The most common system for flue gas desulfurization (FGD) is the wet scrubbing process in which, the contact between the flue gases to be treated and an alkaline sorbent such limestone is realized with the correspondent production of gypsum. The production of gypsum represent a perfect example of how is possible to obtain a new product for the market starting from the need of environmental protection (the sulphur dioxide (SO2) removal). Today, limestone is ground in long drum mill reaching a size in the range 5–10 mm. With the intent of increasing the specific surface area of limestone and consequently the gypsum production, the raw limestone was treated in a high-energy mill. The performance of such micronized limestone in terms of gypsum production and SO2removal were then evaluated by means of a bench scale desulfurization test. Subsequently, a feasibility study with the goal to verify the possible advantages simulating the application of the micronized limestone on a full-scale Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plant was realized. Results showed how the micronization process occurred securely, with a greater production of gypsum and better performance in terms of SO2removal. Additionally, the micronization solutions tested in the present study showed the suitability also from economic and environmental point of view. Since there are many power plants or WtE plants worldwide and, in many cases, they adopt a wet FGD, this study may be attractive for plant operators. The greater production of gypsum through the use of micronized limestone may help reduce the consumption of raw materials, which increased in recent years due to growing demand of the building industry.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Environmental Engineering
- Environmental Chemistry
- Chemical Engineering(all)
- Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
De Gisi, S., Molino, A., & Notarnicola, M. (2017). Enhancing the recovery of gypsum in limestone-based wet flue gas desulfurization with high energy ball milling process: A feasibility study. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 109, 117 - 129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.03.033