Technical Paper

A System Approach to SO3 Mitigation

A.L. Moretti and R.J. Triscori

The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.
D.P. Ritzenthaler
American Electric Power
Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.

Presented to:
EPRI-DOE-EPA-AWMA
Combined Power Plant Air Pollutant Control
Mega Symposium
August 28-31, 2006
Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

The Babcock & Wilcox CompanyBR-1781

A System Approach to SO3 Mitigation

Albert L. Moretti and Ronald J. Triscori
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.
Douglas P. Ritzenthaler
American Electric Power
Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
BR-1781

Introduction
Over the past decade, efforts to remove nitrogen oxides (NOx)
through the use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology
have resulted in increased sulfur trioxide (SO3) concentrations in
the flue gas stream of utility boilers that fire fossil fuels or other
specialty fuels. This same problem has been encountered when
firing fuels with high vanadium content which increase the SO2 to
SO3 conversion in the boiler. When flue gases containing as low as
10 ppmdv of SO3 are treated in a wet flue gas desulfurization
system (WFGD) the potential exists for a visible secondary plume
to occur. The primary plume is due to water droplets which dissipate readily. The secondary plume is less visible and typically
only becomes apparent after the primary plume has dissipated.
The secondary plume is caused by aerosols, primarily sulfuric acid
but also ammonium bisulfate and other compounds. The color of
the secondary plume is typically blue, but brown and other colors
have been noted depending upon meteorological conditions, angle
of the sun, other compounds, etc.

SO3 formation and sinks

When fuel is combusted in a utility boiler, the sulfur in the fuel

combines with oxygen to form gaseous sulfur dioxide (SO2). Some
of this is further oxidized to SO3. The SO3 hydrates to form H2SO4
vapor in the flue work. Finally, the H2SO4 vapor condenses to
form an aerosol. Along the flue gas path, SO3/ H2SO4 is removed in
sinks such as the air heaters, electrostatic precipitators (ESPs),
baghouses and FGD systems. The acid aerosols that avoid collection in the pollution control equipment exit the stack and contribute to a visible trailing plume (typically blue).
Even a very low concentration can cause a readily visible secondary plume because of the inherent light scattering properties of
the sub-micron (aerosol) particulates. SO3/ H2SO4 concentrations
as low as 6 to 10 ppm dry volume have been known to cause a
visible plume under certain atmospheric conditions. Acid mist is
considered PM2.5 on new boiler permits and may eventually become regulated on the existing utility fossil fired fleet.
To develop a cost effective solution for SO3 mitigation in a

utility application, an overall system approach is necessary to

optimize the size and cost of such systems. When determining the
design requirements, consideration of SO3/H2SO4 formation and
capture should include concurrent evaluation of the following areas: 1) fuel selection, 2) boiler operation, 3) selection of SCR catalyst, 4) optimizing air heater design and operation, 5) utilization of
sorbent injection technology, 6) H2SO4 capture in particulate removal devices, and 7) H2SO4 capture across the WFGD. This paper will examine capture of SO3/ H2SO4 in each of these areas and
will suggest ways to minimize installed and operating costs when
designing a SO3 Mitigation System. An example will be presented.

SO3 mitigation design criteria

boiler island SO3 formation

When establishing the design criteria for SO3 mitigation systems, it is important to understand the factors that affect SO3
formation in the boiler and also to have an understanding of where
H2SO4 is removed in the backend equipment of the boiler island.
SO3 forms in two areas of a fossil fuel fired power plant, the boiler
proper and across the SCR catalyst.
Combustion of fuel liberates elemental sulfur, which oxidizes to
form SO2. At typical combustion temperatures, very little SO2 is
converted to SO3, approximately 0.1%, because thermodynamic
equilibrium at these temperatures favors SO2 formation. As the
temperature drops the equilibrium changes so that more SO3 can be
formed. The formation of SO3 is dependent on the existence of
atomic oxygen which is present down to approximately 1500F. So
SO3 is formed in a lower temperature window as long as there is
atomic oxygen available. SO3 formation is increased by catalytic
effect of metal oxides on the boiler tubes or surfaces. The percent
of SO2 that is oxidized to SO3 in the furnace and convection pass of
the boiler is defined as the boiler SO2 to SO3 conversion rate, or the
boiler conversion rate. The boiler conversion rate is dependent
upon many variables including: furnace geometry (surface area),
oxygen concentration (excess air), fuel vanadium levels, fuel sulfur
levels and the ash composition. Metal oxides in the ash can increase the conversion of SO2. Ash with high alkalinity will react

with SO3 in the boiler and economizer and lower the measured
conversion. That is, approximately the same amount of SO3 is
formed but it reacts with the alkali in the boiler. As the SO3 concentration is measured at the economizer exit, the amount of SO3
measured will be less than that formed. The conversion determined
from the measurement is the apparent conversion which is less
than the actual.
The SO3 in the flue gas begins to hydrolyze to form H2SO4
vapor as the temperature drops below about 1000F. This reaction
is complete at gas temperatures between about 350 and 400F. The
bulk of the reaction is taking place within the air heater. The H2SO4
can condense out on cold end surfaces, which can be below the acid
due point. Acid aerosols can also form if local gas temperatures
drop below the dew point due to air in-leakage or damage to the
insulation.
For a coal fired boiler, typically 0.5 to 1.5% of the SO2 in the
flue gas is oxidized to SO3. Firing fuels with high vanadium content, such as fuel oil or Orimulsion, results in higher boiler conversion rates due to the catalytic effect of the vanadium. Conversion
measurements when firing fuels with high alkali content (sodium,
potassium, calcium in the ash) indicate relatively lower apparent
conversions. The actual conversion is unknown because of the
reaction of the SO3 and alkali in the boiler. As a result, the SO3
concentration in the flue gas is relatively lower with higher alkali
flyash and the calculated conversion is lower.
Boiler operation has an effect on SO3 formation. Operating the
unit with higher excess air can provide additional oxygen radicals
for oxidizing SO2. However, lowering the excess air level must be
balanced against higher unburned carbon levels in the ash.

SO3 formation in the SCR

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology contributes additional SO3 to the flue gas and ultimately higher SO3 emissions.
The rate of SO2 to SO3 oxidation is defined as the SCR conversion
rate. The SCR catalyst consists primarily of vanadium pentoxide
(V2O5), tungsten trioxide (WO3) and titanium dioxide (TiO2). Vanadium pentoxide is the active compound in the catalyst and is the
ingredient responsible for the conversion of SO2 to SO3. Catalyst
composition is carefully selected based on the operating conditions, the SO2 concentration, the ammonia slip and the target ammonium bisulfate concentration. SCR catalysts can be designed for
a range of conversions, about 0.20% to 0.8% per layer. This results
in conversions of 0.60% to 2.4% with 3 layers of catalyst. The
conversion rate varies greatly with catalyst temperature. The combination of catalyst operating temperature and the baseline catalyst
conversion rate results in significant variability from site to site.
Thus, when selecting an SCR catalyst it is important to evaluate
both the benefits of using a low conversion catalyst and providing
means to lower economizer outlet (SCR inlet) temperature. Selecting a low conversion rate catalyst or lowering the catalyst operating
temperature can substantially reduce the SO3 content after the SCR
and can reduce the cost of the mitigation equipment if required.
For a given boiler that was originally designed for a low sulfur
fuel but will burn higher sulfur fuels in conjunction with the use of
a WFGD system, the potential exists for increased slagging in the
boiler. As a result, a higher economizer exit (SCR inlet) temperature may occur. As this temperature increases, the SCR conversion
rate increases, resulting in a higher SO3 concentration at the SCR
outlet. Some units minimize this increase in flue gas temperature at
the economizer outlet by employing water cannons and/or
sootblowers.

Removal in air heater

As the flue gas passes through the air heater the SO3 begins to
hydrate to form H2SO4. Some of the acid condenses and impinges
the colder surfaces of the air heater causing a portion to be caught in
the air heater baskets and on the ash. The basket temperature rises
as it traverses the hot duct generating a temperature gradient downstream of the air heaters. Some of the H2SO4 captured in the air
heater on the cold side of the duct re-volatizes on the hot gas
side of the duct, producing an acid concentration gradient that corresponds well to the temperature gradient. H2SO4 that remains on
the air heater basket elements can be volatized as the elements
traverse the primary air duct. This liberated acid passes through
the pulverizers and is destroyed in the burner flame.
The amount of condensation and removal within the air heater
baskets depends upon the design of the air heater and the cold end
metal temperature. Among other things, this temperature will change
as a function of operating conditions, coal composition and the
cleanliness of the boiler surfaces and the air heater. In addition, the
amount of SO3 condensed is dependent on the air heater leakage.
Therefore, the amount of SO3 captured in the air heater changes
with time for each unit and is also different for different units and
operating set points. Usually, the removal in an air heater is 20 to
30%.
The presence of ammonia and SO3 in the flue gas can also result
in the formation of sticky ammonium bisulfate (ABS), which can
foul the air heater if present in sufficient amounts. The reduced
temperature after the air heater can result in H2SO4 aerosols, which
can corrode flues, air heaters, and other equipment. H2SO4 condenses in low temperature areas such as near leaking precipitator
doors, casing leaks, and cool duct surfaces caused by insulation
flaws. Once this H2SO4 is condensed, it does not all evaporate at
typical flue gas temperatures because there is insufficient heat in
the gas to overcome the heat of vaporization of the acid. Thus, an
SO3 mitigation system can also provide the added benefit of reduced corrosion problems.

Removal in particulate control equipment

Particulate removal equipment such as the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or the baghouse plays a role in removing SO3. There are
many factors that affect the removal efficiency such as the type of
particulate removal device (i.e. hot or cold side ESP or baghouse),
the alkalinity in the ash, size of the H 2SO4 aerosol particle size and
flue gas temperature. For a given coal, as the temperature leaving
the air heater approaches the acid dew point, studies have indicated
that the resistivity of the flyash decreases. Also as the temperature
decreases, the gas volume decreases. These factors result in higher
power consumption of the ESP which equates to higher collection
efficiencies. This improvement in collection efficiency correlates
to lower H2SO4 emissions at the ESP outlet resulting from the
flyash having more affinity to adsorb H2SO4.
The ESP has been the industry standard for particulate capture
on units burning medium to high sulfur fuels. The ESP allows for
lower air heater outlet temperatures which equates to greater boiler
efficiencies. In terms of maximizing SO3 removals, lower flue gas
temperatures have been known to increase removal. The removal
of condensed SO3 is also dependant on overall particulate removal
efficiency of the ESP as well as the alkalinity in the ash. Test data
indicates that the ESP is less effective at capturing SO3 when compared to a fabric filter.
The fabric filter (baghouse) is the industry standard on low
sulfur fuels. It is well suited for Powder River Basin (PRB) fuels.

The Babcock & Wilcox Company

Similar to the ESP, the fabric filter can also remove SO3. However,
there is a major difference that makes a fabric filter more efficient
than an ESP. The ESP captures ash that has adsorbed some acid.
The same thing occurs in the fabric filter. However, as ash is
removed in the fabric filter, a cake builds up on the bag. As the acid
passes through the cake it is exposed to more ash, so the adsorption
of the acid is increased over that occurring naturally in the flue gas.
This enhanced removal does not require additional alkalinity in the
ash. If there is additional alkalinity in the ash, such as when firing
PRB coals, additional removal will occur. Tests have indicated that
removals as high as 40% can be achieved in a fabric filter when
firing eastern bituminous coals. Acid removals above 90% are
achieved when firing PRB fuels. Flue gas temperature, fabric material, acid dew point and alkalinity in the ash, all play a key role in
the performance of the fabric filter.

Removal in WFGD
A WFGD provides the ideal conditions for aerosol formation.
As the flue gas enters the scrubber quench zone, the H2SO4 vapor is
quickly cooled below its dew point and now exists entirely as an
aerosol. The size of the H2SO4 aerosol particle is dependent on
how fast it is condensed. The rapid condensation that takes place
in the scrubber results in ultra-fine (sub-micron) aerosols. The
overall removal of the acid in the scrubber increases as the aerosol
particle size increases. Therefore, the removal of H2SO4 in the wet
scrubber can be enhanced by forming larger particles.
Precipitator design and operation also play a role in the removal
of acid in the scrubber.
Ash loading to the FGD may increase due to ash carryover from
an ESP with high resistivity ash, i.e., ash with little to no SO3 for
conditioning. The capture of SO3 by ash and/or sorbent in the
precipitator may also reduce the H2SO4 loading to the FGD. Limited data with lowering the inlet loading to the FGD has shown a
reduction in FGD acid aerosol capture rate.
The capture of H2SO4 in the WFGD system ranges from below
30% to 75%. Most test data indicates good repeatability at the
same unit and operating conditions. However, there are units for
which the test data is highly variable even at seemingly identical
operating conditions. The parameters controlling the H2SO4 removal in the wet scrubber are not fully understood.
Although the resultant secondary (SO3/ H2SO4) plume can be
quite visible, the actual concentration is very low, measured in
parts per million. In cases where the WFGD technology is utilized
in conjunction with SCRs on high sulfur coals or with high vanadium petroleum fuels, the sulfuric acid aerosols at the stack exit can
be as low as 6 to 10 ppm dry volume, yet are readily visible under
the right meteorological conditions.

Sorbent technologies
There are several sorbents that can be utilized to control the SO3
emissions from a combustion source. These sorbent control methods include injecting chemicals in either the fuel or in the flue gas.
These sorbents react in the flue gas to form a solid compound that
can be removed in the particulate collection device such as an ESP
or baghouse.
Sorbent injection technologies for the mitigation of SO3 typically utilize alkaline-based reagents that contain calcium, magnesium, sodium or ammonia. Depending on the reagent used, these
reagents can be injected dry or wet, either in aqueous or slurry

The Babcock & Wilcox Company

form. Dry injection typically uses pneumatic conveying equipment to transport dry solids from a storage silo to the flue gas.
Injection of solutions and slurries has some disadvantages when
compared to dry injection. Wet injection generally requires longer
residence times since the reaction typically occurs after evaporation. Also, poor atomization can result in agglomeration of ash on
internal supports or other boiler island equipment depending on
injection location.
Several chemicals have been found to be successful at reducing
SO3 concentrations when added downstream of the boiler furnace
(i.e., upstream or downstream of the air heater), SCR, ESP or scrubber. These chemicals include magnesium oxide, calcium hydroxide,
sodium bisulfate, ammonia, and sodium sesquicarbonate (Trona).
Each of these chemicals is effective in reducing SO3 emissions, but
extreme care must be exercised in selecting the proper additive for a
specific site. Due consideration should be given to: temperature
distribution across flues, characteristics of the additives and resulting salt formation, available residence time, amount and availability
of additive, physical limitations of ductwork, internal structural
supports, particle size of additive, flow distribution in ductwork
and potential impacts on flyash sales as well as reagent cost. Sorbents that are injected downstream of the SCR have an advantage in
the fact that the sorbent removes the SO3 generated from both the
boiler and SCR. Sorbents injected in the furnace can remove SO3
before the SCR but there could still be a visible sulfuric acid plume
because of the SO3 generated across the SCR, especially with a high
conversion catalyst.
Injection in the furnace and/or in the ductwork before an SCR is
assumed to only remove the SO3 formed in the boiler. The addition
of sufficient excess alkali with furnace injection may continue to
remove the SCR-generated SO3 if the alkali is still present and
reactive before and after the SCR. For example, some magnesiumbased sorbents injected into the furnace become unreactive before
the SCR. Furthermore, it is important with this option to select a
sorbent that will not poison the SCR catalyst.
Injection in the ductwork after the SCR reduces the total SO3
formed in both the boiler and the SCR and therefore reduces the
existing SO3 to the air heater. This minimizes the impact of ammonium bisulfate formation and other means for pluggage. This injection location also reduces the impact, such as corrosion, from operating near the dew point temperature. By reducing the SO3 concentration prior to the air heater, the average cold end temperature can
be reduced to achieve greater boiler efficiency (improved heat rate).
Alkali injection either before or after the ESP provides effective
control of SO3 plume at either location. These injection locations
do not address the potential for ammonium bisulfate deposition in
the air heater or the potential to lower the air heaters average cold
end temperature. Injection prior to the ESP will minimize the potential for a visible SO3 plume, minimize ESP corrosion from higher
acid dew point, but can possibly degrade ESP performance depending on the sorbent and its effect on ash resistivity. Injection
after the ESP will also minimize the potential for a visible SO3
plume and provide downstream corrosion protection. However,
there is a potential regulatory issue with injecting a sorbent that
reacts to form a solid downstream of the particulate collection
device.

Typical sorbents
Table 1 summarizes the various sorbents typically employed in
power plant SO3 mitigation applications.

Hydrated lime and high surface lime

Table 1
Typical Sorbents

Sorbent

Effectiveness

Good for lower

SO3 concentration
Magnesium Goodfurnace
injection
Hydroxide
Goodlimited by
Hydrated
ESP performance
Lime
Excellent
SBS
Ammonia

Relative
O&M
Costs

Relative
Capital
Costs

Low

LowNH3 already
in use w/SCR

Low

High

Moderateslurry

Moderate

Low

Low

Moderate
to low

High

Relative
Maintenance

High Surface
Area Lime

Good to
excellent

Low

Moderate
Low

High
Moderate
ESP concerns

Trona

Excellent

Low

Low

Low

Ammonia

Hydrated lime, Ca(OH)2, has been successfully utilized as a

means to mitigate SO3. It is injected on a dry basis after the air
heater and ahead of the ESP. This technology has relatively low
O&M and capital costs. Depending on site location, the sorbent is
readily available and inexpensive. The injection system is simple
compared to slurry injection, keeping capital costs to a minimum.
However, hydrated lime injection has been known to reduce performance of the ESP. Some sites have used hydrated lime with no
ESP performance issues while others with marginally sized ESPs
have reported a reduction in ash collection from calcium buildup
and increased resistivity (in addition to increased particle loading
entering the ESP basis). Humidification improves SO3 removal performance of hydrated lime; proper flow distribution and mixing is
important to achieving high removal efficiencies. With the inherent
temperature gradients leaving the air heater, it is important to match
the sorbent injection with the acid stratification to achieve optimum removal. Also, longer residence time is important for maximum removal.
Test data indicates that high surface area lime hydrate provides
improved performance and creates less maintenance issues than
lower surface area. Depending on the compatibility of the current
FGD system, if present, the cost of adding lime hydrate ahead of
the FGD can be partially offset by reduced lime addition to the
FGD system.

Ammonia has generally been used as the reagent for NOx control
in SCR systems and also for flue gas conditioning to enhance ESP
performance. Ammonia can also be an effective means for SO3 removal when lower concentrations of SO3 are present in the flue gas.
It is typically injected downstream of the air heater and upstream
of the ESP to form ammonium bisulfate and/or ammonium sulfate.
High removal efficiencies can be achieved if injected in front of the
air heater but ABS formation can produce a sticky ash that fouls the
air heater basket elements. Ammonia has minimal capital and O&M
costs compared with other technologies. Many plants with an SCR
system already have ammonia on site that could be utilized for SO3
mitigation.
The use of ammonia for SO3 mitigation can impact flyash sales
due to high ammonia content in the ash. Ammonia off-gassing from
flyash is another concern. Sites that stabilize scrubber sludge by
mixing it with flyash and lime could experience odor problems.
Additionally, ammonium bisulfate formation may cause buildup in
the air heater and flues, and cause ESP operational problems from
ammonia salts which may cause solid particulate related opacity
issues rather than H2SO4 issues. There is also a risk of increased
ammonia slip.

Sodium bisulfate (SBS) is very effective at removing SO3. It can

be purchased commercially or the byproduct of a dual alkali FGD
system can be used. It is typically injected as a liquid. It is
reported that this technology has relatively high O&M costs and
moderate relative capital costs. There are numerous maintenance
issues that have been reported related to nozzles, and duct deposition/ air heater fouling. Loss of atomization, even for a short amount
of time, can result in wetting of the fluework and huge agglomeration of ash. Increased residence time is required to evaporate the
moisture to avoid duct deposition even in ideal circumstances. A
significant amount of compressed air is required for atomization.
Field tests have shown some improvement in ESP removal efficiency.

Magnesium Hydroxide

Trona

Magnesium based sorbents are primarily injected in the furnace.

Magnesium hydroxide is effective at capturing SO3 formed during
the combustion process in the furnace. This sorbent can also have
a beneficial impact in reducing slag formation on furnace surfaces.
Two different forms can be used. One is a byproduct of a MagLime
WFGD and the second is a commercially available product which is
delivered in slurry form at about 50% solids. It is typically injected
into the furnace as a slurry with about 15% solids.
This option has a relatively high O&M cost associated with it
due primarily to high sorbent cost coupled with the need for a high
molar ratio for it to be effective in reducing the formation of SO3.
Other O&M factors include nozzle maintenance and the wear associated with pumping an abrasive slurry. Capital costs must include
the slurry preparation equipment needed, and if winter operation is
required, heat trace and insulation of slurry pipes. The magnesium
based sorbents have not been shown to be effective in controlling
SO3 formed from the catalyst. Therefore, magnesium hydroxide is
typically used in conjunction with another technology.
4

SBS

Like other sodium sorbents, trona is very reactive and effective

in removing SO3. Trona is injected in dry form, which minimizes
the capital investment needed to deliver the sorbent to the flue gas
and minimizes the sorbent preparation equipment required. Dry
trona is also relatively benign, minimizing safety concerns at individual sites. A side benefit of trona injection has reportedly been
improved ESP performance. Sorbent cost is low, but transportation costs from the mine located in Wyoming are high. O&M costs
are minimal relative to other sorbent technologies. Nozzle and
lance design are imperative for reliable operation, therefore due
consideration should be given to their design. Flue gas temperature
is an important consideration in preventing deposition in the
ductwork. Deposition could occur if the trona / SO3 reactants
become molten (liquid).
Material handling concerns for this dry sorbent are related to its
cohesiveness, affinity for moisture, and its temperature sensitivities. Therefore, silo design, control of temperature and moisture

The Babcock & Wilcox Company

are important considerations to maintain a reactive material that

does not bridge or rat hole, and freely flows.

Table 2
Coal Analysis and Heat Input Used
Ultimate Analysis
%

Example

Ash
S
H2
C
H 2O
N2
O2
Cl
Total

In this section of the paper, an example is presented for a boiler

system that will retrofit a future SCR and WFGD system. As a
result, the SO3 levels will potentially increase and since the stack
will now become a wet stack as a result of the saturated flue gas
leaving the WFGD there will be the potential for a visible blue
plume to occur. With this retrofit, the plants goal will be to use
some type of mitigation equipment to reduce the stack H2SO4
emission to pre-retrofit levels.
In the example, an analysis is performed to illustrate the estimated amount of SO3 that formed in the boiler. Two different air
heater temperatures (300F and 330F) will be evaluated and resulting impact on SO3/H2SO4 removal in the air heater and dry ESP will
be examined. This will be considered the base case or pre-SCR and
WFGD case. Further analysis of two different SCR designs (a low
SO2 to SO3 conversion catalyst and a normal conversion catalyst)
is performed coupled with a WFGD and the resulting H2SO4 concentration at the stack with no SO3 mitigation technology will be
presented. In the final part of this example, the use of a sorbent is
presented for each of two SCR design cases and air heater temperatures. The estimated amount of consumable sorbent will be presented along with the economic findings. A stack concentration of
5 ppm will be the basis for sizing of the sorbent injection system.

Fuel input (MBtu)

HHV (Btu/lb)

17.61
3.10
4.13
64.24
5.5
1.15
4.19
0.08
100.00
5625.3
11,500
Table 3
Flue Gas Flow Rates

Component

Flue Gas Flow Rate (lb/hr)

CO 2
H 2O
SO 2
N2
O2
HCl

1,151,349
290,706
30,297
3,960,526
198,420
402

Total

5,631,700

Basis of design for example

This example is based on a typical 600 MW utility fired boiler.
For the purpose of this example a mid to high sulfur coal was
selected (3.1% S) to demonstrate SO3/H2SO4 concentrations and
sorbent consumption rates that are in line with coals used in actual
operating plants. Table 2 lists the coal analysis and heat input that
will be used for the basis of this example. Based on this design
information, Table 3 shows the flue gas flow rates from the products of combustion.
For this particular boiler design it is estimated that approximately 1.0% of the SO2 is converted to SO3. Working through all
the calculations, there will be approximately 379 lb/hr of SO3 leaving the economizer. As the SO3 passes through the air heater, two
events occur. The SO3 is hydrolyzed to H2SO4 and a removal of the
SO3/H2SO4 combination occurs. As discussed in this paper, lower
air heater outlet temperatures correlate to higher removal efficiencies. At 300F, 25% of the SO 3 is removed and at 330F only approximately 20% is removed. For the 300F case the H2SO4 concentration is 348 lb/hr and for the 330F case, the concentration is 371
lb/hr. After the flue gas leaves the air heater and enters the dry ESP,
further removal occurs. For the 300F and 330F air heater outlet
temperature cases, the removal through the dry ESP is approximately 25% and 20% respectively. Thus, for the 300F air heater
outlet temperature case, the H2SO4 flow rate is 261 lb/hr or 14.7
ppmvd at the stack. For the 330F case, the H2SO4 is 297 lb/hr or
16.7 ppmvd at the stack. Table 4 summarizes this base condition.
After the retrofit of the SCR and WFGD system, the SO3 concentration changes as a result of the SCR catalyst oxidizing the SO2
in the flue gas to SO3. For this example, two different conversion
rates for the SCR are examined, 0.5% and 1.0% at both the 300F
and 330F air heater outlet temperatures.
When the air heater is designed for an outlet temperature of
300F and an SCR catalyst is designed for 0.5% conversion of SO2

The Babcock & Wilcox Company

Table 4
Base Condition

300F Air Heater Outlet Case

Entering Air Heater
379 lb/hr SO3

Entering ESP
348 lb/hr H2SO4

Entering Stack
261 lb/hr H2SO4
14.7 ppmvd

330F Air Heater Outlet Case

Entering Air Heater
379 lb/hr SO3

Entering ESP
372 lb/hr H2SO4

Entering Stack
297 lb/hr H2SO4
16.7 ppmvd

to SO3, the SO3 flow rate entering the air heater is 566 lb/hr compared to the base case of 379 lb/hr (with no SCR). If a catalyst
designed for 1% conversion is selected, the SO3 flow rate entering
the air heater increases to 754 lb/hr compared to the base case of
379 lb/hr. Using the same H2SO4 removal efficiency for the air
heater and ESP as used in the base case, for the 300F case, the
H2SO4 flow rate entering the WFGD for the 0.5% and 1% case is
390 lb/hr and 519 lb/hr respectively. When the air heater design
outlet temperature is increased to 330F, the H2SO4 flow rate entering the WFGD increases to 444 lb/hr for the 0.5% conversion case
and 591 lb/hr for the 1% conversion case. For this example, 40%
removal across the WFGD will be used. For the 300F air heater
outlet design, when the catalyst is designed for 0.5% conversion, a
concentration 234 lb/hr or 13.4 ppmvd of H2SO4 enters the stack
and when the catalyst is designed for 1% conversion, the H2SO4
concentration entering the stack is 312 lb/hr or 17.8 ppmvd. For the

330F air heater outlet design, when the catalyst is designed for
0.5% conversion, a concentration 266 lb/hr or 15.1 ppmvd of H2SO4
enters the stack and when the catalyst is designed for 1% conversion, the H2SO4 concentration entering the stack is 354 lb/hr or 20.1
ppmvd. Table 5 summarizes the above discussion.

Based on the above conditions, the use of a sorbent will now be

evaluated. For this example, trona will be selected for the mitigation of H2SO4. Trona was selected due to the desire to condition the
precipitator with a sodium-based sorbent, combined with the desire to inject a dry sorbent into the duct. Using 5 ppm at the stack
as the design basis for the target H2SO4 concentration, for the 300F
air heater outlet temperature case, with an SCR catalyst designed
for 0.5% and 1.0% conversion, the required trona flow rates are 572
lb/hr and 651 lb/hr respectively. For the 330F air heater outlet
temperature case with an SCR catalyst designed for 0.5% and 1.0%
conversion, the required trona flow rates are 572 lb/hr and 651 lb/hr
respectively. If 0.5% conversion catalyst is used with an air heater
outlet of 300F compared to using a 1.0% conversion catalyst at a
temperature of 330F, a savings of 123 lb/hr in the required amount
of trona will be realized. This equates to a savings of about
Table 5
Test Case Results
300F Air Heater Outlet Case, 0.5% Conversion Catalyst
Leaving SCR Leaving Air Heater Leaving DESP Entering Stack
566 lb/hr SO3 520 lb/hr H2SO4 390 lb/hr H2SO4 234 lb/hr H2SO4
13.4 ppmvd
300F Air Heater Outlet Case, 1.0% Conversion Catalyst
Leaving SCR Leaving Air Heater Leaving DESP Entering Stack
754 lb/hr SO3 692 lb/hr H2SO4 519 lb/hr H2SO4 312 lb/hr H2SO4
17.8 ppmvd

330F Air Heater Outlet Case, 0.5% Conversion Catalyst

Leaving SCR Leaving Air Heater Leaving DESP Entering Stack
566 lb/hr SO3 555 lb/hr H2SO4 444 lb/hr H2SO4 266 lb/hr H2SO4
15.1 ppmvd
330F Air Heater Outlet Case, 1.0% Conversion Catalyst
Leaving SCR Leaving Air Heater Leaving DESP Entering Stack
754 lb/hr SO3 738 lb/hr H2SO4 591 lb/hr H2SO4 354 lb/hr H2SO4
20.1 ppmvd

U.S.$75,000 per year for a single boiler unit. The savings will
propagate for plants with multiple boilers. Table 6 summarizes
this discussion.

Conclusions
When a plant is considering the use of SO3 mitigation technologies, several areas of the boiler island and air quality control system
need to be investigated to optimize the SO3 mitigation philosophy
employed. For example, most users plan to use higher sulfur coals
after the retrofit of a Wet FGD system. This can impact boiler
conversion of SO2 to SO3 and economizer outlet temperature. Both
of these issues could substantially affect stack H2SO4 emissions by
increasing values. Air heater operation (temperature and operating
conditions) has a large effect on the amount of SO3 exiting the air
heater and even the Dry ESP. Operating conditions and equipment
sizing are important considerations in SO3 mitigation. Wet FGDs
do collect some H2SO4 but not to the levels that provide optimal
stack condition on higher sulfur coals. Selection of a low SO2 to
SO3 conversion catalyst could reduce both the cost of mitigation
equipment as well as sorbent costs.
Several sorbents are effective in removing H2SO4 from the flue
gas stream but careful consideration is required on location of injection, cost and reliability of the handling and injection system and
sorbent costs. In some cases, use of alternate sorbents should be
considered in design of the sorbent handling system allowing flexibility to switch to a different sorbent if supply interruptions occur and/or price increases occur. In conclusion, a system approach
to SO3 mitigation based on plant-specific conditions may reduce
the overall cost of mitigation equipment.

References
1. Erickson, Clayton A. and Jambhekar Rajaram, Current work
on the impacts and control of SO3 emissions from Selective Catalytic Reduction systems, 2002 Conference on SCR and SNCR for
NOx Control, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, May 2002.
2. Damle, A. S., Ensor, D. S., Sparks, L. E., Prediction of the
opacity of detached plumes formed by condensation of vapors,
Atmospheric Environment, Volume 18, No. 2, (1984).
3. Maziuk, John, Successful Mitigation of SO3 by Employing Dry Srobent Injection of Trona Upstream of the ESP, Air
Quality 5 Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, 2005.
4. White, Harry J., Industrial Electrostatic Precipitation,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts,
1963.

Table 6
Trona Evaluation
Trona Flow Rates
300F A/H Outlet Temp, 0.5% Conversion Catalyst
300F A/H Outlet Temp, 1.0% Conversion Catalyst
330F A/H Outlet Temp, 0.5% Conversion Catalyst
330F A/H Outlet Temp, 1.0% Conversion Catalyst

572 lb/hr
651 lb/hr
605 lb/hr
695 lb/hr

The Babcock & Wilcox Company

Copyright 2006 by The Babcock & Wilcox Company,

a McDermott company.
All rights reserved.
No part of this work may be published, translated or reproduced in any form or by any means, or incorporated into any information
retrieval system, without the written permission of the copyright holder. Permission requests should be addressed to: Market
Communications, The Babcock & Wilcox Company, P.O. Box 351, Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A. 44203-0351.
Disclaimer
Although the information presented in this work is believed to be reliable, this work is published with the understanding that The
Babcock & Wilcox Company and the authors are supplying general information and are not attempting to render or provide
engineering or professional services. Neither The Babcock & Wilcox Company nor any of its employees make any warranty,
guarantee, or representation, whether expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any
information, product, process or apparatus discussed in this work; and neither The Babcock & Wilcox Company nor any of its
employees shall be liable for any losses or damages with respect to or resulting from the use of, or the inability to use, any
information, product, process or apparatus discussed in this work.

The Babcock & Wilcox Company