results from the washing in a wet ESP enables them to collect
high resistivity particles, absorb gases or cause pollutants to condense, and cools and conditions the gas
stream. Liquid particles or aerosols present in the gas stream are collected along with particles and provide
another means of rinsing the collection electrodes (EPA, 1998). Wet wire-pipe ESPs have the additional
advantages of reducing "sneakage" by passing the entire gas stream through the collection field, and the
ability to be tightly sealed to prevent leaks of materia, especially valuable or hazardous materials (AWMA,
1992).
Disadvantages:
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
3 Wire-Pipe Type
-------
ESPs generally have high capital costs. Wire discharge electrodes (approximately 2.5 mm (0.01 in.) in
diameter) are high-maintenance items. Corrosion can occur near the top of the wires because of air leakage
and acid condensation. Also, long weighted wires tend to oscillate - the middle of the wire can approach the
pipe, causing increased sparking and wear. Newer ESP designs are tending toward rigid electrodes, or
"masts" which largely eliminate the drawbacks of using wire electrodes (Cooper and Alley, 1994; Flynn, 1999).
ESPs in general are not suited for use in processes which are highly variable because they are very sensitive
to fluctuations in gas stream conditions (flow rates, temperatures, particulate and gas composition, and
particulate loadings). ESPs are also difficult to install in sites which have limited space since ESPs must be
relatively large to obtain the low gas velocities necessary for efficient PM collection (Cooper and Alley, 1994).
Relatively sophisticated maintenance personnel are required, as well as special precautions to safeguard
personnel from the high voltage. Ozone is produced by the negatively charged electrode during gas ionization
(AWMA, 1992). Wet ESPs add the complexity of a wash system, and the fact that the resulting slurry must
be handled more carefully than a dry product, and in many cases requires treatment, especially if the dust can
be sold or recycled. Wet ESPs are limited to operating at stream temperatures under approximately 80 to
90-C (170 to 190-F), and generally must be constructed of noncorrosive materials (EPA, 1998; Flynn, 1999).
Other Considerations:
For wet ESPs, consideration must be given to handling wastewaters. For simple systems with innocuous
dusts, water with particles collected by the ESP may be discharged from the ESP system to a solids-removing
clarifier (either dedicated to the ESP or part of the plant wastewater treatment system) and then to final
disposal. More complicated systems may require skimming and sludge removal, clarification in dedicated
wequipment, pH adjustment, and/or treatment to remove dissolved solids. Spray water from an ESP
preconditioner may be treated separately from the water used to wash the ESP collecting pipes so that the
cleaner of the two treated water streams may be returned to the ESP. Recirculation of treated water to the
ESP may approach 100 percent (AWMA, 1992).
References:
AWMA, 1992. Air& Waste Management Association, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Cooper & Alley, 1994. C. D. Cooper and F. C. Alley, Air Pollution Control: A Design Approach, Second
Edition, Waveland Press, Inc. IL.
EPA, 1996. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "OAQPS Control Cost Manual," Fifth
Edition, EPA 453/B-96-001, Research Triangle Park, NC. February.
EPA, 1997. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Volume I, Fifth Edition, Research Triangle Park, NC., October.
EPA, 1998. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "Stationary Source Control
Techniques Document for Fine Particulate Matter," EPA-452/R-97-001, Research Triangle Park, NC.,
October.
Flynn, 1999. Brian Flynn, Beltran Associates, Inc., (718) 338-3311, personal communications with Eric
Albright, February 5 and 10, 1999.
STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996. State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and Association of
Local Air Pollution Control Officials, "Controlling Particulate Matter Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of
Options," July.
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
4 Wire-Pipe Type
------- |