Next Article in Journal
Simultaneous Determination of Sodium Pentachlorophenolate and Its Metabolites in Swine Samples
Previous Article in Journal
Temporal and Spatial Characterization of Sediment Bacterial Communities from Lake Wetlands in a Plain River Network Region
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Separations
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/separations10100536
separations-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Study on Multi-Pollutant Test and Performance Index Determination of Wet Electrostatic Precipitator

by
Hanxiao Liu
1,2,3,4,*,
Shuiyuan Luo
1,
Liyuan Yu
1,
Haibao Zhao
1,
Jun Liang
3,
Ying Guo
1,
Ying Cui
1,
Sike Shan
4,
Xiaowei Liu
2 and
Jianguo Li
1
1
Zhejiang Feida Environmental Science & Technology Co., Ltd., Zhuji 311800, China
2
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
3
Zhejiang Environmental Protection Group, Eco-Environmental Research Institute, Hangzhou 310030, China
4
School of Energy, Power and Mechanical Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Separations 2023, 10(10), 536; https://doi.org/10.3390/separations10100536
Submission received: 18 August 2023 / Revised: 16 September 2023 / Accepted: 20 September 2023 / Published: 11 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Research on Electrostatic Precipitation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) is typically installed downstream of wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD) to remove fine particles and sulfuric acid mists from flue gases in coal-fired power plants. The emission reduction characteristics of multiple pollutants and the energy consumption data of 214 sets of WESPs (94 sets of metal plate WESPs, 111 sets of conductive Fiber Reinforced Plastic WESPs, and 9 sets of flexible plate WESPs) were tested and analyzed, and the results showed that: WESPs had a high removal efficiency on PM, PM2.5, SO3, droplets and Hg, and mostly concentrated in ≥75%, ≥70%, ≥60%, ≥70% and ≥40%, respectively. The outlet pollutant concentrations were mostly concentrated in ≤5 mg/m3, ≤3 mg/m3, ≤5 mg/m3, ≤15 mg/m3 and ≤5 μg/m3, respectively. Specific power consumption and specific water consumption were concentrated in the range of 0.5~2.5 × 10−4 kWh/m3 and ≤10 × 10−6 t/m3. The correlation analysis of multiple pollutant’s removal performance was studied and the quantitative evaluation index requirements of high efficiency WESPs were determined in this paper. The high efficiency indexes of WESPs, such as PM emission concentration, SO3 emission concentration, PM removal efficiency, SO3 removal efficiency, pressure drop, air leakage rate and specific power consumption, were ≤2.50 mg/m3, ≤2.50 mg/m3, ≥90%, ≥85%, ≤200 Pa, ≤0.5% and ≤1.3 × 10−4 kWh/m3, respectively. The high efficiency indexes of specific water consumption for metal plate WESPs and FRP WESPs were ≤2.50 and ≤0.66 × 10−6 t/m3, respectively. This study can provide valuable reference for the following energy conservation and efficiency improvement of ultra-low emission units.

1. Introduction

Wet electrostatic precipitators (WESPs) are typically installed downstream of wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD) to remove fine particles and sulfuric acid mists from flue gases [1,2,3,4,5]. WFGD can efficiently remove SO2 and collaboratively remove part of PM, but its ability to remove fine particles and unconventional pollutants is limited [6]. Jens et al. [7], who measured the dust removal performance of WESPs by an ELPI (Electrical Low Pressure Impactor), SMPS (Scanning Mobility Particle Sizers), membrane filtration and other test methods, found that the minimum particulate matter emission concentration could reach less than 1 mg/m3. Xu et al. [8], who carried out field measurements on two sets of WESPs equipped for 300 MW coal-fired units, found that the removal efficiency of PM2.5 and SO3 were, respectively, in the range of 79.71–90.23% and 52.03–59.09%. Pan et al. [9], who studied the SO3 emission reduction in WESPs experimentally, found that the SO3 removal efficiency of WESP systems was mainly from 30 to 65% and the fractional removal efficiency for aerosols from 0.1 to 1 μm had a distinct decrease; furthermore, the removal process was promoted with an operating voltage increase and the inlet concentration of sulfuric acid aerosols decreases. Yang et al. [10], who studied the SO3 emission reduction and efficiency improvement methods of WESPs experimentally, found that the SO3 removal efficiency could be increased from 90.3% to 95.8% through pre-charge and to 97.8% through pre-charge and condensation. Nevertheless, the current publications on WESPs mainly focus on the improvements of the pollutant removal performance, without involving energy efficiency characteristics. Generally, the higher the high-voltage power supply parameters, the greater the energy consumption and the higher the efficiency of electric dust removal [11,12,13]. In this work, pollutant-removal performance and the energy efficiency characteristics of WESPs were investigated, analyzed and evaluated, which can provide reference for future energy saving and efficiency improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Object

WESPs have three forms, namely, metal plate WESPs, conductive Fiber Reinforced Plastics (FRP) WESPs and flexible plate WESPs. In this work, these three types of WESP in typical coal-fired power plants of China are taken as the research object. The unit capacity and flue gas volume flow statistics of different WESPs are shown in Figure 1. The unit capacity of metal plate WESPs ranges from 50 MW to 1030 MW, and the flue gas volume flow ranges from 3.3 × 105 to 4.3 × 106 m3/h, with the average data of 1.8 × 106 m3/h, and an average flue gas volume flow of a 300 MW class, 600 MW class and 1000 MW class for metal plate WESPs are 1.2 × 106, 2.3 × 106 and 3.0 × 106 m3/h, respectively. The unit capacity of conductive FRP WESPs ranges from 75 MW to 1000 MW, and the flue gas volume flow ranges from 4.8 × 105 to 3.3 × 106 m3/h, with the average data of 1.7 × 106 m3/h, and an average flue gas volume flow of 300 MW class, 600 MW class and 1000 MW class for conductive FRP WESPs are 1.4 × 106, 2.6 × 106 and 3.1 × 106 m3/h, respectively. The unit capacity of flexible plate WESPs ranges from 150 MW to 660 MW, and the flue gas volume flow ranges from 9.0 × 105 to 2.6 × 106 m3/h, with the average data of 1.6 × 106 m3/h, and an average flue gas volume flow of 300 MW class 600 MW class for flexible plate WESPs are 1.2 × 106 and 2.4 × 106 m3/h, respectively.

2.2. Test Methods

According to relevant requirements of actual engineering and technical agreement, and reference to relevant product standards [14,15,16,17] of WESPs, the following items needed to be tested during the performance assessment of WESPs, such as the main pollutants of particulate matter (PM), PM2.5 (PM with the aerodynamic diameters of ≤2.5 μm), SO3, droplets, mercury (Hg), etc.
Schematic diagram of PM sampling procedure is shown in Figure 2a. Large flow sampler (filter cartridge) or integrated sampling head (filter membrane) can be used for low concentration PM sampling. In the case of using large flow sampler as the PM sampling device, sampling method was decided in accordance with GB/T 13931-2017 [18], ISO 12141-2002 [19] and GB/T 15187-2017 [20], and the test instruments being used were Laoying 3012H-D (Maximum flow rate is 100 L/min, Accuracy ≤±2.5% Full Scal), Zhongrui ZR-3260 (Maximum flow rate is 80 L/min, Error range ≤±5% Full Scal), Tianhong TH-880W (Maximum flow rate is 60 L/min, Accuracy ≤±2.5% Full Scal) and so on. In the case of using integrated sampling head as PM sampling device, sampling method was decided in accordance with HJ 836-2017 [21] and DB37/T 2706-2015 [22], and the test instruments being used were Laoying 3012H-D-type sampler and Laoying 1085B-type integrated sampling head. Furthermore, in order to ensure the accuracy of low concentration test data, blank test was carried out at the inlet and outlet of WESP [23,24] during the test experiment, with a result that the blank test value did not exceed 10% of the limit of PM concentration and the weight gain of particles collected by the filter cartridge (membrane) was more than 5 times the positive mass deviation of the blank sample. The detection limit of this test method is 1.0 mg/m3 if the sampling volume is 1 m3.
Schematic diagram of PM2.5 sampling procedure is shown in Figure 2b. The gravimetric method decided in accordance with ISO 23210:2009 [25] and DL/T 1520-2016 [26] was used for PM2.5 sampling at the inlet and outlet of WESP, and the test instrument being used was Dekati® PM10 Impactor. This impactor is designed to be divided into three stages [27] with the purpose to collect particles ≥10 μm, 2.5~10 μm and 1~2.5 μm, respectively, and filter membrane installed after the last stage is aimed to collect particles ≤1 μm. During sampling period, the sampling tube and the impactors were heated to 120 °C due to the high humidity flue gas [28,29]. The detection limit of this test method is 0.150 mg/m3 if the sampling volume is 2 m3.
A schematic diagram of SO3 sampling procedure is shown in Figure 2c. Controlled condensation method [30] decided in accordance with GB/T 21508-2008 [31], DL/T 998-2006 [32] and DL/T 1990-2019 [33] was used for SO3 sampling at the inlet and outlet of WESP. In view of the fact that it is difficult for conventional condenser pipe to capture SO3 fully [34,35], the main parameters of condenser pipe used for SO3 sampling were uniformly designed as following, the inner diameter of outer tube was 60 mm, the inner diameter of inner tube was 4 mm, the inner tube ring diameter was 18 mm, the inner tube ring distance was 15 mm and the extension length of inner tube was longer than 2400 mm. The detection limit of this test method is 0.30 mg/m3 if the sampling volume is 0.5 m3.
Schematic diagram of droplet sampling procedure is shown in Figure 2d, and the sampling method was decided in accordance with GB/T 21508-2008 [31]. The value difference of the mass after sampling and after fully drying was the total amount of droplets captured by the trap. Meanwhile, the concentration of magnesium ions in the slurry of WFGD was analyzed in order to correct the amount of condensate water in flue gas. Laoying 3012H-D, Zhongrui ZR-3260 or Tianhong TH-880W was used as air extraction equipment.
Schematic diagram of Hg sampling procedure is shown in Figure 2e. EPA 30B standard method [36] was used for Hg sampling at the inlet and outlet of WESP, and the test instruments being used were Tianhong XC-260, Zhongrui ZR-3700A and so on. As the sampling result, when the Hg mass concentration in flue gas was more than 1 μg/m3, the total Hg in the penetration section did not exceed 10% of that in the absorption section, and when the Hg mass concentration in flue gas was less than 1 μg/m3, the total Hg content in the penetration section did not exceed 20% of that in the absorption section. The detection limit of this test method is 0.1 μg/m3 if the sampling volume is 10 L.
The WESP performance was assessed by pollutant collection efficiency (ηi) given by:
η i = M i 1 × M i 2 M i 1 × 100
where ηi represents the pollutant collection efficiency (%), Mi1 and Mi2 are the pollutant mass flow rates (mg/s) at the inlet and outlet of WESP, respectively.
According to GB/T 40505 [37] requirements, when the pollutant removal efficiency is tested, the test items of WESP inlet and outlet flue should be consistent, and the unit should run stably under BMCR (Boiler Maximum Continue Rate) load, the WESP operating condition meets the design requirements.

3. Results

3.1. Pollutant-Removal Performance

3.1.1. PM and PM2.5

The statistical results of PM emission concentration and removal efficiency are shown in Figure 3a and Figure 3b, respectively. The outlet PM concentration of the WESP is concentrated in the range of 1~10 mg/m3, and the PM removal efficiency is concentrated in the range of 75~90%. The PM removal performance is different between different types of WESP. For metal plate WESPs applied to different coal-fired power plants, the outlet PM concentration is in the range of 0.41~16.20 mg/m3, with an average of 4.41 mg/m3, and PM concentration ≤5 mg/m3 accounted for 77.7%, PM concentration ≤2.5 mg/m3 accounted for 23.4%. The PM removal efficiency of metal plate WESPs is in the range of 45.70~95.72%, with an average of 83.49%, and PM removal efficiency ≥75% accounted for 84.0%, PM removal efficiency ≥90% accounted for 25.9%. For FRP WESPs, the outlet PM concentration is in the range of 1.10~9.40 mg/m3, with an average of 3.92 mg/m3, and PM concentration ≤5 mg/m3 accounted for 83.5%, PM concentration ≤2.5 mg/m3 accounted for 19.3%. PM removal efficiency of FRP WESP is in the range of 56.10~96.12%, with an average of 81.89%, and PM removal efficiency ≥75% accounted for 82.2%, PM removal efficiency ≥90% accounted for 17.8%. For flexible plate WESPs, the outlet PM concentration is in the range of 1.61~13.93 mg/m3, with an average of 7.74 mg/m3, and the proportion of PM concentration ≤5 mg/m3 is 33.3%, PM concentration ≤2.5 mg/m3 accounted for 22.2%. PM removal efficiency of flexible plate WESPs is in the range of 64.10~81.62%, with an average of 76.53%, and PM removal efficiency ≥5% accounted for 66.7%, PM removal efficiency is not more than 90%. Generally, a metal plate WESP could achieve a lower PM emission concentration than other forms of WESP because a continuous spray mechanism which could strengthen the agglomeration and migration of particles by charged drops in wet electric fields [38,39,40] was adopted. From the overall data distribution of three types of WESP, the proportion of PM emission ≤2.5 mg/m3 and PM removal efficiency ≥90% are 20.3% and 19.4%, respectively.
The statistical results of PM2.5 emission concentration and removal efficiency are shown in Figure 4a and Figure 4b, respectively. The PM2.5 removal efficiency is concentrated in the range of 70~90%. The PM2.5 removal performance is different between different types of WESP. For metal plate WESPs applied to different coal-fired power plants, the outlet PM2.5 concentration is 0.27~9.2 mg/m3, with an average value of 2.15 mg/m3, and PM2.5 concentration ≤3 mg/m3 accounted for 74.1%, PM2.5 concentration ≤0.5 mg/m3 accounted for 33.3%. The PM2.5 removal efficiency of metal plate WESPs is 30.05~91.62%, with an average value of 80.70%, and PM2.5 removal efficiency ≥70% accounted for 96.0%, PM2.5 removal efficiency ≥88% accounted for 24.0%. For FRP WESPs, the outlet PM2.5 concentration is 0.15~3.80 mg/m3, with an average value of 1.49 mg/m3, and the proportion of PM2.5 concentration ≤3 mg/m3 is 93.2%, PM2.5 concentration ≤0.5 mg/m3 accounted for 11.4%. The PM2.5 removal efficiency of FRP WESPs is 58.33~93.07%, with an average value of 82.40%, and PM2.5 removal efficiency ≥70% accounted for 95.3%, PM2.5 removal efficiency ≥88% accounted for 22.7%. For flexible plate WESPs, the outlet PM2.5 concentration is 0.46~6.27 mg/m3, with an average value of 3.22 mg/m3, and the proportion of PM2.5 concentration ≤5 mg/m3 is 33.3%, PM2.5 concentration ≤0.5 mg/m3 accounted for 16.7%. The PM2.5 removal efficiency of flexible plate WESPs is 28.70~68.00%, with an average value of 58.68%, and PM2.5 removal efficiency ≥70% accounted for 16.7%, PM2.5 removal efficiency is not more than 88%. Generally, because of the following factors which could affect the particle removal performance [36], such as the deformation and shaking easily caused by a weak mechanical strength and high flue gas velocity, the difficulty in pole spacing warranty, the poor electric field stability and the low operation voltage, a flexible plate WESP has a slightly lower PM2.5 removal efficiency than metal plate WESPs and FRP WESPs. From the overall data distribution of the three types of WESP, the proportion of PM2.5 emission ≤0.5 mg/m3 and PM2.5 removal efficiency ≥88% are 19.5% and 21.6%, respectively.

3.1.2. Non-Conventional Pollutant

Statistical results of SO3 emission concentration and removal efficiency are shown in Figure 5a and Figure 5b, respectively. The SO3 concentration and removal efficiency are concentrated in the range of 1~5 mg/m3 and 60~85%, respectively. The SO3 removal performance was different between different types of WESP. For metal plate WESPs applied to different coal-fired power plants, the outlet SO3 concentration is 0.11~14.02 mg/m3, with an average value of 4.58 mg/m3, and SO3 concentration ≤5 mg/m3 accounted for 61.7%, SO3 concentration ≤2.5 mg/m3 accounted for 20.0%. The SO3 removal efficiency is 28.12~88.25%, with an average value of 72.08%, and SO3 removal efficiency ≥70% accounted for 59.0%, SO3 removal efficiency ≥85% accounted for 15.4%. For FRP WESPs, the outlet SO3 concentration is 0.27~12.20 mg/m3, with an average value of 4.17 mg/m3, and SO3 concentration ≤5 mg/m3 accounted for 77.9%, SO3 concentration ≤2.5 mg/m3 accounted for 28.6%. The SO3 removal efficiency was 40.91~92.02%, with an average value of 75.45%, and SO3 removal efficiency ≥70% accounted for 72.3%, SO3 removal efficiency ≥85% accounted for 23.1%. For flexible plate WESPs, the outlet SO3 concentration is 5.40~8.30 mg/m3, with an average value of 6.84 mg/m3, and SO3 concentration is not more than 5 mg/m3. The SO3 removal efficiency was 64.70~76.00%, with an average value of 70.35%. From the overall data distribution of the three types of WESP, the proportion of SO3 emission ≤2.5 mg/m3 and SO3 removal efficiency ≥85% are 23.9% and 19.8%, respectively.
Statistical results of droplet’s emission concentrations and removal efficiency are shown in Figure 6a and Figure 6b, respectively. The droplet’s removal efficiency was concentrated in the range of 70~85%. The droplet’s removal performance is different between different types of WESPs. For metal plate WESPs applied to different coal-fired power plants, the outlet droplet’s concentration is 2.2~34.11 mg/m3, with an average value of 13.67 mg/m3, and droplet’s concentration ≤10 mg/m3 accounted for 39.5%, droplet’s concentration ≤5 mg/m3 accounted for 15.8%. The droplet’s removal efficiency is 8.20~87.70%, with an average value of 73.97%, and droplet’s removal efficiency ≥70% accounted for 82.4%, droplet’s removal efficiency ≥82% accounted for 20.6%. For FRP WESPs, the outlet droplet’s concentration ranged from 0.30 mg/m3 to 38.60 mg/m3, with an average value of 11.35 mg/m3, and droplet’s concentration ≤10 mg/m3 accounted for 49.5%, droplet’s concentration ≤5 mg/m3 accounted for 20.9%. and the droplet’s removal efficiency ranged from 43.75% to 96.20%, with an average value of 74.07%, and droplet’s removal efficiency ≥70% accounted for 81.3%, droplet’s removal efficiency ≥82% accounted for 21.9%. For flexible pate WESPs, the outlet droplet’s concentration is 6.70, 4.32 mg/m3, respectively, and the droplet’s removal efficiency is 75.20% and 74.20%. From the overall data distribution of the three types of WESP, the proportion of droplet’s emission ≤5 mg/m3 and droplet’s removal efficiency ≥82% is 18.9% and 21.0%, respectively.
Statistical results of Hg emission concentration and removal efficiency are shown in Figure 7a,b. For metal plate WESPs applied to different coal-fired power plants, the outlet Hg concentration is 0.12~15.10 μg/m3, with an average value of 3.10 μg/m3 which is much lower than the Hg emission standard of China (30 μg/m3), and Hg concentration ≤2 μg/m3 accounted for 62.5%, Hg concentration ≤0.2 μg/m3 accounted for 12.5%. The Hg removal efficiency is 32.20~85.83%, with an average value of 63.67%, and Hg removal efficiency ≥60% accounted for 56.3%, Hg removal efficiency ≥80% accounted for 12.5%. For FRP WESP, the outlet Hg concentration ranged from 0.04 to 3.30 μg/m3, with an average value of 1.05 μg/m3, and Hg concentration ≤2 μg/m3 accounted for 76.5%, Hg concentration ≤0.2 μg/m3 accounted for 23.5%. The Hg removal efficiency is 41.90~89.22%, with an average value of 75.45%, and Hg removal efficiency ≥60% accounted for 82.4%, Hg removal efficiency ≥80% accounted for 23.5%. From the overall data distribution of the three types of WESP, the proportion of Hg emission ≤0.2 μg /m3 and Hg removal efficiency ≥80% are 18.9% and 21.2%, respectively.

3.1.3. Correlation Analyses of Multiple Pollutant Removal Performance

Correlation analyses of the multiple pollutant removal performance of WESPs are shown in Figure 8. The correlations between different pollutant outlet concentrations and different removal efficiencies are shown in the lower left lateral and upper right lateral, respectively, and the correlation analyses of the outlet concentration and removal efficiency of PM2.5, SO3, droplets and Hg are shown in the diagonal. As shown in the figure, there is a certain positive correlation between the removal performance of different pollutants, and the positive correlation between each pollutant and PM2.5 is the most obvious, which means that, for WESPs, the better the dust removal performance is, the higher the SO3, droplets and Hg removal efficiency will be. In terms of the dust removal mechanism, which is different from the conventional dry electrostatic precipitator as the collecting electrode is covered by water membrane in WESP, there is no secondary dust caused by shaking and fine particle emissions are avoided effectively. The technical bottleneck of fine particle charge in the conventional dry electrostatic precipitator is broken by the WESP with the help of continuous or intermittent water spraying in the electric field which could strengthen charging and agglomeration, and the PM2.5 removal efficiency of the WESP can reach more than 70%. The collision and agglomeration of droplets and fine particles could further improve the fine particle removal efficiency of WESPs because SO3 is more likely to condense into sulfuric acid aerosol when small droplets or particles are used as condensation nuclei, and more likely to further grow together with them. In actual operation, as the non-continuous spray method is widely used in FRP WESPs and flexible plate WESPs [41], the outlet droplet concentration of these two types of WESP is generally lower than that of metal plate WESPs, and FRP WESPs could achieve a higher SO3 removal efficiency because its power parameter could raise to a higher level. As most of the Hg in flue gas is particulate mercury and divalent mercury in particles and droplets [42,43], and the smaller the particles are, the larger the specific surface area will be, the Hg content of 0.01 μm particles increased by 7 orders of magnitude, compared with 10 μm particles [44]. In actual operation, the FRP WESP could achieve a lower Hg emission concentration than metal plate WESPs because of the non-continuous spray method and higher power parameter mentioned above. An internal mechanism analysis of multi-pollutant removal is shown in Figure 9.

3.2. Performance Indexes

The statistical results of the pressure drop and air leakage rate are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11. For metal plate WESPs applied to different coal-fired power plants, the pressure drop is 125~1251 Pa, with an average value of 296 Pa, and pressure drop ≤200 Pa accounted for 49.3%, pressure drop ≤150 Pa accounted for 16.4%. The air leakage rate is 0.14~1.65%, with an average value of 0.81%, and air leakage rate ≤1% accounted for 69.4%, air leakage rate ≤0.5% accounted for 27.8%. For FRP WESPs, the pressure drop is 67~1186 Pa, with an average value of 270 Pa, and pressure drop ≤200 Pa accounted for 38.8%, pressure drop ≤150 Pa accounted for 24.3%. The air leakage rate is 0.11~1.88%, with an average value of 0.85%, and air leakage rate ≤1% accounted for 66.7%, air leakage rate ≤0.5% accounted for 21.2%. For flexible plate WESPs, the pressure drop is 100~846 Pa, with an average value of 308 Pa, and pressure drop ≤200 Pa accounted for 50.0%, pressure drop ≤150 Pa accounted for 37.5%. The air leakage rate is 0.80~1.67%, with an average value of 1.20%, and air leakage rate ≤1% accounted for 25.0%, air leakage rate is not less than 0.5%. From the overall data distribution of the three types of WESP, the pressure drop ≤200 Pa and pressure drop ≤150 Pa are 43.3% and 21.9%, respectively. The air leakage rate of WESPs ≤0.5% is 23.3%. It is worth noting that a WESP with a pressure drop over 1000 Pa is designed and measured with WFGD integrated.

3.3. Energy-Efficiency Characteristics

In order to evaluate the energy efficiency and material consumption of WESPs, the specific power consumption of a high-voltage power supply and the specific water consumption of WESPs were calculated according to the following equation [45]:
λ e = E h Q
λ w = W Q
where λe and λw, respectively, denote the specific power consumption (kWh/m3) of a high-voltage power supply and specific water consumption (t/m3). Eh and W, respectively, denote the power consumption (kWh/h) and water consumption (t/h).
The statistical results of the specific power consumption are shown in Figure 12, in which the values are concentrated in the range of 0.5~2.5 × 10−4 kWh/m3, and with the average value of 1.65 × 10−4 kWh/m3. The specific power consumption of metal plate WESPs, FRP WESPs and flexible plate WESPs in different coal-fired power plants is 0.39~3.34, 0.74~3.38 and 0.89~2.02 × 10−4 kWh/m3, with an average value of 1.54, 1.77 and 1.38 × 10−4 kWh/m3, respectively. The specific power consumption of the three types of WESP ≤1.3 × 10−4 kWh/m3 are 30.0%, 14.3% and 33.3%, respectively. As shown in the following pictures, the difference in the power consumption index between the three types of WESP is very small, and from the overall data distribution of the three types of WESP, the specific power consumption of WESP ≤1.3 × 10−4 kWh/m3 is 21.9%.
The statistical results of the specific water consumption are shown in Figure 13, in which the values are concentrated in the range of ≤10 × 10−6 t/m3, with the average value of 4.98 × 10−6 kWh/m3. The specific water consumption of metal plate WESPs and FRP WESPs in different coal-fired power plants is 0.60~30.62 and 0.14~9.38 × 10−6 t/m3, with an average value of 7.44 and 1.48 × 10−6 t/m3, respectively. In actual operation, as the continuous spray method was widely used in metal plate WESPs, its water consumption is significantly higher than FRP WESPs. The specific water consumption of metal plate WESPs ≤2.5 × 10−6 t/m3 and the specific water consumption of FRP plate WESPs ≤0.66 × 10−6 t/m3 is 23.5% and 22.7%, respectively.

4. Discussion

The research and development task of China standard “Technical requirements of high efficiency air pollution control equipment for assessment—Part 6: Wet electrostatic precipitator” is being devloped by the author’s team. According to the classification requirements of GB/T 33017.1 [46], the number of high efficiency WESPs should account for 20% of the total number of WESPs in the industry. On the basis of the above data analysis, the quantitative evaluation index requirements of high efficiency WESPs, determined as Table 1, has been released and implemented in 2022 officially. Only the more widely used metal plate WESPs and FRP WESPs and more easily obtained indicators are specified here. Since the removal efficiency of droplets and Hg is not specified in most WESP projects, which is difficult to test, these indexes are not specified in the high efficiency standard. It is worth noting that the pressure drop power consumption has been considered in the calculation of the WESP power consumption, and, generally speaking, the higher the pressure drop, the larger the dust collection area and the better the PM removal performance, so the pressure drop index of high efficiency WESPs is relaxed to 200 Pa.
To prove the advanced nature of the above WESP indicators further, the comparison between this standard and the WESP indicators stipulated in China’s current national standard and professional standard is shown in Table 2. The promulgation and implementation of this standard is conducive to promoting WESPs to move towards a more efficient and energy-saving direction.

5. Conclusions

(1) A WESP could realize a high removal efficiency on PM, PM2.5, SO3, droplets and Hg, mostly concentrated ≥75%, ≥70%, ≥60%, ≥70% and ≥40%, respectively. The emission concentrations of PM, PM2.5, SO3, droplets and Hg at the outlet of the WESP are mainly concentrated ≤5 mg/m3, ≤3 mg/m3, ≤5 mg/m3, ≤15 mg/m3 and ≤5 μg/m3, respectively. The pollutant removal efficiency is slightly different between different types of WESP. FRP WESPs could realize a higher removal efficiency on PM2.5 and SO3 than metal plate WESPs because of its discontinuous spraying, which could help the operating power parameters raise higher.
(2) The specific power consumption and specific water consumption are concentrated in the range of 0.5~2.5 × 10−4 kWh/m3 and ≤10 × 10−6 t/m3, respectively. And all of these above are positively correlated with the mass flow removal of PM and SO3.
(3) The quantitative evaluation index requirements of high efficiency WESPs have been determined, released and implemented in 2022 officially. The high efficiency index of WESPs, such as PM emission concentration, SO3 emission concentration, PM removal efficiency, SO3 removal efficiency, pressure drop, air leakage rate and specific power consumption, are ≤2.50 mg/m3, ≤2.50 mg/m3, ≥90%, ≥85%, ≤200 Pa, ≤0.5% and ≤1.3 × 10−4 kWh/m3, respectively. The high efficiency index of the specific water consumption for Metal plate WESPs and FRP WESPs is ≤2.50 and ≤0.66 × 10−6 t/m3, respectively.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.L., S.L., L.Y., H.Z. and J.L.(Jun Liang); Methodology, H.L., S.L. and L.Y.; Software, H.L., S.L., H.Z., J.L.(Jun Liang), Y.G., Y.C. and S.S.; Validation, H.L., S.L., H.Z., J.L.(Jun Liang), Y.G., Y.C. and S.S.; Investigation, H.L., L.Y., J.L.(Jun Liang), Y.G., Y.C. and S.S.; Data Curation, H.L., L.Y., H.Z., J.L.(Jun Liang), Y.G., Y.C. and S.S.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, H.L., L.Y. and H.Z.; Writing—Review and Editing, H.L., S.L., X.L. and J.L.(Jianguo Li); Visualization, H.L., S.L. and X.L.; Project Administration, H.L.; Funding Acquisition, H.L; Formal Analysis, S.L.; Resources, S.L., X.L. and J.L.(Jianguo Li); Writing—Original Draft Preparation, S.L.; Supervision, S.L., X.L. and J.L.(Jianguo Li). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Plan of China (2022YFC3701501), Carbon Special Project of “Vanguard” Plan of Zhejiang Province (2022C03030).

Data Availability Statement

Due to the sensitivity of environmental and energy efficiency data to coal-fired power plants, the participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly; due to the sensitive nature of the research, supporting data is not available.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Plan of China (2022YFC3701501), Carbon Special Project of “Vanguard” Plan of Zhejiang Province (2022C03030). The authors also thank our colleagues for their participation in this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Xu, M.; Wang, W.; Wen, C.; Yu, D.; Liu, X. Research development of precipitation technology to accomplish the ultra-low emission from coal-fired power plants. Proc. CSEE 2019, 39, 6627–6639. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ren, Y.; Wu, Q.; Wen, M.; Li, G.; Xu, L.; Ding, X.; Li, Z.; Tang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, Q.; et al. Sulfur trioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants in China and implications on future control. Fuel 2020, 261, 11638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liu, H.; Zhu, S.; Yao, Y.; Li, J.; Chen, Z.; Chen, L.; Fang, X. Experimental research on the PM2.5 in inlet and outlet flue gas using ELPI for WESP of “ultra-clean emission” power plants. Electr. Power 2014, 47, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
  4. Liu, H.; Chen, Z.; Wang, S.; Cai, X.; Guo, G.; Shen, M.; Zhou, B. Emission characteristics and removal technology of SO3 from coal-fired power plants. Chin. J. Environ. Eng. 2019, 13, 1128–1138. [Google Scholar]
  5. Yang, F.; Liu, H.; Feng, P.; Li, Z.; Tan, H. Effects of Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization and Wet Electrostatic Precipitator on Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxide Emission in Coal-Fired Power Plants. Energy Fuels 2020, 34, 16423–16432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Flagiello, D.; Tammaro, D.; Erto, A.; Maffettone, P.L.; Lancia, A.; Di Natale, F. Foamed structured packing for mass-transfer equipment produced by an innovative 3D printing technology. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2022, 260, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jens, P.; Sven, A.; Linda, B.; Michael, S. Investigation of the Collection Efficiency of a Wet Electrostatic Precipitator at a Municipal Solid Waste-Fueled Combined Heat and Power Plant Using Various Measuring Methods. Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 5282–5292. [Google Scholar]
  8. Xu, Y.; Liu, X.; Cui, J.; Chen, D.; Xu, M.; Pan, S.; Zhang, K.; Gao, X. Field measurements on the emission and removal of PM2.5 from coal-fired power stations: 4.PM removal performance of wet electrostatic precipitators. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 7465–7473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pan, D.; Gu, C.; Zhang, D.; Zeng, F. Removal Characteristics of Sulfuric Acid Aerosols in the Wet Electrostatic Precipitator System. Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 7813–7818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yang, Z.; Zheng, C.; Zhang, X.; Chang, Q.; Weng, W.; Wang, Y.; Gao, X. Highly efficient removal of sulfuric acid aerosol by a combined wet electrostatic precipitator. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Peng, Y. Application of energy-saving technology in electro-static precipitator. Recycl. Resour. Circ. Econ. 2016, 9, 42–44. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zhang, B.; Qi, J.; Shao, J. Electricity saving technology for electrostatic precipitator in coal-fired power plant. Thermal Power Generation 2007, 36, 61–63. [Google Scholar]
  13. Liu, H.; Li, J.; Yao, Y.; Zhong, J.; Du, Y.; Du, Y. The Energy Efficiency Evaluation of Electrostatic Precipitator in Coal-fired Power Plant. Electric Power 2017, 50, 22–27. [Google Scholar]
  14. JB/T 11638-2013; Wet Electrostatic Precipitator. Technical Committee on Environmental Protection Machinery of Standardization Administration of Machinery Industry: Beijing, China, 2013.
  15. JB/T 12532-2015; Top Mounted Wet Electrostatic Precipitator. Technical Committee on Environmental Protection Machinery of Standardization Administration of Machinery Industry: Beijing, China, 2015.
  16. JB/T 12593-2015; Wet Electrostatic Precipitator Installed at the Downstream of the Coal-Fired Flue Gas Wet Desulphurization Equipment. Technical Committee on Environmental Protection Machinery of Standardization Administration of Machinery Industry: Beijing, China, 2015.
  17. T/ZZB 0161-2016; Wet Electrostatic Precipitator. Zhejiang Manufacture Brand Construction Promotion Association: Hangzhou, China, 2016.
  18. GB/T 13931-2017; Methods of Performance Tests for Electrostatic Precipitator. National Technical Committee on Environmental Protection Products Standardization: Beijing, China, 2017.
  19. ISO 12141-2002; Stationary Source Emissions-Determination of Mass Concentration of Particulate Matter (Dust) at Low Concentrations—Manual Gravimetric Method. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
  20. GB/T 15187-2017; Measuring Method for Performances of Wet Dust Collectors. National Technical Committee on Environmental Protection Products Standardization: Beijing, China, 2017.
  21. HJ 836-2017; Stationary Source Emission-Determination of Mass Concentration of Particulate Matter at Low Concentration-Manual Gravimetric Method. Ministry of Environmental Protection: Beijing, China, 2017.
  22. DB37/T 2706-2015; Technical Specification for Monitoring Low Concentration Emission of Waste Gas from Fixed Sources. Technical Committee of Environmental Protection Standardization of Shandong Province: Jinan, China, 2015.
  23. Liu, H.; Yao, Y.; Li, J. Study on Blank Test of Low-Concentration Particulate Matter Gravimetric Testing for Coal-Fired Power Plants. Electr. Power 2017, 50, 115–121. [Google Scholar]
  24. Liu, H.; Yao, Y.; Li, J.; Zhao, X.; Fang, X.; Guo, Y. Research of low concentration test method of PM for ultra-low emission. China Power Sci. Technol. 2017, 23, 49–53. [Google Scholar]
  25. ISO 23210:2009; Stationary Source Emissions-Determination of PM10/PM2.5 Mass Concentration in Flue Gas-Measurement at Low Concentrations by Use of Impactors. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
  26. DL/T 1520-2016; Specifications for Fine Particles (PM2.5) Monitoring in the Thermal Power Plants-Gravimetric Method. Technical Committee on Environmental Protection of Electric Power Industry of Standardization Administration: Beijing, China, 2016.
  27. Decati Ltd. Dekati® PM10 Impactor USER MANUAL, Version 3.2; Decati Ltd.: Bologna, Italy, 2015.
  28. Liu, H.; Yao, Y.; Li, J.; Ding, H.; Chang, Q.; Zuo, P. The Constract of PM2.5 Test Method and PM2.5 Emissions Characterization Research for Coal-fired Power Plant. China Power Sci. Technol. 2017, 23, 34–39. [Google Scholar]
  29. Liu, H.; Yao, Y.; Li, J.; Chen, Z.; Fang, X. Research of Classification Dust Removal Efficiency and Pollutant Emission Characteristics for WESP in Coal-fired Power Plant. Electr. Power 2017, 50, 178–184. [Google Scholar]
  30. Zheng, C.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Yang, Z.; Qu, R.; Ye, D.; Liang, C.; Liu, S.; Gao, X. Formation, transformation, measurement, and control of SO3 in coal-fired power plants. Fuel 2019, 241, 327–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. GB/T 21508-2008; Performance Test Method for Coal-Fired Flue Gas Desulphurization Equipment. National Technical Committee on Environmental Protection Products Standardization: Beijing, China, 2008.
  32. DL/T 998-2006; Performance Test Code for Wetlimestonegypsum Flue Gas Desulphurization. Technical Committee on Environmental Protection of Electric Power Industry of Standardization Administration: Beijing, China, 2006.
  33. DL/T 1990-2019; Determination of Sulfur Dioxide in Flue Gas from Thermal Power Plants Controlled Condensation Technique. Technical Committee on Environmental Protection of Electric Power Industry of Standardization Administration: Beijing, China, 2019.
  34. Liu, H.; Yao, Y.; Li, J.; Fang, X.; Li, B.; He, D.; Yao, B. The Study of SO3 Measurement Method at Low Concentration for Stationary Source. Environ. Eng. 2017, 35, 90–109. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhang, D.; Liu, H.; Zhao, L.; Yuan, W.; Fang, X.; Xu, D.; Luo, J. Study on the Method of Sampling of Coagulated Particulate Matter (SO3) in Coal-Fired Power Plants. Electr. Power 2018, 51, 33–36. [Google Scholar]
  36. EPA Method 30B-2008; Determination of Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources Using Carbon Sorbent Traps. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
  37. GB/T 40505-2021; Wet Electrostatic Precipitator—Methods of Performance Tests. National Technical Committee on Environmental Protection Products Standardization: Beijing, China, 2021.
  38. Teng, C.; Li, J. Experimental Study on Particle Removal of a Wet Electrostatic Precipitator with Atomization of Charged Water Drops. Energy Fuels 2020, 34, 7257–7268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Anderlohr, C.; Schaber, K. Direct Transfer of Gas-Borne Nanoparticles into Liquid Suspensions by Means of a Wet Electrostatic Precipitator. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1281–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Electrostatic Precipitator Committee of China Environmental Protection Industry Association. Technology of Flue Gas Ultra-low Emission for Coal-fired Power Plants; China Electric Power Press: Beijing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  41. Chang, J.; Dong, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, P.; Chen, P.; Ma, C. Removal of sulfuric acid aerosol in a wet electrostatic precipitator with single terylene or polypropylene collection electrodes. J. Aerosol Sci. 2011, 42, 544–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhao, S.; Pudasainee, D.; Duan, Y.; Gupta, R.; Liu, M.; Lu, J. A review on mercury in coal combustion process: Content and occurrence forms in coal, transformation, sampling methods, emission and control technologies. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2019, 73, 26–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhao, S.; Duan, Y.; Yao, T.; Liu, M.; Lu, J.; Tan, H.; Wang, X.; Wu, L. Study on the mercury emission and transformation in an ultra-low emission coal- fired power plant, emission and control technologies. Fuel 2017, 199, 653–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Peng, Y.; Shi, N.; Wang, J.; Wang, T.; Pan, W. Mercury speciation and size-specific distribution in filterable and condensable particulate matter from coal combustion. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 787, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liu, H.; Wu, L.; Zheng, C.; Li, J.; Lu, J.; Liu, X.; Chen, Z. Investigation of pollutant-removal performance and energy efficiency characteristics of wet electrostatic precipitator. Greenh. Gases Sci. Technol. 2022, 4, 520–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. GB/T 33017.1-2016; General Principle of Assessment Technical Requirements for High Efficiency Air Pollution Control Equipment. National Technical Committee on Environmental Protection Products Standardization: Beijing, China, 2016.
Separations 10 00536 g001
Figure 1. Unit capacity and flue gas volume flow statistics of different types of WESP. (a) Metal plate WESP; (b) conductive FRP WESP; (c) flexible plate WESP.
Figure 1. Unit capacity and flue gas volume flow statistics of different types of WESP. (a) Metal plate WESP; (b) conductive FRP WESP; (c) flexible plate WESP.
Separations 10 00536 g001
Separations 10 00536 g002
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of pollutants sampling procedure. (a) PM sampling procedure; (b) PM2.5 sampling procedure; (c) SO3 sampling procedure; (d) droplet sampling procedure; (e) Hg sampling procedure.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of pollutants sampling procedure. (a) PM sampling procedure; (b) PM2.5 sampling procedure; (c) SO3 sampling procedure; (d) droplet sampling procedure; (e) Hg sampling procedure.
Separations 10 00536 g002
Separations 10 00536 g003
Figure 3. PM removal performance. (a) Statistical results of PM emission concentration; (b) statistical results of PM removal efficiency.
Figure 3. PM removal performance. (a) Statistical results of PM emission concentration; (b) statistical results of PM removal efficiency.
Separations 10 00536 g003
Separations 10 00536 g004
Figure 4. PM2.5 removal performance. (a) Statistical results of PM2.5 emission concentration; (b) statistical results of PM2.5 removal efficiency.
Figure 4. PM2.5 removal performance. (a) Statistical results of PM2.5 emission concentration; (b) statistical results of PM2.5 removal efficiency.
Separations 10 00536 g004
Separations 10 00536 g005
Figure 5. SO3 removal performance. (a) Statistical results of SO3 emission concentration; (b) statistical results of SO3 removal efficiency.
Figure 5. SO3 removal performance. (a) Statistical results of SO3 emission concentration; (b) statistical results of SO3 removal efficiency.
Separations 10 00536 g005
Separations 10 00536 g006
Figure 6. Droplet’s removal performance. (a) Statistical results of droplet’s emission concentration; (b) statistical results of droplet’s removal efficiency.
Figure 6. Droplet’s removal performance. (a) Statistical results of droplet’s emission concentration; (b) statistical results of droplet’s removal efficiency.
Separations 10 00536 g006
Separations 10 00536 g007
Figure 7. Hg removal performance. (a) Statistical results of Hg emission concentration; (b) statistical results of Hg removal efficiency.
Figure 7. Hg removal performance. (a) Statistical results of Hg emission concentration; (b) statistical results of Hg removal efficiency.
Separations 10 00536 g007
Separations 10 00536 g008
Figure 8. Correlation analysis of removal performance of WESP for multiple pollutants.
Figure 8. Correlation analysis of removal performance of WESP for multiple pollutants.
Separations 10 00536 g008
Separations 10 00536 g009
Figure 9. Internal mechanism analysis of multi-pollutant removal [44].
Figure 9. Internal mechanism analysis of multi-pollutant removal [44].
Separations 10 00536 g009
Separations 10 00536 g010
Figure 10. Statistical results of pressure drop.
Figure 10. Statistical results of pressure drop.
Separations 10 00536 g010
Separations 10 00536 g011
Figure 11. Statistical results of air leakage rate.
Figure 11. Statistical results of air leakage rate.
Separations 10 00536 g011
Separations 10 00536 g012
Figure 12. Statistical results of specific power consumption.
Figure 12. Statistical results of specific power consumption.
Separations 10 00536 g012
Separations 10 00536 g013
Figure 13. Statistical results of specific water consumption.
Figure 13. Statistical results of specific water consumption.
Separations 10 00536 g013
Table 1. The quantitative evaluation index requirements of high efficiency WESPs.
Table 1. The quantitative evaluation index requirements of high efficiency WESPs.
First Level IndexSecond Level IndexUnitEvaluation of Requirements
Metal Plate WESPFRP WESP
Environmental indexPM emission concentrationmg/m3≤2.5
SO3 emission concentrationmg/m3≤2.5
Technical performance indexPM removal efficiency%≥90
SO3 removal efficiency%≥85
Pressure dropPa≤200
Air leakage rate%≤0.5
Energy consumption indexSpecific power consumption10−4 kWh/m3≤1.3
Specific water consumption10−6 t/m3≤2.50≤0.66
Table 2. Comparison of evaluation indexes.
Table 2. Comparison of evaluation indexes.
Contrast ItemUnitStandards and IndicatorsAdvanced Index
PM emission concentrationmg/m3GB/T 40514-2021Meet the design requirements≤2.5
DL/T 514-2017Reach the guaranteed value stipulated in the contract
HJ 2053-2018≤10, can be less than 5
JB/T 12593-2016Meet the design requirements
JB/T 13556-2018≤10
SO3 emission concentrationmg/m3GB/T 40514-2021not specified≤2.5
DL/T 514-2017
HJ 2053-2018
JB/T 12593-2016
JB/T 13556-2018
PM removal efficiency%GB/T 40514-2021≥70%, can reach more than 90%≥90%
DL/T 514-2017Reach the guaranteed value stipulated in the contract
HJ 2053-201870~90%
JB/T 12593-2016not specified
JB/T 13556-2018not specified
SO3 removal efficiency%GB/T 40514-2021It should not be less than 60%≥85%
DL/T 514-2017not specified
HJ 2053-2018not specified
JB/T 12593-2016not specified
JB/T 13556-2018not specified
Pressure dropPaGB/T 40514-2021≤250 Pa≤200
DL/T 514-2017Reach the guaranteed value stipulated in the contract, and ≤250 Pa if not stipulated in the contract
HJ 2053-2018≤250 (Plate type)
≤300 (Tubular type)
JB/T 12593-2016≤250
JB/T 13556-2018≤300
Air leakage rate%GB/T 40514-2021≤1%≤0.5%
DL/T 514-2017Reach the guaranteed value stipulated in the contract, and ≤2.5% if not stipulated in the contract
HJ 2053-2018≤1% (Plate type)
≤2% (Tubular type)
JB/T 12593-2016≤2%
JB/T 13556-2018≤2%
Specific power consumption10−4 kWh/m3GB/T 40514-2021not specified≤1.3
DL/T 514-2017
HJ 2053-2018
JB/T 12593-2016
JB/T 13556-2018
Specific water consumption10−6 t/m3GB/T 40514-2021not specified≤2.50
(Metal plate WESP
≤0.66
(FRP WESP)
DL/T 514-2017
HJ 2053-2018
JB/T 12593-2016
JB/T 13556-2018
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, H.; Luo, S.; Yu, L.; Zhao, H.; Liang, J.; Guo, Y.; Cui, Y.; Shan, S.; Liu, X.; Li, J. Study on Multi-Pollutant Test and Performance Index Determination of Wet Electrostatic Precipitator. Separations 2023, 10, 536. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations10100536

AMA Style

Liu H, Luo S, Yu L, Zhao H, Liang J, Guo Y, Cui Y, Shan S, Liu X, Li J. Study on Multi-Pollutant Test and Performance Index Determination of Wet Electrostatic Precipitator. Separations. 2023; 10(10):536. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations10100536

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Hanxiao, Shuiyuan Luo, Liyuan Yu, Haibao Zhao, Jun Liang, Ying Guo, Ying Cui, Sike Shan, Xiaowei Liu, and Jianguo Li. 2023. "Study on Multi-Pollutant Test and Performance Index Determination of Wet Electrostatic Precipitator" Separations 10, no. 10: 536. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations10100536

APA Style

Liu, H., Luo, S., Yu, L., Zhao, H., Liang, J., Guo, Y., Cui, Y., Shan, S., Liu, X., & Li, J. (2023). Study on Multi-Pollutant Test and Performance Index Determination of Wet Electrostatic Precipitator. Separations, 10(10), 536. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations10100536

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop