Fly ash particle characterization of electrostatic precipitators and cooling agglomeration for fine particles
LIU Hanxiao, LI Jianguo, YAO Yuping, HE Yuzhong, CHEN Zhaomei, WANG Peng
2018, 37(06):
2413-2425.
doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2017-1773
Abstract
(
288 )
PDF (5671KB)
(
719
)
References |
Related Articles |
Metrics
Based on the 50000m3/h actual flue gas pilot test system, the Mastersizer 2000E laser particle size analyzer and electrical low pressure impactor(ELPI) were used to fully characterize the geometric particle size and aerodynamic particle size of the fly ash particles of the electrostatic precipitator(ESP) for the first time. Results showed that, the geometric size distribution of fly ash particles of ESP inlet and different electric field is bimodal distribution characteristics, which moves to the right in turn, but particles ≤ 1μm at the end of rotating electrode electric field have a slightly higher, the fly ash particle geometric median diameter of ESP inlet and 1-5 electric field were 6.607μm, 17.378μm, 2.884μm, 2.577μm, 2.460μm, 2.480μm, respectively. The fly ash particles geometric size distribution bimodal of ESP inlet moves to the right when temperature was reduced, particle agglomeration phenomenon was obvious, the fly ash particle geometric median diameter of 80℃, 90℃, 110℃, 130℃, 150℃ for ESP inlet were 13.183μm, 10.500μm, 10.171μm, 6.607μm, 7.586μm, from 130℃ to 90℃, particles ratio of ≤ 1μm, ≤ 2.5μm, ≤ 10μm decreased by 19.8%, 19.8% and 19.8% respectively. At different temperatures, the ESP collection efficiency of number and mass concentration for aeordynamic diameter 0.03μm to 10μm, which were all higher than 75%, and the highest was up to 99.9%. The number and mass concentration for different period of aerodynamic diameter reduced obviously, from 130℃ to 90℃ and 80℃, the PM2.5 agglomeration efficiency of mass concentration for ESP inlet were 46.76% and 46.76% respectively. The PM10 reduction efficiency of mass concentration for ESP outlet were 59.80% and 91.08%. PM2.5 reduction efficiency were 45.94% and 76.22%. PM1 reduction efficiency were 40.40% and 62.12%, respectively.