4.7 Article

Inherent thermal regeneration performance of different MnO2 crystallographic structures for mercury removal

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 374, Issue -, Pages 267-275

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.04.006

Keywords

Manganese oxides; Mercury removal; Coal-fired power plants; Regeneration performance; Oxygen loss

Funding

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFB0600604]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51576044, 51676041]
  3. Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province [KYLX16_0201]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Manganese oxides with different crystallographic structures were investigated for gas-phase elemental mercury removal. The inherent thermal regeneration performance and mechanism of alpha- and gamma-MnO2 were studied. The manganese dioxides were found to possess a mercury removal efficiency of higher than 96% even after 120 min mercury exposure except for beta-MnO2 which removed much less mercury than Mn2O3. The alpha-MnO2 was found to have a higher recyclability of mercury capture and better durability for regeneration than gamma-MnO2. During the first 1 h of exposure, alpha-MnO2 showed an excellent mercury capacity of 128 mu g/g over 5 regeneration cycles. While for gamma-MnO2, the mercury capacity of the fifth cycle was reduced to 68.74 mu g/g, which is much lower than 131.42 mu g/g for the first cycle. The microstructure of alpha-MnO2 was maintained throughout regeneration cycles due to its capability to retain lattice oxygen. In comparison, gamma-MnO2 experienced reconstruction and phase transformation induced by oxygen vacancies due to lattice oxygen loss during regeneration process, leading to a degradation in mercury capture. The alpha-MnO2 oriented composite was found Corresponding to be better developed into a regenerable catalytic sorbent for mercury removal from flue gases of coal-fired power plants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available