4.8 Article

Application of Ultraviolet, Ozone, and Advanced Oxidation Treatments to Washwaters To Destroy Nitrosamines, Nitramines, Amines, and Aldehydes Formed during Amine-Based Carbon Capture

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 47, 期 6, 页码 2799-2808

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es304893m

关键词

-

资金

  1. Yale Climate and Energy Institute
  2. Norwegian state

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although amine-based CO2 absorption is a leading contender for full-scale postcombustion CO2 capture at power plants, concerns have been raised about the potential release of carcinogenic N-nitrosamines and N-nitramines formed by reaction of exhaust gas NOx with the amines. Experiments with a laboratory-scale pilot unit suggested that washwater units meant to scrub contaminants from absorber unit exhaust could potentially serve as a source of N-nitrosamines via reactions of residual NOx with amines accumulating in the washwater. Dosage requirements for the continuous treatment of the washwater recycle line with ultraviolet (UV) light for destruction of N-nitrosamines and N-nitramines, and with ozone or hydroxyl radical-based advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) for destruction of amines and aldehydes, were evaluated. Although <1000 mJ/cm(2) UV fluence was generally needed for 90% removal of a series of model N-nitrosamines and N-nitramines, 280-1000 mJ/cm(2) average fluence was needed for 90% removal of total N-nitrosamines in pilot washwaters associated with two different solvents. While AOPs were somewhat more efficient than ozone for acetaldehyde destruction, ozone was more efficient for amine destruction. Ozone achieved 90% amine removal in washwaters at 5-12 molar excess of ozone, indicating transferred dosage levels of similar to 100 mg/L for 90% removal in a first-stage washwater unit, but likely only similar to 10 mg/L if applied to a second-stage washwater. Accurate dosage and cost estimates would require pilot testing to capture synergies between UV and ozone treatments.

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

4.8
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