Mercury – emissions and

control

Lesley L Sloss
CCC/58

February 2002

Copyright © IEA Coal Research 2002

ISBN 92-9029-371-3

Abstract
Recently there have been some major moves towards implementing emission limits and/or emission control technologies for
mercury emissions from coal combustion in several countries, especially in the USA. This report draws together the latest data on
mercury emissions highlighting, where possible, inaccuracies and disagreements between studies. It addresses the legal
requirements which are likely to be set for coal-fired power plants. The available technologies for mercury control and those
currently under development are then reviewed in order to determine the most cost-effective ways of achieving the required
reduction in mercury emissions.
 Acronyms and abbreviations

acf actual cubic feet ox-MGA oxidative membrane gas absorption

AFBC atmospheric fluidised bed combustion PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon(s)
AHPC advanced hybrid particulate collector PCB polychlorobiphenyl(s)
BAT best available technology or technique ppm parts per million
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments, USA ppmw parts per million by weight
CATM Center for Air Toxic Metals, USA PRB Powder River Basin coal
CCAP Center for Clean Air Policy, USA PSI Physical Sciences Inc, USA
CCME Canadian Council of Ministers and the RDF refuse derived fuel
Environment SCR selective catalytic reduction
CEC Commission for the European Community SMPS scanning mobility particle sizer
CFBC circulating fluidised bed combustion SNCR selective non-catalytic reduction
COHPAC compact hybrid particulate control STP standard temperature and pressure
technology [0°C (273K), 101.3 kPa]
CVAAS cold vapour atomic absorption th% percentage by thermal (energy) input
spectroscopy TNO Netherlands Organisation for Applied
ECO electro-catalytic oxidation Scientific Research
EERC Energy and Environmental Research TRI toxics release inventory
Center, ND, USA UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for
EPA Environmental Protection Agency Europe
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute, CA, US DOE United States Department of Energy
USA US EPA United States Environmental Protection
ESP electrostatic precipitator Agency
EUREKA a political initiative to encourage the trans- UV ultraviolet
national development of technological VOC volatile organic compound(s)
research and development in Europe VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
FBC fluidised bed combustion WESP wet electrostatic precipitator
FGD flue gas desulphurisation
GSA gas suspension absorber
HELCOM Helsinki Commission
Hg0 elemental mercury
Hg2+ oxidised mercury
Hg(p) particulate mercury
ICR Information Collection Request, USA
IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle
LRTAP Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
M2P2 Michigan mercury pollution prevention
task force, USA
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MEPOP atmospheric cycling of mercury and
persistent organic pollutants (EUREKA
project)
METI Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
(previously the Ministry for International
Trade and Industries, MITI), Japan
mils US$0.001
MSW municipal solid waste
MWe megawatts electric
MWth megawatts thermal
NARAP North American regional action plan
NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory,
USA
NOx nitrogen oxides (NO +NO2)
NPI National Pollutant Inventory, Australia
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development
OSPAR Olso and Paris Commissions

2 IEA Coal Research

 Contents

1 Introduction 5

2 Global and regional mercury emissions 6

2.1 Global 6
2.2 Regional 6
2.2.1 Europe 7
2.2.2 China 9
2.2.3 USA 9
2.3 Comments 10

3 Global and regional legislation 11

3.1 International legislation and agreements 11
3.2 National legislation and action plans 11
3.2.1 Australia 12
3.2.2 Canada 12
3.2.3 Japan 13
3.2.4 The Netherlands 13
3.2.5 Sweden 13
3.2.6 USA 13
3.3 Comments 14

4 Mercury behaviour in coal-fired power plants 15

4.1 Effect of fuel type 15
4.1.1 Mercury in coal 15
4.1.2 Coal cleaning 16
4.1.3 Cofiring 17
4.2 Behaviour during combustion and gasification 17
4.2.1 Pulverised coal fired units 17
4.2.2 Fluidised bed combustion systems 18
4.2.3 Gasification systems 19
4.3 Effect of pollution control technologies 20
4.3.1 Low NOx burners 20
4.3.2 Particulate controls 21
4.3.3 FGD 22
4.3.4 SCR and SNCR 23
4.4 Interactions in emissions control 24
4.5 Mercury in by-products 25
4.5.1 Fly ash 25
4.5.2 FGD residues 25
4.6 Comments 26

5 Specific controls for mercury 27

5.1 Enhanced particulate controls 27
5.1.1 Flue gas cooling 28
5.1.2 Electrical discharge 28
5.1.3 Ultra-high efficiency ESP 28

Mercury – emissions and control 3

 5.2 Sorbents 29
5.2.1 Activated carbon 30
5.2.2 Fly ash sorbent 31
5.2.3 Other sorbents 32
5.2.4 In situ sorbent generation 33
5.2.5 Sorbent residues 34
5.3 Enhanced FGD/oxidation 34
5.4 Economics of mercury control 36
5.5 Comments 36

6 Conclusions 38

7 References 39

4 IEA Coal Research

 1 Introduction

Mercury is present in trace amounts in coal, waste and other

materials and is released as a gas when these materials are
burned. Whilst a significant fraction of the mercury may be
recaptured on ash particles or by downstream control
equipment, much of it may also be released into the
atmosphere. The growing concern over mercury emissions
and effects is reflected by the move towards establishing
emission limits for sources such as coal combustion.
According to the current timetable, mercury controls for coal-
fired power plants will have to be installed in the USA by
2007 (Berkenpas and others, 2001). This requirement for a
reduction in mercury emissions, possibly of up to 90% from
some plants, is being reflected in a rapid increase in the
amount of research and development in to mercury behaviour
and control. In the USA, the Information Collection Request
(ICR) organised by the US EPA has resulted in a large
amount of new data on mercury behaviour in coal-fired
power plants becoming available. The data released from the
ICR should assist in speeding up the development of
appropriate control technologies.

This report complements the recent Clean Coal Centre report

on trace element emissions (Sloss and Smith, 2000) and a
previous report on mercury (Sloss, 1995). Details on
continuous monitoring systems for mercury were given in a
separate report by Sloss and Davidson (2001). Global and
regional sources of mercury are summarised in Chapter 2.
Chapter 3 reviews the legislation which has been set
internationally and nationally and discusses any resulting
reductions in mercury emissions. Chapter 4 concentrates on
emissions from pulverised coal fired power plants and
includes data, where available, on emissions from other coal
utilisation systems. It also discusses the effects on mercury
emissions of standard pollution control technologies for
particulate, SO2 and NOx emissions. A short summary of
mercury in waste materials such as fly ash and solid FGD
wastes is also included. Chapter 5 then concentrates on new
techniques being developed specifically for the control of
mercury and the estimated costs of these systems.

Mercury – emissions and control 5

 2 Global and regional mercury emissions
Mercury is emitted to the atmosphere from a number of
human activities as well as from natural sources. The
recycling of mercury from soils following enhanced
deposition by human activities makes estimating mercury
budgets more complicated than simple estimates of emissions
from individual source sectors. Porcella and others (1997)
emphasised that many sources of mercury have not been
characterised adequately and consequently the global budget
is incomplete. Emission estimates are produced based on
emission factors. Since mercury emissions from many
sources are not well characterised, emission factors are
known to be inaccurate.
Zevenhoven (2001) cites an emission factor of ~0.5 kg/MWe
capacity/year for uncontrolled mercury emissions from coal-
fired power stations used for electricity generation. This
would mean that a 500 MWe plant would emit 250 kgHg/y.
Table 1 shows emission factors used by Pirrone and others
(2001) for estimating regional and global emissions of
mercury from different sources. The emissions were
calculated based on coal type, combustion system, flue gas
treatment methods and total fuel use. An average 50% control
efficiency was assumed for the combination of all standard
pollution control systems (ESP, baghouses and FGD).
Developing countries included North Africa and the Middle
East but not Israel. Developed countries included all
European countries and Israel.
Pacyna and others (2001) emphasise that emission factors
have an associated uncertainty range. For coal combustion
the error range is ±25%, and for cement and non-ferrous
metal production it is ±30%. The estimates for waste
incineration have an even larger range of error due to lack of
information and the variability of material combusted.
Estimates for waste incineration vary within a factor of five.
Schindler (1998) also suggests that emissions from chlor-
alkali plants have been estimated incorrectly and that actual
emissions from these sources in the USA may be at least four
times greater than those reported. Miscalculations and
emission factors based on gross assumptions and dated
information lead to great inaccuracies in mercury emission
Table 1 Emission factors for estimating global
and regional emissions of mercury,
g Hg/t (Pirrone and others, 2001)
Fuel Emission factor
Developed Developing
countries* countries†
Coal 0.05 0.12
Distilled and residual oil 0.06 0.065
Solid waste 0.08 1.0
Cement manufacture 0.09 0.5
* include all of Europe and Israel
† include North Africa and the Middle East, but not Israel
6 IEA Coal Research
estimates. Fitzgerald and others (1998) warn that ‘inaccurate
results plague the Hg literature’ and that ‘critical information
is lacking concerning natural and anthropogenic emissions,
chemical speciation and reactivity of Hg in the environment.’
Although accurate data on mercury emissions are not
currently available, crude estimates have been made with
regard to emissions from different regions and countries. The
following sections briefly review the available data on trends
in mercury emissions in different areas of the world.
2.1 Global
Total global mercury emissions from both human activities
and natural sources are thought to be somewhere in the range
of 2–4 kt/y, with the higher end of the range being more
likely to be accurate. Of this total, 20–33% are thought to be
from natural sources (Lee and others, 2000). Schindler
(1998) estimated emissions from human activities alone at
5 kt/y and those from natural sources at 2 kt/y.
Although mercury is a global problem, some areas of the
world produce more mercury than others. It has been
estimated that over half the global emissions of mercury from
human activities are produced in Asia (Pacyna and others,
2001). It is likely that emissions from these regions will
continue to increase in the foreseeable future (see
Section 2.2.2 on China).
2.2 Regional
Table 2 shows estimates for the contribution from coal
combustion to mercury emissions in different countries. Each
estimate comes from a different source and is therefore likely
to be calculated from a different emission factor. The
emission totals should therefore not be compared directly but
rather taken as an indication of the relative importance of
coal combustion as a source of mercury in different countries
(Sloss and Smith, 2000). The value for the USA is being
updated as a result of new data from the Information
Collection Request (ICR). Currently the total emissions from
coal-fired units are estimated to be around 41 t/y. This is
lower than earlier estimates. However, the overall percentage
contribution from coal to the total has not changed
significantly as estimates for emissions from other sources
have also been decreased (Pavlish, 2002). As shown in the
table, the contribution from coal combustion varies from as
high as 34% and 46% in countries such as Mexico and the
USA to as low as 9% in Austria and 12% in Sweden.
For all countries for which data were available, total
emissions of mercury are decreasing. In countries such as
Sweden the decrease is quite dramatic (6.7 t/y in 1987 down
to 1.7 t/y in 1995). In the same period in most countries the
contribution from coal has either remained constant or been
 Global and regional mercury emissions

Table 2 Estimates for mercury emissions*

Country Year Total mercury Emissions from coal, Source

emissions, t/y t/y %

Austria 1995 4 0.36 9 Klemm (1998)

Canada 1996 47 <4† <9 Pacyna (1997)
Denmark 1995 0.42 not available not available Weick-Hansen (1998)
1997 0.23 not available not available Weick-Hansen (1998)
Finland 1987 3-5 not available not available Mukherjee (1998)
1992 2 0.46 23 Mukherjee (1998)
Former FRG 1982 68 20‡ 29 Jockel (1998)
1995 30 8‡ 27 Jockel (1998)
Netherlands 1985 8.6-10.6 2-4 not available Meij (1998)
1995 3 0.3 10 Meij (1998)
Mexico 1996 13-83 <4.4† <34 Pacyna (1997)
Sweden 1987 6.7 0.3 4 Hovsenius (1998)
1995 1.7 0.2 12 Hovsenius (1998)
USA 1994-95 144 47 33 US EPA (1997)
1995 230 65 28 Pavlish and Mann (1998);
US EPA (1997)
1996 154 <65§ <42 Pacyna (1997)
1998 143 65 46 Pavlish and Mann (1998);
US EPA (1997)
2002 41 See text in Section 2.2

* these estimates have been collated from a number of different sources who have based their estimates on different assumptions. The
estimates are therefore meant to give an idea of relative emissions and not to be taken too literally
† values are from total emissions from combustion, therefore the contribution from coal will be less than the total value shown
‡ total from power stations burning all fuels
§ values are from all coal combustion sources, therefore the contribution from utility boilers will be less than the value shown

reduced. In West Germany and the Netherlands the relative
contribution from coal to the total emissions of mercury have
decreased. Despite reductions in emissions from coal
combustion, the relative contributions from coal to total
emissions in Sweden has increased due to greater reductions
from other sectors (Sloss and Smith, 2000).
The following sections concentrate on regions and countries
for which the most complete data on mercury emissions are
available.
2.2.1 Europe
Pacyna and others (2001) have estimated that total mercury
emissions from human activities in Europe in 1995 amounted
to 342 t. This was a decrease of 45% compared to emissions
for 1990. In 1995, emissions from Europe contributed around
13% of total global emissions of mercury. Mercury emissions
in Europe have been decreasing since the late 1980s and this
was reflected in a 16% decrease in average total gaseous
mercury measured over Scandinavia in the early 1990s. The
use of coal and the contribution from coal to mercury
emissions in Europe have remained constant during this time.
Emissions from industrial sources such as chlor-alkali
production from the mercury-cell process have been reduced
significantly and are responsible for the overall decrease in
emissions. Emissions of mercury from natural sources in
Europe are lower than those from human activities but, at
250–300 t/y, are still significant. Concomitant with the
decrease in mercury emissions in many countries in Europe
there are some indications that mercury deposition is already
lower than in previous years in some areas. Data from
Sweden and the UK suggest that mercury levels reached a
peak around 1960 and have been decreasing since (US DOE,
2001a).
Data on mercury emissions from different sectors in Europe,
calculated from emission factors, are shown in Table 3.
Russia (the European part) contributed the largest proportion
of emissions, being responsible for around 25% of the total
European emissions. Other countries with relatively high coal
dependencies, such as Poland, Germany and the UK, were
also responsible for major contributions to total emissions.
Coal combustion in power plants contributed 26% of the total
European emissions and coal combustion for residential heat
also contributed 26%. In total, coal was responsible for just
over half (52%) of the total mercury emissions from human
activities. The next largest sources were caustic soda
production (12%), non-ferrous metal production (8%) and
cement production (8%). Pacyna and others (2001)
emphasised that, apart from one chemical plant in Germany,
coal-fired power plants were the main point sources of
mercury in Europe. It was also suggested that on average,
50% of the mercury released from coal-fired power plants in
Europe is in the form of Hg0, 40% as Hg2+ and 10% as
particulate mercury, although the value for particulate
mercury seems high as values of below 5% are more
representative for most coal-fired power plants.
Pirrone and others (2001) have estimated mercury emissions
from Mediterranean countries. For 1998, the total
emissions amounted to 110.7 t/y and are predicted to

Mercury – emissions and control 7

Global and regional mercury emissions

Table 3 Total mercury emissions from human activities in Europe in 1995, t (Pacyna and others, 2001)

Country Coal combustion Oil Cement Total metal smelting Caustic Waste Other Total
Power plants Residential combustion production (Pb, Zn, pig and iron) soda disposal

Austria 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.40 0.90 2.2

Belgium 1.70 0.20 0.60 0.70 0.10 3.3
Denmark 0.70 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.30 2.4
Finland 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.40 0.50 0.10 1.6
France 1.50 0.10 2.50 2.80 7.20 1.90 1.60 17.6
Germany 5.70 4.40 1.20 5.60 8.31 3.00 3.00 0.09 31.3
FRG* 4.10 1.50 1.20 1.66 7.20 2.00 3.00 0.04 19.7
GDR* 1.60 2.90 3.94 2.11 1.00 0.05 11.6
Greece 0.70 0.60 1.20 0.30 0.20 3
Italy 0.50 2.80 3.00 1.40 4.00 1.00 0.50 13.2
The Netherlands 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.20 1
Poland 20.60 11.30 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.40 33.6
Portugal 0.20 0.70 0.50 0.10 1.5
Russia† 16.00 33.00 5.00 3.80 3.70 8.00 18.20 87.7
Spain 2.60 2.10 2.70 1.90 2.40 1.50 13.2
Sweden 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.9
UK 7.80 1.40 0.60 0.70 2.20 7.40 20.1
Rest‡ 30.50 32.70 0.80 7.50 6.30 12.50 0.10 18.70 109.1

Total 89.20 89.30 7.00 28.70 27.11 41.30 9.70 49.49 341.8

* FRG: Former Republic of Germany

* GDR: Former German Democratic Republic
† European part of Russia
‡ including Albania, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Norway, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, Turkey, Yugoslavia

increase to 123.7 t/y by 2005. However, different scenarios

Table 4 Total mercury emissions in Poland, t/y
can be assumed in relation to future mercury controls which
(Suwala, 2001)
can affect the predicted emissions. If mercury controls are
not improved in the Mediterranean countries, mercury Sector 1995 1997
emissions could increase to over 180 t/y by the year 2023. A
25% increase in control efficiencies would reduce this to Power generation 14.9 15.0
around 140 t/y by 2023. A 50% increase in control Local heat and power generation 4.4 4.7
efficiencies would reduce the predicted total further to Other burning processes 11.4 11.5
around 90 t/y, less than the current value of around 110 t/y, Other processes 1.6 1.7
despite increases in population and associated energy and Waste treatment 0.0 0.1
product needs.
Total 32.3 33.0
Poland is one of the most coal dependent countries in the
world with coal providing 66% of the primary energy supply recently, both in total emissions and in relative contribution
in 1998 (US DOE, 2001b). Polish coals can be high in to the total.
mercury. Typical mercury contents for black coals as mined
were 1.78 mg/kg as compared to 0.25 mg/kg in Australia and Sweden has a sweeping action programme which
0.1 mg/kg in the USA. A study of six coal-fired power plants encompasses mercury from all sources from coal-fired plants
in Poland showed an average mercury emission of almost and waste incineration systems down to mercury use in dental
6 t/y. This is high compared with 0.05 t/y estimated from the fillings. As a result of this, significant reductions are already
average coal-fired plant in the Netherlands (fitted with ESP being achieved, as shown in Table 5. As in several other
and FGD). However, a programme to install FGD on at least developed countries, although the reduction in emissions from
48 plants could have a significant effect on mercury coal combustion are significant, coal is becoming more
emissions (Sloss and Smith, 2001). important because of more major reductions in emissions
from other sectors. Around 65% of the total coal-fired
Total mercury emissions in Poland decreased from 38.8 t/y in capacity is fitted with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD)
1980 to 31.9 t/y in 1992. They then began to rise slightly to systems and 85% with flue gas control for NOx. Sweden still
reach 33.6 t/y in 1996 before dropping again to 33.0 t/y in has major problems with mercury pollution 10,000–15,000 of
1997. The contribution from the different sectors to the total its lakes. A large percentage of the mercury deposition is from
emissions are shown in Table 4 (Suwala, 2001). Emissions other countries and therefore significant improvements will
from each of the sectors have remained largely the same require action on a more international scale.

8 IEA Coal Research

 Global and regional mercury emissions

Table 5 Mercury emissions in Sweden, kg/y (Hovsenius, 1998)

Process 1960 1985 1987 1995

Chlor-alkali plants 10,000 400 400 120

Mining 4,000 200 50 10
Waste incineration 2,500 1,500 1,000 90
Sulphide ore smelting 2,000 800 300 74
Steel production 1,000 700 700 110
Cement kilns 700 500 500 3
Coal and peat combustion 400 300 300 210
Crematoria 100 200 250 280
Deposits NA NA 800 800
Dentists, hospitals, laboratories NA NA 800 negligible
Other industrial activities NA NA 1,600 negligible

Total 6,700 1,700

NA not available

2.2.2 China Table 6 Mercury emissions from coal use in

different sectors in China in 1995, t/y
China is the country with the largest coal consumption in the
(Wang and others, 2000)
world. A total of 1380 Mt of coal was consumed in China in
1995. Because of this high dependency on coal, China may
Sector Emissions Emissions
be a major contributor to global mercury emissions, possibly to air to solid waste
5% of the global total (Wang and others, 2000).
Electric power generation 72.86 25.26
Mercury emissions from coal use in different industries in Mining and quarrying 13.88 7.81
China are shown in Table 6. These emissions were calculated Manufacturing industry 98.78 40.10
based on the average mercury concentration of Chinese coals Residential use 19.05 10.72
and assumed emission factors for each sector. No information Farming, forestry, fishing 2.61 1.47
was available on emissions of mercury from sources which Other miscellaneous 6.65 3.73
were not coal-based. Coal combustion for power generation
Total 213.83 89.09
was responsible for 34% of the emissions from coal.
Residential coal use was responsible for just under 9%.
Manufacturing industries (such as smelting and the (32.6%, 57 t) of the total US mercury emissions (180 t) in
production of raw chemicals) produced 46% of the emissions 1994-95 arose from utility boilers, mainly coal-fired power
from coal use (Wang and others, 2000). Mercury emissions in plants. The next largest single source was municipal waste
China have increased steadily since the 1970s. It is suggested incinerators (18.7%). The other sources major sources were
that China’s mercury emissions are continuing to increase at medical waste incinerators (10.1%), chlorine plants (4.5%),
a rate of around 5%/y (Wang and others, 2000; Science hazardous waste incinerators (4.4%) and cement plants
News, 2000). (3.1%). Of this 180 t total, 158 t arose from combustion
sources, according to the US Environmental Protection
Wang and others (2000) also estimated mercury emissions Agency’s (US EPA) Mercury Study Report to Congress (US
from coal combustion in different Provinces in China. The EPA, 1997). Of the combustion total, 52% was from the
greatest emissions, 29.9 t/y, were from Shanxi and then combustion of coal, 39% from waste incineration, 8% from
22.6 t/y from Guizhou. Coal from Gizhou, China has a high oil and 1% from other sources. It was predicted that, by
average Hg content (0.53 mg/kg) and less than 10% of this 2000, the contribution from coal would have increased to
coal is cleaned by physical coal cleaning processes. Mercury 80% of the combustion total. No data have been found to
emissions from Guiyang, the capital of Gizhou, have been determine whether this prediction was correct. However,
increasing at a rate of 7.1%/y and the mercury pollution in predictions from the new Information Collection Request
the air and water in the region has been increasing at a (ICR) data suggest that annual emissions of mercury from
similar rate. coal-fired power plants would amount to around 45 tons/y
(40.8 t/y; CATM, 2001).

2.2.3 USA
It has been estimated that the USA is responsible for around
3% of the global mercury emissions. According to the US
Department of Energy (US DOE, 2001a) almost one third
In the USA the reports to Congress have indicated that,
despite the emissions of mercury from coal combustion
remaining constant at 65 t/y between 1995 and 1998, the
relative contribution from coal to total emissions from human
activities during this time has increased from 28% to 46%.

Mercury – emissions and control 9

Global and regional mercury emissions
This is due to more significant reductions in emissions from
other sectors.

The total mercury emission for 1997 (180 t/y) was

significantly lower than the total given for the early 1990s
(260 t). The decrease in emission was achieved largely by the
reduction of mercury in uses such as batteries, fungicides and
paints. The number of chlor-alkali plants has also been
reduced from 20 in 1990 to 12 in 2000. Emissions from
municipal waste incinerators have been regulated by the EPA,
with an aim to reducing emissions from municipal waste
units by 90% from 1995, from medical waste units by 94%
from 1997. New regulations for hazardous waste units were
introduced in 1998 which will reduce emissions further
(US DOE, 2001a).

Individual states within the USA may have their own

regulations for species such as mercury as long as they are at
least as stringent as those set nationally. For example,
Minnesota and Wisconsin have their own mercury reduction
plans (Pavlish, 2002).

2.3 Comments
Estimates for mercury emissions both globally and regionally
are known to be inaccurate due to the lack of valid data and
emission factors which have large associated error ranges.
Despite this, it is apparent that emissions of mercury in most
developed countries are either being stabilised or even
reduced. The same is true for mercury emissions from coal
combustion in many developed countries – the emissions
from this sector are either remaining relatively constant or
decreasing. However, the relative importance of coal
combustion to total emissions is still increasing in some
countries despite reductions in actual emissions simply
because the total reduction in emissions from other sectors is
greater. That is, emissions from sources such as chlor-alkali
plants and waste incineration systems are easier to control.
Emissions from coal combustion are therefore becoming
more important.

Little is known about mercury emissions from developing

countries such as China other than that they are significant
(probably 5% of the global total) and are likely to increase in
the future.

10 IEA Coal Research

 3 Global and regional legislation
Legislation, guidelines, standards and action plans have been
established in many countries and internationally in an effort
to reduce emissions of mercury. Legislation relating to
emissions of trace elements, including mercury, from coal
combustion were reviewed in a separate report by the Clean
Coal Centre (Sloss and Smith, 2000). This chapter
summarises the legislation applicable to emissions of
mercury from coal-fired power plants. It does not include
legislation on atmospheric concentrations, limits for leachates
from waste or for human exposure.
3.1 International legislation and
agreements
There are a number of international agreements and action
plans which aim to co-ordinate the actions of individual
countries towards reducing mercury emissions. Those which
are currently relevant can be summarised as follows (Sloss
and Smith, 2000):
● UNECE: The United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air
Pollution (LRTAP) for heavy metals was published in
1998 and is signed by Canada, Europe, Russia and the
USA. This protocol applies to mercury, cadmium and
lead and sets emission standards for sources such as
waste incineration but not coal-fired power plants. It
requires the installation of BAT for new stationary
sources but does not define the BAT (best available
technology) which would apply to coal-fired plants.
● OSPAR: The Oslo and Paris Commission’s programme
on reduction of land-based pollutants transported to the
North Sea.
● HELCOM: The Helsinki Commission programme
covering the North Sea.
● Barcelona Convention: A programme similar to
OSPAR and HELCOM covering the Mediterranean Sea.
● MEPOP: A study project on the atmospheric cycling of
mercury and persistent organic pollutants within the
EUREKA European political initiative.
● Nordic: Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have a
co-operative project to achieve a reduction in emissions
of several pollutants including mercury.
● Arctic: The Arctic Council has established an Arctic
Environmental Protection Strategy which includes
mercury.
● NARAP: The North American Regional Action Plan
between Canada, the United Mexican States and the
USA aims to reduce mercury fluxes.
● Binational Toxics: The Binational Toxics Strategy
between Canada and the USA includes mercury in its
level 1 substances and concentrates on cleaning up the
Great Lakes Basin area.
None of these agreements includes guidelines on how the
proposed reductions in emission or concentrations should be
achieved other than by recommending ‘best practices’. The
Mercury – emissions and control
definition of ‘best practices’ is open to interpretation and
does not necessarily equate to ‘best available technology’
(BAT, UK) or ‘maximum achievable control technology’
(MACT, USA). All of these agreements, projects and
protocols are initially targeting mercury in waste products
and the chemical industries as these are areas where large
reductions can be made with minimum cost. The UNECE
agreement has the most detailed requirements with respect to
controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants
in that it suggests lower baghouse filter temperatures to
enhance mercury capture. It also requires the use of BAT on
all new stationary sources including coal-fired utilities but
adds that ‘no best available technique is identified for the
specific purpose of removing mercury’ (UN, 1999).
These agreements rely on the individual governments of each
country to produce a successful strategy to reduce emissions.
As a consequence agreements cannot guarantee results nor
can any action be taken against countries which are not as
successful as others in reducing emissions.
Although these protocols do not currently require any action
by coal-fired utilities to reduce emissions, the increasing
importance of coal in regional and national emission budgets
(see Chapter 2) is likely to result in more specific legislation
in the future. Mercury is one of the pollutants listed for
consideration under the European Commission’s Air Quality
Framework Directive (Directive 96/62/EC) and will become
incorporated at a future (unspecified) date under a Daughter
Directive. When it becomes incorporated, all member
countries will need to consider the actions they will be
required to take under their own air quality strategies (Lee
and others, 2000). The USA is required to set and apply
legislation pertaining to mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants within a matter of years (see below).
Recently, new legislation has been introduced in Europe
which applies to waste incineration (Directive 2000/76/EC).
An appendix is included in this legislation which applies to
the cofiring of waste with coal, a common practice in
countries such as the Netherlands. A limit of 50 µg/m3
mercury at 6% O2 is specified for units cofiring waste.
However, if ‘clean biomass’ is used (vegetable and cork
waste) then there is no limit. This 50 µg/m3 limit will apply
to all member countries of the EU, unless more stringent
limits are set. The Netherlands plan to comply with this
legislation from January 2003 (Meij, 2002).
3.2 National legislation and action
plans
Although individual countries are not yet required to set
legislation on mercury emissions from coal-fired power
plants, there are a few countries which are already in the
process of doing so. Details of these standards are given in
Table 7. The legislation which applies at the moment has not
11
Global and regional legislation

Table 7 National guidelines and legislation (IEA Coal Research, 1999)

Country or region Type Species included Limit Applicable to

Australia
National guideline Hg and compounds 3 mg/m3 any trade, industry or process
National guideline Cd and compounds 3 mg/m3 any trade, industry or process
National guideline Ni and compounds 20 mg/m3 utility plants
National guideline Sb, As, Cd, Hg, Pb, V and compounds 10 mg/m3 any trade, industry or process
ACT* standard Hg and compounds 3 mg/m3 any process
ACT standard total Hg, As, Cd, Pb, Se and compounds 10 mg/m3 any process
NSW† standard Hg and compounds 1 mg/m3 any industry or process (new plants)
NSW standard Cd and compounds 1 mg/m3 any industry or process (new plants)
NSW standard total Sb, As, Cd, Pb, Hg and compounds 20 mg/m3 existing plants (prior to 1986)
NSW standard total Sb, As, Cd, Pb, Hg and compounds 10 mg/m3 existing plants (>1986)
NSW standard total Sb, As, Be, Cd, Co, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni,
Se, V and compounds 5 mg/m3 any trade, industry or process
NSW standard total Hg, As, Cd, Pb, Se, V and compounds 10 mg/m3 any process (seeking approval >1972)
Queensland standard total Hg, As, Cd, Hg, Pb and compounds 20 mg/m3 utility plants (existing)
Queensland standard total Sb, As, Cd, Hg, Pb and compounds 10 mg/m3 any trade, industry or process (new)
Queensland standard Cd and compounds 3 mg/m3 any trade, industry or process (new)
Queensland standard Hg and compounds 3 mg/m3 any trade, industry or process
Queensland standard Ni and compounds (except nickel carbonyl) 20 mg/m3 any trace, industry or process (new)
Queensland standard nickel carbonyl 0.5 mg/m3 any trade, industry or process (new)
South Australia standard Sb and compounds 10 mg/m3 any trade, industry or process
South Australia standard As and compounds 10 mg/m3 any trade, industry or process
South Australia standard Pb and compounds 10 mg/m3 fuel burning equipment
South Australia standard Cd and compounds 3 mg/m3 any trade, industry or process
South Australia standard Hg and compounds 3 mg/m3 fuel burning equipment
South Australia standard total of Hg, As, Cd, Pb, Se and compounds 10 mg/m3 fuel burning equipment
Tasmania standard total of Hg, As, Cd, Pb, Se and compounds 10 mg/m3 any installation operating after 1975)
Victoria standard total of Hg, As, Cd, Pb, Se and compounds 10 mg/m3 utility plants
Canada guideline As, Cu, Pb, Sb, Zn (individually) 7 mg/m3 new or recently modified utility boilers
guideline Cd and compounds 2 mg/m3 new or recently modified utility boilers
guideline Hg and compounds 1 mg/m3 new or recently modified utility boilers
Germany standard Class I Cd, Hg and compounds 0.2 mg/m3 processes over 1 g/h
Class II Se and compounds 2 mg/m3 processes over 5 g/h
Class III Sb, Cr, Mn, Pb and compounds 10 mg/m3 processes over 25 g/h
Italy standard same classes and limits as for Germany
Switzerland standard same classes and limits as for Germany

* ACT – Australian Capital Territory

† NSW – New South Wales

required the installation of any additional pollution control
equipment to any coal-fired utilities. The average mercury
emission concentration for coal-fired power plants in Europe
without flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) is between 3 and
11 µg/m3. All the limits set so far (around 3 mg/m3 or above)
can easily be attained by efficient coal combustion systems.
In addition to these emission standards, several countries
have their own action plans and reduction strategies. The
sections to follow summarise details for a few countries
which have legislation or action plans which are particularly
interesting with respect to mercury control.
Emission sources are required to quantify their emissions
using emission estimation techniques which are based on
codes issued by the OECD (Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development). In addition to this, the EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) in New South Wales has
proposed a Pollution Control Regulation based on pollutant
weightings. Mercury has a high weighting, second only to
pesticides and PCBs. The proposed system will introduce
load-based fees which will apply to all industries, including
coal-fired power plants. Power generators will soon have to
pay a fee for a licence to emit certain loads and comply with
new reporting requirements which are being introduced by
the NPI.

3.2.1 Australia
Environment Australia (a Commonwealth Government
Authority) has issued a draft National Pollutant Inventory
(NPI). This is in the form of an internet database which can
be accessed on www.environment.gov.au.net/npi.html.
3.2.2 Canada
Canada has already reduced mercury emissions by 50% since
1988 through regulations and voluntary efforts in the major
industrial sectors (CCME, 1999). As shown in Table 7,

12 IEA Coal Research


Canada has set provisional emission standards for mercury
which apply specifically to coal-fired power plants. These
will be finalised in 2002, based on the conclusions from the
ongoing ICR (Information Collection Request) under way in
the USA. The standards will be set on a provincial level
rather than a national level (Valupadas, 2000). The interim
standard for mercury for new and existing utility boilers,
1 mg/m3, is easily obtainable at most large coal-fired power
plants. Over and above this limit, the North American Free
Trade Agreement Commission for Environmental
Cooperation has called for control of emissions from coal-
fired power plants which would represent a 90% reduction in
emissions from this sector by 2007-10. No indication was
given of how such a large reduction in emissions could be
achieved (Curtis, 1999).
3.2.3 Japan
There are no emission limits for mercury on coal-fired
plants in Japan as yet. However, METI, the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry, issued a protocol in 1987
which required the monitoring of mercury and other trace
elements from all new plants and that the mercury content
of the coal be analysed. Atmospheric mercury
concentrations must also be monitored prior to the
construction of new plants and for three years following the
commencement of commercial operation. FGD has been
fitted on coal-fired units in Japan since the early 1970s and
over 70% of the total coal-fired steam-generating capacity is
currently equipped with FGD.
The Agency of Natural Resources and Energy has started a
five year project (2000-05) on the development of trace
element measurement techniques and pretreatment
technologies for coal utilisation. The next five years
(2005-10) will concentrate on trace element abatement
technologies (METI, 1999).
Japan currently has an activated carbon system on a full-scale
coal-fired unit. The 350 MWe Takehara No 2 atmospheric
fluidised bed combustion (AFBC) unit has a combined
SOx/NOx control system based on activated carbon.
Although the system has been shown to efficiently reduce
mercury emissions, the design of the system was such that the
used carbon was recycled to the boiler, thus reintroducing the
mercury to the flue gas. A similar system is planned for the
600 MWe pulverised coal fired unit at Isogo No 2 during
2002 (Sloss and Smith, 2000).
3.2.4 The Netherlands
Current emissions regulations for coal-fired power plants in
the Netherlands do not include a limit for mercury. However,
practically all the coal-fired plants in the Netherlands cofire
secondary fuels such as waste and the amount is increasing to
reach a 15% replacement of coal by biomass (on an energy
basis) by 2010 (Meij, 2002). If the contribution from waste is
less than 10 th% (by thermal energy input) then the emission
limits for coal-fired power plants still apply. This would
mean no emission limit for mercury unless a specific limit
Mercury – emissions and control
Global and regional legislation
had been set by local authorities. However, new rules are
being proposed whereby the limits applicable to municipal
waste incinerators (0.05 mg/m3 Hg at 11% O2 or 0.075 mg/m3
at 6% O2) will be applied to the extra emissions due to the
combustion of waste (Meij, 1998). At the moment the
proposed rule is such that cofiring must not increased total
mercury emissions by more than 30 kg/y. In order to stay
within this limit the mercury content of the waste material
may not be more than 0.4 ppm, up to 10% cofiring on a mass
basis, assuming a mercury removal of 75%. If cofiring more
than 10% on a mass basis then the mercury content must be
lower. However, licences are granted by local authorities
which may allow plants to exceed the limit on a case by case
basis (Meij, 2002).
3.2.5 Sweden
As mentioned in Chapter 2, despite drastic reductions in
mercury emissions in Sweden, mercury pollution as a result
of long-range transport is still a problem. There is now a
Swedish programme which aims to reduce mercury from all
sources including (Hovsenius, 1998):
● shifting from coal to biomass fuels;
● flue gas treatment requirements (condensation working
at low pH values);
● a systematic use of best technologies;
● the prohibition of mercury in applications where
alternatives exist;
● changes in dental practices.
The aim was to stop all use of mercury by the year 2000 and
to develop deep rock storage facilities to remove the mercury
from the environment permanently.
3.2.6 USA
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) started by the US EPA in
1997 required coal and oil-fired plants to report chemical
releases of a number of substances including mercury. In
1997 the US EPA delivered a Mercury Study Report to
Congress which indicated that coal combustion was the major
source of mercury emissions in the USA.
Within the North American Regional Action Plan (NARAP)
the USA is seeking a 50% reduction in the deliberate use of
mercury and a 50% reduction in the release of mercury from
human activities by 2006 (NACEC, 1998). The Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) contained several provisions which
could potentially be used to control mercury emissions from
coal-fired power plants (CCAP, 1998):
● the MACT (maximum achievable control technology)
requirement which applies to any source emitting at least
10 tons of one pollutant or 25 tons of a combination of
pollutants;
● the Great Waters Program which required further
research into control options for the future;
● the specific reports on Mercury and Electric Utilities
which concluded that ‘. . . on balance, mercury from
coal-fired utilities is the hazardous air pollutant of
greatest public concern.’
13
Global and regional legislation
In response to the Mercury Report to Congress and the higher than actual emissions and therefore did not require any
increasing concern over mercury emissions, the US EPA specific action to be taken. However, new legislation is
authorised an Information Collection request (ICR) to gather coming into force in countries such as Canada and the USA
more information on all coal-fired installations, the mercury which may require that coal-fired power plants retrofit
in the coal combusted, and examples of flue gas emissions specific technologies for the control of mercury. The
from selected plants. Information from the ICR is now European Community and countries such as Australia and
available on http://utility.rti.org and up-to-date reviews by the Japan are setting up programmes in which the mercury
US EPA on the results are available on http://www.epa.gov/ emissions from coal-fired power plants are being monitored
ttn/atw/combust/utoxpg.html. A large amount of work is more closely with a possible view to setting standards in the
currently under way at the US EPA, the US DOE and other foreseeable future.
research institutes to evaluate the data from the ICR to best
determine what action can and should be taken to reduce Action plans to reduce mercury have proven extremely
emissions of mercury. successful in countries such as Sweden. These programmes
concentrate on sectors such as industrial, dental and
The USA has introduced a new National Energy Plan which laboratory uses of mercury and on screening mercury from
recommends reductions in mercury emissions from coal-fired waste prior to incineration The success of these actions is
power plants as part of the multi-pollutant reduction strategy. resulting in a relative increase in the importance of coal in
As a result, the US EPA may propose a flexible, market- national emission inventories.
based programme that would establish mandatory reduction
targets for emissions of mercury, SO2 and NOx. In the
meantime, the US EPA has until December 2003 to propose a
rule specific for coal-fired power plants. The rule must be
issued in final format by 2004 and then utilities would have
until December 2007 to comply with the new legislation. The
Bush administration has proposed the establishment of a
‘flexible, market-based program to significantly reduce
sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury from electric
power generators’ (US DOE, 2001a). A regulatory approach
which allowed mercury trading under a cap on total mercury
emissions would minimise costs by exempting plants with
low emissions from further control while targeting plants
with relatively high emissions and low unit control costs.
However, the controversial issue of trading an air toxic would
need to be addressed. A trading approach would mean that
certain sources would not be required to fit any controls.
Since there is no single best technology that applies broadly,
it would appear that a technology-based standard would be
difficult to implement. An alternative approach could be a
percentage reduction requirement, most likely up to 90%. A
multi-pollutant approach is also gaining support as it could
achieve greater overall improvement in environmental quality.
Strategic trade-offs could be part of a multi-pollutant
approach, for example, regulations which favour the
installation of additional scrubbers to control both sulphur
and mercury emissions (CATM, 2001).

Individual states within the USA may also set their own
control requirements and standards. For example, Michigan
has the Michigan Mercury Pollution Prevention (M2P2) task
force which includes electricity generators, calling on
reductions in mercury emissions within set time scales. Two
electricity generators have already issued reports in
compliance with this recommendation but have achieved
mercury reduction within non-combustion sources at their
facilities (gas regulators, switches and other equipment)
rather than boiler or flue gas controls (CCAP, 1998).

3.3 Comments
In the past, emission standards for mercury which could
theoretically apply to coal-fired power plants have been

14 IEA Coal Research

 4 Mercury behaviour in coal-fired power plants
The chemistry of mercury during combustion is of particular
importance for the development of control technologies. The
two main forms of mercury, oxidised and elemental, behave
very differently. Oxidised mercury (Hg2+) is soluble in
aqueous solutions and easily captured in pollution control
equipment such as flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) systems
(see below) whereas elemental mercury (Hg0) passes through
such systems and is released from the stack. Particulate
mercury [Hg(p)] is not released from coal combustion in
significant quantities. Data from the US EPA’s Information
Collection Request (ICR) indicate that, on average,
approximately 40% of the 75 tons (68 t) of mercury
contained in the coal burned in the USA is captured in the
ash and scrubber residues and 60% is emitted to the
atmosphere. However, the percentage emitted from different
plants varies from 10% to 90%.
Mercury emission concentrations from full-scale coal-fired
power plants are commonly in the range of 1–10 µg/m3. This
means that emission concentrations are around the detection
limit of the most sophisticated measuring equipment.
Speciating mercury and studying its behaviour at this
concentration can be difficult. The Clean Coal Centre has
published a complementary report on rapid and continuous
emission monitors for trace elements, especially mercury
(Sloss and Davidson, 2001). As the methods for monitoring
mercury emissions improve, the availability of data to
enhance the understanding of mercury from coal combustion
will increase.
The behaviour of trace elements during coal combustion may
be simplified by categorising each element according to its
behaviour. Mercury is defined as a Class 3 element which
means that it is highly volatile and emitted totally or partially
in the vapour phase from coal combustion systems.
Zevenhoven (2001) lists the five most important factors
affecting any trace element behaviour in combustion:
● mode of occurrence in the fuel;
● temperature and pressure;
● oxidising or reducing conditions;
● the presence of halogens, most importantly chlorine;
● the presence of compounds that can act as sorbents, such
as calcium.
The following sections review the behaviour of mercury in
coal-fired power plants, from its release from the fuel,
through the combustion zone, through the most common
pollution control systems to emission from the stack.
Summarised data from the US EPA’s ICR on mercury are
included. More detailed information on data from individual
plants included in the ICR are available at http://utility.rti.org.
4.1 Effect of fuel type
The fuel itself is the main source of trace elements to any
Mercury – emissions and control
combustion system. Trace elements in coal and the effect of
coal quality have been covered in detail in earlier reports
from the Clean Coal Centre (Davidson and Clarke, 1996;
Davidson, 2000). This report will concentrate on mercury in
fuels and the effect of fuel type on the behaviour of mercury
in the combustion zone.
Mercury concentrations in fuels can range over several orders
of magnitude. Zevenhoven (2001) cites mercury ranges in
fuels as follows, mg/kg (ppmw) dry:
coal 0.02–3.0 MSW <15
peat 0.07 RDF 1–10
heavy fuel oil <0.01 wood 0.01–0.2
waste paper 0.08 sewage sludge 0.5–10
In some cases, as for coal, the concentration range spans over
an order of magnitude. It therefore follows that emissions
from different combustion sources can also vary greatly, even
when burning the same fuel.
4.1.1 Mercury in coal
Meij and others (2001) compared mercury concentration in a
range of imported coal samples. The lowest mercury
concentrations were found in coal from Australia, Colombia,
Indonesia, New Zealand and Russia (average 0.04–0.08 mg/kg).
High average concentrations were found in coal imported
from the eastern USA, China and Germany and the highest
concentrations were found in Polish coal (average 0.35 mg/kg).
The weighted average for coals used in the Netherlands in
1999 was 0.11 mg/kg.
Wang and others (2000) measured mercury concentrations in
coals mined in China and found them to vary greatly with
location and coal type. Average mercury concentrations
ranged from 0.03 mg/kg for Xinjiang coal to 0.34 mg/kg
from Beijing coal. The concentration ranges for each
individual coal were large, often over at least one order of
magnitude. Despite the large variation in mercury
concentrations, Wang and others (2000) found the following
relationship in the distribution of mercury in Chinese coals:
thin coal > lignite > coking coal > anthracite > long flame
coal
According to Wang and others (2000), the mercury
concentration in Chinese coal, on average, is 0.22 mg/kg.
This is higher than in coal from Australia (0.08 mg/kg) and
Columbia (0.05 mg/kg) and the USA (0.1 mg/kg). Feng and
others (2000) studied coal from Guizhou in China and found
the average mercury content to be 0.53 mg/kg, significantly
higher than the average mercury content of coals burned in
other countries.
Although the concentration of mercury in coal can vary
greatly, in practice the variation is not as large as the ranges
quoted in the literature. This is because most coal combusted
15
Mercury behaviour in coal-fired power plants
in large coal-fired power plants is more homogeneous, after
shipping, blending and pulverising, than samples taken at the
mine.
A previous report, also by the Clean Coal Centre, reviewed
trace elements in coal and their partitioning behaviour
(Davidson and Clarke, 1996). It is reported that mercury is
mostly in solid solution in the pyrite, although conflicting
data suggest an organic association. A more recent report by
Davidson (2000) reviewed data on the modes of occurrence
of trace elements in coal, including mercury, and the
interested reader is directed to this report for further
information on the problems associated with the methods
used.
According to Zygarlicke and others (2000), pyrite (FeS2) and
cinnabar (HgS) are the dominant mineral hosts for mercury
in coal. At combustion temperatures (>1400°C) these
minerals decompose completely releasing elemental mercury.
Unlike some other trace elements, the mode of occurrence of
mercury does not affect the initial combustion mechanism.
However, it has been suggested that the speciation of mercury
during combustion may be affected by the coal type. The
oxidisation state of mercury depends on combustion
conditions and other flue gas components which, to some
extent, depend on coal characteristics. A report by the US
EPA (1997) suggests that bituminous coal produces 94% of
the mercury in the oxidised form whereas subbituminous coal
produces only 32% in the oxidised form. Whereas this may
be true for some coals, the ranges are still large (20–100%
oxidised) and overlap. Northern Appalachian bituminous
coals such as Blacksville and Lower and Middle Kittanning
show greater proportions of oxidised mercury and mercury
adsorption as the carbon content of the fly ash increases. The
same effect, but to a lesser extent, has been noted with
Illinois Basin bituminous coals such as Illinois No 5 and 6.
Coals from the Powder River Basin and subbituminous coals
such as Absaloka, Comanche and Bowler, show greater
oxidation of mercury absorption at a minimal carbon content
(<1–2%) in the fly ash (Brown, 2000).
The Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC),
ND, USA has reviewed the data from the ICR and concluded
that mercury emissions from western coals appear to be
difficult to control with conventional technologies because
they are largely elemental. Western subbituminous coals
contain, on average, significantly lower levels of mercury,
chlorine and sulphur than either eastern Appalachian or
interior bituminous coals, as shown in Table 8. Western coals
and lignite also have much higher calcium contents which
can influence mercury behaviour and a lower calorific value.
According to the EERC, Western bituminous coals contain
around half as much mercury on a weight basis (ppm) than
interior or Appalachian bituminous coals but emit almost as
much on a kg/GJ basis when burned. The proportion of
elemental mercury in the flue gas leaving the combustion
zone tended to drop sharply from over 85% to about 10% at
coal chlorine contents greater than 150–200 ppm, which
distinguishes western coal from eastern bituminous coal.
Since oxidised mercury is easiest to capture and since
bituminous coals tend to produce more mercury in the
oxidised form, plants firing bituminous coals will be easier
targets for mercury control. Coal switching or blending may
be an option to reduce emissions from some plants. The
importance of mercury oxidation in its control is discussed in
more detail in Chapter 5. The effect of coal chlorine on
mercury oxidation in the combustion zone and downstream is
discussed in Section 4.2.1.
4.1.2 Coal cleaning
The effect of coal cleaning on mercury in coal is also
included in a separate report by the Clean Coal Centre on
opportunities for coal preparation to lower emissions (Couch,
2000). A US DOE study showed that around 37% of mercury
can be removed during standard coal cleaning processes (US
DOE, 2001a). However, the amount of mercury which can be
removed varies from coal to coal. Irons and others (2000)
studied mercury removal by washing from coals used in the
UK. The highest mercury removal, 66.7%, was obtained for
El Cerrejón coal (from Colombia) whereas with Harworth
(from the UK) coal the removal efficiency was an order of
magnitude lower at 4.3%.
Feng and others (2000) measured mercury contents in coal
from Guizhou, the most polluted area in China. The average
coal mercury content was 0.53 mg/kg which is an order of
magnitude higher than that in coals burned elsewhere (see
Section 4.1.1). The mercury in the Gizhou coal was found to
exist mainly in the pyrite and, as such, would be largely
removed by traditional coal cleaning. However, at present,

Table 8 Regional summary of ICR data on mercury in utility coal (CATM, 2001)

Region/rank Mercury, Emission factor, Cl, Utility coal Mercury in Utility coal
ppm ppm produced, Mt utility coal, t used, Mt
(dry basis) lb/Btu kg/kJ (dry basis) (as received) (dry basis)

Appalachian (Eastern) bituminous 0.126 9.5 4.07 948 310 38.2 302
Interior bituminous 0.086 6.6 2.99 1348 60 4.9 57
Western bituminous 0.049 3.9 0.19 215 68 3.2 65
Western subbituminous 0.068 5.7 2.74 124 305 16.7 246
Fort Union lignite 0.088 8.3 3.56 139 21 1.2 13
Gulf Coast lignite 0.119 12.5 5.37 221 52 4.1 34

Total 817 68.3 717

16 IEA Coal Research


only 7.8% of the coal produced in the area is treated with
physical coal cleaning processes. Since the mercury
emissions in the area are increasing, Feng and others (2000)
suggest that coal cleaning be used as a simple and efficient
method of reducing the mercury pollution in the area.
4.1.3 Cofiring
If coal is cofired with other fuels, such as waste, then the
mercury content and behaviour may change. Meij and others
(1999) have modelled the effect of co-combusting coal with
waste on trace element emissions, including mercury. On
average the effects would be as follows (based on 10% dry
mass basis of cofired material with coal):
paper sludge +22%
municipal sewage sludge +318%
waste wood +10%
biomass mix –0.7%
It is clear from these data that coal combustion is relatively
clean, with respect to mercury emissions, compared to waste
materials. The cofiring of waste materials in coal-fired plants
is already common in The Netherlands and the cofiring of
sewage sludge is being considered in Germany. This may
require the installation of dedicated cleaning systems for
species such as mercury (Cenni and others, 1998).
Kuovo and others (2001) studied the mercury emissions from
the co-combustion of wood (4% of fuel energy input) at a
315 MWth pulverised coal fired unit in Finland fitted with an
ESP and a wet FGD system. The inclusion of the wood
resulted in a 20% decrease in mercury emissions. This was
largely due to the lower mercury content of the wood but also
due to enhanced oxidation of the mercury. It was suggested
that mercury oxidation was promoted by the increase in the
unburnt carbon produced during co-combustion of wood with
coal.
Coal and petcoke may be used as fuel in the production of
cement. Mukherjee and others (2001) studied the change in
mercury emissions from the Finnsementti Oy cement kiln in
Parainen, Finland, when some of the coal/coke mixture was
replaced with scrapped car tyre material. When firing coal
and coke the cement plant emitted an average concentration
of 27 µg/m3, well below the 50 µg/m3 emission limit. When
10% of the fuel was replaced with car tyres the emissions
were reduced to 3 µg/m3. The reduction was due to the lower
mercury content of the tyres and also due to a much greater
proportion (almost 100% compared with almost 0%) of the
mercury being released in the particulate form, which is
much easier to control with existing pollution control
systems.
4.2 Behaviour during combustion
and gasification
As mentioned above, the oxidation state of mercury is
important in determining its fate. The oxidation state is
influenced by many factors within the combustion zone. The
following sections discuss mercury behaviour in different
Mercury – emissions and control
Mercury behaviour in coal-fired power plants
coal combustion systems. A section is also included on
mercury behaviour in gasification systems for comparison.
4.2.1 Pulverised coal fired units
The US EPA’s original emission factors for mercury ranged
from 41% to 94% for pulverised coal fired boilers. However,
more recent data suggest that very little mercury is retained
in the furnace or bottom ash of a coal-fired boiler and that
emissions are generally nearer 100% in most plants (CATM,
2001). Data from Japan also suggest that only 0.5–1.9% of
the mercury is retained in the coarse ash (Yokoyama and
others, 2000). The average emission factor for cyclone-fired
boilers was lower at 66% (CATM, 2001). No data was
available for emission factors for other boiler types.
The behaviour of mercury during combustion is not entirely
understood. According to Zevenhoven (2001), mercury
release from fuels such as coal starts at temperatures of
around 150°C, mainly as elemental mercury, HgCl2 and HgS.
The release of all the fuel mercury is usually complete by the
time the temperature reaches 500–600°C. At this temperature,
and above, elemental mercury is the thermodynamically
stable form of mercury in flue gases.
Several researchers suggest that the chlorine content of the
coal is the most important factor with respect to mercury
oxidation. Under oxidising conditions and in the presence of
HCl and Cl2, the elemental mercury is oxidised to HgCl2 at
300–400°C, by reactions such as:
2Hg0 + 4 HCl + O2 <=> 2 HgCl2 + 2H2O
Hg0 + Cl2 <=> HgCl2
Elemental mercury may also be oxidised by NO2:
NO2 + Hg0 <=> HgO + NO
which can then react with HCl at temperatures below 450°C.
HgO + 2HCl <=> HgCl2 + H2O
Zevenhoven (2001) suggests that over 50% of the mercury is
in the elemental form when the chlorine content of the coal is
<0.1% wt. Less than 20% is elemental when the concentration
of chlorine is over 0.2% wt.
Zygarlicke and others (2000) have reviewed the chemical
pathways for mercury speciation during combustion.
Theoretically, chlorination should be the dominant conversion
pathway, as shown above. However, this has been difficult to
confirm in practice. Cole and others (2000) suggest that a
mercury oxidation by chlorine species occurs in the optimum
temperature range of 700–900°C and that there is a rate-
limiting step which relies on the presence of chlorine
radicals. At temperatures below 700°C elemental mercury is
oxidised and HgCl2 is the most likely form of mercury.
Above this temperature, elemental mercury is the dominant
species. Again, this theory is based on thermodynamic
calculations and has not been proven in practice.
According to the EERC, ND, USA, ‘the high chlorine
content characteristic of eastern bituminous coals has
consistently been shown to increase the fraction of the more
17
Mercury behaviour in coal-fired power plants
easily removable oxidised mercury’ (CATM, 2001). The
effect of chlorine on mercury oxidation has been tested by
adding chlorine to flue gas from a Powder River Basin
subbituminous coal. The chlorine did not promote oxidation
nor did cofiring with high chlorine biomass. However,
addition of calcium acetate to the coal increased the mercury
emission further by inhibiting the oxidising effect of the coal
chlorine. NO2 was found to promote the oxidation of mercury
in tests on high chlorine Blacksville bituminous but not for
Powder River Basin subbituminous coal. It is likely that the
fundamentals of mercury oxidation are substantially different
for coal types owing to the differences in mercury, chlorine,
sulphur, calcium and iron contents (CATM, 2001).
And so, although it is often suggested that chlorine is the
most important flue gas constituent with respect to mercury
chemistry during combustion is popular, other chemical
species and factors such as temperature also play a role as
well as the overall oxidising/reducing conditions in the plant.
Mercury can also be oxidised even when there is no chlorine
present in the flue gas through interactions with species such
as NO2 (Sloss and Smith, 2000). Studies in the UK and USA
have found little or no effect of the chlorine in the coal. Gibb
and others (2000) at PowerGen in the UK found no
relationship between mercury retention and coal chlorine
content over the range 0.11% to 0.44%. They did, however,
note a correlation between mercury retention and carbon
levels and also flue gas temperature. In the USA, DeVito and
Rosenhoover (1999) analysed the mercury speciation in flue
gas and found no correlation between the chlorine
concentration in the coal and the observed speciation. The
chlorine contents of the coals varied between 0.11% and
0.23% (dry basis). On the other hand, they found that the
coal oxygen content showed a strong negative correlation
with oxidised mercury removal. A weaker correlation was
identified between the nitrogen and ash content and the total
mercury removal. These effects may explain, partially, the
differences in mercury speciation from different coal ranks.
There may also be an effect due to the calcium content of the
coals. According to the EERC, the higher calcium content of
western coals and lignite appears to further decrease the
oxidising effect of the lower chlorine content by removing
part of the chlorine throughout the combustion process.
Sulphur and iron tend to have a more subtle effect on
mercury speciation (CATM, 2001).
According to Hocquel and others (2001) at the University of
Stuttgart in Germany, calcium based components such as
Ca(OH)2 and CaO deeply affect the speciation of mercury.
CaO has a major effect on the conversion of HgCl2 into
elemental mercury in combustion processes. Al2O3, SiO2 and
TiO2 in fly ash also influence the mercury speciation.
Understanding and predicting the oxidation state of mercury
is particularly important for potential mercury control.
Dajnak (2001) reports on continued work at the Imperial
College of Science, Technology and Medicine in London,
UK, to develop a model of mercury behaviour in the
combustion zone of coal-fired boilers. Physical Sciences Inc
(PSI), MA, USA received $3.4 million of US DOE funding
to conduct a fundamental investigation to predict the
distribution and fate of several trace metals, including
18
mercury, in a variety of combustion conditions. It is hoped
that the information from this project will help in the
development of low cost control systems for mercury. PSI
have combined activities on this project with several other
research institutes such as the Universities of Arizona and
Kentucky, the US Geological Survey, EERC, EPRI, and VTT
(Finland) (US DOE, 2001a).
4.2.2 Fluidised bed combustion
systems
Few data have been published on the chemistry of mercury
behaviour in fluidised bed combustion (FBC) systems. For
the four FBC units (unspecified type) included in the US
EPA’s ICR, the average mercury emission was 79% of the
total mercury in the coal. The average emission following the
baghouse was 14% (CATM, 2001). The value for pulverised
coal fired plants is 41–94% (see Section 4.2.1).
Curtis (1999) studied the Point Aconi (Nova Scotia Power
Inc) 175 MWe CFBC plant in Eastern Canada firing high
sulphur, high chloride bituminous coal. The data suggested
that a high percentage of the mercury (>80%) was in the
oxidised form and that less than 26% of the total mercury was
released from the stack. Further studies are necessary to
demonstrate if this behaviour is typical of other FBC systems.
Liu and others (2001) used a bench-scale 0.1 MWth FBC
unit to simulate conditions at the 160 MWe FBC system at
the Shawnee Power Plant, KY, USA. When high chlorine
(0.3–0.5%) coal was burned in a high intensity vortex flow,
around 70% of the total mercury in the fuel was condensed
and absorbed onto the fly ash. The released mercury was
largely in the oxidised form with less than 0.5% of the total
mercury being released from the system in elemental form.
Mercury emissions from the FBC system increased between
800°C and 920°C. However, a high chlorine coal appeared to
limit the effect of combustion temperature on mercury
emissions. When a high chlorine coal was used (4300 ppm),
the mercury emission curve levelled off at temperatures
above 820°C.
The fluidising velocity of the FBC system may affect
emissions of mercury. Higher fluidising velocities correspond
to shorter residence times inside the boiler and therefore
lower mercury removal from the flue gas. Also, high
fluidising velocities provide a better mixing of materials in
the freeboard space which can improve the mercury capture
in fly ash. However, these effects of changes in fluidising
velocities only influence mercury emissions slightly
compared with temperature effects. Mercury emissions were
found to decrease significantly with an increase in the
secondary/primary air ratio, as shown by a 53% reduction for
high chlorine coal (4300 ppm) and 40% reduction for middle
chlorine coal (2070 ppm) (Liu and others, 2001). Although
Liu and others suggest an increase in mercury emissions with
temperature, at temperatures of 800°C and above, all the
mercury should be vaporised and, theoretically, any changes
in temperature should not change this. Further work on the
effects of temperature and fluidising velocity in FBC systems
are required to confirm these results.
IEA Coal Research

FBC systems with fabric filter systems gave the highest
mercury removal efficiencies in the US EPA’s ICR study,
ranging from 66% to 99% and averaging 86%. This is
thought to be due, in part, to the high carbon content of the
FBC ash (CATM, 2001).
The circulating ash in CFBC systems has been shown to
enhance the removal of mercury. This capture can be
enhanced by the addition of activated carbon and the use of
other sorbents to control acid gases (Berkenpas and others,
2001).
A draft report from VTT, Finland, suggests that mercury
emissions from the Värtaverket PFBC unit in Sweden were
affected by the dolomite used for sulphur control. The
concentration of mercury in the dolomite material was, on
average, 0.6 mg/t, at least two orders of magnitude lower
than the mercury concentration in the coal (64–182 mg/t). A
large fraction of the mercury in the flue gas was found in the
particulate phase, although further tests were planned to
confirm that this was not due to the sampling method used.
The mercury emissions from the plant were around
2–4 µg/m3 (VTT, 2000).
4.2.3 Gasification systems
Trace element behaviour (including mercury) in gasification
systems was reviewed in the complementary report by Sloss
and Smith (2000). Worldwide capacity of gasification for
power generation amounted to around 12,000 MWth with a
further capacity of 11,000 MWth planned. There are three
main types of gasifier:
● entrained flow slagging gasifiers (for example, Texaco,
Shell);
● fixed bed gasifiers (Lurgi-dry ash, British Gas Lurgi);
● fluidised bed gasification (air blown gasification cycle
and hybrid PFBC, under demonstration).
Data on trace element emissions, especially mercury, from
gasification systems have high associated error ranges
because of problems with sampling and analysis. Mass
balances can range from as low as 7% to as high as 375%.
This is making the understanding of mercury behaviour in
gasification systems difficult (Sloss and Smith, 2000).
Most of the trace elements are trapped in the gassy slags
from gasifiers or in the bed offtake from fluidised bed
combustors. However, mercury is completely vaporised and
this vaporisation is independent of either reaction or coal
parameters (Sloss and Smith, 2000). The concentrations of
mercury and water vapour are higher in gasification flue
gases than in flue gases from pulverised coal combustion
systems and the speciation is different. The reducing
environment of the gasification favours the formation of
elemental mercury (Reed and others, 2001). Although other
volatile trace elements may condense or react to produce
condensible products, mercury remains in the vapour phase
throughout the gasification processes and it is predicted that
almost 100% of it would be released from the stack.
Although the emissions of other trace elements from
gasification systems could be reduced by cooling or
Mercury – emissions and control
Mercury behaviour in coal-fired power plants
increasing the pressure in the gasifier, this is unlikely to
reduce mercury emissions (Helble, 1996).
Before it can be combusted, fuel gas from gasification
systems must be cleaned of contaminants which may
damage the gas turbine, especially metal species. Reed and
others (2001) carried out studies on a pilot-scale coal
gasifier (a pressurised CFBC system at the University of
British Columbia, Canada) equipped with hot-gas filtration
at 580°C and found that all the coal mercury was carried
away by the fuel gas. Modelling studies confirmed that there
was little potential for removal of mercury in the hot gas
filter at these temperatures. At temperatures below 200°C the
fine dust on the hot gas filter was able to capture significant
amounts of mercury but this effect was greater in the
laboratory-scale reactor than in the pilot plant. The
difference between the systems was thought to be due to
shorter contact times and due to a large proportion of the hot
gas filter fines being collected by gravity separation rather
than by filtration.
The study by Reed and others (2001) also suggested that
gasifier fines from coal could be used as a sorbent to remove
elemental mercury from fuel gases. At the mercury loading
capacity attained in the bench-scale hot gas cleanup reactor
studied (30 µg/g), around 10% of the hot gas filter fines
would have been sufficient to adsorb all of the elemental
mercury from the fuel gas produced by the gasification on
Pittsburgh No 8 coal. Design modifications could be made to
improve the collection efficiency in the hot gas filter.
However, the capture of mercury in such fines or in a
separate fixed bed would only be beneficial if the mercury
were recovered from the trapped material or the sorbent were
disposed of separately rather than subsequently burned,
which is often the case. Otherwise the mercury would simply
be re-released.
Results of ICR emissions tests on the two IGCC plants
operating with coal in the US suggest that around half of the
mercury in the fuel may be emitted, and that almost all of the
emissions (93% and 99%) were elemental mercury.
Considerable uncertainty about IGCC emissions still exists
because of the limited amount of data and the quality of the
data reported. The coal mercury analysis given in the ICR
database for one of the two plants was reported on a ‘less
than’ basis, which causes the calculated emission percentages
to represent at best a lower bound. In general, little is known
about the mercury speciation and capture in different types of
gasifier equipped with cold- or hot-gas cleaning modules for
removing particulates and sulphur, or about the fate of
mercury in gas turbine combustion. Conditions that are
absent in direct fired coal plants, but are characteristic of
IGCC units, include the chemically reduced gaseous and
mineral species present in the gasifier and the nearly
complete removal of chlorine, sulphur and particulates from
the flue has prior to its own combustion – both of which
would be expected to favour the occurrence of elemental
mercury. However, it appears that the cold-gas cleaning
modules used at the two plants tested may have contributed
to mercury oxidation and capture. More testing is needed
before technically and statistically supported conclusions can
be drawn (Pavlish, 2002).
19
Mercury behaviour in coal-fired power plants
Data from the 161 MWe entrained flow, slurry fed IGCC at
Plaquemine, LA, USA, suggest that a Selectamine™
scrubber could reduce mercury emissions. The mass balance
closure was not complete (outside the 70–130% objectives)
but it appeared that the concentration of mercury in the
turbine exhaust was lower than would be expected. It was
suggested that mercury may have been accumulated in the
scrubber solvent but this stream was not analysed as solvent
regeneration occurred during the test (Chu and others, 1995;
Williams and others, 1996).
Tests at a Shell entrained bed, dry feed gasifier with dry
particulate collection and wet scrubber using Sulfinol™
sorbent suggested that elements including mercury would
have been retained in process equipment (Orr and Maxwell,
1999). Once again, conclusions could not be drawn as the
mass balance closures were poor.
It is possible that increasingly stringent emission limits will
be required for mercury. Although research is under way on
the use of sorbents such as sulphur impregnated activated
carbons, there is doubt as to whether such sorbents would be
successful under post-gasification conditions (Mitchell,
1998). KEMA and Foster Wheeler are developing a hot gas
cleanup system for desulphurisation in IGCC which may
achieve some trace element control. However, no data have
been published relating to mercury control in this system
(Meijer, 1998).
4.3 Effect of pollution control
technologies
Most coal-fired power plants are fitted with some form of
control technology to reduce emissions of harmful
pollutants. All plants have particulate control systems and an
increasing number are being fitted with control technologies
to reduce emissions of SOx and NOx. The following
sections review the effect these systems have on mercury
emissions.
4.3.1 Low NOx burners
Primary measures for NOx control usually comprise low
NOx burners with overfire air. Low NOx burners operate at
lower combustion temperatures than conventional burners.
Theoretically, low NOx burners may affect mercury
emissions by altering the ratio of oxidised to elemental
mercury. Further, some low NOx burners cause an increase in
unburnt carbon in ash which can increase the mercury
capture efficiency. However, few data are available to confirm
or refute these theories.
Brown and others (1998) produced Table 9 which shows the
variation in mercury emitted, compared to emission of all the
mercury in the fuel, for different boiler configurations with
and without low NOx burners. For most configurations the
effect of the low NOx burner was only marginal. However,
for cyclone-fired wet bottom boilers the introduction of low
NOx burners could reduce the relative emissions from 0.93 to
0.54. No reason was given for this reduction.
Gibb and others (1998) studied the effect of the increase in
unburnt carbon from NOx burners on mercury capture. The
retention of mercury in solids increased from below 20% at
1% carbon to almost 100% at 8–9% carbon in dust. They
suggested that low NOx burners may reduce vapour phase
mercury emissions. Butz and others (1999) studied the
capture of mercury on fly ashes from several coal-fired plants
in Colorado and noted that those with low NOx burners
produced ashes with greater quantities of unburnt carbon.
They also suggested that this unburnt carbon was at least
partially responsible for the increased mercury capture
efficiency of these fly ashes. The mercury capture efficiency
of some of the ashes are being investigated for re-use as
mercury control sorbents in other plants (see Chapter 5).
Although the increased mercury capture efficiency for these
ashes is proven, it is unclear whether this is due entirely to
the increased unburnt carbon or some other feature of the fly
ash.

Table 9 US EPA mercury emission modification factors for coal-fired power plant configurations (Brown
and others, 1998)

Emission modification Mercury emission modification factor*

Without NOx primary measures† With NOx primary measures

Front-fired dry bottom 0.94 –

Tangentially-fired dry bottom 0.81 0.92
Opposed-fired dry bottom – 0.81
Vertically-fired dry bottom – 0.78
Opposed-fired dry bottom 0.41 –
Cyclone-fired wet bottom 0.93 0.54
Particulate matter scrubber 0.96
Cold-side ESP‡ 0.68
Baghouse‡ 0.56
Flue gas desulphurisation scrubber‡ 0.66
Spray dry absorber/baghouse‡ 0.70

* compared to 100% of mercury entering the plant leaving the flue gas. These factors are subject to a degree of uncertainty (unspecified)
† details of primary measures were not given but are assumed to mean low NOx burners (overfire air)
‡ these factors show the stand-alone effect of the installation of pollution control units or sub-units

20 IEA Coal Research


DeVito (2000) studied the effect of low NOx burners on
mercury emissions from an unnamed utility boiler
(~1350 MWe) fitted with ESP and FGD. Mercury emissions
were measured before and after the installation of low NOx
burners. The blend of coal (all eastern bituminous coals)
changed slightly during this period with mercury
concentrations being, on average, 0.19 ppm prior to the
installation and 0.13 ppm after. The chlorine concentration
was only slightly lower (0.125 ppm) prior to installation than
after (0.132 ppm). Following installation of the low NOx
burners there was no noticeable increase in the amount of
carbon in the bottom ash and only a slight increase in the
unburnt carbon in the fly ash (from 0.05–0.16% to
0.14–1.55%). The increase in carbon in the ash was deemed
insignificant with respect to the utilisation of the ash. Total
mercury removal through the plant did not change
significantly (from 64% to 72%). Although an increase was
measured, it was concluded that the low NOx burners did not
have a significant effect on mercury emissions. This was due
to concern over the incomplete mass balance data and the
possible effects of other differences (such as changes in the
coal mercury content).
The effect of low NOx burners is therefore still open to
debate although it does appear that, in the situations where
the burners cause an increase in unburnt carbon, they may
also increase mercury capture on particles.
4.3.2 Particulate controls
Electrostatic precipitators (ESP) can typically remove
between 0–30% of the mercury in flue gases, although up to
60% removal is possible. Mostly this is the oxidised mercury
but some elemental mercury can also be captured (US DOE,
2001a). Mercury capture in ESP is temperature sensitive,
with the capture efficiency being higher at lower
temperatures (Meij, 1997). Cold side ESP have been noted to
capture more mercury than hot side ESP although 16%
mercury removal is still possible with hot side ESP (Sjostrom
and others, 2001a). Most (>70% of existing units) of the
particulate control devices on coal-fired plants in the USA
are cold-side ESP (Afonso and Senior, 2001).
SO3 is sometimes used in ESP to enhance particulate capture.
Sjostrom and others (2001a) found no correlation between
the use of SO3 and the mercury removal efficiency.
Baghouses can remove both oxidised and elemental
mercury to some extent, their effectiveness being affected
by the type of filter and other factors such as fly ash
properties and temperature. Baghouses have been reported
to provide better mercury capture efficiency than ESP
because of the higher residence time and therefore the
longer absorption time provided by the ash in the baghouse
(Zevenhoven, 2001).
Sjostrom and others (2001a) noted that baghouses gave good
(average 70–84%) mercury removal for bituminous and
subbituminous coals but poor (average 0%) removal for
lignite coals. According to data from the ICR, baghouses are
the only particulate control devices to remove any
Mercury – emissions and control
Mercury behaviour in coal-fired power plants
appreciable amount of elemental mercury but that this only
occurs at coal chlorine contents above 200 ppm.
Several studies have indicated a correlation between the
mercury removal efficiency of particulate control devices,
both ESP and baghouses, and the coal type. Sjostrom and
others (2001a) noted that only poor mercury removal
(average 9%) was possible even with cold side ESP with
subbituminous coals and only 2% was possible for lignite
coal. Higher mercury removal (35%) was achieved for
bituminous coal and good mercury removal (61%) was seen
on units firing a blend of coals, including bituminous.
Sjostrom and others (2001a) studied data from the USA and
Canada and noted that increased carbon in the fly ash
correlated with higher mercury removal in cold-side ESP for
both bituminous and subbituminous coals. They also noted
that the size of the cold-side ESP (specific collection area)
correlates with higher mercury removal on lignite coals,
although the highest mercury removal was only 7%. For
subbituminous coals there appeared to be an inverse
correlation between the size of the ESP and the mercury
removal but this was deemed unlikely and it was suggested
that other factors were playing a greater role. Sjostrom and
others (2001a) did not see a correlation between the coal
chloride content and the mercury removal for any type of
coal other than bituminous. However, according to a review
of data from the US EPA’s ICR by the EERC, ND, USA,
mercury removal is consistently lower for low-chlorine coals
and, therefore, for western US coals. For example, mercury
removals across an ESP averaged 35% for bituminous coals
compared with 10% for western low-rank coal (CATM,
2001).
Table 10 shows data gathered from the ICR on the mercury
capture in different pollution control systems in the USA
firing different types of coal. On average, cold-side ESP are
more efficient at capturing mercury than hot-side ESP and
baghouses are most efficient overall. There were less data on
the effect of FGD systems which may explain why these
systems seemed less efficient, on average, than baghouses at
removing mercury. The mercury removal efficiency varied
greatly with the rank of the coal. Afonso and Senior (2001)
noticed that the efficiency of mercury removal in all
particulate control systems increased with the coal chlorine
content. For coals with a chlorine content greater than
200 ppm, most of the mercury was found in the particulate
phase at the particulate control device inlet. Fabric filters
were found to oxidise 40–85% of the elemental mercury,
highest for bituminous coals. ESP appeared to oxidise only
25–40% of the elemental mercury and negligible oxidation
was seen for low rank coals.
Many studies have shown a relationship between the capture
of mercury in ash and both the ash carbon content and the
temperature. The effect of temperature seems to be more
important as cooler baghouse temperatures capture more
mercury in the ash even at low ash carbon contents (Hower
and others, 2000).
It is well recognised that carbon can adsorb oxidised
mercury. Unburnt carbon in the ash can also have this effect.
21
Mercury behaviour in coal-fired power plants

Table 10 Average mercury removal across various pollution control devices for different coal ranks (Afonso
and Senior, 2001)

Control device Temperature, Bituminous coal Subbituminous coal Lignite All coals
°C Hg removal data* Hg removal data* Hg removal data*

Cold side ESP 130-170 56% 9 12% 4 47% 1 42% 14

Hot side ESP 250-400 27% 3 9% 2 20% 3
Baghouse 130-170 85% 7 75% 2 58% 1 82% 10
Wet scrubbers 130-170 26% 2
Wet FGD + cold ESP 130-170 51% 7 27% 3 48% 4 45% 14
Wet FGD + hot ESP 130-170 35% 3 35% 3
Wet FGD + baghouse 130-170 73% 2 73% 2
Wet FGD + wet scrubber 130-170 12% 1 18% 2 16% 3
Spray dry FGD + ESP 130-170 53% 2 53% 2
Spray dry FGD + baghouse 130-170 83% 5 22% 2 25% 3 53% 10

* number of plants studied

Hargis and others (2000) recorded baseline mercury removals
by ash in a 500 lb/h (227 kg/h) pilot coal-combustion facility
firing low sulphur coal. They concluded that negligible
mercury removal is seen when the unburnt carbon level is
below 1%. However, above this level, fly ash carbon can
affect mercury removal in baghouses, as shown in Figure 1.
Other variables will also play a role, such as the oxidation
state of the mercury and the baghouse temperature. The
US EPA’s ICR did not collect data on carbon in ash contents
and so was not able to provide data on this effect (Afonso
and Senior, 2001).
Hower and others (2000) studied mercury capture in different
particulate controls under different conditions. The coal used,
a high volatile bituminous coal with a high mercury content
(>0.2 ppm compared to an average US coal value of
0.01 ppm). The mercury adsorption of the fly ash was found
to increase as the flue gas temperature decreased and, at each
temperature, increase with the content of fly ash carbon.
There appeared to be a complex relationship between the
mercury adsorption and the proportion of different
petrographically-recognisable carbon forms. The carbon in
the ash was prone to saturation, both with mercury and with
other inorganic phases.
35
30
Hg removal efficiency, %
Sjostrom and others (2001b) note that ‘poor’ mercury
removal was achieved in COHPAC systems. However,
activated carbon injection into COHPAC systems is proposed
as a promising method for mercury control (see Chapter 5)
4.3.3 FGD
Wet flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) and similar wet
scrubbing systems can typically remove 75–99% of the
oxidised mercury present in flue gases. Total mercury
removal efficiencies average around 55% (US DOE, 2001a).
Meij and others (2001) reviewed data on the effect of FGD
and found that studies in the USA, Canada, Japan, Germany,
Austria and Denmark all agree that wet FGD systems remove
at least 50% of the mercury.
Afonso and Senior (2001) reviewed data from the US ICR
and concluded that wet FGD systems in the USA remove, on
average, 90% of the mercury which is in the oxidised form.
Weilert and Randall (2001) also studied the data from the
US EPA’s ICR and noted that the mercury removal efficiency
of FGD systems varied with coal type. In general, the
greatest mercury removal in FGD systems was in those plants
firing bituminous coal. This is due to the tendency of these
coals to produce greater proportions of mercury in the
oxidised form. There was also a tendency for greater mercury

removal in wet FGD systems as the sulphur content of the

25
coal increases. The moisture and ash content of the coal did
20
15
not affect the performance of the FGD system with respect to
10 mercury capture. The chlorine content of the coal was found
5 to be most important with the highest mercury removal
0 efficiencies being found with the high chlorine coals. All the
-5 high chlorine coals were also bituminous coals.
-10
-15 Senior and others (1999) suggest that the mercury absorption
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 in wet FGD is strongly correlated to the mass transfer in the
Baghouse solids carbon content, % scrubber, the composition of the scrubber liquid and the
design of the scrubber. There are clear differences between
limestone and magnesium-enhanced limestone scrubbers. In
Figure 1 Mercury removal efficiency in a
limestone systems the liquid to gas ratio has an effect on
baghouse versus carbon in ash (Hargis
mercury removal (mercury removal increasing with
and others, 2000)
increasing liquid to gas ratio) whereas this is not evident for

22 IEA Coal Research

 Mercury behaviour in coal-fired power plants
magnesium-enhanced lime systems. Under some conditions, 16
limestone scrubbers have been observed to reduce adsorbed
oxidised mercury back to elemental mercury giving rise to 14

Mercury concentration, µg/m3

higher elemental mercury at the outlet than the inlet. This 12
effect may be related to the liquid/gas ratio in the scrubber
(Afonso and Senior, 2001). 10

8
Spray dry scrubber systems can remove both oxidised and
elemental mercury with total removal efficiencies of as high 6
as 90%, when coupled with a baghouse (US DOE, 2001a).
Data from the ICR suggest that spray dry scrubber systems 4
remove between 0% and 99% of the mercury with an average 2
removal of 38% (CATM, 2001).
0
SCR ESP ESP SCR ESP ESP ESP SCR ESP ESP
Bypass In Out Bypass In Out In Out In Out
4.3.4 SCR and SNCR Baseline NH3 injection SCR

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems can be fitted to Hg0 Hg2+ Hgp
coal-fired power plants for greater NOx reduction than can be
achieved with primary measures (see Section 4.3.1).
According to Zevenhoven (2001), elemental mercury is
Figure 2 Mercury removal across SCR and ESP
oxidised by SCR catalysts. Studies in the Netherlands have
systems for Paradise bituminous coal
shown a decrease in the proportion of elemental mercury
(Chu and others, 2001)
from 51% upstream of an SCR system to 28% downstream.
Studies in Germany have indicated up to 60% mercury
oxidation across an SCR process (Richardson and others, 12
2001).
10
Mercury concentration, µg/m3

Licata and Fey (2001) also cite studies in Germany

suggesting that high dust SCR in plants firing bituminous
8
coals substantially reduced mercury emissions. They suggest
two mechanisms for this action:
6
● mercury is oxidised (by flue gas oxygen) to mercury
oxide which then reacts with HCl to form mercury
chloride; 4
● formation of free chlorine from HCl and subsequent
reactions with metallic mercury to form mercury 2
chloride.
0
SCR ESP ESP SCR ESP ESP ESP SCR ESP ESP
EPRI have funded a study at the EERC, ND, USA on the
Bypass In Out Bypass In Out In Out In Out
effect of SCR systems on mercury. The tests have been
Baseline NH3 injection SCR
performed on pilot-scale units firing several eastern
bituminous coals and one western bituminous coal (Powder Hg0 Hg2+ Hgp
River Basin). The results are shown in Figures 2 and 3. For
the Paradise (eastern) bituminous coal (3% sulphur, 350 ppm
chlorine) with the ammonia injection (without SCR) the
Figure 3 Mercury removal across SCR and ESP
ammonia appeared to increase the amount of particulate
systems for Blacksville bituminous coal
mercury at the ESP inlet, compared with the baseline, as
(Chu and others, 2001)
shown in Figure 2. The SCR also appeared to increase the
amount of particulate mercury. This particulate mercury was
not captured efficiently in the ESP, although more efficient US DOE are ongoing at seven power plants in the USA and,
capture may have been possible with a baghouse. For the from preliminary results from two of these plants, the results
Blacksville (eastern) bituminous coal (2% sulphur, 750 ppm seem to suggest that coal type appears to be the key variable.
chlorine) the ammonia and SCR had only minimal effects on
the mercury speciation (Figure 3). Chu and others (2001) Richardson and others (2001) report on further EPRI funded
concluded that the potential effects of SCR and/or ammonia studies on the effects of different SCR catalysts on mercury
on mercury capture may be coal specific. The EERC, ND, oxidation at both pilot- and full-scale coal-fired units. At flue
USA also have limited field data which suggest that SCR gas temperatures of around 700°F (370°C) most iron and
systems may be effective at oxidising mercury but only with titanium catalysts showed between 7% and 17% mercury
high chlorine coals (CATM, 2001). Chu and others (2001) oxidation. One commercial Ti/V-based catalyst of wash-
warned that tests would need to be repeated on full-scale coated honeycomb and also as powder, a fresh sample, gave
plants to confirm these results. Tests co-funded by the around 27% oxidation. By far the greatest oxidation (95%)

Mercury – emissions and control 23

Mercury behaviour in coal-fired power plants
was achieved with a commercial Ti/V based SCR catalyst,
extruded honeycomb with a 10 mm cell pitch. When the
catalysts were tested at different test sites, the same catalyst
gave consistently high results. The addition of ammonia to
the flue gas immediately upstream of the catalyst generally
resulted in decreased mercury oxidation. It was suggested
that the ammonia was inhibiting the reaction between the
mercury and the catalyst. It was also noted that the ability of
the catalyst to oxidise mercury was decreased over the
catalyst lifetime. The catalyst activity was also affected by
the space velocity with a lower oxidation rate as the flow rate
across the fixed catalyst was increased. However, these tests
at pilot-scale were not confirmed fully at full-scale plants and
more tests are planned.
No data were found on any effect on mercury due to SNCR,
selective non-catalytic reduction, for NOx control. Three
plants with SNCR were tested under the ICR in the USA but
the results were inconclusive.
4.4 Interactions in emission control
Data from the US EPA’s ICR suggest that, on average,
mercury removal across a wet FGD downstream of a cold-
side ESP doubled from 30% to 60% when the coal chlorine
increased from 50 to 1000 ppm. Downstream of a hot-side
ESP the removal by the wet FGD increased from 20% to
50% when the chlorine increased from 200 to 1000 ppm.
Removal for a wet FGD downstream from a cold-side ESP
averaged 49%, where the ESP contributed 27% removal and
53% of the mercury entering the FGD was in the oxidised
form. Removal averaged only 26% for FGD in combination
with a hot-side ESP, where the hot-side ESP contributed only
4% removal and 34% of the mercury entering the FGD was
in the oxidised form. Total removal in the FGD was around
88% downstream of a baghouse, where the baghouse
contributed 58% of the mercury removal and 77% of the
mercury entering the FGD was in the oxidised form (CATM,
2001).
The mercury capture in spray dry scrubber systems is a
combination effect of the removal across the spray dry
scrubber and the downstream particulate control device. The
efficiency of spray dry scrubber systems in conjunction with
baghouses was found to depend strongly on the coal chlorine
content (Afonso and Senior, 2001). Mercury removal with
spray dry scrubber/baghouse combinations were found to be
very low at coal chlorine contents below 100 ppm and very
Table 11 Baseline mercury removal for various plant configurations (Berkenpas and others, 2001)
Technology Baseline mercury removal, %
Bituminous
ESP 31.0
SCR + ESP 31.0
ESP + wet FGD 79.3
SCR + ESP +FGD 96.2
spray dry scrubber+ baghouse 39.0
SCR + spray dry scrubber + baghouse 39.0
24
high at coal chlorine contents above 900 ppm. For spray dry
scrubber systems used in conjunction with ESP, the average
mercury removal was 18% and did not appear to vary with
coal chlorine content (CATM, 2001). Since bituminous coals
produce higher proportions of mercury in the oxidised form,
spray dry scrubber systems on plants firing bituminous coals
show the greatest capture efficiencies (Weilert and Randall,
2001). In their study of FGD systems through the ICR data,
Weilert and Randall (2001) concluded that the best
combination (with respect to mercury control in both wet and
dry FGD) is bituminous coal in a plant fitted with spray dry
scrubber FGD but the worst combination was lignite with
spray dry scrubber FGD. Thus the fuel characteristics are the
dominating factor in the mercury control of these systems.
Berkenpas and others (2001) have prepared a model to
predict the interactions between pollution control equipment
in mercury control. The results are summarised in Table 11.
The table also includes the predicted effects for different coal
types. ESP and SCR systems, alone or combined, show the
same level of mercury control (31%). ESP in conjunction
with wet FGD has the potential to reduce mercury emissions
further, especially for bituminous coal. The combination of
all three systems, SCR, ESP and FGD could reduce
emissions still further, again especially for those plants firing
bituminous coals. The combination of spray dry scrubber
systems with baghouses, with or without SCR systems,
shows moderate potential for mercury control (39%).
As suggested in Table 11, the type of coal is important.
Figure 4 shows the amount of carbon injection which would
be required for 90% mercury removal in different plants
firing different fuels. Carbon injection is discussed in
Chapter 5. In those plants firing eastern bituminous coals, the
combination of ESP, FGD and SCR is enough to control
mercury emissions without any additional need for activated
carbon. This is not the case for Wyoming Powder River Basin
coal or North Dakota lignite.
Berkenpas and others (2001) studied the interactions in
emission controls using a computer model and suggested that
those plants already fitted with both SCR and wet FGD
systems may provide enough mercury capture to avoid the
need to use activated carbon. However, plants with SCR and
no FGD system would probably show little or no increased
mercury control. Each plant must be studied in detail with
respect to coals combusted and existing control technologies
before any decisions can be made with respect to what
actions should be taken to control mercury emissions further.
Subbituminous Lignite
31.0 31.0
31.0 31.0
48.3 48.3
54.3 54.3
39.0 39.0
39.0 39.0
IEA Coal Research

125
Carbon injection, g/100m3
100
75
50
25
0
Eastern Eastern
bituminous bituminous
(low sulphur) (high sulphur)
Figure 4 Carbon injection requirement (with
humidification) as a function of coal type
and control technology for 90% mercury
removal (Berkenpas and others, 2001)
4.5 Mercury in by-products
If the mercury does not leave the coal-fired plant as a gaseous
emission then it must be present in waste material from the
plant. It is important to consider how this affects coal wastes
with respect to utilisation or disposal options.
4.5.1 Fly ash
Meij and others (2001) reported average mercury
concentrations in bottom ash of <0.3 mg/kg and 0.28 mg/kg
in fly ash. Around 50% of the mercury present in the coal is
found in the fly ash at Dutch coal-fired power plants. This
capture is higher than that reported in countries such as the
US (<20% of mercury captured in the fly ash) and this is
because ESP in the Netherlands are operated at lower
temperatures than in the USA. Dutch ESP are operated at
lower temperatures because the coal has a lower sulphur
concentration and does not cause sulphuric acid condensation
problems which may be encountered in the USA.
Hassett and others (1999) measured mercury emissions from
a range of coal fly ashes and found that none leached
mercury above the detection limits within the four-week test
period in a synthetic ground-water leaching procedure test. In
further work, Heebink and Hassett (2001) studied the
released of mercury from various fly ash samples. The
samples included fly ash from US eastern bituminous coals,
South African low rank coals, Powder River Basin coal
blended with petroleum coke and Powder River Basin coal
ash mixed with FGD waste. The mercury content of the
samples ranged from 0.112 µg/m3 in the fly ash/FGD blend
to 0.736 µg/m3 in the fly ash/coke ash blend. The samples
were tested at ambient and near ambient temperatures. There
was no correlation between the mercury concentration of the
ash and the concentration of mercury released. An average of
30 mg Hg/t ash/day was released. Extrapolating this value to
the situation in a full-scale plant (unspecified size) producing
200,000 tons (181,490 t) of fly ash per year, there would be a
Mercury – emissions and control
Mercury behaviour in coal-fired power plants
ESP only potential release of 2.00 g of mercury per year. This is
ESP + FGD
considered almost negligible.
ESP + FGD + SCR
It was suggested that, in the absence of biological activity,
mercury would be released from ash in the elemental form.
Organomercury compounds have low vapour pressures and
would not be released. Heebink and Hasset (2001) emphasise
that, although current concentrations of mercury in fly ashes
are low, the move towards enhanced capture of mercury will
mean increased mercury concentrations in ash in the future.
More study is required on this and on the potential release of
Wyoming North mercury from sorbents. More study is also required on the
PRB Dakota potential release of mercury in landfill sites or ash ponds and
lignite
on the potential release of mercury from the utilisation of fly
ash in products such as concrete.
CSIRO Energy Technology in Australia is conducting
research on the management of trace elements within the ash
dams of coal-fired power plants. The research is
concentrating on selenium, arsenic, molybdenum, vanadium
and boron as these are the most soluble species. Other trace
elements, presumably including mercury, are not considered
such a threat with respect to leaching from the fly ash
(Interface, 2001).
Keating and Chaisson (1999) reviewed the potential for
mercury release from different coal wastes and by-products.
The emission potential for coal piles, mining wastes, landfills
and surface impoundments would depend on the extent of
weathering, the surface temperature and exposure to sunlight.
There have been no studies published on mercury release
under these circumstances. Leaching is also possible as well
as overflow to other receiving waters. Ecological effects have
been shown from water discharge but no effects have been
noted from air emissions.
Fly ash from coal-fired power plants is often used in
construction materials. The process temperatures used in the
preparation of cement, concrete, grout and wallboard
manufacture may be high enough to volatilise mercury. If fly
ash is used for agricultural uses, for example in fertiliser,
there is the potential for sunlight and elevated temperatures to
volatilise the mercury. Although Keating and Chaisson (1999)
suggest that releases of mercury may be possible, they
emphasise that few of these coal products have been tested
for mercury release and that further research is necessary.
4.5.2 FGD residues
Studies, now dated, have shown that the trace element
content of gypsum and sludge from FGD systems is
influenced by the solubility of the element, the settling
behaviour of the solids in the thickener and the waste water
volume. In the waste water cleaning plant, the solubility of
the trace elements is decreased by increasing the pH to the
range of 8.0–9.5 so that the waste water contains only very
small amounts of the elements. The concentrations of
mercury in waste sludge are reported to be low (around
6 ppm for mercury). Dual collection FGD systems, which
combine fly ash with the FGD waste, produce waste material
which is similar to fly ash in its trace element content.
25
Mercury behaviour in coal-fired power plants
Meij and others (2001) report average mercury concentrations
in FGD sludge (from the waste water plant) of 4–26 mg/kg
and in the waste water effluent of 0.4–10 µg/l. In the
Netherlands FGD sludge was cofired with the coal and
therefore the mercury is reintroduced to the combustion zone.
This resulted in an increase of about 10% in the mercury in
the other streams leaving the plant and most of the mercury
ended up in the fly ash and the gypsum. Concentrations of
mercury in this ash and gypsum are reported to be low and
cause no environmental problem. However, at the moment
this practice is no longer permitted in the Netherlands (Meij,
2002).
DeVito (2000) studied the stability of mercury in FGD wastes
from an unnamed coal-fired plant in the USA. Untreated
FGD waste from the plant contained 0.70 ± 0.3 ppm mercury.
Leaching tests showed that any mercury released was below
the detection limit in most cases and below any specified
leaching limits in all cases. The practice of fixating the
sludge solids with fly ash and lime was shown to reduce the
mercury leaching from all samples to below detection limits.
The FGD wastes were exposed to elevated temperatures (up
to 140°F; 60°C) for 11–12 weeks and still showed no losses
of mercury.
Mercury in the waste water from FGD systems can be treated
with a chelating agent to produce a stabile product which is
safe for disposal (Miyata and others, 2001).
Existing pollution control systems can remove as much as
90% of the incoming coal’s mercury content in a few cases
whereas very little mercury is removed in others. Oxidised
mercury is far more easily captured. ESP are less efficient
than baghouses for mercury control. The mercury removal in
baghouses depends on the flue gas temperature, the amount
of carbon in ash, and the coal type. The tendency for
bituminous coals to produce more oxidised mercury means
that particulate control devices are more effective for mercury
control on plants firing bituminous coals. Similarly it has
been shown that the coal type is more important than the type
of FGD system for mercury capture and may also be the most
important factor in SCR effects.
It is possible that, for some plants firing bituminous coal, the
combination of particulate controls, FGD and SCR systems
may be sufficient to reduce mercury emissions by as much as
90%. However, this effect can in no way be assumed and
each plant must be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Although standard pollution control systems can remove a
significant amount of mercury from the flue gas, this is not
what they are designed to do. Chapter 5 discusses how to
improve mercury capture in existing pollution control
equipment and also reviews new techniques being designed
specifically for mercury control.

Since spray dry scrubber systems are reported to have greater

mercury capture efficiencies (see Section 4.3.3), it would
follow that the waste material from these systems would
contain more mercury. No data have been found to confirm
this.

4.6 Comments
Recent data from the US EPA’s ICR have resulted in a large
amount of new information on mercury behaviour in coal-
fired plants. The retention of mercury within the plant
depends largely on its oxidation state. Oxidised mercury, the
type of mercury which is most easily controlled with existing
pollution control systems, accounts for between 30% and
70% of the total mercury in the flue gas, depending on the
amount of mercury in the coal and the combustion conditions
and chemistry. Chlorine can play a major role in mercury
oxidation but other species, such as NOx, oxygen and
calcium, may be equally important in some situations. There
appears to be a relationship between coal type and mercury
oxidation. In general, bituminous coals produce more
mercury in the oxidised state than subbituminous coals and
lignite.

FBC systems may have lower mercury emissions than

pulverised coal fired units because of the increased contact
time with any sorbents and unburnt carbon in the ash,
especially in CFBC systems. The few data that are available
for gasification systems suggests that most of the mercury
will be released in gaseous elemental form into the gasifier
gas and will not be affected significantly by any acid gas
cleaning systems present.

26 IEA Coal Research

 5 Specific controls for mercury
Specific technologies for the control of mercury emissions
are already proving successful in some countries on sources
such as waste incinerators. However, these controls cannot be
easily transposed to coal-fired power plants as the flue gas
conditions are different. Flue gas streams from coal-fired
power plants are much larger than those from incinerators
and the mercury concentrations are much lower (0.01 ppmw
in coal-fired plants, at least an order of magnitude lower than
incinerator flue gases). The chlorine:mercury ratio in coal-
fired power plants is also lower. This, and other differences in
flue gas chemistry, generally results in a lower fraction of the
more easily captured oxidised form of mercury in coal-fired
power plants. Also, many waste incineration systems have
acid scrubbers for HCl control which can enhance mercury
capture. Another distinction is the longer residence time of
the flue gases in the air pollution control systems of waste
incinerators.
As discussed in Chapter 4, some plants in the USA firing
bituminous coal appear to be able to achieve up to 90%
mercury control with a combination of existing pollution
control systems. However, the actual level of mercury
controlled at each plant varies significantly and most plants
will have to consider some form of specific control for
mercury, if 90% reduction is required. There is a large
amount of work under way to design and develop new
systems for mercury control from coal-fired power plants.
However, according to the Energy and Environmental
Research Center (EERC), ND, USA ‘. . . there are new
technologies under development, but to date none has been
shown to provide widely effective control at acceptable cost’
(CATM, 2001).
In 1995, eleven projects were selected by the US DOE for
further research into mercury control from coal-fired boilers.
By the second phase of the programme, five of these projects
remained active. These included (US DOE, 2001a):
● ultra high efficiency ESP, ABB Power Plant Labs,
Windsor, CT;
● Mercu-RE sorbent-based technology, ADA Technologies,
Englewood, CO;
● combustion chemistry research, Physical Sciences Inc
(PSI), Andover, MA;
● carbon-based sorbent injection, Public Service Company,
Denver, CO;
● new wet FGD processes, Radian International, Austin, TX.
Directly supporting the President’s May 2001 National
Energy Plan, the US DOE selected six new projects for the
development of innovative technologies for mercury control
from coal-fired power plants. The six new projects are as
follows (US DOE, 2001a):
● AHPC, advanced hybrid particulate collector, EERC,
Grand Forks, ND;
● chemical catalysts for mercury oxidation and subsequent
removal by wet scrubbers and particulate controls, URS
Group Inc, Austin, TX;
Mercury – emissions and control
● adaptation of mercury controls for waste incinerators for
coal-fired units, Consol Inc, Library, PA;
● calcium based chemicals (such as lime and silica lime)
for mercury oxidation, Southern Research Institute,
Birmingham, AL;
● electrical discharge system for mercury and other
pollutant oxidation, Powerspan Corp, Durham, NH;
● carbon-based and other sorbents, Apogee Scientific Inc,
Englewood, CO.
The US DOE also has two field-testing projects for mercury
removal from coal-fired systems. The first is being carried
out by ADA Environmental Solutions on sorbent injection
and the second is being carried out by Babcock and Willcox-
McDermott Technologies on scrubber enhancement.
In Europe, the Commission for the European Communities
(CEC) has two ECSC projects relating to mercury emissions:
● 7220-ED/089: optimal utilisation of coal in modern
power plants with respect to control of mass flows and
emissions of VOCs/PAH and mercury. The work is being
carried out by VTT in Finland;
● 7220-PRO88: mercury removal through reactive
adsorption under flue gas conditions, carried out by
CINAR, UK.
There is clearly a large number of different possible methods
being evaluated and developed around the world and, for the
moment, there is no clear indication of any obvious single
solution. As mentioned in Chapter 4, the behaviour of
mercury from different coals may play a major role in
deciding the most appropriate control methodology.
Preliminary work suggests that plants firing Eastern US
bituminous coals will not have the same mercury problem as
those firing western coals. With this in mind, the EERC, ND,
USA has set up a three year programme to identify and
evaluate mercury control technologies specifically for electric
utilities burning western coals (Pavlish, 2001).
The following sections review the different technologies
currently being developed for mercury control from coal-fired
power plants. Where possible, data are included on the
projects listed above.
5.1 Enhanced particulate controls
As discussed in Chapter 4, existing particulate control
systems, especially baghouses, can capture a large proportion
of the mercury in flue gases. The amount of mercury
captured depends on numerous factors including the
oxidation state of the mercury, the carbon content of the ash
and the operating temperature. The following sections discuss
ways to enhance the capture of mercury in existing
particulate control devices and also new systems which are
aimed specifically at controlling air toxics, including
mercury.
27
Specific controls for mercury
5.1.1 Flue gas cooling
Mercury capture on fly ash or sorbents is easier at lower
temperatures. Work at Consol, PA, USA, in 1999
demonstrated that fly ash alone can remove a substantial
portion of the flue gas mercury when the gas is cooled below
typical exhaust temperatures (from 300°F down to 220°F;
150°C down to 105°C). At the lower temperatures the
mercury is absorbed directly on to the fly ash and is removed
by the ESP. The use of fly ash as a sorbent in discussed in
more detail in Section 5.2. When the flue gas was cooled to
200°F (93°C), 80–90% of the mercury was removed.
However, reducing the temperature in this area of the power
plant can cause back-end corrosion as a result of SO3
condensation. Therefore this system needs to be run in
conjunction with a sulphur control technique such as the
injection of alkaline sorbent. Alkaline sorbent injection can
reduce SO3 concentrations by around 80%.
As a result of this research, Consol are constructing a pilot-
plant coal-fired facility comprising an air pre-heater, an
ESP for fine particles and an alkaline-sorbent injection
system to control sulphur condensation. The alkaline
sorbent is injected into the air pre-heater at 200-250°F (93-
121°C) for sulphur control. Mercury will be collected with
the fly ash in the ESP at this lower temperature. The
project will take 36 months as is funded by $1.83 million
of US DOE money and $599,650 from Consol. The project
will evaluate the use of alkaline injection and the air pre-
heater and will also evaluate the possibility of using the
option of spray-cooling to lower the temperature. Since
alkaline sorbent is significantly less expensive than
activated carbon, this process has several economic
advantages over carbon use. Further, a reduction of 90°F
(32°C) in flue gas temperature is equivalent to a 2%
increase in efficiency. This equates to a 2% decrease in fuel
use and pollution production. Since a typical 600 MWe
coal-fired power plant fires 1.4 Mt/y of coal, a 2% fuel
saving is equivalent to 27 t of coal (>$600,000 in fuel
costs). This will reduce SO2, NOx and CO2 emissions by
2%. The alkaline-sorbent injection will also cause a
reduction in SO3 emissions. SO3 plays a role in visible
plumes and the formation of undesirable ammonium salts
in NOx control technologies such as SCR/SNCR.
Cooling flue gases to 230°F (110°C) by injecting a fine
water mist is reported to have the same mercury removal
efficiency as injecting around 1 lb/million acf carbon into
300°F (1.6 g/100 m3 into 150°C) flue gas. The extra
mercury is trapped on the native fly ash which acts like a
sorbent (Butz and others, 2000). Although gas cooling can
be achieved with gas conditioning using water, FLS Miljo
in Denmark has experience with this on both incinerators
and coal-fired systems and does not recommend this
approach on coal-fired power plants (Felsvang and others,
2001).
Croll-Reynolds Clean Air Technologies are developing a wet
ESP system, known as WESP, to control several pollutants
including mercury. So far, this technology has only been
applied to industrial applications such as incinerators and
28
kilns. Work is under way to determine whether this
technology can be transferred successfully to full-scale coal-
fired units (Altman and others, 2001).
5.1.2 Electrical discharge
Powerspan Corp, NH, USA, are testing a multi-pollutant
removal system based on electrical discharge to convert
mercury to mercuric oxide, NOx to nitric acid and SO2 to
sulphuric acid. The mercury can then be trapped with small
particulates in an ESP (US DOE, 2001a).
A similar ‘radiation-chemical’ conversion system for mercury
using electron beam treatment is being investigated in Russia.
The radiation method was designed originally for the removal
of SO2 and NO from flue gas but the removal of Hg is also
possible. Gerasimov (2001) has developed a mathematical
model of the liquid-phase chemical reactions which can
convert elemental mercury to oxidised mercury in flue gases.
During electron beam treatment, the gas phase oxidation of
SO2 is promoted and a liquid phase of aerosol particles is
formed by the condensation of water and this sulphuric acid
vapour. Other species such as HCl, NH3, O3, OH and
elemental mercury also dissolve into the liquid phase
simultaneously. The oxidised mercury compounds formed in
the liquid phase can be adsorbed onto particles. The
concentration of elemental mercury in flue gases is normally
so low (<50 µg/m3) that it has no effect on the SO2 and NO
removal efficiencies of the system.
Gerasimov’s model suggests that an increase in temperature
and HCl concentration leads to a decrease in the oxidised
mercury attached to particles. This is due to the effect of
temperature on the liquid phase state of the system and the
partial transfer of HCl to HgCl2. In the conditions commonly
encountered in flue gases from coal-fired power stations,
90% conversion of elemental to adsorbed oxidised mercury is
possible at a radiation dose of D>10kGy. This requires a fly
ash concentration of 100 µg/m3 and a flue gas temperature of
70–80°C. If the fly ash concentration is lower and the HCl
concentration in the gas is greater than 50 mg/m3 (at STP)
then HgCl2 is formed and reduces the efficiency of the
process. There were no data to suggest that the model had
been tested on any coal-fired systems.
5.1.3 Ultra high efficiency ESP
ABB Power Plant Labs, CT, USA, received funding from the
US DOE in 1995 to develop an ultra-high efficiency ESP for
air toxics control. The project cost $1.3 million, including
$300,000 cost sharing by ABB, and took over 30 months.
The project evaluated novel improvements to ESP to allow
more efficient capture PM2.5 and toxic metals associated with
these particles. The flue gases are cooled using moisture or
heat exchangers. PM2.5 emissions were cut from
0.03 lb/million Btu to below 0.01 lb/million Btu (14 g/kJ to
below 5 g/kJ). For mercury control, fine carbon particles,
along with moisture, are injected into the flue gas. The
reported mercury capture efficiency was over 90% (US DOE,
2001a).
IEA Coal Research

EERC, ND, USA, in conjunction with W L Gore and
Associates Inc, is developing an advanced hybrid
particulate collector (AHPC) with the potential to remove
90% of the flue gas mercury (US DOE, 2001a). The project,
covering 24 months, will cost the US DOE $1.17 million
with $293,000 being invested by EERC. Until recently, the
work has been mostly at bench-scale. However, field testing
is planned for the Big Stone power station operated by Otter
Tail Power Company (US DOE, 2001a).
The AHPC system combined features of both ESP and
baghouses and gives ‘ultra-high’ collection efficiency. Unlike
conventional ESP, the AHPC system captures fine particles.
Also, the re-entrainment problem encountered with
conventional baghouses is avoided. The AHPC can be
retrofitted to ESP-equipped plants, installed on new plants or
applied to industrial boilers.
Previous work on AHPC systems by Miller and others (1997)
indicated that an AHPC system can reduce mercury
concentrations in the flue gas from 5.5 µg/m3 to 3.6 µg/m3,
that is a reduction of almost 35%. When a sorbent such as
activated carbon is added, the mercury reduction is increased
to over 60%.
COHPAC, compact hybrid particulate control technology,
is an EPRI (CA, USA) patented system which includes a high
air-to-cloth ratio baghouse downstream of an existing ESP to
improve overall particulate collection efficiency. The COHPAC
technology has been used on over 1700 MWe of combustion
applications and shows filtration rates of 2–3 times higher
than normal jet air-to-cloth ratios (Miller and Morris, 2001).
Although, theoretically, the high particulate capture efficiency
of the COHPAC system may increase the capture of mercury
and other trace elements associated with smaller particles, no
data were found demonstrating this effect. However, activated
carbon injection into a COHPAC system can result in up to
90% mercury control (see Section 5.2).
5.2 Sorbents
The injection of a sorbent such as activated carbon appears to
be one of the most favourable options for mercury control.
The sorbent would be injected upstream of existing
particulate control devices such as ESP or baghouses.
Mercury capture by an injected sorbent depends on the
sorbent capacity and mass transfer to the sorbent surface. The
capacity and reactivity are affected by temperature and
mercury concentration. When the temperature is too high or
the mercury concentration too low, overall removal will be
governed by the sorbent’s limited efficiency (Butz and others,
2000). The efficiency of a sorbent to capture mercury
depends on a number of variables including:
● sorbent average particle size and size distribution;
● sorbent capacity with mercury speciation and at different
gas temperatures;
● residence time in the flue gas;
● type of particulate control (ESP or baghouse);
● inlet mercury concentrations.
The addition of a sorbent would obviously increase the
Mercury – emissions and control
Specific controls for mercury
particulate load in an ESP or baghouse. In some cases a
larger ESP or a second collector such as a baghouse may
need to be installed to cope. Since the sorbents used are
generally very fine, in order to maximise the active surface
area, they may pass through particulate controls to some
extent. Rubin and others (2001) suggest that the use of
activated carbon for mercury control would increase
particulate emissions by 9%. The total cost of using activated
carbon (including humidification and waste disposal) is
estimated to add 24 $/kW to the plant capital cost and would
increase the cost of electricity in the USA by 23%.
The amount of sorbent needed can be reduced by water
injection in to the flue gas. This is due to the cooling effect
discussed in Section 5.1.1. In the model prepared by
Berkenpas and others (2001) it is estimated that, for 90%
mercury removal, over 65 lb/million acf (104 g/100 m3)
would be required. If water injection were included, this
requirement would be reduced to just under 40 lb/million acf
(64 g/100 m3).
Meserole and others (2001) used a computer model to
estimate the potential cost for sorbent use in ESP and
baghouse systems. Ultrafine sorbents have the potential to
reduce predicted sorbent (activated carbon) control costs by a
factor of two or three. This is largely as a result of the lower
quantities of sorbent required. The impact of the use of
mercury sorbent on fly ash sales may also be improved. The
use of fine sorbent material (below 5 µm) has also been
shown potentially to lower the cost of injection upstream of
an ESP below that predicted for a baghouse. Figure 5 shows
a model prediction for the cost of sorbent injection for ESP
and baghouses for theoretical sorbents of different size and
cost. This estimate is still theoretical and needs confirmation
with more real data.
Dry sorbent injection into the COHPAC system (see
Section 5.1.3) has been tested under a US DOE NETL
(National Energy Technology Laboratory) programme at the
Gaston Electric Generating Plant in Wilsonville, AL, USA.
The plant has four 270 MWe balanced draft and one
880 MWe forced draft coal-fired boiler. The plant fires a
14 Conditions
ESP, 15 µm
Total levelised cost, $ million
500 MW
12 Temperature = 135°C 0.11 $/kg
Capacity = 2000 µg/g
10 ESP, 2 µm
0.45 $/kg
8 ESP, 15 µm
0.11 $/kg
6
ESP, 5 µm
4 0.23 $/kg
2
0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mercury removal, %
Figure 5 Comparison of costs of injection with an
ESP and baghouse (Meserole and others,
2001)
29
Specific controls for mercury
variety of low-sulphur, washed, Eastern bituminous coals.
The COHPAC system is a pulse-jet cleaned baghouse made
of Ryton. Preliminary tests with activated carbon show that a
significant increase in cleaning efficiency of the COHPAC
baghouse occurred with the injection of activated carbon and
the maximum acceptable cleaning frequency and pressure
drop limited the amount of sorbent that could be injected
(Bustard and others, 2001).
ADA Technologies are developing a portable mercury control
system based on injection of a dry sorbent, such as fly ash or
activated carbon. A fine water mist will also be sprayed into
the flue gas to lower the temperature to a range where the dry
sorbent is most effective. The cooling step can increase the
formation of corrosive sulphur trioxide and therefore a
reagent injection system is included to control the build up of
sulphur trioxide, if needed. The system will be tested at each
of four plants:
● two PG&E Generating plants firing bituminous coal,
fitted with ESP and carbon/ash separation systems;
● Wisconsin Electric Power Company plant firing Powder
River Basin coal, fitted with an ESP;
● a fourth plant, equipped with a baghouse, will be added
to the programme.
The project has received $4.5 million from the US DOE with
a further $2.2 million being provided by ADA Environmental
Solutions.
EPRI, in conjunction with URS, Apogee and Meserole
Consulting in the USA, have developed a methodology for
evaluating different sorbents for mercury control. The
laboratory-scale system uses a fixed bed with simulated flue
gases and is reported to produce similar results to those
obtained at full-scale plants. It is suggested that the system is
used to screen potential new sorbents to select those with the
most potential for further evaluation in field tests. Since the
sorbent particle size is one of the most important factors
affecting its effectiveness, size distribution evaluation should
be used in conjunction with the fixed bed tests. Model
predictions can then be used to project the estimated mercury
removal in a COHPAC baghouse (Sjostrom and others,
2001b).
Felsvang and others (2001) have tested a gas suspension
absorber (GSA) for mercury control on waste incinerators
and also on coal-fired units. The GSA process combines a
circulating FBC system with efficient particulate collection
such as with an ESP or baghouse. In the GSA a lime slurry
or water is atomised into the FBC. Fly ash and sorbent solids
are recycled from the downstream cyclone. GSA systems can
be retrofitted upstream of existing ESP systems. A GSA
system is installed on the Xiaolongtan power station in China
for acid gas control. Between 42% and 90% mercury removal
can be achieved in such a system using lime as the sorbent.
5.2.1 Activated carbon
Activated carbons are produced commercially by companies
such as Norit for controlling a number of pollutants including
dioxins and mercury from industrial sources. Activated
30
carbon has been used very successfully for mercury control
in waste incinerators. However, this level of success is not
currently possible in coal-fired power plants where the
concentration of mercury in the flue gases is typically one or
two orders of magnitude lower than in waste incinerators.
Also, activated carbon is expensive, has a poor capacity, a
low applicable temperature range and has slow regeneration
and adsorption rates (Lee and others, 2001).
The effectiveness of activated carbon for mercury removal is
not linear. Mercury removal rates are reported to level off
quickly when the carbon concentration is increased, resulting
in diminishing returns for incremental boost in carbon
injection. Butz and others (2000) also noted that significantly
higher carbon injection rates would be required to achieve
consistent control levels as high as 80% in ESP
configurations.
Hargis and others (2000) report on the testing of several
activated carbon based sorbents at the pilot-scale coal
combustion facility at the NETL (US DOE). The 500 lb/h
(227 kg/h) plant includes a furnace, an air preheater, a spray
dry scrubber and a pulse-jet fabric filter. Testing was
conducted with low-sulphur (~1%) bituminous coal. This
type of coal is commonly burnt in facilities which are not
fitted with FGD. Two commercially available activated
carbons were tested:
● Norit Darco;
● Calgon FluePac.
The sorbents were injected into the flue gas after the air
preheater and spray dry scrubber and before the baghouse
filter. The mercury concentrations before and after sorbent
injection were measured using a combination of wet
chemical methods and an online CVAAS system. The effect
of temperature was also studied by adjusting the baghouse
temperature. This was achieved by changing the operation of
the secondary air preheater and/or the coal firing rate.
The results of this study are shown in Table 12. The mass
balances around the baghouse ranged from 77% to 136% and
were considered generally good, ignoring one outlier at
193%. The balances for the entire system ranged from 53%
to 115% and were not quite as good, but were considered
acceptable. It was suggested that part of the inaccuracy was
the 20% standard deviation in the mercury content of the feed
coal. There was a wide range of mercury removals under
baseline conditions (with no sorbent added). This may be due
to transient effects, such as the baghouse not having reached
a steady state condition. Some of the effect may also be due
to the absorption of mercury by unburnt carbon in the ash.
This is discussed in more detail in Section 5.2.2. Hargis and
others (2000) concluded that, as expected, mercury removal
increased with increased sorbent-to-mercury ratios. When the
injection rate was near constant, mercury removal efficiency
increased with decreasing baghouse temperature. It was also
suggested that the Darco activated carbon was more active
than FluePac but more work was required to confirm this.
According to Hargis and others (2000) 60–70% of the ash
was collected in the baghouse and, even when activated
carbon was used as the sorbent, carbon levels in the baghouse
ash were generally less than 2%.
IEA Coal Research
 Specific controls for mercury

Table 12 Mercury removals and material balances in a pilot plant using activated carbon (Hargis and others,
2000)

Sorbent Baghouse Sorbent:Hg, Removal Baghouse Overall

temperature, °C mass ratio efficiency, % mass balance, % mass balance, %

146 0 12.9 103.2 79.4

147 0 31.6 84.4 67.1
152 0 -13.3 192.6 114.8
136 0 -4.2 115.2 105.1
136 0 -10.7 118.6 105.2
151 0 -5.8 117.3 83.5
118 0 2.6 116.9 65.4
133 0 20.7 102.5 53.3
Darco 135 1,800 -1.3 107.6 79.4
Darco 152 1,800 -9 117.6 78.3
Darco 147 2,600 38.8 100.6 90.8
Darco 132 2,900 58.0 103.2 86.8
Darco 147 5,400 62.9 94.7 89.1
Darco 131 6,200 31.6 84.4 67.1
Darco 118 7,600 89.3 95.8 80.5
Darco 146 9,500 84.0 77.4 78.6
Darco 129 10,300 87.9 130.1 76.7
FluePac 136 2,600 30.6 111.7 66.6
FluePac 133 5,100 38.4 104.2 84.3

Vidic and others (2000) at the University of Pittsburgh, PA,
USA have studied impregnated activated carbons for mercury
control. Virgin activated carbon has shown negligible
adsorption of mercury at 140°C in laboratory studies.
Sulphur-impregnated carbon was found to be more suitable at
high operating temperatures (above 140°C) and using fixed
bed technology. Chlorine-impregnated carbons were found to
show almost immediate breakthrough of mercury which was
temperature sensitive, the sorption capacity decreasing with
increased temperature. Anthraquinone- and thiol-impregnated
carbons worked well at room temperature but not at
temperatures representative of flue gases.
Rodriguez and others (2001) reported on the laboratory-scale
testing of novel sorbents for mercury control at room
temperature. Potassium iodide in crystal form and iodine gas
were both found to be effective for mercury capture.
Agglomerated KI sorbent particles produced by nebulising
potassium iodide solutions were found to capture up to 98%
of the mercury. The KI also worked over a filter and over a
mesh, simulating a fixed bed reactor with efficiencies ranging
from 72.6% to 93.2%. More work is needed at larger scale.
The US DOE have funded the Public Service Company
(PSC) of CO, USA around $1.5 million to investigate the use
of a dry carbon-based sorbent for mercury control. PSC has
joined with ADA Technologies and EPRI on this project.
Studies at pilot-scale are concentrating on carbon or other
solid sorbent injection into coal-fired power plant flue gases
and the use of ESP or similar particulate control devices
(US DOE, 2001a). No results have been published as yet.
5.2.2 Fly ash sorbent
As discussed in Section 4.3.3, a significant proportion of the
oxidised mercury in the flue gas can be caught on fly ash in
particulate control devices, especially baghouses. Dunham
and others (2001) tested sixteen different fly ashes in bench-
scale tests to evaluate their potential for mercury capture.
Temperature did not appear to affect the oxidation of mercury
but did affect mercury capture in the ash. Lower temperatures
gave higher mercury capture implying a physical adsorption
mechanism. There was a general trend of increasing
oxidation of elemental mercury with increasing loss on
ignition (LOI; a value used to approximate the level of
carbon in ash) and ash surface area. These effects were more
evident with the bituminous and subbituminous ashes.
However, there was no correlation between LOI and surface
area with the capture of elemental mercury. No conclusions
could be made on the effect of ash type on oxidation or
capture of elemental mercury. Removing the carbon from
some of the samples by ashing eliminated their ability to
capture or oxidise mercury. But this was not true for all
samples. It is unclear whether this effect was caused by the
removal of the carbon or a mineralogical change in the ash.
Galbreath and others (1999) studied the reaction mechanism
of the mercury absorption on fly ash. Coal from Powder
River Basin coals is rich in CaO which is reported to enhance
mercury capture. Tests with flue gas spikes of CaO and HCl
suggested that the mechanism of action was not an acid-base
reaction as first suggested. Rather the mechanism may
involve other flue gas components. Further work is under
way.
Several fly ashes from Public Service utility plants in
Colorado have been shown to have a strong ability to remove
mercury. The most effective fly ashes are those with unburnt
carbon contents greater than 7%, although low-carbon ashes
may also have high mercury removal efficiencies at low
temperatures. Fly ash samples from four coal-fired plants
were studied, three fired Powder River Basin subbituminous
coals and the fourth burned a Colorado mined bituminous

Mercury – emissions and control 31

Specific controls for mercury

Table 13 Full-scale coal-fired power plant survey on mercury removal (Butz and others, 1999)

Plant/unit Coal type Particulate control Carbon in ash, Mercury removal,

device % %

Comanche 2 Powder River Basin

western subbituminous baghouse 0.4 61
Arapahoe 1 Powder River Basin
western subbituminous ESP 0.90 28
Arapahoe 4 Powder River Basin
western subbituminous baghouse 14.4 62 -82
Cherokee Colorado
western bituminous baghouse 7.6 98-99

Table 14 Summary of mercury removal results for reinjected fly ash at the Comanche pilot plant (Butz and
others, 1999)

Ash Temperature, Injection rate, Carbon content, Hg removal,

°F °C g/m3 % %

Comanche 2 280 138 2.62 0.42 13

Comanche 2 (ds)* 280 138 2.81 0.26 22
Cherokee 3 320 160 0.77 7.6 75
Arapahoe 4 320 160 0.30 14.4 80
activated carbon 320 160 0.017 (100) 82
Spray cooling 260-230 127–110 † 0.42 45-75

* desorbed in hot nitrogen in an attempt to desorb any mercury present

† native ash concentration around 2.32 g/m3, no additional sorbent injected

coal. Those units which were fitted with low NOx burners
produced fly ash with higher unburnt carbon contents which
showed higher mercury removal than those with low unburnt
carbon. Table 13 shows the mercury removal efficiencies in
the plants studied. Table 14 then shows the mercury removal
efficiencies for the different fly ashes used as sorbents in tests
for mercury removal at a pilot plant doped with elemental
mercury vapour. Mercury removal efficiencies were as high
as 80% for some of the fly ashes. Mercury removal rates
greater than 80% were maintained at fly ash injection ratios
of less than 10% of the typical grain loading in flue gases
from western coals for the plants studied. Further work is
planned to develop the potential for fly ash as a sorbent for
mercury control (Butz and others, 1999).
A novel technology for controlling mercury, NOx and carbon
in ash has been tested at a million Btu/h (1.06 kJ/h) pilot
combustion facility in the USA. The process uses fly ash
formed in the Coal Reburn process to control mercury. The
reburn technology is a commercial system which reduces
NOx by staging the fuel injection into the furnace. In some
systems gas is used as the reburn fuel. However, coal can be
used as the reburn fuel. This has the potential to reduce
mercury emissions by forming carbon in ash in situ. Most of
the coal (about 80%) is burned in the primary combustion
zone. The remaining coal is injected downstream to provide a
reburn zone. The carbon in the reburn coal does not burn out
completely and therefore the amount of unburnt carbon in the
ash is increased. Mercury in the flue gas is absorbed onto this
carbon at temperatures below 400°F (205°C). Previous
studies have shown that fly ash with a carbon content of
7–14% can have comparable mercury capture to that of
activated carbon. Figures 6 and 7 show the NOx and mercury
control achieved with zero, 20% and 30% reburn with two
different types of coal. Economic estimates show that the cost
of the technology per kilogram of mercury controlled is less
than half of the current costs of commercial methods using
activated carbon (Lissanski and others, 2001).
5.2.3 Other sorbents
Numerous researchers are evaluating different sorbents for
mercury control. For example, Apogee Scientific Inc, CO,
USA are one of the six new US DOE funded projects. Up to
twelve carbon-based and other chemical sorbents are showing
promise for removing over 90% of mercury at 4–75% less
than the cost of commercial sorbents (US DOE, 2001a). The
EERC in ND, USA are working on carbon-based sorbents,
various gold-coated materials, sulphides and metal oxide
sorbents for elemental mercury control, especially in plants
firing western US coals (Pavlish, 2001). At this stage, most of
the research is in the preliminary stages at pilot-scale and
there is no obvious ‘best’ sorbent for mercury control.
Sorbtech Hg is a new product produced by the Sorbent
Technology Corporation, OH, USA. Unlike activated carbon,
Sorbtech is reported to work in the 300–400°F (150–205°C)
temperature range of flue gases. This avoids expensive
cooling measures and thus reduces costs. Trials were run at
laboratory-scale which directly compared the Sorbtech media
against Norit FGD activated carbon. At temperatures of
350°F (177°C) and injection rates of 3000:1 sorbent:Hg
mass, the Sorbtech resulted in less than half the emissions of

32 IEA Coal Research


120
Mercury and NOx in flue gas, % initial
100
80
60
40
20
0
No reburn
Figure 6 Mercury and NOx removal in coal reburn
for Kittanning coal (Lissanski and others,
2001)
120
Mercury and NOx in flue gas, % initial
100
80
60
40
20
0 60°C, show mercury removals between 42% and 90% when
No reburn
Figure 7 Mercury and NOx removal in coal reburn
for North Antelope coal (Lissanski and
others, 2001)
activated carbon. At 1500:1 sorbent:Hg the Sorbtech
managed to remove over 60 % of the elemental mercury.
Independent studies were carried out with the Sorbtech media
on a rotary kiln firing mercury contaminated soil and a
mercury removal efficiency of 94% was reported. Nelson
(2000) estimates that the Sorbtech sorbent would be able to
achieve 50% elemental mercury removal at a cost of only
3000 $/lb (1360 $/kg) which is significantly lower than any
costs given for activated carbon. The sorbent itself costs
2000 $/t compared with activated carbon at around
5–10,000 $/t. The manufacturers of the sorbent are currently
looking for full-scale coal-fired plants to test the new material.
ADA Technologies, CO, USA received around $1.1 million
over 24 months from the US DOE to develop a novel process
for removing vapour phase mercury from flue gases. The
project, in conjunction with Consol Inc and Burns and
McDonnell, concentrated on a renewable process called
Mercu-RE. The process uses gold or other precious metals
as sorbents to capture mercury. The gold can be regenerated
for further use and the mercury can be recovered as a useful
by-product. Initial investigations have been performed at
laboratory and bench-scale using gold in an open metal
honeycomb structure (US DOE, 2001a).
Mercury – emissions and control
Specific controls for mercury
As part of the US DOE mercury programme, the Southern
NOx
mercury Research Institute (SRI), AL, USA is testing calcium-based
chemicals, such as lime and silica lime additives, for
mercury oxidisation. The calcium sorbents also capture SO2.
Singer and Ghorishi (2001) have investigated hydrated limes
and silicates for multi-pollutant control. Silicate sorbents
which have been enhanced with ‘certain oxidants’ have
mercury capture capabilities comparable to that of activated
carbon in a fixed bed reactor. The mercury removal was
dependent on the other pollutants present in the flue gas with
SO2 being involved in the removal process.
20% reburn 30% reburn
Spongiacal is a novel calcium-based sorbent produced by the
Lhoist Group in Belgium which has high capture efficiencies
for both SO2 and mercury. Spongiacal is produced by a
calcining and slaking process and has been used commercially
to control acid gases for almost ten years. It is part of the
sorbent sold commercially as Sorbalit. It is suggested that the
dispersability and sorbent capacity of the Spongiacal makes it
such an efficient sorbent that it could be injected upstream of
NOx
mercury ESP systems and not just used in plants with baghouses.
Although this may cause a slight increase in particles passing
through the ESP, it is not expected that any emission limits
will be exceeded. In some plants, simple ESP upgrading
using microsecond pulsing may be necessary. Tests on
municipal waste incinerators have shown that calcium
sorbents alone can achieve up to 92% mercury removal. A
combination of calcium sorbent (Spongiacal) with activated
carbon can achieve up to 98.6% mercury removal. Tests with
lime on coal-fired power plants, with the flue gas cooled to
20% reburn
used in a gas suspension absorber (see above; Felsvang and
others, 2001).
According to Rostam-Abadi and others (2001), inexpensive
agricultural by-products (such as pistachio nut shells and
corn fibre), waste tyre rubber and lignite can be used as
precursors for the production of low-cost mercury adsorbents.
Laboratory tests were promising and preliminary field studies
are planned for the Abbot Power plant in Illinois, USA.
Butz and others (2000) report on the US DOE-funded study
into regenerable noble-metal based sorbents. One of the
main advantages of such regenerable sorbents is that the
mercury can be collected in much smaller volumes of waste
and no carbon is added to the fly ash. However, noble-metal
sorbents have problems with reduced capacity when other
flue gas constituents such as HCl and SO2 are present. But if
these gases are removed by scrubbers prior to the catalyst,
then the noble-metal based sorbents retain their effectiveness
much longer. Testing is under way at a pilot-scale facility at
Consol, PA, USA and at the full-scale Hudson Station, NJ,
USA. Initial results suggest that impregnated monoliths are
suitable as they generate minimal pressure drop, have
sufficient surface area and are less prone to fly ash fouling
than packed beds.
5.2.4 In situ sorbent generation
Activated carbon has been used most commonly as a fixed or
fluidised bed of bulk sorbent particles. However,
33
Specific controls for mercury
agglomerates generated in situ by injecting gas-phase sorbent
precursors have been shown to possess higher capture
efficiencies. This process also suppresses the formation of
submicron particles and thus reduces emissions without
causing an increase in pressure drop. This is due to the higher
surface area provided by the larger number of agglomerated
particles. The agglomerates can then be captured in existing
particulate control devices. Lee and others (2001) and
Rodriguez and others (2000) report on a comparison of three
in situ generated sorbents for mercury control. The three
sorbents tested were as follows:
● TiO2, previously demonstrated to be effective for
mercury capture in the presence of UV radiation;
● SiO2, proven effective for the capture of lead as lead
silicate;
● CaO, currently used for sulphur control.
The test facility was a bench-scale entrained flow reactor.
Agglomerated particles with a high specific surface area were
generated in situ by injecting gas-phase sorbent precursors
into a high-temperature furnace reactor. Compressed air was
used as the carrier gas and mercury vapour was injected into
the system at known concentrations. A photochemical
reaction cell was included in the system to produce UV light.
The sorbent precursors, in the form of oxides, were fed into
the system through an argon bubbler into the test gas at
<24–120°C. The effectiveness of the sorbents on mercury
concentrations of around 5.5–6.5 µg/m3 were tested on their
own and then in the presence of UV. The effect of SO2 was
also evaluated. The mercury was measured using CVAAS and
the particle size distribution was also monitored by a
scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS).
The formation of the sorbent particles is critical to their
performance. A high surface area/mass ratio is required and
therefore the formation of an agglomerate structure with
small primary particles is preferred. The characteristics of the
sorbent can be changed by adjusting the precursor injection
rate, the residence time and the temperature.
On their own, without UV radiation, TiO2 particles did not
capture any mercury. The porosity of the particle is low and
the re-entrainment of mercury is high. When activated by UV
irradiation, electron-hole pairs are generated on the particle
surface which in turn cause the formation of OH radicals.
These OH radicals can oxidise mercury and make it easier to
trap on the particle surface. The combination of TiO2 and UV
provides >98% capture.
Although SiO2 has proven useful for the capture of lead it
was found to be totally ineffective for mercury capture, even
when irradiated with UV. CaO captured 33% of the mercury,
regardless of UV irradiation. This is higher than previously
reported capture efficiencies for CaO because of the
enhancing effects of the entrained bed and the high specific
surface area provided.
SO2 was found to interfere with mercury capture by the TiO2.
In the case of TiO2 this is due to the SO2 taking up the active
sites on the particles. The effect can be reduced by the
addition of more TiO2. The capture efficiency of CaO was
also reduced in the presence of SO2. This was different to
34
results obtained elsewhere which suggest that SO2 may
increase the mercury capture efficiency of CaO. Lee and
others (2001) suggest that the difference in results
emphasises the importance of the structure of the sorbent for
mercury capture.
Lee and others (2001) tested the mercury capture of the TiO2
with UV irradiation at 160°C which is more representative of
temperatures encountered in flue gases. The mercury capture
efficiency varied slightly with the temperature – 87.2% at
160°C to 99.9% at 24°C. Lee and others (2001) therefore
suggest the use of TiO2 with UV irradiation in flue gases for
mercury control. The corona of ESP systems, found in most
coal-fired plants, could be utilised as a potential source of
UV in full-scale plants.
5.2.5 Sorbent residues
Surprisingly few data were found relating to the amount of
extra waste material which will be produced with the use of
activated carbons and other sorbents. Berkenpas and others
(2001) estimated waste disposal costs of around 11 $/t.
However, they warn that this cost could increase dramatically
if the mercury-laden solids are designated as hazardous
wastes.
Hassett and others (1999) studied mercury leaching from
several sorbents and found that a Centaur activated carbon
loaded with HCl showed up to 2.1% leaching of the
mercury within four weeks during a synthetic leaching test.
All other activated carbons showed leaching below 0.1% of
the mercury within the same period. Hassett and others
emphasised that the test may be misleading as the loading
of the carbons was unnaturally high. However, if these
sorbents were used in packed beds, leaching may still be an
issue. They suggested that much more research was
necessary.
Unburnt carbon in ash and activated carbon injection for
mercury control impact the stability of fly ash use in
concrete. Activated carbon appears to have a greater effect on
the quantity of air-entraining agents needed for concrete
mixtures incorporating fly ash (Butz and others, 1999). In
general, if the unburnt carbon in ash is higher than 5% then it
cannot be accepted for use in cement and concrete in some
countries (Sloss, 1999).
5.3 Enhanced FGD/oxidation
As discussed in Section 4.3.4, FGD systems can remove
oxidised mercury quite efficiently but have little or no effect
on elemental mercury. Several research groups are
concentrating on this effect and hope to increase mercury
capture in FGD systems by converting elemental mercury
into the more soluble oxidised form.
Data from the US EPA’s ICR suggest that the oxidation
catalysts are best suited for use on plants with high efficiency
particulate control devices upstream of the FGD unit, rather
than those using high-energy scrubbers for both particulate
IEA Coal Research

and SO2 control. As such, the project will be applicable to
about 90,000 MWe of generating capacity in the USA. Data
also suggest that the catalytic oxidation of elemental mercury
will be most effective on flue gases from lignite and
subbituminous coal, where most of the mercury is present in
the elemental form. This then applies to around 28,000 MWe
of scrubbed capacity firing these fuels, with more systems
planned.
Livengood and Mendelsohn (2001) at the Argonne National
Laboratory, IL, USA, are developing a process for combined
control of mercury and NO. The system is based in the
introduction of an oxidising agent into the flue gas stream
upstream of a scrubber which then adsorbs the soluble
reaction products. Initial studies concentrated on a
commercial solution called NOXSORB (18% HClO3 and
22% NaClO3). The elemental mercury removal increased
with chloric acid concentration from 9% removal at 0.18 wt%
chloric acid to almost 100% at 7.2 wt% chloric acid. The
mercury capture with the NOXSORB solution was enhanced
in the presence of NO. Studies on the mechanism of
oxidation suggested that the elemental mercury was being
oxidised by an intermediate in the NO oxidation reactions,
possibly nitric acid (HNO3). Livengood and Mendelsohn then
went on to study the effect of chloric acid injection on its
own at laboratory scale. At 0.18 wt% atomised chloric acid,
56% elemental mercury was removed. If the chloric acid was
vaporised then less was needed to provide the same oxidising
potential: 57% of elemental mercury was removed with only
0.036 wt% vaporised chloric acid. These tests were
performed at laboratory scale using synthetic flue gases with
40 µg/m3 mercury. Since coal-fired power plants commonly
emit mercury at a much lower concentration, around
10 µg/m3, the experiments were repeated with lower mercury
concentrations. The percentage of mercury removed was
found to increase as the inlet mercury concentrations
decreased. At 37 µg/m3 the Hg0 removal efficiency was 33%
and this increased to over 60% at 9 µg/m3 Hg0. Work is
expected to commence at pilot scale using a 1 W slipstream
from a boiler in Illinois, USA before the end of 2001. It is
hoped that up to 100% mercury and 80% NO removal could
be achieved with this system. The projected costs are
around 5000 $/lb (2270 $/kg) mercury removed, assuming
that the system is fitted to a plant which already has an FGD
unit.
Roy and Rochelle (2001) report on tests with the addition of
chlorine (1–10 ppm) to an existing limestone scrubber to
enhance mercury capture. Up to 99% mercury removal is
achieved with 1 ppm chlorine and all the chlorine is also
captured in the scrubber. This effect has only been
demonstrated in a small-scale model and needs to be
evaluated at larger scale.
McDermott Technology Inc, in conjunction with Babcock
and Wilcox are developing a technique based on the injection
of an unspecified liquid reagent to the scrubbing solution
with a target of 90% mercury removal. It is hoped that this
method would cost less than 50% and possible even less than
25% of the cost of activated carbon methods. The process is
reported to have no adverse effects on scrubber operation or
performance. Two plants have been selected for the tests:
Mercury – emissions and control
Specific controls for mercury
● the 55 MWe Endicott Station, Litchfield, MI, Michigan
South Central Power Agency;
● 1300 MWe Zimmer Station, Cincinnati, OH, Cinergy
Corporation.
The project began in October 2000 and was predicted to last
18 months at an estimated cost of $1.75 million, $1.2 million
of which was provided by the US DOE. If the system proves
successful, Babcock and Wilcox will make the technology
commercial for use in both existing and new wet flue gas
scrubbing systems (Milobowksi and others, 2001). Further
testing of the FGD waste from this enhanced system suggests
that the mercury is present as HgS and is not strongly bonded
within the fly ash or gypsum crystals and is ‘relatively easy’
to get into solution. However, the solution used in the
leaching test (50% nitric acid) is much stronger than
rainwater (Kudlac and Amrhein, 2000).
Sodium tetrasulphide (Na2S4) injection into flue gases can
promote the formation of mercury sulphide from elemental
mercury. This has proven successful in waste-to-energy
plants in Germany, in conjunction with activated carbon. The
potential for the transfer of this technology to coal-fired
power plants is currently being evaluated and tested (Licata
and Fey, 2001).
Radian International, TX, USA have been given $895,000 of
US DOE funding for work into their innovative wet FGD
process for mercury control. The process involves the
conversion of elemental mercury into the oxidised form using
iron-based catalysts and carbon and subsequent removal
across a wet FGD system (US DOE, 2001a).
Initial results from the URS Group Inc/US DOE study
suggest that lead based catalysts may show the most
promise for mercury control. Several catalysts have been
evaluated in small-scale, sand-bed reactors and three utility
plants firing bituminous, lignite and Powder River Basin
coals. Each plant had an ESP system and also an FGD
system. It was assumed that the oxidised mercury would be
largely (around 90%) removed in the FGD systems of each
plant. Based on initial results, estimates have been prepared
for the economics of catalysts for mercury control on plants
firing different coals. For the plant firing Powder River
Basin coal, 95% oxidation of the flue gas mercury would be
required to achieve 90% mercury reduction through the plant
(which is fitted with ESP and FGD). This could be achieved
with a catalyst at lower costs (17% lower for 90% mercury
reduction) than for using carbon injection in a COHPAC
system. For the plant firing bituminous coal, 85–90%
mercury oxidation would be required to achieve a 90%
reduction in total mercury. This could be achieved with a
catalyst at a cost at least 9% lower than that for an activated
carbon/COHPAC system. The catalysts survived the six-
month test period at the plants firing Powder River Basin
coal and bituminous coal. At the plant firing Texas lignite
most of the catalysts were deactivated. This was probably
caused by a low-temperature excursion. However, despite
this, the catalyst activity could be readily restored. Pilot-
scale studies are planned with conventional honeycomb
structures to evaluate the potential for lower cost materials
and extending catalyst life through regeneration to make the
35
Specific controls for mercury
system even more economically attractive (Blythe and
others, 2001).
URS Group Inc, TX, USA, is testing chemical catalysts for
converting mercury to the oxidised form for removal by wet
lime or limestone FGD systems (US DOE, 2001a). The
project, over 36 months, is funded largely by the US DOE
($897,616) although the URS Group is contributing a
significant share ($286,984). EPRI are co-funding and co-
managing the pilot tests which will take place at two utility
plants:
● Coal Creek Station, Great River Energy, TX, firing North
Dakota lignite;
● J K Spruce Plant, City Public Service of San Antonio,
TX, firing Powder River Basin subbituminous coal.
Both sites have existing wet FGD systems downstream of
high-efficiency particulate control devices. Each of these
plants has reported ‘substantial’ concentrations of elemental
mercury in the flue gas. The catalysts to be tested have been
identified in small-scale research projects as being suitable
for mercury oxidation. The oxidising species are already
present in the flue gas and include species such as chlorine,
HCl and/or NO2. Tests over a 12-month period are planned to
determine the continuous and long-term performance of the
catalysts.
An oxidative membrane gas absorption (ox-MGA) process
is being evaluated for the control of mercury from coal-fired
power plants at the TNO (the Netherlands Organisation for
Applied Scientific Research) in the Netherlands. The cost and
requirements of the system for different sources, including
coal-fired power plants, were evaluated. For a 500 MWe coal-
fired plant between 130,000 and 640,000 m2 of membrane,
probably PTFE based, would be required. A membrane
removal plant could be built around this membrane
technology. The plant may require an additional pre-filtration
stage to remove particulates and drops of liquid from the gas
stream. The predicted cost would be between $11.7 million
and $57.6 million. The absorption liquid could be regenerated
by precipitation of mercury sulphide. The technical feasibility
of the process has only been demonstrated at laboratory scale
and therefore more research is necessary (van der Vaart and
others, 2001).
A system called electro-catalytic oxidation (ECO) is being
developed by Powerspan Corporation, NH, USA with
funding from the US DOE. Pilot-scale testing of the system
is under way at First Energy’s R E Burger Generating
Station. The system reduces emissions of SO2, NOx and fine
particulate matter and also captures up to 90% of the
mercury. The process uses a barrier discharge to oxidise
mercury to mercuric oxide, NOx to nitric acid and SO2 to
sulphuric acid. The products of the oxidation are captured in
a wet ESP system (US DOE, 2001a).
Granite and others (2000) have demonstrated that, in
simulated flue gases at least, mercury can be
photochemically oxidised by 253.7 nm radiation. More
research is under way.
Once trapped in the FGD waste, the mercury does not appear
36
to affect the disposal or re-use properties of the FGD by-
product (see Section 4.5.2).
5.4 Economics of mercury control
Cost will be a very important factor in deciding which of the
many mercury control options currently under development is
chosen for application. Most estimates of the cost of the
impending mercury control in the USA assume that activated
carbon will be the control method of choice. For a 90%
control level, the US DOE has estimated that the annual costs
would be between $2.6 and $7.3 billion per year (based on
costs for activated carbon). This is based on a cost of
25,000–70,000 $/lb (11,300–31,800 $/kg) of mercury
removed (US DOE, 2001a). Vidic and others (2000) cite a
lower range for activated carbons of 14,400–38,200 $/lb
(6530–17,300 $/kg) of mercury removed which could reduce
costs significantly.
Table 15 shows the estimates produced in the US EPA’s
Mercury Report to Congress on the potential costs of
sorbent-based control technologies compared with the
estimates produced by the US DOE. Nelson (2000) does not
explain why the US EPA and US DOE estimates differ so
greatly other than to point out that both estimates are based
on modelling studies. The costs are commonly in the tens of
thousands of dollars range. According to Nelson (2000) the
high costs are due to the expensive spray cooling and/or
fabric filters that are generally required to get powdered
activated carbons to work at even high injection rates on most
hot, ESP-equipped flue-gas streams. Many of the new
technologies being developed at the moment (see above)
claim to be cheaper than this approach. For example, the
Sorbtech Hg sorbent claims to cost only 3000 $/lb Hg
removed (1360 $/kg Hg) (Nelson, 2000).
It has been estimated that, if utilities were required to use
only currently (2001) available technology to reduce mercury
emissions by 90%, as much as $7 billion per year would be
added to consumers’ electricity bills in the USA alone. It is
hoped that new technologies will reduce this figure by
between 50% and 75% by the end of the decade (US DOE,
2001a).
The total cost of using activated carbon (including
humidification and waste disposal) adds 24 $/kW to the plant
capital cost and increases the cost of electricity by 23%. If an
FGD system is already in place then the incremental cost of
increasing the mercury capture from 70% with the FGD to
90% with additional use of activated carbon increases the
cost of electricity by only 4% (Rubin and others, 2001).
5.5 Comments
There are a large number of different approaches being
evaluated for mercury control from coal-fired power plants.
Most of these are being developed in the USA where it is
likely that they will be required by many plants to comply
with imminent legislation. Since one of the major
considerations for mercury control is the cost, many research
IEA Coal Research
 Specific controls for mercury

Table 15 Cost effectiveness of control technologies for utility boilers, for 90% reduction of mercury
(Nelson, 2000)

Mercury control option Carbon usage, Cost effectiveness, Cost effectiveness,

g C/g Hg mils/kWh $/lb Hg $/kg Hg
US EPA US DOE US EPA US DOE US EPA US DOE US EPA US DOE

AC* injection,
975 MWe plant 34,200 100,000 1.82 5.58 22,100 67,700 10,025 30,709

Spray cooler, AC injection,

fabric filter, 975 MWe plant 460 9,400 1.43 2.10 17,400 25,400 7,893 11,521

Spray cooler, AC injection,

975 MWe plant 460 30,000 0.40 2.19 4,940 26,500 2,241 12,202

Carbon filter bed,

975 MWe plant – – 2.70 NA† 32,700 NA† 14,833 NA†

Carbon filter bed,

high sulphur coal,
975 MWe plant – – 3.1 NA† 37,800 NA† 17,146 NA†

AC injection,
100 MWe plant 17,200 100,000 1.16 5.71 14,200 70,000 6,441 70,000

Spray cooler, AC injection,

fabric filter, 100 Mwe plant 460 12,600 2.09 3.15 27,700 38,600 12,565 17,509

* AC activated carbon
† NA not applicable

groups are working on enhancement of existing pollution

control systems rather than the development of potentially
more expensive retrofit systems. For example, mercury
capture in particulate control devices can be enhanced by
cooling the flue gases. If this does not provide adequate
mercury capture then more advanced particulate control
systems such as AHPC or COHPAC can be used. These
systems are more suited to cope with the added particulate
loading which will arise if sorbents such as activated carbon
are injected. Although previously the injection of activated
carbon or other sorbents was considered the most popular
method for mercury control, this approach creates many new
problems, such as increased solid wastes, and is generally
costly.

More recently there has been a move towards the alternative

approach of oxidation. Since oxidised mercury is relatively
easy to capture in existing pollution control devices,
oxidation techniques will enhance total mercury capture at a
reduced cost and with the minimum of plant re-structuring.
Many different approaches are under development and, since
they are all in the relatively early stages of development,
there is no clear indication of which approach is most
appropriate. Despite the considerable amount of work under
way to determine the single most promising method for
mercury control, it is likely that the best approach will vary
from plant to plant and from coal to coal.

Mercury – emissions and control 37

 6 Conclusions
Elemental mercury is a relatively stable species in the
atmosphere and therefore emissions of mercury contribute to
a global problem. The association between mercury in the
ecosystem and potential human ingestion through
contaminated fish has led to an increase in international and
national monitoring of mercury. Despite large uncertainty
factors, it is evident that mercury emissions from developed
countries are either stabilising or decreasing. However,
emissions from developing countries such as China are
continuing to increase.
In developed countries best practices are limiting the use of
mercury and, as a consequence, emissions from industrial
sources and waste treatment are becoming minimal. As a
result, coal combustion is becoming the dominant source of
mercury emissions despite reductions in actual emissions
from coal combustion in many countries.
Although several international and national agreements and
related legislation include emission limits for mercury, none,
as yet, require any specific action to be taken by coal-fired
power plants. However, Canada and the USA are in the
process of deciding on the best form of legislation to apply
directly to emissions from coal combustion. These are likely
to require the retrofitting of specific control technologies for
mercury on some, if not all, large coal-fired units. The
European Community and countries such as Australia and
Japan have established new programmes concentrating on
evaluating mercury emissions with a possible view to setting
standards in the foreseeable future.
Prior to any decision on how to reduce mercury emissions
from coal combustion, the US EPA sent out an Information
Collection Request to obtain more data on actual emissions
from coal-fired power plants in the USA. The data that have
been collected have allowed significant advancements to be
made in the understanding of mercury behaviour during
combustion. It would appear that mercury behaviour varies
with coal type. In general, bituminous coals produce more
mercury in the oxidised state than subbituminous coals and
lignite. This effect is often assumed to be due to the chlorine
content of the coal. However, although chlorine certainly
plays a major role in determining the oxidation state of
mercury downstream, other factors such as NOx, oxygen and
calcium are also important.
Oxidised mercury is relatively easy to capture in existing
pollution control systems such as baghouses and FGD
whereas elemental mercury is not. The tendency for
bituminous coal to produce more mercury in the oxidised
form means that particulate control devices, especially
baghouses, are more effective for mercury control on plants
firing bituminous coals. It has also been shown that the coal
type is more important than the type of FGD system for
mercury capture and may also be the most important factor in
SCR effects.
38
It is possible that, for some plants firing bituminous coal, the
combination of particulate controls, FGD and SCR systems
may be sufficient to reduce mercury emissions by as much as
90%. However, this will certainly not apply to all plants.
Many plants will require that specific controls for mercury be
applied. There are a large number of new techniques and
technologies being developed for mercury control on coal-
fired plants. None has proven to be suitable for use on all
plants or all coals. The decision on which technology to
apply at each plant will depend on the individual plant
characteristics and also on the cost. The cost of mercury
control will depend on what pollution control systems are
currently in place on each plant and whether the mercury
capture in these systems can be enhanced. At some plants,
adjustments to the operation of existing pollution control
devices may be enough to attain up to 90% mercury control.
This will not be true for other plants. Each plant will need to
be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine which is
the most economically viable approach for mercury
reduction. For example, for those facilities which do not
have FGD systems attached already, the use of a sorbent such
as activated carbon may well be the most cost-effective
option. However, there are a large number of different
sorbents available and none has been consistently proven at
full-scale for all coals as yet.
Controls for mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants
will be required within the next decade in some countries.
The most likely approach will be a requirement for a
minimum reduction in emissions (such as a 90% reduction)
or a capping of maximum emissions. Some plants will be
able to comply with these limits with no further action but
many will be required to fit specific mercury control
technologies. Although many technologies are being
developed for mercury control, including the enhancement of
existing pollution control systems, the variability of mercury
chemistry between coals and between units will mean that it
is unlikely that any single technology will be applicable
and/or successful on all plants. The decision on which
technology to apply will be made on a plant by plant basis
and will be largely determined by the type of coal burned and
the pollution control systems already in place.
IEA Coal Research
 7 References
Afonso R, Senior L (2001) Assessment of mercury removal
by existing air pollution control devices in full-scale power
plants. In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality conference on
mercury emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL,
USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 19 pp (Aug
2001)
Altman R, Buckly W, Ray I (2001) Wet electrostatic
precipitation demonstrating multiple pollutant control in
industrial applications holds promise for coal-fired utility
emission reduction of acid mist, PM2.5 and mercury. In:
AWMA Mega symposium: speciality conference on mercury
emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23
Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 10 pp (Aug 2001)
Berkenpas M B, Rubin E, Smith D N, Gibbon G A (2001)
Preliminary cost and performance models for mercury
control at coal-fired power plants. In: AWMA Mega
symposium: speciality conference on mercury emissions: fate,
effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001,
AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 11 pp (Aug 2001)
Biswas P, Wu C Y (1998) Control of toxic metal emissions
from combustors using sorbents: a review. Journal of the Air
and Waste Management Association; 48 (7); 113-127 (Jul
1998)
Biswas P, Zachariah M R (1997) In situ immobilisation of
lead species in combustion environments by injection of gas
phase silica sorbent precursors. Environmental Science and
Technology; 31 (9); 2455-2463 (1997)
Blythe G M, Richardson C F, Rhudy R G (2001) Catalytic
oxidation of mercury in flue gas for enhanced removal in wet
FGD systems. In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality
conference on mercury emissions: fate, effects and control,
Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD
ROM, 20 pp (Aug 2001)
Brown T D (2000) Pittsburgh, PA, USA, US Department of
Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, personal
communication (2000)
Brown T D, O’Dowd W, Reuther R, Smith D (1998)
Control of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants: a
preliminary cost assessment. Paper presented at: Air Quality:
mercury, trace elements and particulate matter, McLean, VA,
USA, 1-4 Dec 1998. Grand Forks, ND, USA, Energy and
Environmental Research Center, 18 pp (Dec 1998)
Brown T D, Smith D N, Hargis R A, O’Dowd W J (1999)
Mercury measurement and its control: what we know, have
learned and need to further investigate. Journal of the Air and
Waste Management Association: Critical Review; 49 (6);
1-97 (1999)
Bustard C J, Durham M, Lindsay C, Starns T, Baldrey K,
Martin C, Sjostrom S, Slye R, Rennenger S, Monroe L
(2001) Full-scale evaluation of mercury control with sorbent
injection and COHPAC at Alabama Power EC Gaston. In:
AWMA Mega symposium: speciality conference on mercury
emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23
Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 17 pp (Aug 2001)
Butz J, Smith J, Grover C, Haythornthwaite S, Fox M,
Hunt T, Chang R, Brown, T D (1999) Coal fly ash as a
sorbent for mercury. In: Mercury in the environment
Mercury – emissions and control
speciality conference, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 15-17 Sep,
1999, AWMA, Sewickley, PA, USA, 167-176 (1999)
Butz J R, Turchi C, Broderick T E, Albiston J (2000)
Options for mercury removal from coal-fired flue gas
streams: pilot-scale research on activated carbon, alternative
and regenerable sorbents. In: 17th Annual International
Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 11-14 Sep
2000. Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Pittsburgh Coal Conference,
University of Pittsburgh, CD ROM, Session 19b, Paper 3
(2000)
CATM (2001) EPA decision directs mercury research.
Center for Air Toxic Metals Newsletter, EERC, ND, USA; 7
(2); 1-10 (2001)
CCAP (1998) Mercury emissions from coal fired power
plants: science technology and policy options. Washington,
DC, USA, CCAP - Center for Clean Air Policy, 76 pp (Nov
1998)
CCME (1999) Winnipeg, Canada, http://www.ccme.ca/ccme
(1999)
Cenni R, Frandsen F, Gerhardt T, Spliethoff H, Hein K R
G (1998) Study on trace metal partitioning in pulverised
combustion of bituminous coal and dry sewage sludge. Waste
Management; 18 (6/8); 433-444 (1998)
Chu P, Epstein M, Gould L, Botros P (1995) Evaluation of
air toxic emissions from advanced and conventional coal-
fired plants. In: Conference on new power generation
technology, San Fransisco, CA, USA, 25-27 Oct 1995.
Morgantown, WV, USA, US DOE Morgantown Energy
Technology Center, 18 pp (1995)
Chu P, Behrens G, Laudal D (2001) Estimating total and
speciated mercury emissions from US coal-fired power
plants. In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality conference on
mercury emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA,
20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 14 pp (Aug 2001)
Cole J A, West J, Widmer C (2000) Thermochemical study
of mercury oxidation. Paper 00S-008. Presented at: Spring
2000 Meeting of the Western States section of the Combustion
Institute, Golden, CO, USA, 13-14 Mar 2000. Irvine, CA,
USA, Energy and Environmental Research Corporation,
10 pp (Mar 2000)
Couch GR (2000) Opportunities for coal preparation to
lower emissions. CCC/30. London, UK, IEA Coal Research,
46 pp (2000)
Curtis K R (1999) Measurement of speciated mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants with the Ontario
Hydro method: successes, problems and pitfalls. In: TE99,
proceedings of the International Workshop on Trace
Elements, Coventry, UK, University of Warwick, 9th Sep
1999. London, UK, IEA Coal Research, 15 pp (Sep 1999)
Dajnak D (2001) Modelling of toxic heavy metal mercury
partitioning from pulverised fuel combustion. IRFR
Combustion Journal Article no 200103, journal@ifrf.net
30 pp (Mar 2001)
Davidson R M (2000) Modes of occurrence of trace
elements in coal – results from an international collaborative
programme. CCC/36. London, UK, IEA Coal Research,
36 pp (Jun 2000)
39
References
Davidson R M, Clarke L (1996) Trace elements in coal.
IEAPER/21, London, UK, IEA Coal Research, 60 pp (Jan
1996)
DeVito M S (2000)The effect of low-NOx burner operation
on mercury emissions, speciation, and removal at a coal-fired
boiler equipped with wet FGD. In: 17th Annual International
Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 11-14 Sep
2000. Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Pittsburgh Coal Conference,
University of Pittsburgh, CD ROM, Session 19a, Paper 4
(2000)
DeVito M S, Rosenhoover W A (1999) Flue gas Hg
measurements from coal-fired boilers equipped with wet
scrubbers. Paper presented at: 1999 annual meeting of the Air
and Waste Management Association. St Louis, MO, USA,
20-24 Jun 1999, vp (1999)
Dunham G E, DeWall R A, Senior C L (2001) Fixed-bed
studies of the interactions between mercury and coal
combustion fly ashes. In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality
conference on mercury emissions: fate, effects and control,
Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD
ROM, 21 pp (Aug 2001)
Felsvang K, Lund C, Kumar S, Bechoux E, Hoffmann D
(2001) Mercury reduction and control options. In: AWMA
Mega symposium: speciality conference on mercury
emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23
Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 19 pp (Aug 2001)
Feng X, Sommar J, Lindqvist O, Hong Y (2000) Mercury
in coal of Guizhou China and its environmental impacts. In:
17th Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 11-14 Sep 2000. Pittsburgh, PA, USA,
Pittsburgh Coal Conference, University of Pittsburgh, CD
ROM, Session 19b, Paper 1 (2000)
Fitzgerald W F, Engstrom D R, Mason R P, Nater E A
(1998) The case for atmospheric mercury contamination in
remote areas. Environmental Science and Technology; 32 (1);
1-7 (1998)
Galbreath K C, Zygarlicke C J, Toman D L (1999)
Mercury-flue gas -fly ash interactions. In: Mercury in the
environment speciality conference, Minneapolis, MN, USA,
15-17 Sep, 1999, AWMA, Sewickley, PA, USA, 141-151
(1999)
Gerasimov G Y (2001) Simulation of the radiation-chemical
conversion of mercury vapour in power-plant flue gases in
the presence of hydrogen chloride. High Energy Chemistry;
35 (2); 69-73 (2001)
Gibb W H, Clarke F, Mehta A K (1998) The fate of coal
mercury during combustion. Paper presented at: Air Quality:
mercury, trace elements and particulate matter, McLean, VA,
USA, 1-4 Dec 1998. Grand Forks, ND, USA, Energy and
Environmental Research Center. 19 pp (Dec 1998)
Gibb W H, Clarke F, Mehta A K (2000) The fate of coal
mercury during combustion. Fuel Processing Technology;
65/66; 365-377 (Jun 2000)
Granite E J, Pennline H W, Stanko D C (2000)
Photochemical removal of mercury from flue gas. In: 17th
Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA, 11-14 Sep 2000. Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Pittsburgh
Coal Conference, University of Pittsburgh, CD ROM, Session
25, Paper 5 (2000)
Haider T (2001) Enzersdorf, Austria, EVN AG, personal
communication (July 2001)
Hargis R A, O’Dowd W J, Pennline H W (2000) Mercury
40
control by injection of activated carbon. In: 17th Annual
International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, P4040
ittsburgh, PA, USA, 11-14 Sep 2000. Pittsburgh, PA, USA,
Pittsburgh Coal Conference, University of Pittsburgh, CD
ROM, Session 19a, Paper 1 (2000)
Hassett D J, Pflughoeft-Hassett D F, Laudal D L, Pavlish
J H (1999) In: Mercury in the environment speciality
conference, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 15-17 Sep, 1999,
AWMA, Sewickley, PA, USA, 485-493 (1999)
Heebink L V, Hassett D J (2001) Release of mercury vapor
from coal combustion ash. In: AWMA Mega symposium:
speciality conference on mercury emissions: fate, effects and
control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA,
CD ROM, 7 pp (Aug 2001)
Helble J J (1996) ‘Air toxics’ in combustion and gasification
systems: formation and removal. In: High temperature gas
cleaning, 3rd international symposium on gas cleaning at
high temperatures, Karlsruhe, Germany, 18-20 Sep 1996.
Schmidt E, Gang P, Pilz T, Dittler A (eds) Karlsruhe,
Germany, Insitut für Verfahrenstechnik und Mechanik der
Universität Karlsruhe, pp 367-382 (1996)
Hocquel M, Unterberger S, Hein K R G (2001) Influence
of HCl, SO2, CaO and catalytic material on the speciation of
mercury. In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality conference
on mercury emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL,
USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 17 pp (Aug
2001)
Hower J C, Sakulpitakphon T, Trimble A S, Schram W H,
Thomas G A (2000) Studies of mercury distribution in fly
ash at a Kentucky power plant. In: 17th Annual International
Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 11-14 Sep
2000. Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Pittsburgh Coal Conference,
University of Pittsburgh, CD ROM, Session 19a, Paper 2
(2000)
Hovsenius G (1998) Sweden, Elforsk, personal
communication (Sep, 1998)
Interface (2001) Management of trace elements in ash dams.
Interface; CSIRO Energy Technology; 29; p 1 (Jul 2001)
Irons R M A, Quick W, Whitehouse M, Wardle D, Miles,
N (2000) The fate of trace elements in PF combustion
systems. Report no COAL R193 DTI/Pub URN 00/947.
Didcot, UK, ETSU, 31 pp (Jun 2000)
Jockel W (1998) Koln, Germany, TUV Rheinland, personal
communication (1998)
Keating M H, Chaisson J M (1999) The fate of mercury in
coal-fired electric power plants and combustion wastes. In:
Mercury in the environment speciality conference,
Minneapolis, MN, USA, 15-17 Sep, 1999, AWMA,
Sewickley, PA, USA, 494-502 (1999)
Klemm F (1998) Vienna, Austria, EVN, personal
communication (Sep 1998)
Kudlac G A, Amrhein G T (2000) Enhanced mercury
control for coal-fired utility boilers. In: 17th Annual
International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA,
USA, 11-14 Sep 2000. Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Pittsburgh Coal
Conference, University of Pittsburgh, CD ROM, Session 25,
Paper 2 (2000)
Kuovo P, Korelin T, Savola T (2001) Mercury emissions
and removal during co-firing of coal, wood and wastes. In:
AWMA Mega symposium: speciality conference on mercury
emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23
Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 11 pp (Aug 2001)
IEA Coal Research

Lee D S, Nemitz E, Fowler D, Hill P, Clegg S, Kingdon R
D (2000) Sources, sinks and levels of atmospheric mercury in
the UK. Report no DERA/AS/PTD/CR00014. Hampshire,
UK, DERA- Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, UK,
133 pp (Aug 2000)
Lee T G, Biswas P, Hedrick E (2001) Comparison of Hg0
capture efficiencies of three in situ generated sorbents.
Environmental and Energy Engineering; 47 (4); 954-961
(Apr 2001)
Li Y H, Serre S D, Lee C W, Gullett (2001) Elemental
mercury adsorption by activated carbon treated with
sulphuric acid. In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality
conference on mercury emissions: fate, effects and control,
Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD
ROM, 10 pp (Aug 2001)
Licata A, Fey W (2001) Advance technology to control
mercury emissions. In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality
conference on mercury emissions: fate, effects and control,
Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD
ROM, 12 pp (Aug 2001)
Lissanski V, Zamonsky V, Maly P, Seeker R, Folsom B,
Koppong R (2001) Novel technology for multiple pollutant
control. In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality conference
on mercury emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL,
USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 13 pp (Aug
2001)
Liu K, Gao Y, Kellie S, Pan W P, Riley J T, Ho K J,
Mehta A K (2001) A study of mercury removal in FBC
systems fired with high chlorine coals. Combustion Science
and Technology; 164 (1); 145-162 (2001)
Livengood C D, Mendelsohn M H (2001) A process for
combined control of mercury and nitric oxide. Paper no 850.
Paper presented at: 94th AWMA Annual conference and
exhibition, Orlando, FL, USA, 24-28 Jun 2001, 11 pp (Jun
2001)
Meij R (1997) Behaviour, control and emissions of trace
species by coal-fired power plants in Europe, 58087-
KST/MAT 97-6546, Arnhem, The Netherlands, KEMA,
53 pp (Nov 1997)
Meij R (1998) Arnhem, The Netherlands, KEMA, personal
communication (Aug 1998)
Meij R (2001) Background concentrations of gaseous
mercury and other gaseous trace elements in the Netherlands
and the contribution of coal-fired power stations. In: AWMA
Mega symposium: speciality conference on mercury
emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23
Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 10 pp (Aug 2001)
Meij R (2002) Arnhem, The Netherlands, KEMA, personal
communication (Jan 2002)
Meij R, Te Winkel B H, Havinga H (1999) Emissies naar
van micro-en spoorelementen tijdens bijstoken van 10%
secundaire brandstoffen en biomassa in poederkoolgestookte
eenheden in Nederland, 99530162- KST/MAT 99-6579,
Arnhem, The Netherlands, KEMA, 49 pp (Jul 1999) In
Dutch
Meij R, Vredenbregt L, te Winkel H (2001) The fate of
mercury in coal-fired power plants. In: AWMA Mega
symposium: speciality conference on mercury emissions: fate,
effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001,
AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 12 pp (Aug 2001)
Meijer R (1998) KEMA’s hot gas cleaning. In: Hot gas
cleaning, Zaragoza, Spain, 22-24 Oct 1997. Romey I F W,
Mercury – emissions and control
References
Howener H H, Gray M D (eds) Brussels, Belgium, European
Commission, pp 197-208 (1998)
Mendelsohn M H, Livengood C D (2000) Development of a
process for combined removal of mercury and nitrogen
oxides from flue gas. In: 17th Annual International Pittsburgh
Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 11-14 Sep 2000.
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Pittsburgh Coal Conference, University
of Pittsburgh, CD ROM, Session 25, Paper 3 (2000)
Meserole F B, Richardson C F, Machalek T, Richardson
M, Chang R (2001) Predicted costs of mercury control at
electric utilities using sorbent injection. In: AWMA Mega
symposium: speciality conference on mercury emissions: fate,
effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001,
AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 11 pp (Aug 2001)
METI (1999) Report on strategies for coal technologies
towards the 21st century, Tokyo, Japan, Agency for Natural
Resources and Energy, METI, vp (1999)
Mitchell S C (1998) Hot gas cleanup of sulphur, nitrogen,
minor and trace elements, CCC/12, London, UK, IEA Coal
Research, 84 pp (Dec 1998)
Miller R L, Morris W J (2001) Effective use of COHPAC
technology as a multi-pollutant control technology. In:
AWMA Mega symposium: speciality conference on mercury
emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23
Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 14 pp (Aug 2001)
Miller S J, Schelkoph G L, Dunham G E (1997) Advanced
hybrid particulate collector, a new concept for air toxics and
fine particulate control. Paper presented at: EPRI/DOE/EPA
Combined utility air pollutant control mega symposium,
Washington, DC, USA, 25-29 Apr 1997. Grand Forks, ND,
USA, Energy and Environmental Research Center, 15 pp
(Aug, 1997)
Milobowski M G, Amrhein G T, Kudlac G A, Yurchison D
M (2001) Wet FGD enhanced mercury control for coal-fired
utility boilers. In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality
conference on mercury emissions: fate, effects and control,
Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD
ROM, 20 pp (Aug 2001)
Miyata N, Kido S, Honeycutt P M, Harris D K (2001)
Multi-pollutant control with Chiyoda CT-121 FGD system.
In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality conference on
mercury emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL,
USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 12 pp (Aug
2001)
Mukherjee A B (1998) Helsinki, Finland, University of
Helsinki, personal communication (Sep 1998)
Mukherjee A B, Kääntee U, Zevenhoven R (2001) The
effects of switching from coal to alternative fuels on heavy
metals emissions from cement manufacturing. Paper
presented at: 6th international conference on the biochemistry
of trace elements, Guelph, ON, Canada, 29 Jul-2 Aug 2001,
2 pp (2001)
NACEC (1998) The sound management of chemicals
initiative under the North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation: regional commitments and
action plans. Quebec, Canada, North American Commission
for Environmental Cooperation (NACEC), 105 pp (Jun 1998)
Nelson S (2000) High-temperature sorbents to lower mercury
control costs. In: 17th Annual International Pittsburgh Coal
Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 11-14 Sep 2000.
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Pittsburgh Coal Conference, University
of Pittsburgh, CD ROM, Session 25, Paper 6 (2000)
41
References
Orr D A, Maxwell D P (1999) A comparison of gasification
and incineration of secondary materials. Paper presented at:
1999 Gasification technologies conference, San Fransisco,
CA, USA, 17-20 Oct 1999. 17 pp (1999)
Pacyna J M (1997) Practical opportunities and technologies
available to reduce anthropogenic emissions of mercury to
the environment and to reduce the risks of mercury exposure
to humans and the environment. Draft interim assessment,
Norway, NILU. 39 pp (May 1997)
Pacyna E G, Pacyna J M, Pirrone N (2001) European
emissions of atmospheric mercury from anthropogenic
sources in 1995. Atmospheric Environment; 35 (17); 2987-
2996 (2001)
Pavlish J H (2001) Grand Forks, ND, USA, Energy and
Environmental Research Center, jpavlish@undeerc.org,
personal communication (Oct 2001)
Pavlish J H (2002) Grand Forks, ND, USA, Energy and
Environmental Research Center, jpavlish@undeerc.org,
personal communication (Jan 2002)
Pavlish J, Mann M (1998) A comparison of air toxic metal
control technologies. Paper presented at: 91st Air and Waste
Management Association annual meeting, San Diego, CA,
USA, 14-18 Jun 1998. Grand Forks, ND, USA, Energy and
Environmental Research Center. 20 pp (Jun 1998)
Pirrone N, Costa P, Pacyna J M, Ferrarra R (2001)
Mercury emissions to the atmosphere from natural and
anthropogenic sources in the Mediterranean region.
Atmospheric Environment; 35 (17); 2997-3006 (2001)
Porcella D B, Ramel C, Jernelov A (1997) Global mercury
pollution and the role of gold mining: an overview. Water, Air
and Soil Pollution; 97 (3-4); 205-207 (1997)
Reed G P , Ergüdenler A, Grace J R, Watkinson A P,
Herod A A, Dugwell D, Kandiyoti R (2001) Control of
gasifier mercury emissions in a hot gas filter: the effect of
temperature. Fuel; 8 (5); 623-634 (Apr 2001)
Richardson C, Machalek T, Miller S, Dene C, Chang R
(2001) Effect of NOx control processes on mercury
speciation in utility flue gas. In: AWMA Mega symposium :
speciality conference on mercury emissions: fate, effects and
control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA,
CD ROM, 14 pp (Aug 2001)
Rodriguez A, Lee T G, Furuuchi M, Biswas P (2000)
Influence of SiO2 particles on mercury removal using in situ
TiO2 nanosize particles activated by UV irradiation. In: 17th
Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA, 11-14 Sep 2000. Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Pittsburgh
Coal Conference, University of Pittsburgh, CD ROM, Session
25, Paper 1 (2000)
Rodriguez S J, Lee T G, Hedrick E, Biswas P (2001)
Iodine room temperature sorbents for mercury capture in
combustion exhausts. In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality
conference on mercury emissions: fate, effects and control,
Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD
ROM, 12 pp (Aug 2001)
Rostam-Abadi M, Chen S, Lizzio A A, Hsi H-C, Lehmann
C M B, Rood M J, Chang R, Richardson C, Machalek T,
Richardson M (2001) Development of low-cost sorbents for
mercury removal from utility flue gas. In: AWMA Mega
symposium: speciality conference on mercury emissions: fate,
effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001,
AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 10 pp (Aug 2001)
Roy S, Rochelle G T (2001) Chorine absorption in sulphite
42
solutions: a mechanism in mercury removal. In: AWMA Mega
symposium: speciality conference on mercury emissions: fate,
effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001,
AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 18 pp (Aug 2001)
Rubin E, Berkenpas M B, Farrell A, Gibbon G A, Smith
D N (2001) Multi-pollutant emission control of electric
power plants. In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality
conference on mercury emissions: fate, effects and control,
Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD
ROM, 14 pp (Aug 2001)
Schindler D W (1998) An integrated approach to mercury in
North America. Paper presented at: USEPA/NERL/NACEC
Science experts workshop on mercury, 6-8 Oct 1998, Las
Vegas, NV, USA, 20 pp (Oct 1998)
Science News (2000) China: a mercury mega-polluter.
Science News; 158 (5); 77 (Jul 2000)
Senior C L, Helble J J, Sarofim A F (1999) Modelling
mercury emissions and speciation from coal-fired power
plants. In: Mercury in the environment speciality conference,
Minneapolis, MN, USA, 15-17 Sep, 1999, AWMA,
Sewickley, PA, USA, 128-139 (1999)
Singer C F, Ghorishi B (2001) Lime based multi-pollutant
sorbents. In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality conference
on mercury emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL,
USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 11 pp (Aug
2001)
Sjostrom S, Bustard J, Durham M, Chang R (2001a)
Mercury removal trends in full-scale ESPs and fabric filters.
In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality conference on
mercury emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL,
USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 16 pp (Aug
2001)
Sjostrom S, Ebner T, Ley T, Slye R, Richardson C,
Machalek T, Richardson M, Chang R, Meserole F (2001b)
Assessing sorbents for mercury control in coal-combustion
flue gas. In: AWMA Mega symposium: speciality conference
on mercury emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL,
USA, 20-23 Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 12 pp (Aug
2001)
Sloss L L (1995) Mercury emissions and effects: the role of
coal. IEAPER/19, London, UK, IEA Coal Research - The
Clean Coal Centre, 39 pp (Aug 1995)
Sloss L L (1999) Trends in the use of coal ash. CCC/22.
London, UK, IEA Coal Research, 64 pp (Oct 1999)
Sloss L L, Davidson, R M (2001) Rapid analysis of trace
elements in coal utilisation CCC/46, London, UK, IEA Coal
Research, 48 pp (Jun 2001)
Sloss L L, Smith I M (2000) Trace element emissions.
CCC/34. London, UK, IEA Coal Research, 83 pp (Jun 2000)
Suwala W (2001) Kracow, Poland, Mineral and Energy
Economy Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences.
Personal communication (Jul 2001)
UN (1999) 1979 convention on long-range transboundary air
pollution and its 1998 protocols on persistent organic
pollutants and heavy metals, ECE/EB.AIR/66, Geneva,
Switzerland, United Nations, 91 pp (1999)
US DOE (2001a) Meeting mercury standards.
http.fossil.energy.gov/techline/tl_mercurysel2.shtml (June
2001)
US DOE (2001b) Poland country overview.
http://fossil.energy.gov/international/plndover.html (Aug
2001)
IEA Coal Research
 References
US EPA (1997) Mercury study report to congress, Research
Triangle Park, NC, USA, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, vp
(Dec 1997)
Valupadas P (2000) Winnipeg, Canada, CCME, personal
communication (2000)
van der Vart R, Geuzebroek F, Akkerhuis J, Feron P,
Jansen B (2001) Removal of mercury from flue gas and
other gas streams by oxidative membrane gas absorption. In:
AWMA Mega symposium: speciality conference on mercury
emissions: fate, effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23
Aug 2001, AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 18 pp (Aug 2001)
Vidic R D, Kwon S-K, Siler D P (2000) Impregnated
activated carbons for elemental mercury adsorption. In: 17th
Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA, 11-14 Sep 2000. Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Pittsburgh
Coal Conference, University of Pittsburgh, CD ROM, Session
19a, Paper 3 (2000)
VTT (2000) Optimal utilisation of coal in modern power
plants with respect to control of mass flows and emissions of
VOCs/PAHs and mercury. Draft final report under ECSC
Coal Research Agreement no 7220- ED/089. Espoo, Finland,
VTT Chemical Technology, 238 pp (Dec 2000)
Wang Q, Shen W, Ma Z (2000) Estimation of mercury
emissions from coal combustion in China. Environmental
Science and Technology; 34 (13); 2711-2713 (2000)
Weilert C V, Randall D W (2001) Analysis of ICR data for
mercury removal from wet and dry FGD. In: AWMA Mega
symposium: speciality conference on mercury emissions: fate,
effects and control, Chicago, IL, USA, 20-23 Aug 2001,
AWMA, USA, CD ROM, 18 pp (Aug 2001)
Weick-Hansen K (1998) Denmark, Midkraft, personal
communication (1998)
Williams A, Wetherold B, Maxwell D (1996) Trace
substance emissions from a coal-fired gasification plant:
summary report, TR-106964, Palo Alto, CA, USA, Electric
Power Research Institute, 112 pp (Nov 1996)
Wu C Y, Lee T G, Tyree G, Arar E, Biswas P (1998)
Capture of mercury in combustion systems by in situ-
generated titania particles with UV irradiation. Environmental
Engineering Science; 15 (2); 137-148 (1998)
Yokoyama T, Asakura K, Matsuda H, Ito S, Noda N
(2000) Mercury emissions from a coal-fired power plant in
Japan. The Science of the Total Environment; 259; 97-103
(2000)
Zevenhoven R (2001) www.hut.fi/~rzevenho/gasbook
(Chapter 8) (2001)
Zygarlicke C J, Galbreath K C, Pavlish J H (2000) Coal
combustion mercury transformation and speciation. In: 17th
Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA, 11-14 Sep 2000. Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Pittsburgh
Coal Conference, University of Pittsburgh, CD ROM, Session
19b, Paper 2 (2000)

Mercury – emissions and control 43