1. bookVolume 29 (2019): Issue 2 (June 2019)
Journal Details
First Published
26 Jun 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
access type Open Access

A Study on the Effect of Operating Parameters on the Efficiency of a Mercury Removal Unit from Natural Gas

Published Online: 30 Oct 2019
Page range: 117 - 155
Received: 24 May 2019
Journal Details
First Published
26 Jun 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year

In this study, an industrial fixed-bed for mercury adsorption from natural gas, was evaluated by mathematical models. Equilibrium isotherms, kinetics equations, and adsorption models were applied to available data to evaluate sorbent characteristics, and then study bed’s performance under different case studies. Models solutions are evaluated by linear-regression and coefficient of determination. The study confirmed that the system is characterized by irreversible equilibrium. Examining of kinetics equations indicated the inclusion of chemisorption and intra-particle diffusion as ratelimiting steps. Bohart-Adams model was found the best fitting model with good match between model’s assumptions and available bed’s information. Model prediction for bed’s design-basis was examined and found good match with manufacturer’s data-sheet.


1. Yang, H, Xu, Z, Fan, M, Bland, AE and Judkins, RR 2007. Adsorbents for capturing mercury in coal-fired boiler flue gas. Journal of Hazardous Materials146(1), 1-11.Search in Google Scholar

2. Hsi, HC and Chen, CT 2012. Influences of acidic/oxidizing gases on elemental mercury adsorption equilibrium and kinetics of sulfurimpregnated activated carbon. Fuel98, 229-235.Search in Google Scholar

3. Sasmaz, E et al. 2012. Mercury chemistry on brominated activated carbon. Fuel99, 188-196.Search in Google Scholar

4. Wade, CB, Thurman, C, Freas, W, Student, J, Matty, D and Mohanty, DK 2012. Preparation and characterization of high efficiency modified activated carbon for the capture of mercury from flue gas in coal-fired power plants. Fuel processing technology97, 107-117.Search in Google Scholar

5. Guo, P, Guo, X and Zheng, C 2010. Roles of γ-Fe2O3 in fly ash for mercury removal: results of density functional theory study. Applied Surface Science256(23), 6991-6996.Search in Google Scholar

6. Baltrus, JP et al. 2010. Surface characterization of palladium–alumina sorbents for high-temperature capture of mercury and arsenic from fuel gas. Fuel89(6), 1323-1325.Search in Google Scholar

7. Graydon, JW, Zhang, X, Kirk, DW and Jia, CQ 2009. Sorption and stability of mercury on activated carbon for emission control. Journal of hazardous materials168(2), 978-982.Search in Google Scholar

8. Chung, ST, Kim, KI and Yun, YR 2009. Adsorption of elemental mercury vapor by impregnated activated carbon from a commercial respirator cartridge. Powder Technology192(1), 47-53.Search in Google Scholar

9. Ren, J, Zhou, J, Luo, Z, Zhong, Y and Xu, Z 2007. Fixed-bed experiments and mathematical modeling for adsorption of mercury vapor. Challenges of Power Engineering and Environment, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 843-849.Search in Google Scholar

10. Camargo, CLM, de Resende, NS, de Oliveira, AG, Salim, VMM and Tavares, FW 2014. Investigation of adsorption-enhanced reaction process of mercury removal from simulated natural gas by mathematical modeling. Fuel129, 129-137.Search in Google Scholar

11. Skodras, G, Diamantopoulou, I, Natas, P, Orfanoudaki, T, Amarantos, P, Stavropoulos, GG and Sakellaropoulos, GP 2003. Mercury and PCBs adsorption on activated carbons: Experimentation and modelling. In 8th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Lemnos island, Greece, September, 8-10.Search in Google Scholar

12. Meserole, FB, Chang, R, Carey, TR, Machac, J and Richardson, CF 1999. Modeling mercury removal by sorbent injection. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association49(6), 694-704.Search in Google Scholar

13. Flora, JR, Hargis, RA, O’Dowd, WJ, Pennline, HW and Vidic, RD 2003. Modeling sorbent injection for mercury control in baghouse filters: I— model development and sensitivity analysis. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association53(4), 478-488.Search in Google Scholar

14. Flora, JR, Hargis, RA, O’Dowd, WJ, Pennline, HW and Vidic, RD 2003. Modeling sorbent injection for mercury control in baghouse filters: II— Pilot-scale studies and model evaluation. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association53(4), 489-496.Search in Google Scholar

15. Chen, S, Rostam-Abadi, M and Chang, R 1996. Mercury removal from combustion flue gas by activated carbon injection: mass transfer effects. Preprints of Papers, American Chemical Society, Division Fuel Chemistry41, 442-446.Search in Google Scholar

16. Rostam-Abadi, M, Chen, SG, Hsi, HC, Rood, M, Chang, R, Carey, T, Hargrove, B, Richardson, C, Rosenhoover, W and Meserole, F 1997. Novel vapor phase mercury sorbents. Proceedings of the EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollutant Control, 25-29.Search in Google Scholar

17. Serre, SD, Gullett, BK and Ghorishi, SB 2001. Entrained-flow adsorption of mercury using activated carbon. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association51(5), 733-741.Search in Google Scholar

18. Scala, F 2001. Simulation of mercury capture by activated carbon injection in incinerator flue gas. 1. In-duct removal. Environmental science & technology35(21), 4367-4372.Search in Google Scholar

19. Scala, F 2001. Simulation of mercury capture by activated carbon injection in incinerator flue gas. 2. Fabric filter removal. Environmental science & technology35(21), 4373-4378.Search in Google Scholar

20. Sugier, A and Villa, FL, Institut Francais Du Petrole, 1978. Process for removing mercury from a gas or a liquid by absorption on a copper sulfide containing solid mass. U.S. Patent 4,094,777.Search in Google Scholar

21. YU, X, ZHU, L, GUO, B and HE, S 2008. Adsorption of mercury on laterite from Guizhou Province, China. Journal of Environmental Sciences20(11), 1328-1334.Search in Google Scholar

22. Luo, J, Hein, AM and Hwang, JY 2004. Adsorption of vapor phase mercury on various carbons. Journal of Minerals and Materials Characterization and Engineering3(01), 13.Search in Google Scholar

23. Eswaran, S, Stenger, HG and Fan, Z 2007. Gas-phase mercury adsorption rate studies. Energy & fuels21(2), 852-857.Search in Google Scholar

24. Steijns, M, Peppelenbos, A and Mars, P 1976. Mercury chemisorption by sulfur adsorbed in porous materials. Journal of colloid and interface science57(1), 181-186.Search in Google Scholar

25. Furuta, A, Sato, K, Sato, K, Matsuzawa, T and Ito, H, Jcg Corporation, 1991. Process for removal of mercury from a liquid hydrocarbon. U.S. Patent 5,037,552.Search in Google Scholar

26. Panagiotou, T, Momncy, JR and Senior, CL 2000. Zeolite-based mercury sorbent-laboratory testing and modeling. Preprints of Papers-American Chemical Society, Division of Fuel Chemistry220, U386-U386.Search in Google Scholar

27. Vidic, RD 2002. Adsorption of elemental mercury by virgin and impregnated activated carbon. In: SenGupta, A (ed) Environmental Separation of Heavy Metals - Engineered Processes. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers, 15-44.Search in Google Scholar

28. Ghorishi, B and Gullett, BK 1998. Experimental study on mercury sorption by activated carbons and calcium hydroxide. US Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division.Search in Google Scholar

29. Huawei, Z., Xiuli, L., Li, W. and Peng, L 2014. Characteristics and Stability of Mercury Vapor Adsorption over Two Kinds of Modified Semicoke. The Scientific World Journal2014. 1-7.Search in Google Scholar

30. Borderieux, S, Wu, CY, Bonzongo, JC and Powers, K 2004. Control of elemental mercury vapor in combustion systems using Fe2O3 nanoparticles. Aerosol and Air Quality Research4(1), 74-90.Search in Google Scholar

31. Liu, Y 2014. Elemental Mercury Removal from Flue Gas by Metal/Metal Oxide Decorated Graphene Oxide Composites, Doctoral dissertation. Alberta: University of Alberta.Search in Google Scholar

32. Holmes, MJ, Pavlish, JH, Zhuang, Y, Benson, SA and Fritze, MJ 2004. Pilot-scale evaluation of activated carbon-based mercury control options for utilities burning lignite coal. Preprints of Papers-American Chemical Society, Division of Fuel Chemistry49(1), 281.Search in Google Scholar

33. Fryxell, GE, Skaggs, R and Parker, KE 2004. Novel nanoporous sorbents for removal of mercury. Abstracts of Papers of The American Chemical Society227, U1088-U1089.Search in Google Scholar

34. Crocker, CR, Benson, SA, Holmes, MJ, Zhuang, Y, Pavlish, JH and Galbreath, KC 2004. Comparison of sorbents and furnace additives for mercury control in low-rank fuel combustion systems. Preprints of Papers-American Chemical Society, Division of Fuel Chemistry49(1), 289.Search in Google Scholar

35. Wdowin, M, Wiatros-Motyka, MM, Panek, R, Stevens, LA, Franus, W and Snape, CE 2014. Experimental study of mercury removal from exhaust gases. Fuel128, 451-457.Search in Google Scholar

36. Ballestero, D, Gómez-Giménez, C, García-Díez, E, Juan, R, Rubio, B and Izquierdo, MT 2013. Influence of temperature and regeneration cycles on Hg capture and efficiency by structured Au/C regenerable sorbents. Journal of hazardous materials260, 247-254.Search in Google Scholar

37. Olson, ES, Dunham, GE, Sharma, RK and Miller, SJ 2000. Mechanisms of mercury capture and breakthrough on activated carbon sorbents. ACS Fuels45, 886-889.Search in Google Scholar

38. Wilcox, J et al. 2018. Mercury adsorption and oxidation in coal combustion and gasification processes. International Journal of Coal Geology90, 4-20.Search in Google Scholar

39. Daza, L, Mendioroz, S and Pajares, J 1991. Mercury adsorption by sulfurized fibrous silicates. Clays and Clay Minerals39(1), 14-21.Search in Google Scholar

40. Padak, B 2011. Mercury reaction chemistry in combustion flue gases from experiments and theory, Doctoral dissertation. Stanford, California: Stanford University.Search in Google Scholar

41. De, M, Azargohar, R, Dalai, AK and Shewchuk, SR 2013. Mercury removal by bio-char based modified activated carbons. Fuel103, 570-578.Search in Google Scholar

42. Bae, KM, Kim, BJ and Park, SJ, 2014. Overlook of carbonaceous adsorbents and processing methods for elemental mercury removal. Carbon letters15(4), 238-246.Search in Google Scholar

43. Bisson, TM, Ong, ZQ, MacLennan, A, Hu, Y and Xu, Z 2015. Impact of Sulfur Loading on Brominated Biomass Ash on Mercury Capture. Energy & Fuels29(12), 8110-8117.Search in Google Scholar

44. O'Dowd, WJ, Hargis, RA, Granite, EJ and Pennline, HW 2004. Recent advances in mercury removal technology at the National Energy Technology Laboratory. Fuel Processing Technology85(6), 533-548.Search in Google Scholar

45. Xie, J et al. 2014. Sn–Mn binary metal oxides as non-carbon sorbent for mercury removal in a wide-temperature window. Journal of colloid and interface science428, 121-127.Search in Google Scholar

46. You, X 2002. Sulfur Impregnation of Activated Carbon Through Hydrogen Sulfide Oxidation, Doctoral dissertation. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh.Search in Google Scholar

47. Izquierdo, MT et al. 2011. Tail-end Hg capture on Au/carbon-monolith regenerable sorbents. Journal of hazardous materials193, 304-310.Search in Google Scholar

48. Abad-Valle, P, Lopez-Anton, MA, Diaz-Somoano, M and Martinez-Tarazona, MR 2011. The role of unburned carbon concentrates from fly ashes in the oxidation and retention of mercury. Chemical engineering journal174(1), 86-92.Search in Google Scholar

49. Eldefrawy, MM, Kenawy, IM and El-Tabey, RM 2014. Application of Nanosized Mesoporous Aluminosilicates for Adsorption of Hg from Aqueous Solutions: Kinetic, Isotherm and Thermodynamic Studies. International Journal of Advanced Research2(12), 764-781.Search in Google Scholar

50. Zakria, MH, Omar, AA and Bustam, MA 2016. Mercury Removal of Fluctuating Ethane Feedstock in a Large Scale Production by Sulphur Impregnated Activated Carbon. Procedia Engineering148, 561-567.Search in Google Scholar

51. Shafawi, A, Ebdon, L, Foulkes, M, Stockwell, P and Corns, W 2000. Preliminary evaluation of adsorbent-based mercury removal systems for gas condensate. Analytica Chimica Acta415(1), 21-32.Search in Google Scholar

52. Bingham, MD 1990. Field detection and implications of mercury in natural gas. SPE Production Engineering5(02), 120-124.Search in Google Scholar

53. Mokhatab, S, Mak, JY, Valappil, JV and Wood, DA 2013. Handbook of liquefied natural gas. Gulf Professional Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

54. Mokhatab, S and Poe, WA 2012. Handbook of natural gas transmission and processing. Gulf Professional Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

55. Eckersley, N 2010. Advanced mercury removal technologies. Hydrocarbon processing89(1), 29.Search in Google Scholar

56. Jubin, C and Ducreux, O 2014. Mercury Removal Units Operation at Frontend Location. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Abu Dhabi, UAE, November.Search in Google Scholar

57. Freundlich, HMF 1906. Over the adsorption in solution. The Journal of Physical Chemistry57(385471), 1100-1107.Search in Google Scholar

58. Ruthven, DM 1984. Principles of adsorption and adsorption processes. Fredericton: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar

59. Langmuir, I 1918. The adsorption of gases on plane surfaces of glass, mica and platinum. Journal of the American Chemical society40(9), 1361-1403.Search in Google Scholar

60. Lagergren, SK 1898. About the theory of so-called adsorption of soluble substances. Sven. Vetenskapsakad. Handingarl24, 1-39.Search in Google Scholar

61. Ho, YS and McKay, G 1998. Kinetic models for the sorption of dye from aqueous solution by wood. Process Safety and Environmental Protection76(2), 183-191.Search in Google Scholar

62. Ho, YS and McKay, G 1998. Kinetic model for lead (II) sorption on to peat. Adsorption science & technology16(4), 243-255.Search in Google Scholar

63. Zeldowitsch, J 1934. On the mechanism of catalytic oxidation of CO to MnO2 [Über den mechanismus der katalytischen oxydation von CO an MnO2]. Acta physicochim. URSS1, 364-449.Search in Google Scholar

64. Weber, WJ and Morris, JC 1963. Kinetics of adsorption on carbon from solution. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division89(2), 31-60.Search in Google Scholar

65. Sutherland, C 2009. Removal of heavy metals from water using low-cost adsorbents: process development, Doctoral dissertation. Saint Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago: University of the West IndiesSearch in Google Scholar

66. Vinod, VP and Anirudhan, TS 2002. Sorption of tannic acid on zirconium pillared clay. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology77(1), 92-101.Search in Google Scholar

67. Zhang, H and Cheng, D 2000. Mathematical model for a fixed bed adsorptive reactor. Carbon38(6), 877-880.Search in Google Scholar

68. Wolborska, A 1989. Adsorption on activated carbon of p-nitrophenol from aqueous solution. Water Research23(1), 85-91.Search in Google Scholar

69. Clark, RM 1987. Evaluating the cost and performance of field-scale granular activated carbon systems. Environmental science & technology21(6), 573-580.Search in Google Scholar

70. Bohart, GS and Adams, EQ 1920. Some aspects of the behavior of charcoal with respect to chlorine. Journal of the American Chemical Society42(3), 523-544.Search in Google Scholar

71. Cooney, DO 1999. Adsorption design for wastewater treatment. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Pres.INC.Search in Google Scholar

72. Ho, N 2012. Modeling hydrogen sulfide adsorption by activated carbon made from anaerobic digestion by-product, Doctoral dissertation. Toronto: University of Toronto.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo