Effective removal of mercury from flue gas using flower-like MoS2 doped with rod-shaped MnO2
Source abstract
Abstract
Generally, injecting activated carbon in front of an air preheater is a common method for removing mercury in coal-fired power plants. However, high cost and low efficiency limit the practical application of this procedure. As one of the transition metal dihalides, molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) has attracted much attention. Herein, density functional theory calculation was applied to explore the mercury removal properties of MoS2 due to its good affinity for mercury. MoS2 was prepared using hydrothermal methods, while MoS2 doped with MnO2 (Mm adsorbent) was prepared using an ultrasonic mixing method. The prepared Mm adsorbent was characterized using X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM),and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Rod-shaped MnO2 successfully appeared on the surface of flower-shaped MoS2. The adsorption of mercury (Hg0) on the MoS2/MnO2 (Mm) surface matched the Mars–van Krevelen reaction mechanism, indicating the consumption of lattice oxygen in the adsorbent. Additionally, the mercury removal efficiency of 3-Mm (MoS2 doped with 30 wt. % MnO2) adsorbent can still reach 90% under N2 + 200 ppm SO2.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mercury impact and mitigation studies · Gas Sensing Nanomaterials and Sensors · ZnO doping and properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
China Power Hua Chuang Electricity Technology Research Company Ltd. 1 , Shanghai 200080, China
Shanghai University of Electric Power 2 , Shanghai 200090, China
Funding
National Key Research and Development Program of China
References (20)
Show source-provided references
1. Fuel · 2020 · 282 · 11872810.1016/j.fuel.2020.118728 ↗
2. J. Hazard. Mater. · 2020 · 384 · 12138210.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121382 ↗
3. J. Alloys Compd. · 2019 · 794 · 2610.1016/j.jallcom.2019.04.251 ↗
4. Appl. Energy · 2017 · 207 · 25410.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.172 ↗
5. J. Hazard. Mater. · 2020 · 384 · 12138210.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121382 ↗
6. J. Mol. Liq. · 2019 · 296 · 11198710.1016/j.molliq.2019.111987 ↗
7. Chem. Eng. J. · 2019 · 375 · 12194610.1016/j.cej.2019.121946 ↗
8. Energy Fuels · 2018 · 32 · 445310.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03092 ↗
9. Energy Fuels · 2019 · 33 · 308910.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b00149 ↗
10. J. Hazard. Mater. · 2019 · 364 · 70010.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.04.001 ↗
11. Sens. Actuators, B · 2020 · 309 · 12783210.1016/j.snb.2020.127832 ↗
12. Fuel Process. Technol. · 2019 · 187 · 1610.1016/j.fuproc.2019.01.006 ↗
13. J. Hazard. Mater. · 2020 · 381 · 12097210.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.120972 ↗
14. Appl. Surf. Sci. · 2015 · 333 · 5910.1016/j.apsusc.2015.01.234 ↗
15. Appl. Surf. Sci. · 2019 · 481 · 83810.1016/j.apsusc.2019.03.177 ↗
16. Environ. Sci. Technol. · 2017 · 51/15 · 853010.1021/acs.est.7b00224 ↗
17. Chem. Phys. Lett. · 2020 · 749 · 13739210.1016/j.cplett.2020.137392 ↗
18. J. Catal. · 2019 · 377 · 57710.1016/j.jcat.2019.08.002 ↗
19. Multipollutant control of Hg/SO2/NO from coal-combustion flue gases using transition metal oxide-impregnated SCR catalysts10.1016/j.cattod.2014.09.008 ↗
20. Fuel Process. Technol. · 2018 · 170 · 2110.1016/j.fuproc.2017.10.017 ↗