4.7 Article

Continuous supercritical water oxidation treatment of oil-based drill cuttings using municipal sewage sludge as diluent

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 384, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121225

关键词

Hazardous waste; Oily sludge; Anti-plugging; Residence time; Shale gas

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing, China [cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0415]
  2. West Light (Young Scholar) Foundation of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [Y93A030M10]
  3. Open Project Program of the State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Pollution Control [PPC2016001]
  4. CNPC Research Institute of Safety and Environmental Technology
  5. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41763008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oil-based drill cuttings (OBDC) is a characteristic hazardous waste that is generated in oil and gas exploration. In this study, two typical OBDCs from shale gas fields were treated in a continuous supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) for the first time. Because both heat value and ash content (AC) in the OBDCs were well beyond the capacity of continuous operation, municipal sewage sludge (MSS) was innovatively adapted as the diluent. A mixed sludge with OBDC addition levels of 10%, 20%, and 30% was tested using a novel SCWO reactor. Mean residence times of reactants in different reaction zones were specifically calculated. Results indicated the organic carbon removal efficiency could reach up to 98.44%. Eight detected heavy metals were found to be almost completely removed into solid products, and the concentrations in liquid products were all below the discharge limits. It was also found that the SCWO reactor exhibited good anti-plugging and anti-corrosion performance. The AC in the feedstock was up to 28.58%. To the best of our knowledge, this has, hitherto, not been achieved in a continuous SCWO operation. This study provides a new approach for harmlessly and completely degrading OBDC, and is also helpful for the industrialization of SCWO technology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据