Title: Mercury CEMS and Sorbent Traps Measurements vary because of Particulate Mercury by Jim Staudt of Andover Technology Partners - Hot Topic Hour May 8, 2014

Jim provided the following comparison between CEMS and Sorbent Traps - Method 30B includes HgP, which results in overestimation of gaseous Hg that may be significant at MATS Hg levels but not enough to impact RATA pass or fail  Differences in HgT up to about 0.50µg/Nm3 (typically less, but sometimes more) may be explained by HgP when controlling Hg with ACI and/or Br. Will vary somewhat by coal Hg levels, PM emissions, ACI injection, etc.  Bromine “interference” should not be a concern except possibly under extremely high furnace Br injection rates and is not a concern for brominated activated carbon.

Click Here For Complete Presentation Text

 

   Person Information

  •     Staudt, James  -  Andover Technology Partners
   Application Sequencing
 221112 - Fossil Fuel 化石燃料  Coal-Fired 燃煤              
Company  Product  Process  Other  Subjects  Event  Event  Date  Location  Publication  Publication  Date Text  Descriptor

  • Andover Technology Partners

  • Mercury CEMS

  • Sorbent Trap

 

  • Hot Topic Hour - Sorbent Traps vs. Mercury CEMS

 

  • 5/8/2014

 

 

 

 

  • Presentation