Biomass and Bioenergy 116 (2018) 60–71

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biomass and Bioenergy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Research paper

Theoretical model and preliminary design of an innovative wet scrubber for T

the separation of fine particulate matter produced by biomass combustion in
small size boilers
Augusto Bianchini∗, Marco Pellegrini, Jessica Rossi, Cesare Saccani
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Bologna, Viale del Risorgimento 2, 40136, Bologna, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Fine particulate matter (PM) emission from biomass boilers for non-industrial heating represents one of the most
Biomass combustion important causes (together with the transport sector) of air pollution, in particular during winter. Separation
Particulate emissions technologies for fine PM are already well-known and adopted on an industrial scale, as a consequence of strict
Particle collection efficiency prediction limits set by national and international regulations. On domestic boilers, the same technologies utilized on an
Wet scrubber mathematical model
industrial scale are not feasible due to high investment costs. Moreover, the emission limits for small size bio-
Wet scrubber preliminary design
mass boilers are higher than for industrial boilers, so high efficiency separation technologies are not needed, and
are sometimes not present at all. The main goal of the paper is the development and testing of a mathematical
model that is able to foresee the PM removal efficiency of a wet scrubber device. After an experimental vali-
dation based on several tests, it was possible to approach the preliminary design of an innovative wet scrubber,
which is described in the paper. The main characteristics are (i) removal efficiency over 99.9%, (ii) specific
energy consumption under 36 kJ m−3, which is an industrial reference, and (iii) relatively low investment,
operation and maintenance costs.

1. Introduction The greatest amount of PM emissions from biomass combustion

The use of biomass combustion for domestic heating has recently
grown in many countries, due to government incentives and rising costs
of other energy sources, such as traditional fossil-based fuels. Biomass is
considered a renewable energy resource with CO2-neutral balance,
which can contribute to climate change mitigation. Therefore, biomass
seems to be a realistic alternative fuel that can provide technical, eco-
nomic and environmental benefits, but there are some critical issues
which have limited even further use of this resource [1–4]. Biomass
combustion, in particular in small size plants (< 35 kW thermal
power), produces higher particulate matter (PM) emissions than other
fuels. Specifically, inorganic material in the flying ash and incomplete
combustion residues, including soot, condensable organic particles (tar)
and char, are the main sources of primary particulate emissions from
biomass combustion [5,6]. Incomplete combustion is caused by un-
favourable conditions such as inadequate mixing of air and fuel, low
combustion temperature or short residence time. The characteristics of
the boiler, the operating conditions and the fuel properties significantly
affect the combustion process and, consequently, PM emission levels
[7–9].
consists of PM1, which includes particles with an aerodynamic dia-
meter smaller than 1 μm [10]. PM mass size distribution from biomass
combustion is similar for different sizes and types of boilers and for
various biomass fuels [11–13]. In particular, a peak of PM size dis-
tribution was found in the range of 0.1–0.2 μm for a 20 kW pellet boiler,
a 40 kW wood chip boiler and a 30 kW wood log boiler [14]. In new and
old-type biomass small boilers, size distribution shows a maximum
value at an aerodynamic diameter of around 0.13 μm, consistently with
other investigations on fireplaces [15,16]. Particles from different
biomass fuels (bark pellets, wood pellets and granulates from hydrolysis
residues), burned in a 10 kW reactor under identical conditions, have
the same size between 0.02 and 0.7 μm [17]. Due to its deep respiratory
system penetration, fine PM can cause serious problems to the en-
vironment and to human health. Consequently, national and local au-
thorities have set emission limits to reduce the impact of biomass
plants, in relation to their size [18]. Since biomass combustion always
produces PM, it can be removed from flue gas through separation de-
vices. In Italy, the PM emission limit for boilers with a thermal capacity
between 35 kW and 150 kW is 200 mg m−3 (considering Normal Tem-
perature and Pressure conditions, which are 273.15 K and 101325 Pa,

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: augusto.bianchini@unibo.it (A. Bianchini).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.05.011
Received 20 June 2016; Received in revised form 20 April 2018; Accepted 24 May 2018
Available online 14 June 2018
0961-9534/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Bianchini et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 116 (2018) 60–71

and 11% O2 content), which is a value high enough to not necessarily
require the use of a PM separation device. Moreover, unlimited PM
emission for small size plants (< 35 kW) is allowed. The principle be-
hind the limit setting is that a single small size plant produces a lower
impact than an industrial one, even if small plant emissions are higher,
and that the cost of a PM separation device may become unsustainable
for non-industrial applications. However, taking into account the dif-
fusion and areal density of domestic heating systems, if the number of
small plants is high in a limited area (e.g. an urban framework), PM1
emissions from biomass boilers can strongly affect air quality and cause
unhealthy conditions [19]. Therefore, in order to make biomass a sus-
tainable alternative to traditional fuels and to further increase its spread
in the field of domestic heating, it is necessary to limit the PM emission
of small biomass plants through a separation device, which has to be
suitable for non-industrial applications.
In industrial applications, different separation systems are currently
applied to reduce PM emission from combustion plants. Available se-
paration technologies vary in removal efficiency, collected PM size and
costs [8,20]. Cyclones force the flue gas to perform a circular motion in
order to separate suspended particulate, driven by its inertia. Cyclones,
as well as other inertial separation systems [21], have low installation
costs but operate on particles with an aerodynamic diameter greater
than 10 μm, outside the range presented by biomass PM [22,23]. For
sub-micron particle range, fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators
(ESPs) have the highest removal efficiency. Fabric filters are mainly
based on the sieve effect, produced by filtering textiles on which par-
ticles are captured. They have a removal efficiency of 99% for particle
diameters lower than 1 μm, but also have high maintenance costs due to
the rapid clogging of the filter, which can cause re-suspension of par-
ticles previously collected [24–26]. ESPs removal efficiency is 95% for
sub-micron particles: PM is separated from the flue gas by the electric
force generated by electrodes. ESPs have high investment and opera-
tional costs [27–29]. Higher costs make fabric filters and ESPs eco-
nomically suitable only in industrial applications. Wet scrubbers re-
move pollutants (both gaseous and solid) through liquid droplets,
typically water droplets, which perform one or more removal me-
chanisms: inertial impaction, direct interception and Brownian diffu-
sion. Particles with diameter greater than 5–10 μm, characterized by a
sufficient inertial force, are generally collected by impaction. Particles
with a diameter between 0.1 μm and 1 μm do not have sufficient inertia
to deviate from flue gas, but when they are close enough to the droplets,
particulate collection occurs. Very small-sized particles (with a dia-
meter smaller than 0.1 μm) are subject to Brownian motion and are
collected by diffusion [30]. Wet scrubber systems have some
advantages over fabric filters and ESPs: scrubbers are smaller and
simpler, and also have lower capital and maintenance costs. Collection
efficiency of wet scrubbers varies with the particulate size distribution
and scrubber type. With design optimization, separation efficiency can
be greater than 99% for sub-micron particles [20]. The main operating
parameters are particle size distribution, gas velocity or gas flow rate,
liquid-to-gas ratio, droplet size distribution, temperature and pressure
drop [31,32]. One of the main disadvantages of wet scrubbers is that
increased removal efficiency is related to an increased pressure drop
across the system. There are many different types of scrubbers [20]. The
simplest type of scrubber is the washing tower, in which flue gas con-
tacts a liquid spray produced by nozzles, in counter-current, co-current
or in a perpendicular direction. Washing towers have lower capital
costs than other wet scrubbers. Washing towers perform particle cap-
ture primarily by impaction; in fact, typical removal efficiency can be
90% for particles larger than 5 μm, while below 3 μm the efficiency
decreases to less than 50%. Another type of wet scrubber is the Venturi
scrubber. In this case, water is injected with high pressure and is ato-
mized to improve gas-liquid contact. Collection efficiency varies from
70% to 99% for particles larger than 1 μm, and is higher than 50% for
sub-micron particles [33,34]. Increasing the pressure drop raises col-
lection efficiency, but energy consumption also increases. Venturi
scrubbers are therefore more expensive than washing towers for op-
erational costs (while capital and maintenance costs are comparable),
but removal efficiency for fine PM is generally greater. Tray tower
scrubbers contain several perforated plates with different geometrical
shapes in order to provide more gas-liquid mixing and contact. Tray
towers have a high efficiency level (greater than 97%) for particles
larger than 5 μm in diameter, but do not effectively remove sub-micron
particles. Capital and operational costs are moderately higher than
simple spray towers, but maintenance costs can be greater due to
clogging of perforations by large PM. Packed scrubbers contain packing
material, structured or randomly arranged, which provides a large
wetted surface for gas-liquid contact [35–37]. Packing materials are
available in a variety of shapes, each having specific characteristics,
such as specific surface area, pressure drop, weight, corrosion resistance
and cost. Bubble-column wet scrubbers represent a promising and in-
teresting alternative for nanoparticle collection. In particular, it has
been demonstrated that the most predominant mechanism of PM re-
moval in bubble-column scrubbers is diffusion. So, if appropriately
supported by bubble micronization, a bubble-column scrubber can be
competitive in terms of nanoparticle removal compared with fabric
filters and ESPs, even if studies on the application of bubble-column
scrubbing of particles in a real scale plant are not yet available [38].

Table 1
Characteristics of PM separation devices, such as particle size, efficiency, costs and disadvantages.
PM separation Collection Efficiency Optimized for PM Equipment, operating and Main disadvantages
technology (μm) maintenance costs

Cyclones 95% (dp > 10 μm) > 10 Low equipment, operating and High efficiency only on coarse particles
80% (dp < 5 μm) maintenance costs
40% (dp < 3 μm)
Fabric filters 99% (dp > 0.5 μm) > 0.5 Low equipment costs, high operating Rapid clogging of the filter
95% (dp < 0.5 μm) and maintenance costs
ESPs 95% (dp > 0.8 μm) > 0.8 High equipment and operating costs High investment costs for ESP adaptation to residential
85% (dp < 0.8 μm) applications and sophisticated control and safety systems
Washing towers 90% (dp > 5 μm) >5 Low equipment, operating and High efficiency only on large particles
50% (dp < 3 μm) maintenance costs
Venturi scrubbers 70–99% (dp > 1 μm) >1 Low equipment and maintenance High pressure drop and electric energy consumption
50% (dp < 1 μm) costs, high operating costs
Tray scrubbers 97% (dp > 5 μm) >5 Low equipment and operating costs, Clogging of the plates
high maintenance costs
Packing scrubbers 99% (dp > 2 μm) >2 Low equipment, operating and Possible uneven airflow distribution
50% (dp < 1 μm) maintenance costs
Bubble scrubbers 95% (dp > 2 μm) >2 Low equipment, operating and Difficult bubble micronization
70% (dp < 2 μm) < 0.1 maintenance costs
90% (dp < 0.1 μm)

61
A. Bianchini et al.
Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of PM separation devices.
The paper aims to provide the preliminary design of a wet scrubber
configuration for the collection of PM produced by small size biomass
boilers for non-industrial applications.
Wet scrubber technology was chosen since it can be an alternative to
fabric filters and ESPs in terms of collection efficiency and energy
consumption. In particular, to be competitive with industrial device
performances, the innovative PM separation device must have a re-
moval efficiency higher than 99.9% and a specific energy consumption
lower than 36 J m−3 (considering Normal Temperature and Pressure
conditions, which are 273.15 K and 101325 Pa). The wet scrubber could
thus be implemented in small biomass plants for domestic heating,
obtaining the same technical and economic performance as industrial
applications.
Wet scrubber parameters were optimized for the flue gas produced
by a 25 kW biomass boiler, on which other configurations of wet
scrubbers have previously been tested [39].
2. Material and methods
2.1. Particulate loading and size distribution
Particulate loading and size distribution are two parameters which
influence the choice and the design of a separation device. Particulate
loading in the flue gas can be expressed in term of mass concentration.
PM mass concentration is defined as the mass of particulate matter per
unit volume of flue gas (mg m−3). Particulate loading from biomass
combustion is affected by combustion process efficiency, influenced by
excess air, combustion chamber turbulence and geometry, and boiler
maintenance. Fuel characteristics, such as biomass size, moisture, ash
content, quality and humidity, also have an impact on PM emission
levels [6,14,16,40]. Combustion systems fed by biomass typically
generate particulate emissions between 60 and 2100 mg m−3 [7,8].
Particle-size distribution describes the size of the particles in a
polydisperse aerosol and is defined as the relative amounts of particles,
sorted by size. PM emissions from biomass combustion mainly consist
of particles with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 μm
(PM2.5), and in particular between 0.1 μm and 1 μm [41–43]. Fig. 1
shows specific mass distribution related to the aerodynamic diameter of
particulate matter for different types of biomass [42], while Fig. 2 refers
to cumulative mass PM loading (%), according to PM size for different
types of stoves [43].
Particle size distribution was also confirmed by an experimental
test, conducted with a multi-impactor device in the laboratory of the
University of Bologna. In particular, PM size distribution for a 25 kW
biomass boiler fed with flint corn was analysed: in steady operating
conditions, the PM concentration was about 190–300 mg m−3 and more
than 97% was PM2.5 or less [39].
Fig. 1. Particle mass size distribution of particles emitted by different types of
biomass combustion [42].
62
Biomass and Bioenergy 116 (2018) 60–71
Fig. 2. Cumulative mass loading (%) of particles from biomass combustion of
different stove designs [43].
2.2. Particle separation mechanisms
The collection efficiency of a PM separation device, in particular of
a wet scrubber, depends on the particle behaviour due to the presence
of external forces or obstacles, which initiate one or more physical
mechanisms of particle capture [44,45]. The most important mechan-
isms are inertial impaction, direct interception and Brownian diffusion.
When a gas stream flows around an obstacle and changes direction,
suspended particles tend to deviate from the flux streamline due to their
inertia: collection by inertial impaction takes place when particle tra-
jectory ends up on the filter surface (Fig. 3).
The impaction mechanism is described by the dimensionless Stokes
number, defined as the ratio of particle relaxation distance and se-
paration system dimension. Considering an obstacle with a cylindrical
or spherical geometry (such as a fibrous filter or spherical packing re-
spectively), the system dimension is its diameter d, and the Stokes
number is (Eq. (1)):
τUr ρp dp2 CC Ur
St = =
d 18 μ d (1)
where Ur is the relative speed between particle and gas flow, τ the re-
laxation time, ρp the particle density, dp the particulate aerodynamic
diameter, CC the slip correction factor and μ the gas dynamic viscosity.
The Stokes number is connected to relaxation time, which shows how
quickly the particle reaches flux speed and overcomes the inertial force.
When the particle mass or the relative speed are significant (high dp, ρp
or Ur), τ is high, the drag force does not manage to balance the inertial
force quickly and the particle deviates from the gas. Inertial impaction
is relevant for particles with a Stokes number much greater than 1
(St ≫ 1) ; if St ≪ 1, impaction is negligible.
Two conditions are necessary to achieve direct interception: the
particle is able to follow the gas streamline and its centre is on a tra-
jectory which passes at a distance from an obstacle the same size as or
smaller than the particle radius. This means that interception occurs
when particle inertia and relaxation time are low (small dp); drag force
and particle inertia thus become equal before collection takes place on
the filter surface (Fig. 4).
The interception parameter is the ratio between particle diameter dp
and obstacle diameter d and characterizes the interception mechanism
(Eq. (2)):
dp
R= .
d (2)
With high R values, the number of intercepted trajectories increases and
A. Bianchini et al.
Fig. 3. Inertial impaction mechanism [46].
collection efficiency for interception improves.
When particles are sufficiently small, their capture is determined by
random motion caused by the impact of gas molecules (Brownian mo-
tion), which brings them into contact with the obstacles due to diffusion
(Fig. 5).
The Peclet number is the dimensionless parameter which represents
the diffusion mechanism and is the ratio between mass convective
transport and mass diffusional transport (Eq. (3)):
Ud
Pe =
D (3)
where U is the gas velocity, d the obstacle diameter and D the diffu-
sivity. The diffusion coefficient D is inversely proportional to the par-
ticle diameter dp (Eq. (4)):
kκTCC
D=
3πμdp (4)
where κ is the Boltzmann's constant, T the temperature, CC the slip
correction factor and μ the gas dynamic viscosity. When particle dif-
fusivity D is high (small dp) or the gas speed U is low, the Peclet number
decreases, which means that diffusional transport is more significant
than convective transport and particles move in every random direction
and not in the flux direction. If the Peclet number is high, particle
motion in the flux direction is more important than diffusion [47].
The main factor that influences the action of one particular collec-
tion mechanism is the particle diameter dp. PM with a diameter greater
than 10 μm has great inertia and is typically collected by impaction. PM
Fig. 4. Direct interception mechanism [46].
63
Biomass and Bioenergy 116 (2018) 60–71
of roughly 1 to 0.1 μm in diameter is dominated by drag forces and
follows gas streamlines. Particles of this size, if close enough to the filter
surface, are captured by interception. Collection due to diffusion is most
significant for particles less than 0.1 μm in diameter [48–51]. As noted
above, biomass combustion PM has a diameter between 0.1 and 1 μm,
so direct interception is the mechanism which mainly takes place
during the separation process.
2.3. Experimental test plant
An experimental test plant was installed in the laboratory of
University of Bologna in order to design and construct a PM separation
system with a collection efficiency greater than 99.9% and energy
consumption lower than 36 kJ m−3, for a small size biomass boiler. The
Process Flow Diagram (PFD) of the pilot test plant is drafted in Fig. 6
[39].
The pilot test plant consists of a biomass boiler of 25 kW which is
fed with flint corn, provided by the same supplier, that is the Consorzio
Agrario of Bologna, and stored in plastic bags with a unit weight of
25 kg. The main characteristics of the fuel are summarized in the pre-
vious study [39]. The boiler is connected to a water cooling system to
maintain constant conditions inside the combustion chamber. The
boiler generates a flue gas emission which can be controlled in tem-
perature, flow and mean PM concentration. In particular, the flue gas
line is divided in two lines: the first one is directly connected to the
chimney (line A), while the second one carries the flue gas to the ex-
perimental separation system (line B). The pilot plant is equipped with
A. Bianchini et al.
Fig. 5. Brownian diffusion mechanism [46].
thermocouples and resistance temperature detectors (RTDs) for the
measurement of the following temperatures: water inlet and outlet from
the boiler (in the plant PFD, respectively TT2 and TT1), ambient air,
flue gas inlet (TT8) and outlet (TT5) from the fireplace mantel, flue gas
inside the combustion chamber (TT3). In order to verify potential fume
leakage or air re-entry, the hopper temperature (TT4) is monitored. In
particular, the gas flow rate is guaranteed when hopper temperature
varies in the range of 30–40 °C. Moreover, the flue gas flow rate mea-
suring system, positioned after the wet separation system, allows the
comparison between the measured value with the flow rate (air and
fuel) entering the boiler. Combustion air flow (FT2), flue gas flow (with
a measuring system which combines PT, TT6 and DP) and water flow
(FT1) are also measured. Gas flow rates can be regulated by varying the
rotation speed of two fans through inverters (Inverter 1 and 2). Finally,
an industrial fan, which blows hot air into a counter flow heat ex-
changer with the flue gas (HE), increases the flue gas temperature in
order to avoid the risk of water condensation during PM sampling. The
heat exchanger was used only during the winter season.
PM measurement is made by a multi-impactor MSSI for the sub-
division of the coarse particulate (> 10 μm), PM10 (≤10 μm) and
PM2.5 (≤2.5 μm), in accordance with UNI EN 13284-1 and UNI EN ISO
23210:2009. The instruments were provided by the company Tecora
and a manual gravimetric method is used to determine the mass
Fig. 6. Pilot test plant PFD [39].
64
Biomass and Bioenergy 116 (2018) 60–71
concentration of particulate in the flue gas. The flue gas passes through
a sampling filter (absolute, quartz fiber). The sampling filter is weighed
before and after coming into contact with the flue gas, at constant
humidity conditions: the difference between the two values determines
the mass of PM captured. PM flue gas concentration is computed
through the ratio between the captured PM mass and the normalized
volume of flue gas. Finally, the oxygen content in the flue gas is mea-
sured through a combustion analyser in order to correct the evaluated
PM concentration to an equivalent one containing a specified reference
amount of oxygen (i.e. 11% volume oxygen concentration). A more
detailed description of the experimental test plant is present in Ref.
[39].
2.4. Wet scrubber test configurations: analysis of previous results
The plant was used to test the performance of the wet separation
system and to carry out a preliminary energy balance to evaluate its
energy consumption. Previously, different wet scrubber configurations
had been tested. Wet scrubber technology was chosen since it can be
implemented in small domestic plants with the same collection effi-
ciency and energy consumption as in other types of separation devices,
used in industrial applications.
The results of previous experimental tests are shown in Table 2 and
A. Bianchini et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 116 (2018) 60–71

Table 2
Mean PM2.5 removal efficiency and energy consumption of the previous experimental test configurations [37].
Test configuration Number of tests Mean PM2.5 removal Power consumption (W) Specific energy consumption related to flue gas rate
efficiency (kJ m−3)

Washing tower 40 28.2% 330 38

Bubble-column scrubber 20 58.6% 354 41 (150 mm water column)
Venturi scrubber 20 60.4% 1700 197
Combined Venturi and bubble-column 10 89.7% 1944 226 (250 mm water column)
scrubber 10 94.8% 2052 (with fans) 238 (360 mm water column)

Fig. 7. Mean PM2.5 removal efficiency of the tested scrubbers [39].

in the graph in Fig. 7 [39].
The previous results were analyzed to identify the elements which
limited or promoted PM collection efficiency. The efficiency of washing
tower was around 28%, since the high diameter of water droplets
limited the contribution of collection mechanisms to PM2.5 removal.
The highest PM2.5 removal efficiency (about 95%) was reached
through a combination of Venturi and bubble-column scrubber (PFD is
shown in Fig. 8). Considering a mean unfiltered gas concentration of
200 mg m−3, generated by the experimental plant, the clean gas
concentration after passing through the combined Venturi and bubble-
column scrubber was reduced to 10 mg m−3. In this configuration, the
water was introduced with a high pressure (300 kPa): this parameter
had a positive effect since it decreased the liquid droplet diameter and
increased the relative speed between particle and gas flow, improving
the effect of the collection mechanisms. Moreover, the bubble-column
amplified the mixing between water and flue gas.
The operating conditions of the experimental plant and geometrical
parameters of wet scrubber are listed in Table 3 and Table 4 for the two

Fig. 8. PFD of the combined Venturi and bubble-column scrubber tested configuration [39].

65
A. Bianchini et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 116 (2018) 60–71

Table 3
Operating conditions of the tested washing tower.
Parameter Value

Water flow 1.0 m3 h−1

Pressure 300 kPa
Droplet diameter (Dw) 100 μm
Water-fume relative velocity (Ur) 24 m s−1
Water fraction (αw ) 0.9
Ratio of viscosity (σ) 54

Table 4
Operating conditions of the tested Venturi scrubber.
Parameter Value

Water flow 0.3 m3 h−1

Pressure 10 MPa
Droplet diameter (Dw) 40 μm
Water-fume relative velocity (Ur) 75 m s−1
Water fraction (αw ) 0.8
Ratio of viscosity (σ) 54

analysed cases.
Nevertheless, the functioning of the Venturi scrubber (both alone or
combined) was accompanied by high specific energy consumption
(about 238 kJ m−3, which included flue gas fan and water pump elec-
trical energy consumption), and this is not suitable for domestic ap-
plications. Therefore, further investigations are needed to allow a
complete comparison between innovative solutions and the industrial
technologies currently available [39].

2.5. Design of a new configuration of wet scrubber

In order to reduce energy consumption, but maintaining the

achieved PM removal efficiency, a new configuration of the wet
scrubber was designed and needs further analysis. The new configura-
tion consists of a tower with two different zones where PM capture
takes place: in the first one, water droplets, coming out of the atomi- Fig. 9. Preliminary design of the new configuration of wet scrubber.
zers, induce one or more collection mechanisms in relation to PM
μ
diameter; in the second region, PM removal is performed by a random ratio between the dynamic viscosity of liquid (water) and gas, σ = μL ,
G
packing of spherical bodies in polypropylene, covered by a wet film of must be small. This parameter considers that water droplets are not
water (Fig. 9). rigid spheres but have different shapes depending on viscosity [54]. The
A literary review of the mathematical models describing PM re- effect of the parameter on interception efficiency is negligible.
moval dynamics was carried out in order to analyse and understand the Taking into account the equations of the model, the polypropylene
main parameters which may influence the performance of the new wet single sphere interception efficiency ηR can be expressed as in Eq. (6)
scrubber configuration. The objective was to evaluate the collection [55,56]:
efficiency as a function of PM size dp. Since PM size distribution de-
monstrates that the main mechanism to be exploited is direct inter- 1 − αpacking R2
ηR = 1.5 .
ception, only equations of interception efficiency were considered and K (1 + R) γ (6)
optimized.
Similarly to the case of water droplets, the sphere diameter Ds must be
According to consolidated literature relative to a mathematical
small in order to increase the interception parameter R, which is the
model for the evaluation of particulate removal efficiency in a water
ratio between particle diameter dp and sphere diameter ds. The solid
spray, single water droplet collection efficiency due to interception can
volume fraction αpacking has to be high. The values of the parameters K
be expressed as in Eq. (5) [52,53]: 1 + 2αpacking
and γ (γ = 3 − 3αpacking
) depend on the value of αpacking (K is the same
1 − αw ⎡ ⎛ R ⎞ 1 R ⎞2 substituting α w with αpacking ).
ηint = + ⎛ (3σ + 4) ⎤.
J + σK ⎢
⎣⎝ 1 + R ⎠ 2 ⎝ 1 + R⎠ ⎥
⎦ (5)
3. Results and discussion
In order to improve interception efficiency ηint, the interception para-
meter R, water volume fraction α w and viscosity ratio σ must be opti-
3.1. Scrubber operating parameters
mized. For a water droplet, the interception parameter R is defined as
the ratio between particle diameter dp and droplet diameter Dw, which
The analysis of the interception equations made it possible to
has to be small. The water volume fraction α w also has to be high. The
9 3
1
1
identify the main parameters which affect PM efficiency. The opera-
values of two hydrodynamic factors, K = 1 − α
5 w
+ α w − 5 α w2 and tional conditions of the experimental plant, the flue gas properties and
6 1/3 1 2
J=1− α+
5 w
α ,
depend directly on α w and represent the inter-
5 w
the scrubber geometrical characteristics were introduced in the litera-
ference effects of neighbouring droplets on gas streamlines. Finally, the ture mathematical model in order to plot collection efficiency as a

66
A. Bianchini et al.
Fig. 10. Interception removal efficiency of a single water droplet according to particle aerodynamic diameter dp, for three different sizes of the droplet dw (150 μm,
40 μm and 15 μm), and considering the same water (0.2 kg s−1) flow and water fraction (0.9).
function of PM diameter. Required collection efficiency can be achieved
by setting the proper value of the scrubber operating parameters. For
the water region, reducing droplet size considerably improves the value
of interception efficiency (as shown in Fig. 10). Using a suitable water
atomizer, able to produce droplets with a sufficiently small diameter,
can increase interception efficiency also for sub-micron particles.
For the region with spherical random packing, a high solid volume
fraction αpacking is required. Typical solid volume fraction for spherical
packing is fixed, but it increases with the water flow from atomizers, or
from a dedicated nozzle, which covers the packing (the effect of αpacking
is shown in Fig. 11).
Another key operating parameter for the design of random packing
is sphere size. Reducing sphere diameter improves both interception
and diffusion efficiency. Consequently, choosing spheres with a small
size, the overall collection efficiency in the random packing zone (in-
cluding impaction, interception and diffusion) can reach a higher value
also for particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than 0.2 μm
(Fig. 12).
The packing bed height also influences PM removal (Fig. 13). A high
bed improves overall collection efficiency, but also increases pressure
drop and energy consumption.
Fig. 11. Interception removal efficiency of a single sphere according to particles aerodynamic diameter dp, for two different values of the solid volume fraction αpacking
(0.5 and 0.85) and considering the same diameter of spherical packing (0.5 mm).
67
Biomass and Bioenergy 116 (2018) 60–71
3.2. Validation of the model
The model was applied to the previously tested configurations, in
order to verify model reliability. In particular, the equations related to
collection efficiency by water droplets were adapted to the cases of
washing tower and Venturi scrubber [39]. The overall collection effi-
ciency as a function of PM diameter was plotted for two tested con-
figurations (Fig. 14) by applying their parameters in the mathematical
model described before.
PM mass size distribution was provided by the literature [43],
evaluating the mass loading m(dp) which corresponds to each particle
diameter dp. The overall removal efficiency can be expressed as in Eq.
(7):
∑ m (dp) η (dp)
η= .
∑ m (dp) (7)
The efficiency evaluation by mathematical model was compared
with the experimental results (Fig. 15). For the washing tower, the
model predicted a collection efficiency of 21%, with respect to the 28%
obtained in experimental tests. For the Venturi scrubber, the model
evaluated a 57% collection efficiency and the experimental result was
equal to 60%.
A. Bianchini et al.
Fig. 12. Overall removal efficiency (including impaction, interception and diffusion) of the region with spherical packing according to particle aerodynamic diameter
dp, for two different sizes of spheres, ds (3 mm and 0.5 mm), and considering the same packing bed height (100 mm).
Fig. 13. Overall removal efficiency (including impaction, interception and
diffusion) of the region with spherical packing according to particles aero-
dynamic diameter dp, for different heights of packing bed, Z (10 cm, 15 cm and
25 cm), and considering the same diameter of spherical packing (0.5 mm).
Fig. 14. Overall removal efficiency (including impaction, interception and
diffusion) of the region with water droplets according to particle aerodynamic
diameter dp, for two previously tested configurations: washing tower and
Venturi scrubber.
3.3. Optimization of the new configuration
Since the evaluated collection efficiency is confirmed by the pre-
vious experimental results, the equations can be optimized to select the
operating parameter values for the new wet scrubber and consequently
to obtain the required PM removal efficiency. For the region with water
68
Biomass and Bioenergy 116 (2018) 60–71
Fig. 15. Comparison of the collection efficiency obtained with the literature
mathematical model and with the experimental tests for the washing tower and
Venturi scrubber.
droplets, 40 nebulizers, installed with a radial direction in the upper
zone of scrubber, will produce droplets with 15 μm in diameter, pro-
viding a water flow of 0.1 m3 h-1 at 8 MPa. The packing bed will be
located in the lower part of the scrubber. The solid volume fraction for a
bed of spheres is typically fixed at 0.5, but the value of αpacking will be
increased to 0.85 with water flow from a further atomizer, placed over
the bed. Spherical bodies in polypropylene with a diameter of 0.5 mm
will be considered. Taking into account that a high bed of spheres
improves collection efficiency but also increases pressure drop and
energy consumption, a height of 200 mm will be chosen. The PFD of the
new configuration of wet scrubber is shown in Fig. 16 and the para-
meters of the two regions in the new designed configuration are sum-
marized in Tables 5 and 6. Introducing these values in the model and
considering the operational conditions of the plant, the collection effi-
ciency trend according to particle diameter was obtained for both re-
gions with water droplets (Fig. 17) and spherical packing (Fig. 18). The
evaluation of PM removal efficiency was calculated considering mass
size distribution and is greater than 99.9% (Fig. 19). Considering a
mean unfiltered gas concentration of 200 mg m−3, generated by the
experimental plant, the clean gas concentration after passing through
the new scrubber is expected to be lower than 1 mg m−3.
3.4. Energy consumption
Energy consumption refers to the electric power absorbed by the
fans, which regulates the flow rate and the head, and by the water
pump to generate water with high pressure.
The fans must overcome the losses of flue gas when it crosses the
A. Bianchini et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 116 (2018) 60–71

Fig. 18. Overall removal efficiency (including impaction, interception and

diffusion) of the region with random packing according to particle aerodynamic
diameter dp, for the new configuration of wet scrubber.

Fig. 16. PFD of the new scrubber with nebulizers in the upper zone and the
packing bed of spheres in the lower area.

Table 5
Operating conditions of the new configuration of scrubber, for the
region with water droplets.
Parameter Value

Water flow 0.1 m3 h−1

Pressure 8 MPa
Droplet diameter (dw) 15 μm
Water-fume relative velocity (Ur) 64 m s−1
Water fraction (αW ) 0,6
Ratio of viscosity (σ) 54

Table 6 Fig. 19. Collection efficiency obtained with the literature mathematical model
Operating conditions of the new configuration of scrubber, for the region with for the washing tower, the Venturi scrubber and the new configuration of wet
spherical packing. scrubber.

Parameter Value
line with the wet scrubber. In particular, the main pressure drop Δp is in
Diameter of the sphere (dS) 0.5 mm
the packing and it can be expressed as in Eq. (8):
Height of the bed (Z) 200 mm
Solid volume fraction (αpacking ) 0.5 (0.85 with water) Δp = Z (1 − εG )(ρS − ρG ) g (8)
Water fraction in the bed of spheres (εL) 0.35
Void fraction (εG) 0.15 where Z is the packing height, εG the void fraction of gas
(εG = 1 − α (wet ) packing ), ρG the gas density, ρS the polypropylene density
and g gravitational acceleration. In the new configuration of wet
scrubber, the pressure drop can be estimated at about 1400 Pa. Using
two fans, they may absorb electric power of about 100 W.
Another source of energy consumption is the water pump for
nebulizers, which provides a water flow of 0.1 m3 h−1 with a pressure
of 8 MPa. The energy consumption of the water pump is 250 W.
Since the experimental plant produces a flue gas flow of 36 m3 h−1,
the specific energy consumption is 34.9 kJ m−3, which is lower than the
target limit of 36 kJ m−3.

4. Conclusion

This paper presents a preliminary design for a new configuration of

Fig. 17. Overall removal efficiency (including impaction, interception and
diffusion) of the region with water droplets according to particle aerodynamic
diameter dp, for the new configuration of wet scrubber.
wet scrubber, which consists of a PM separation system for flue gas
produced by biomass combustion in small size boilers.
If the same collection efficiency and energy consumption as in-
dustrial systems is also obtained in domestic heating plants, the use of
biomass as a fuel will become a realistic and complete alternative to
traditional fossil-based fuels, leading to technical, economic and en-
vironmental advantages. When the required characteristics have been
reached, the new wet scrubber might be adapted and installed on

69
A. Bianchini et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 116 (2018) 60–71

existing plants, or implemented in a new generation of biomass boilers, product gas from atmospheric fluidized bed biomass gasifiers, Biomass Bioenergy
with low environmental impact in terms of CO2 and PM. It could 35 (2011) S71–S78.
[10] M. Obaidullah, S. Bram, V.K. Verma, J. De Ruyck, A review on particle emissions
therefore significantly encourage the adoption of solid biomass boilers from small scale biomass combustion, Int. J. Renew. Energy Resour. 2 (1) (2012)
and increase their number. Moreover, the model can be easily adapted 147–159.
for the removal of suspended particles with a similar size distribution in [11] J. Tissaria, K. Hytonena, J. Lyyranen, J. Jokiniemia, A novel field measurement
method for determining fine particle and gas emissions from residential wood
several applications, typical of other industrial sectors, such as waste combustion, Atmos. Environ. 41 (2007) 8830–8844.
incinerators with or without energy recovery or thermal plants fed by [12] A. Wierzbicka, L. Lillieblad, J. Pagels, M. Strand, A. Gudmundsson, A. Gharibi,
solid fuels. E. Swietlicki, M. Sanati, M. Bohgard, Particle emissions from district heating units
operating on three commonly used biofuels, Atmos. Environ. 39 (2005) 139–150.
[13] L.S. Bafver, M. Ronnback, B. Leckner, F. Claesson, C. Tullin, Particle emission from
Nomenclature combustion of oat grain and its potential reduction by addition of limestone or
kaolin, Fuel Process. Technol. 90 (2009) 353–359.
[14] L.S. Johansson, B. Leckner, L. Gustavsson, D. Cooper, C. Tullin, A. Potter, Emissions
CC slip correction factor
characteristics of modern and old-type residential boilers fired with wood logs and
d water/sphere diameter (m) wood pellets, Atmos. Environ. 38 (2004) 4183–4195.
D diffusion coefficient (m2 s−1) [15] J. Muhlbaler Dasch, Particulate and gaseous emissions from wood-burning fire-
dp particle aerodynamic diameter (m) places, Environ. Sci. Technol. 16 (10) (1982) 639–645.
[16] I. Obernberger, T. Brunner, G. Barnthaler, Fine particle emissions from Modern
g gravitational acceleration (m s−2) Austrian small scale biomass combustion plants, 15th European Biomass
J hydrodynamic factor Conference and Exhibition, 7-11 May 2007, Germany 1546–1557.
K hydrodynamic factor [17] H. Wiinikka, R. Gebart, Critical parameters for particle emissions in small scale
fixed bed combustion of wood pellets, Energy Fuels 18 (4) (2004) 897–907.
m PM mass percentage [18] M.A. Bari, G. Baumbach, B. Kuch, G. Scheffknecht, Air pollution in residential areas
Pe Peclet number from wood-fired heating, Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 11 (2011) 749–757.
R interception parameter [19] F. Fiedler, The state of the art of small-scale pellet-based heating systems and re-
levant regulations in Sweden, Austria and Germany, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 8
St Stokes number (2004) 201–221.
T flue gas temperature (K) [20] D. Mussatti, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, sixth ed., (2002).
U flue gas velocity (m s−1) [21] A. Bianchini, M. Pellegrini, C. Saccani, Hot waste to Energy flue gas treatment using
an integrated fluidised bed reactor, Waste Manag. 29 (4) (2009) 1313–1319.
Ur water/gas relative velocity (m s−1) [22] J. Dirgo, D. Leith, Cyclone collection efficiency: comparison of experimental results
Z packing height (m) with theoretical predictions, Aerosol. Sci. Technol. 4 (4) (1985) 401–415.
Δp pressure drop (Pa) [23] J. Jiao, Y. Zheng, A multi-region model for determining the cyclone efficiency,
Separ. Purif. Technol. 53 (2007) 266–273.
Greek letters
[24] L.K. Wang, C. Williford, W.Y. Chen, L.K. Wang, N.C. Pereira, Y.T. Hung (Eds.),
Handbook of environmental Engineering, vol. 1, Air Pollution Control Engineering,
α water/solid volume fraction The Humana Press, Inc., Totowa, New York, 2004, p. 59.
γ hydrodynamic correction factor [25] R. Dennis, Collection efficiency as a function of particle size, shape and density:
theory and experience, J. Air Pollut. Contr. Assoc. 24 (12) (1974) 1156–1163.
ε void fraction [26] A. Ergudenler, W. Tang, C.M.H. Brereton, C.J. Lim, J.R. Grace, T.J. Gennrich,
η collection efficiency Performance of high-temperature fabric filters under gasification and combustion
κ Boltzmann's constant (J K−1) conditions, Separ. Purif. Technol. 11 (1997) 1–16.
[27] H. Pasic, Membrane based electrostatic precipitation, Filtr. Sep. 38 (9) (2011)
μ flue gas viscosity (Pa s) 28–31.
ρ density (kg m−3) [28] T. Nussbaumer, A. Lauber, Monitoring the availability of electrostatic precipitators
σ liquid/gas viscosity ratio (ESP) in automated biomass combustion plants, Biomass Bioenergy 89 (2016)
24–30.
τ particle relaxation time (s) [29] M. Strand, J. Pagels, A. Szpila, A. Gudmundsson, E. Swietlicki, M. Bohgard,
Subscripts M. Sanati, Fly ash penetration through electrostatic precipitator and flue gas con-
denser in a 6 MW biomass fired boiler, Energy Fuels 16 (2004) 1499–1506.
[30] C. Wang, Y. Otani, Removal of nanoparticles from gas streams by fibrous filters: a
G gas
review, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 52 (2013) 5–17.
p particle [31] C. Lanzerstorfer, Solid/liquid — gas separation with wet scrubbers and wet elec-
R, int interception trostatic precipitators: a review, Filtr. Sep. 37 (5) (2000) 30–34.
[32] H.E. Hesketh, Fine particulate collection efficiency related to pressure drop,
s solid
scrubbant and particle properties and contact mechanism, J. Air Pollut. Contr.
Assoc. 24 (10) (1974) 939–942.
References [33] B.K. Lee, B.R. Mohan, S.H. Byeon, K.S. Lim, E.P. Hong, Evaluating the performance
of a turbulent wet scrubber for scrubbing particulate matter, J. Air Waste Manag.
Assoc. 63 (5) (2013) 499–506.
[1] P. Brassad, J.H. Palacios, S. Godbout, D. Bussières, R. Lagacé, J.P. Larouche, [34] S.I. Pak, K.S. Chang, Performance estimation of a Venturi scrubber using a com-
F. Pelletier, Comparison of the gaseous and particulate matter emissions from the putational model for capturing dust particles with liquid spray, J. Hazard Mater.
combustion of agricultural and forest biomasses, Bioresour. Technol. 155 (2014) 138 (3) (2006) 560–573.
300–306. [35] M.L. Gimenes, D. Handley, A model for particle collection in a turbulent bed con-
[2] J.F. Gonzalez, C.M. Gonzalez-Garcia, A. Ramiro, J. Ganan, A. Ayuso, J. Turegano, tactor – new packings, Trans. IChemE 76 (A) (1998) 855–863.
Use of energy crops for domestic heating with a mural boiler, Fuel Process. Technol. [36] B.F. Chang, J. Swithenbank, V.N. Sharifi, A non-wetting packed bed gas scrubber,
87 (2006) 717–726. Trans. IChemE 85 (B2) (2007) 169–175.
[3] V.K. Verma, S. Bram, J. De Ruyck, Small scale biomass heating systems: standards, [37] K.G. Allen, T.W. Backstrom, D.G. Kroger, Packed bed pressure drop dependence on
quality labelling and market driving factors – an EU review, Biomass Bioenergy 33 particle shape, size distribution, packing arrangement and roughness, Powder
(2009) 1393–1402. Technol. 246 (2013) 590–600.
[4] A. Bianchini, M. Pellegrini, C. Saccani, Thermoelectric cells cogeneration from [38] A. Charvet, N. Bardin-Monnier, D. Thomas, Can bubble columns be an alternative to
biomass power plant, Energy Procedia 45 (2014) 268–777. fibrous filters for nanoparticles collection? J. Hazard Mater. 195 (2011) 432–439.
[5] C. Boman, A. Nordin, D. Bostrom, M. Ohman, Characterization of inorganic parti- [39] A. Bianchini, F. Cento, L. Golfera, M. Pellegrini, C. Saccani, Performance analysis of
culate matter from residential combustion of pelletized biomass fuels, Energy Fuels different scrubber systems for removal of particulate emissions from a small size
18 (2004) 338–348. biomass boiler, Biomass Bioenergy 92 (2016) 31–39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
[6] M. Rabacal, U. Fernandes, M. Costa, Combustion and emission characteristics of a biombioe.2016.06.005.
domestic boiler fired with pellets of pine, industrial wood and peach stones, Renew. [40] V.K. Verma, S. Bram, G. Gauthier, J. De Ruyck, Performance of a domestic pellet
Energy 51 (2013) 220–226. boiler as a function of operational loads: part-2, Biomass Bioenergy 35 (2011)
[7] L.S. Johansson, C. Tullin, B. Leckner, P. Sjovall, Particle emissions from biomass 272–279.
combustion in small combustors, Biomass Bioenergy 25 (2003) 435–446. [41] U. Fernandes, M. Costa, Particle emissions from a domestic pellets-fired boiler, Fuel
[8] S. Ghafghazi, T. Sowlati, S. Sokhansanj, X. Bi, S. Melin, Particulate matter emissions Process. Technol. 103 (2012) 51–56.
from combustion of wood in district heating applications, Renew. Sustain. Energy [42] X. Li, L. Duan, S. Wang, J. Duan, X. Guo, H. Yi, J. Hu, C. Li, J. Hao, Emission
Rev. 15 (2011) 3019–3028. characteristics of particulate matter from rural household biofuel combustion in
[9] E. Gustafsonn, L. Lin, M. Strand, Characterization of particulate matter in the hot China, Energy Fuels 21 (2007) 845–851.

70
A. Bianchini et al.
[43] C. L'Orange, J. Volckens, M. DeFoort, Influence of stove type and cooking pot
temperature on particulate matter emissions from biomass cook stoves, Energy
Sustain. Dev. 16 (2012) 448–455.
[44] R.C. Flagan, J.H. Seinfeld, Fundamentals of Air Pollution Engineering, Prentice
Hall, 1998.
[45] P. Kulkarni, P.A. Baron, K. Willeke, Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques
and Applications, third ed., John Wiley, 2011.
[46] W.C. Hinds, Aerosol Technology, second ed., John Wiley, 1999.
[47] S.K. Friedlander, Particle diffusion in low-speed flow, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 23
(1967) 157–164.
[48] K.C. Schifftner, H.E. Hesketh, Wet Scrubber, second ed., Technomic Publishing,
Lancaster, PA, 1996.
[49] Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. (EPA), Stationary Source Control
Techniques Document for fine Particulate, EPA Document No. EPA-452/R-97–9001
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC,
September 30, 1997.
[50] K.B.J. Schnelle, C.A. Brown, Air Pollution Control Technology Handbook, CRC
71
Biomass and Bioenergy 116 (2018) 60–71
Press, Washington D.C, 2002.
[51] E.M. Fischer, Performance of Ceramic Fiber and Composite Filters at High
Temperatures, Clean Air Technology News, Institute of Clean Air Companies,
Washington DC, Summer 1995.
[52] H.T. Kim, C.H. Jung, S.N. Oh, K.W. Lee, Particle removal efficiency of gravitational
wet scrubber considering diffusion, interception and impaction, Environ. Eng. Sci.
18 (2) (2001) 125–136.
[53] C.H. Jung, K.W. Lee, Filtration of fine particles by multiple liquid droplet and gas
bubble systems, Aerosol. Sci. Technol. 29 (1998) 389–401.
[54] Y. Kang, F. Hua, K. Zhong, H. Zhu, A new analysis of fine aerosol capture by
raindrops at terminal velocities, J. Aerosol Sci. 89 (2015) 31–42.
[55] K.W. Lee, J.A. Gieseke, Collection of aerosol particles by packed beds, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 13 (4) (1979) 466–470.
[56] K.W. Lee, Particle collection mechanisms pertinent to granular bed filtration, Fluid
Filtrat. Gas (1) (1986) ASTM STP 975. Raber R.R. American Society for Testing and
Materials.