Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
224]
On: 09 February 2015, At: 00:55
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
To cite this article: C.E. Baukal & P.B. Eleazer (1998) Quantifying NOx for Industrial Combustion Processes, Journal of the Air
& Waste Management Association, 48:1, 52-58, DOI: 10.1080/10473289.1998.10463664
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1998.10463664
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this paper are to (1) identify the problems with many of the units that are used to report
and regulate NOX, (2) show how to properly correct
NOX measurements for oxygen-enhanced combustion,
and (3) recommend a preferred type of NO X unit. The
current variety of NO X units make comparisons difficult and can cause considerable confusion. NOX may
be measured on a wet or dry basis, but it is commonly
reported on a dry basis. The reported NOX may differ
from the actual measurements, which may be converted to a specific O2 basis level. Nearly all of the measured NOX from industrial combustion systems is in
the form of NO, which is converted to NO2 in the atmosphere. However, when given on a mass basis, the
measured NO is commonly reported as NO2 for regulatory purposes, but may be reported as NO, NO2, or
simply NOX in technical papers. Some existing regulations may penalize combustion technologies with
higher efficiencies and lower flue gas volumes, such
as oxygen-enhanced combustion. Confusion may occur when applying some of the conventional NOX
units to oxygen-enhanced processes. A better unit is
the mass of NOX generated per unit of production,
which also incorporates the overall process efficiency
into the emissions. That unit does not penalize more
efficient processes that may generate more NOX on a
volume basis, but less NOX on a production basis.
IMPLICATIONS
This paper recommends changing the units of measurement used to report and regulate NO X emissions. The
plethora of units that are used (e.g., ppm, lb/106 Btu) makes
it difficult to compare NOX among industries and technologies. Some existing NOX regulations penalize technologies with higher thermal efficiencies that generate less NOX
but seem to produce more NOX when reported in an inappropriate type of unit. A more appropriate unit is based on
the mass of NO X generated per unit of industrial production (e.g., lb NOX /ton glass). This type of unit encourages
technologies that increase production efficiency, which
reduces NOX by reducing fuel consumption.
INTRODUCTION
There is a wide range of industrial heating and melting
processes that generate NOX (nitric oxide, NO, and nitrogen dioxide, NO2) emissions. These processes include, for
example, copper and lead smelting, steel and aluminum
production, and glass and mineral wool manufacturing.
The fuel of choice in the United States for these processes
is natural gas, which typically contains a small amount
of molecular N2 and no organically bound N2.1 Therefore,
prompt and thermal NOX are the important mechanisms,
while fuel NOX is not a concern.
There are at two types of problems with the units
that are commonly used to report and regulate NOX in
those industrial combustion processes. The first concerns
the variety of units that have been used, which makes
comparisons difficult. The second concerns how to make
the proper corrections to a given unit, when oxygen or
oxygen-enriched air is used as the oxidizer. One purpose
of this paper is to alert both the end users and the regulatory agencies to the potential for confusion. Another purpose is to suggest more uniform and consistent units for
reporting NOX.
Most combustion processes use air as the oxidizer. Air
contains approximately 21% O2 and 79% N2 by volume. It
has been recognized that replacing air with pure oxygen
can significantly increase the performance of a combustion system.2 For example, pure oxygen has been used as
the oxidizer to enhance the performance of metal melting,3 glass making,4 and waste incineration.5 There are also
benefits to enriching air with oxygen, so that the O2 concentration is higher than 21%. Some of the common benefits of using oxygen-enhanced combustion include higher
productivity and thermal efficiency with lower exhaust gas
volume and pollutant emissions. 2 Quantifying those emissions will be considered here. It should be noted that NOX
is the pollutant of specific interest in this paper; however,
the discussion would apply to other pollutants emitted from
combustion processes, such as CO.
NOx UNITS
One source of confusion regarding NOX is the lack of a consistent unit of measurement for industrial heating processes,
which makes it difficult to compare measurements and
Volume 48 January 1998
Figure 1. Adiabatic equilibrium NO (on both a dry and wet basis) vs.
oxidizer composition, for a stoichiometric CH4 flame.
Volume 48 January 1998
20.95 O2
BASIS
ppm CORR = ppm MEAS
20.95 O 2
MEAS
(1)
Figure 2. Corrected NOx (ppmv) vs. O2 basis (%) for a raw NOx
measurement of 100 ppm at 2% O2, for an air-fuel system.
Figure 3. NO2 (lb/106MM Btu) vs. NO2 (ppmvd at 3% O2), where the
oxidizer is air and the fuel is CH4.
1. 0 lbNOx
1000 Btu
0. 00100 lb NOx
=
106 Btu unit of production unit of production
Preheat 1. 1lbNOx
800 Btu
0. 00088 lb NOx
=
Air case: 106 Btu unit of production unit of production
O2
O2 BASIS
OXID O2 MEAS
(2)
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Segeler, C.G. Gas Engineers Handbook; The Industrial Press: New York,
1965.
Baukal, C.E.; Eleazer, P.B.; Farmer, L.K. Industrial Heating 1992, LIX
(2), 22-24.
Williams, S.J.; Cuervo, L.A.; Chapman, M.A. High-Temperature Industrial Process Heating: Oxygen-Gas Combustion and Plasma Heating Systems; Gas Research Institute: Chicago, IL, 1989; GRI-89/0256.
Slavejkov, A.G.; Baukal, C.E.; Joshi, M.L.; Nabors, J.K. Ceramic Bulletin 1992, 71:3, 340-343.
Baukal, C.E.; Schafer, L.L.; Papadelis, E.P. Environmental Progress 1994,
13:3, 188-191.
Wendt, J.O.L.; Lin, W.C. In Proceedings of AFRC/JFRC Pacific Rim International Conference on Environmental Control of Combustion Processes,
1994.
Arai, N.; Kobayashi, N.; Nakano, K.; Matsunami, A. In Proceedings of
AFRC/JFRC Pacific Rim International Conference on Environmental Control of Combustion Processes, 1994.
Ber, J.M.; Barta, L.E.; Lewis, P.F.; Jimenez, J.; Manurung, R.; Wood,
V.; Akinyemi, O.; Haynes, J.; Rodgers, L.W. In Proceedings of AFRC/
JFRC Pacific Rim International Conference on Environmental Control of
Combustion Processes, 1994.
Wang, X.S.; Akhtar, N.A.; Gibbs, B.M In Proceedings of AFRC/JFRC Pacific Rim International Conference on Environmental Control of Combustion Processes, 1994.
Hubbard, D.G.; Himes, R.M.; Cunningham, M.; Mellish, D.L.;
Broderick, G.; OLeary, J.; Hofmann, J.E.; Stallings, J. In Proceedings of
AFRC/JFRC Pacific Rim International Conference on Environmental Control of Combustion Processes, 1994.
Nakagawa, T.; Obashi, M.; Nuta, K.; Naito, T. In Proceedings of AFRC/
JFRC Pacific Rim International Conference on Environmental Control of
Combustion Processes, 1994.
Fangmeier, B.A.; Himes, R.M.; McDannel, M.D.; Lott, R.A.; TooleONeil, B. In Proceedings of AFRC/JFRC Pacific Rim International Conference on Environmental Control of Combustion Processes, 1994.
Amin, E.M.; Pourkashanian, M.; Richardson, A.P.; Williams, A. In Proceedings of AFRC/JFRC Pacific Rim International Conference on Environmental Control of Combustion Processes, 1994.
Jenkins; Baxter; In Proceedings of AFRC/JFRC Pacific Rim International
Conference on Environmental Control of Combustion Processes, 1994.
Moyeda, D.K.; Pont, J.; Koppang, R.; Donaldson, L. In Proceedings of
AFRC/JFRC Pacific Rim International Conference on Environmental Control of Combustion Processes, 1994.
16. Beale, F. In Proceedings of AFRC/JFRC Pacific Rim International Conference on Environmental Control of Combustion Processes, 1994.
17. Bell, A.W.; Haythornthwaite, S.M.; Sanders, C.F. In Proceedings of AFRC/
JFRC Pacific Rim International Conference on Environmental Control of
Combustion Processes, 1994.
18. Sayre, A.N. In Proceedings of AFRC/JFRC Pacific Rim International Conference on Environmental Control of Combustion Processes, 1994.
19. U.S. Government, Protection of Environment; Government Institutes,
Inc.: Rockville, MD, 1994; Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part
60.
20. ANSI/ASME, Part 10: Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses; American Society
of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, 1981; Performance Test Code
PTC 19.10.
21. Nitrogen Oxide Control for Stationary Combustion Sources; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1986; EPA/625/5-86/020.
22. IHEA. Combustion Technology Manual, Fourth ed.; Industrial Heating
Equipment Association: Arlington, VA, 1988.
23. Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources,
Revised Second Edition; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1983; EPA-450/3-83-002.