DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR MERCURY GUARD BEDS

Laurance Reid Gas Conditioning Conference

February 26 March 1, 2017 Norman, Oklahoma USA

Reece C. McHenry
Black & Veatch
11401 Lamar Ave
Overland Park, Kansas USA 66211-1508
+1 913-458-9285
mchenryrc@bv.com

Dan McCartney
McCartney Gas Advisors, LLC
P.O. Box 27089
Shawnee Mission, Kansas USA 66225-7089
+1 913-593-3912
gasadvisordan@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the mechanisms of mercury attack on aluminum equipment. In order to
prevent this attack, the best practices of the gas conditioning industry are outlined, with an
emphasis on mercury guard beds. Types of sorbent, theory of operation, and relative cost for
mercury guard beds are reviewed. This information is combined into a holistic analysis that uses
feed gas composition to determine order of the unit operations within a gas conditioning process.
Finally, there is a brief explanation about sorbent loading and the options for material disposal.

111
 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR MERCURY GUARD BEDS
Reece C. McHenry, Black & Veatch, Overland Park, KS USA
Dan McCartney, McCartney Gas Advisors, LLC, Shawnee Mission, KS USA

Introduction
Gas Plant Value Chain

The value chain for natural gas and other light hydrocarbons begins at the wellhead. Once a well
is opened for flow, rudimentary separations are performed on the lease before comingling the
hydrocarbons and subsequent transportation via pipeline to a gas plant. Bulk water removal
occurs at the plant boundary, and then follows the block flow diagram shown in Figure 1. The
stream of hydrocarbons is sent to Gas Conditioning, which can consist of several unit operations;
the most common being Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU), Dehydration Unit, and Mercury
Removal Unit (MRU). Respectively, these processes remove carbon dioxide and sulfur species,
water, and mercury. The treated gas is then passed through a Brazed Aluminum Heat Exchanger
(BAHX) to cool the gas and condense hydrocarbons for natural gas liquids (NGL) recovery. For
a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant, the remaining gas is mostly methane and ethane, which
passes through another BAHX to achieve liquefaction around -260 F.

LNG
BAHX

Gas
PIPELINE NGL Recovery
Conditioning
BAHX

AGRU
Dehydration
MRU NGL

Figure 1 - Gas Plant Block Flow Diagram

The two BAHX featured prominently in Figure 1 emphasize the importance of this piece of
equipment. Without the ability to lower the temperature of the mixed hydrocarbon stream, the
value chain is broken.

Cryogenic Heat Exchangers

The cryogenic heat exchanger industry is dominated by two types of exchangers, which are
classified according to method of construction; Brazed Aluminum Heat Exchanger (BAHX) or
Coil Wound Heat Exchanger (CWHX). A BAHX consists of thin sheets of corrugated aluminum
which separate and contain the fluids that are exchanging energy. The sheets are joined together
by brazing the entire bundle in a single operation, hence the name. A CWHX consists of
aluminum tubing interwoven in complex patterns and separated by baffles, all contained within a

112
vessel. Heat transfer occurs between the fluid surrounding the tubes and the fluid within the
tubes. In general, a BAHX is much more compact than a CWHX, and consequently has less
external surface area to maintain at cryogenic temperatures. Because a BAHX is more widely
used within the gas processing industry, it will be the focus of this paper.

Aluminum is chosen as the material of construction for cryogenic applications because it has a
high thermal conductivity, lacks a ductile-to-brittle transition temperature, and has a relatively
low cost. However, the reaction of aluminum with mercury can be catastrophic in the BAHX,
leading to header, weldment, and pinhole leaks. Photographs of actual exchanger failures can be
seen in the paper by Willard [1].

Embrittlement & Amalgamation

During the manufacture of a BAHX, the equipment is exposed to the presence of air, which
allows for the development of a very thin but strong aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer. This layer
provides protection for the pure aluminum underneath. As a reference, the surface tension of
liquid mercury is approximately 6.7 times greater than the surface tension of water [2], which
means that this thin and mostly continuous layer of oxidation can prevent direct contact between
the liquid mercury and the BAHX [3]. There are three methods of breaching this passivation:
abrasion by solid particles, corrosion from additives, and oxide fatigue [4].

Abrasion can stem from any particulate matter entering the BAHX and destructively impinging
on the aluminum oxide to expose the pure aluminum underneath. Similarly, corrosion from
wellhead additives can selectively reduce the aluminum oxide layer to deplete the protection.
However, the unavoidable mechanism is that of oxide fatigue, whereby thermal and mechanical
strain induces micro-fractures in the aluminum oxide layer [4]. Thermal and mechanical strain
arises from the difference in the coefficient of thermal expansion between aluminum and
aluminum oxide. The aluminum is approximately 3 times more expansive than the aluminum
oxide, so thermal cycling causes the aluminum to expand and contract in all dimensions more
than the oxide layer on top of it [4]. This disparity induces stress which develops into fractures
over many repeated cycles [4].

Once the passivation of aluminum oxide is breached, there are two possible mechanisms through
which mercury can begin attacking the aluminum directly: Liquid Metal Embrittlement (LME)
and Amalgamation Corrosion (AMC). It should be noted that amalgamation, the reaction of
mercury with aluminum, occurs in both mechanisms, despite the naming convention.

LME is the process whereby liquid mercury in contact with aluminum propagates a fracture
along granular aluminum boundaries [4]. The exact mechanism of propagation is debated, but
statistically occurs at weldments containing magnesium and along intergranular cracks [4].
While intergranular fractures may not seem detrimental, when mechanical weakening is coupled
with operation at 1,015 psi, equipment failure becomes much more probable.

AMC is the process whereby liquid mercury in contact with aluminum catalyzes the subsequent
reaction of aluminum with water to form a weak and porous hydrated aluminum oxide [4]. Note
that in the reactions presented below, the mercury reacts and is then free to attack a new
molecule of aluminum, continuing the corrosion as long as water is present.

113
 Hg + Al Hg (Al) (Equation 1)
Hg (Al) + H2O Al2O3 H2O (porous) + H2 + Hg (Equation 2)

The process is mass transfer limited and also self-defeating [4]; eventually, the porous hydrated
aluminum oxide will become too thick and obstruct additional water from reaching the site of the
amalgamation reaction. Once this process is complete, the mechanical weakening of the
aluminum (now hydrated aluminum oxide) may be severe enough to permit a leak. See Figure 2
for a drawing of this process.

MERCURY

AL2O3

FORMATION OF
HYDRATED AL2O3
ALUMINUM (ALONG CAVITY FACE)

Figure 2 Schematic Depiction of AMC

Given these considerations, it is apparent that the BAHX can be protected by providing
equipment and procedures that mitigate the loss or damage to the aluminum oxide layer. First, a
strainer should be installed upstream of the BAHX to prevent solid particles from entering the
BAHX so abrasion does not occur. This strainer is already an industry standard in order to
prevent plugging of the narrow channels within the BAHX; however, the benefits still apply
here. Second, upstream chemicals should be evaluated for undesired interactions before being
added to the hydrocarbon stream. Third, the use of magnesium in the construction of the BAHX
should be kept to a minimum, to reduce the probability of BAHX failure. This consideration is
the responsibility of the BAHX manufacturer [5]. Fourth, careful temperature control must be
maintained during thermal cycling that will occur during compressor trips or during
commissioning and start-up [5, 6, 7].

The most critical element of success is the prevention of mercury from entering the BAHX. To
this end, technology has been commercialized that captures mercury in a packed bed referred to
as the Mercury Removal Unit (MRU). While the concentration of mercury in natural gas varies
by geographic region, it has been determined that essentially all natural gas contains elemental
mercury [8]. Thus, the application of mercury removal is important to all gas processors.

114
 Technology
Sorbents

All MRU sorbents consist of two parts, called the support and the trap. The support is an inert
material that provides structure and area for the trap. Additional desired properties of the support
include high crush resistance and low cost. The trap is the reactive material that directly interacts
with mercury. Desired properties of the trap include high selectivity for mercury, high loading
capacity, and resistance to contaminants and upsets. There are a wide range of mercury sorbents
available, and the advantages and limitations of each can be categorized according to support and
trap material, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Product Space for Mercury Sorbents (C = commercial product; S = studied)

SUPPORT
Activated Carbon Activated Alumina Molecular Sieve
Sulfur C [9] C [10] S [11, 20]
TRAP

Metal Sulfide S [9] C [12] S [13]

Silver S [14, 15] S [16] C [17]
Ionic Liquid S [18] C [18] S [18]

Commercialization of sulfur activated carbon marked the advent of the mercury removal
industry. While this sorbent was cost effective and able to remove mercury from natural gas, it
was suspected that saturated hydrocarbon service would leach the loosely held sulfur into the
liquid phase. This concern prompted the development of metal sulfide as a trap material, because
it contained a strong bond between metal and sulfur. Unfortunately, metal sulfides are generally
pyrophoric, and must be loaded and unloaded under carefully controlled conditions [19]. This
disadvantage spurred the development of sorbents that contained metal oxides, which are not
pyrophoric and can be sulfided in-situ to form metal sulfide traps. Metal oxides are not shown in
Table 1 because the sulfide form, rather than the oxide form, is responsible for the mercury
trapping.

In the early development stages all mercury sorbents were sacrificial, with each bed being loaded
with sorbent, adsorbing mercury, and being discarded at the end of life. However, vendors
already supplying regenerable molecular sieve for water removal were able to create a
regenerable sorbent containing silver on zeolite. While this allows for the sorbent to be re-used
multiple times before replacement, many new challenges became apparent, as will be discussed
later in this paper.

Recent innovation focuses on the development of unique materials for mercury removal. One
example is impregnation of sulfur onto carbon molecular sieve, which has high surface area and
nearly uniform pore size [11, 20]. Another example is the use of an ionic liquid as a trapping
material. These liquids are composed purely of ions at room temperature [18], and are attractive
for high removal efficiency, but are still being developed.

115
Material disposal is also an important factor that influences the choice of sorbent, and will be
considered in the Operational Considerations section of this paper.

Sorbents: Sulfur Activated Carbon

The most prevalent technology in use for mercury removal from natural gas is sulfur activated
carbon. Activation can be classified as either thermal or chemical, and a detailed description on
each is outside the scope of this paper; however, it is sufficient to note that the coal type and
activation process affect the ultimate mercury capture. For example, during chemical activation
with elemental sulfur, the impregnation temperature determines the allotrope of sulfur formed,
which determines reactivity and distribution [21]. The sulfur species is held within the pore
space or weakly interacts with the carbon matrix [21]. Extensive studies on the method of
mercury capture by sulfur activated carbon have determined that the process is a combination of
chemisorption and physisorption [21, 22, 23]. Chemisorption is the primary mechanism of
capture, which proceeds by formation of mercuric sulfide.

Hg + S Hg S (Equation 3)

Since this is a chemical reaction, increasing the temperature of the natural gas increases the
amount of mercury removed from the effluent. In a similar manner, increasing the amount of
sulfur impregnated on the activated carbon increases the ability of the sorbent to chemisorb
mercury, to an extent [21, 22]. Physisorption also occurs to a much smaller degree and is a
function of the available surface area that is not covered by sulfur [21]. It is hypothesized that
physisorption is controlled by defects within the carbon matrix, such as oxygen [24, 25].

While sulfur can be leached from the carbon support by liquid hydrocarbons, it is not soluble in
liquid water and remains within the carbon pore space [10, 26]. The decrease in mercury sorption
when liquid water is present occurs because the liquid imposes a mass transfer barrier. The
presence of water does not cause mechanical weakening of the carbon support. For some form
factors, such as pellets, water is not problematic as long as the binder (commonly clay) has been
chosen correctly.

Sorbents: Metal Sulfide or Metal Oxide Alumina

Activated alumina consists of a homogeneous network of aluminum oxide, where a certain

proportion of surface aluminum atoms have been substituted with other metal oxide molecules.
This metal is then reacted with sulfur to create a strong bond that prevents the sulfur leaching
into liquid hydrocarbons. An example would be the use of copper oxide or copper sulfide.

However, the fact that the sulfur-metal bond is strong does not prevent deposition of liquid water
or liquid hydrocarbon onto the sorbent. The establishment of a liquid barrier onto the surface of
the material will inhibit mass transfer from the gas phase to the solid surface. Because the most
common use of alumina is in desiccant service, it should be expected that alumina will tend to
promote the sorption of water from the gas phase. A disadvantage of the metal sulfide however,
is that it can be oxidized, which leads to the loss of reactivity with mercury. The reaction of the
sulfide to the sulfate prevents the mercury ion from bonding with the sulfur species because of
the steric hindrance created by the additional oxygen molecules.

116
The substitution of molecules other than aluminum into the network structure will reduce the
mechanical strength of the material. As with activated carbon, mechanical weakening in
activated alumina can occur in liquid water service if the binder is not carefully chosen. Another
possible risk that must be accounted for is pyrophoric nature of the metal sulfide. Although
hazardous, the industry has a long history of dealing with similar materials such as Iron Sponge,
and using proper precautions, such as training and procedures, these materials can be safely
handled [27].

Sorbents: Metal Molecular Sieve

Molecular sieve consists of a homogeneous network of aluminum and silicon connected in a

tetrahedral arrangement by oxygen atoms. At regular intervals, cations are present to balance the
charge that would otherwise exist within the alumina-silica matrix. These materials are
characterized by the diameter of the space that exists at the center of the crystal unit. For
molecular sieves such as 3A, 4A, 5A, and 13X, the cations are different ratios of potassium,
sodium, and calcium. However, transition metals such as silver or gold can also be inserted into
this matrix. This metal can then form an amalgam with mercury, similar to the process shown in
Equation 1.

Similar to the activated alumina, the molecular sieve will preferentially absorb water in the pore
space of the crystal network, per normal operation [17]. Since the metal is present on the exterior
of the structure, the mercury is free to interact with little resistance to mass transfer. An
additional benefit of this technology is that heat can be applied to regenerate the sorbent, without
significant damage to mercury removal capacity [17].

As with previously discussed sorbents, the presence of liquid hydrocarbon covering the sorbent
will still impose a barrier to mass transfer and prevent efficient mercury capture. There is no
unique property of molecular sieve that compensates for two-phase service. It should also be
mentioned that precious metals, such as silver, are reactive with sulfur compounds, which
decreases the ability to capture mercury.

Sorbents: Other Offerings

An ionic liquid (IL) can be an excellent trap because the ions can be designed to remove mercury
without being affected by liquid water or other contaminants. Although referred to as liquids,
these fluids do not easily vaporize. An IL consists of at least one cationic species and at least one
anionic species, which allow the solution to remain in the liquid phase. Because mercury within
hydrocarbon streams is predominantly elemental [8], the IL is designed with an oxidizing
functional group on the anion that strips away valence electrons [28] resulting in a positively
charged mercury. The mercury species then partitions into the hydrophobic IL to interact with
functional groups attached to the cation, the most preferable being sulfur species [29]. The
mercury oxidation can be seen in Equation 4, and the mercury trapping in Equation 5; both
equations use bracketed ions to represent the bulk IL.

Hg0 + [C+][A-] Hg2+ + [C+][A-] (Equation 4)

Hg2+ + [C+][A-] [Hg2+][A-][C+] (Equation 5)

117
It has been determined that the presence of sulfur on either the anion or cation of the IL is
essential to the retention of mercury, whereas the oxidation occurring at the anion merely
enhances the effect. Since the cation usually contains the sulfur, it needs to be protected against
ion exchange, which would deplete the liquid. For example, pyridinium can be synthesized with
an 8-carbon hydrophobic tail in order to prevent ion exchange between mercury and other
unreacted cations within the IL; attaching a sulfur moiety on the end of the tail retains the
mercury within the IL [29].

Because research is still ongoing with regards to scale-up and the possibility of emulsions, side
reactions, and poisoning, there are many pitfalls surrounding IL technology that must first be
navigated [30]. For example, one patent specifies that the most preferable operating conditions
should not exceed 104 F and 17.4 psi [18], which are not amenable to gas conditioning
operations. It should also be mentioned that the fluids are generally combustible and highly
toxic [31].

Sorbents: Comparison

The following information is a survey of the commercial offerings for mercury removal from
natural gas streams.

Table 2 Average Properties of Commercial Adsorbents (AC = activated carbon; AA = activated alumina)

Support Trap Form Diameter Bulk Density

(in) (lb / ft3)
AC Sulfur Granular 0.08 0.18 36
AC Sulfur Pellet 0.04 0.16 35
AC Metal Sulfide Pellet 0.06 0.16 32
AA Sulfur Granular 0.06 0.20 50 51
AA Metal Sulfide Granular 0.06 0.16 32 53
AA Metal Sulfide Tri-lobe 0.06 36

Table 2 contains a range of sorbents that have been grouped based on the support material, trap
material, and form factor described within product literature. This may be an oversimplification
in some instances that skews average properties shown; as such, this table should be considered
informative only.

The maximum operating temperature of each sorbent was also queried, but the answers were
inconsistent and varied widely (160 392 F). The reasoning for the temperature limit was
described as either physical degradation of the materials, or altering of the adsorption profile. For
the sorbents discussed (except Metal Molecular Sieve and Other Offerings) the following
physical degradations were identified as possible: non-chemisorbed sulfur on activated carbon;
chemisorbed sulfur on activated carbon; aggregate sulfur breakup; breaking of metal sulfide
bond. The most likely bond to break was presumed to be the sulfur-sulfur bond in the aggregate
material. Although it varies with the method of preparation, the most likely allotrope of sulfur as
an aggregate on activated carbon is monoclinic -S, which melts at 247.3 F [32]. This seems to
indicate that margin has been applied to commercial products because of poor characterization or
feed gas variability. The degradation of the strong metal sulfide bond is not a concern at

118
temperatures experienced in a natural gas plant. Evidence that elevated temperatures negatively
impacted mercury uptake was not found in the literature.

The final point of sorbent comparison is that of material cost. Multiple commercial vendors were
consulted regarding designs and budgetary quotes for an MRU; however, quotes for precious
metal on molecular sieve and ionic liquid on various media were not obtained. The unit
considered was designed to treat 70 MMSCFD of natural gas containing no water, and was
located after a dehydration bed. Given these parameters, the sorbent cost was normalized, and
the offerings fell into a range from 0.28 1.46 $ / lb of sorbent / year, with
0.80 $ / lb of sorbent / year being the median. As the normalization implies, the essential
parameters are years of service and the equilibrium capacity of the sorbent (which determines the
necessary mass of sorbent). Note also that the bed support media (ceramic) is generally
inexpensive, and costs approximately one order of magnitude less than the sorbent.

A last characteristic to consider is the cost of the vessel; for this analysis the vendors were
restricted to a maximum of 8 psi differential across the bed. Since all vessels in this position
would have the same thickness and material of construction, the analysis became a comparison
of (L/D), which ranged from 1.0 2.5, with 1.5 being the median.

Selection Criteria

Based on the information presented, it should be clear that the feed gas contaminants dictate the
possible MRU sorbents, which in turn dictate the position of the MRU. There is no single sorbent
that performs well in all services, as each one has advantages and disadvantages. The
problematic feed gas species consist of hydrogen sulfide, oxygen, and water. The possibility of
liquid phase hydrocarbon is a significant point of consideration as well.

It is known that activated carbon, activated alumina, and metal sulfides catalyze the Claus
reaction, shown in Equation 6. Therefore, it is critical to determine the scenarios where the
reactants are also introduced [33]. In Equation 6, the wide variety of sulfur species that can form
are denoted by an x.

2 H2S + O2 + catalyst 2 H2O + (2 ) Sx (Equation 6)

If oxygen is present in the natural gas, the AGRU will remove only a minimal amount of the
oxygen. This is because oxygen has a low solubility in amine solutions and slow reactivity to
form heat stable amine salts. Thus, it is possible that 10 ppm levels of oxygen could reach the
MRU bed downstream of the AGRU, even if it is placed immediately before the BAHX. In a
similar manner, an upset in the AGRU could slip hydrogen sulfide through the dehydration unit
and on to the MRU, where it could react with oxygen in the feed gas to form water. Since the
removal of water is critical to the functioning of the BAHX, even water formation at 10 ppm
could be problematic. Thus, prior to entering the BAHX, the hydrogen sulfide is removed to
1.0 ppm, and water is removed to 0.1 ppm.

Arrangements: MRU following Dehydration

As shown in Figure 3, the MRU is a packed bed that appears immediately after the Dehydration
Unit and before the protective strainer of the BAHX.

119
 AGRU
CONTACTOR

PIPELINE
EXCHANGER BAHX
FILTER FILTER

AMINE LOOP DEHY MRU

Figure 3 MRU following Dehydration

As mentioned in the Selection Criteria section, this position provides the cleanest feed gas to the
MRU for processing, thus it would appear that any sorbent can be used. As discussed above, the
possibility of the Claus reaction occurring should be considered. Another point of consideration
comes from operational experience; when dealing with a metal sulfide it can take a longer
amount of time to dry-out (compared to sulfur activated carbon) before placing the MRU into
service [34]. This configuration offers no method to remove water from the hydrocarbon stream
before entering the BAHX, so the MRU be must be absolutely dry before beginning liquefaction.

Arrangements: MRU before the AGRU Contactor

As shown in Figure 4, the MRU is a packed bed that appears immediately after the Feed /
Effluent Exchanger, and before the AGRU contactor.

Figure 4 MRU before AGRU Contactor

The primary benefit of this arrangement is that mercury is removed as one of the first operations
within the plant. This minimizes the distribution of mercury within the plant piping and vessels
to the greatest extent possible. Additionally, the possibility of undesired environmental releases
is also minimized, because mercury cannot partition into waste streams leaving the AGRU and
Dehydration Unit.

In the worst case scenario, the presence of hydrogen sulfide and oxygen in the feed gas could
catalyze in the MRU via the Claus reaction and form water. However, because the MRU is
followed by a contactor with an aqueous amine solution, the generation of water here is not a
concern. The primary consideration with locating the MRU at this position is the possibility of
process upsets slugging liquid onto the bed. Regardless of the chosen sorbent, a mixed phase on
the bed will inhibit mass transfer and thus mercury uptake. The design of the Feed / Effluent

120
Exchanger should consider this possibility and be designed to heat the feed stream an appropriate
margin above the dew point.

Arrangements: MRU combined with Dehydration

As shown in Figure 5, the MRU is a packed bed that appears in combination with the
Dehydration Unit. For this arrangement, the trap must be able to withstand the regeneration gas
conditions used to remove water from molecular sieve (approximately 550 F). These conditions
disqualify the use of sulfur as the trap, as it will be liquefied and carried away (the vapor
pressure is negligible) [35]. The only option for a trap becomes the use of a precious metal, such
as silver. While this option is attractive because it removes the MRU vessel, there are several
additional design factors that must be considered.

Figure 5 MRU combined with Dehydration

The regeneration gas stream, shown as a dashed line in Figure 5, will be mercury-rich and water
saturated. Any piping or vessels used to transport this vapor will be contaminated by the
presence of mercury. Thermodynamics indicate that the mercury will partition into the aqueous
phase, which allows a heat exchanger and separation vessel to generate a dry and low-mercury
spent regeneration gas. There are multiple options to consider for the fate of this gas: re-liquefy,
combust, dilute. If this gas will be liquefied, it can be sent to the front of the plant and passed
though the MRU again. If this gas will be consumed as fuel, emissions permits may require the
use of an additional MRU before combustion. This bed can be specified as a sacrificial guard
bed, and sized using the regeneration gas flowrate. If the gas will be mixed with pipeline gas it
will generate a less saleable product. This is because the mercury can harm precious metal
catalysts and other aluminum equipment that users must safeguard against.

The other stream produced from the regeneration operation will be the mercury-rich aqueous
phase. Design of an additional vessel containing another sorbent or mass separating agent can be
used to generate a pure mercury stream. This fluid can then be periodically collected and shipped
for disposal as outlined in the section on Operational Considerations.

Both the dehydration material and the mercury sorbent will require disposal after many
regenerations due to the effects of hydrothermal aging. All of the spent material in the bed will
need to be removed, managed, and disposed as though it contains trace mercury. On the basis of
sorbent cost alone, precious metal materials are the most expensive.

121
Arrangements: Unsatisfactory Arrangements

Note that three other arrangements are possible, from a purely theoretical viewpoint. However,
consideration of process conditions reveals that these arrangements are unacceptable. Figures
will not be presented for these, in order to discourage erroneous usage of these arrangements.

First, the MRU could be placed immediately after the Inlet Gas Coalescer; this arrangement is
not satisfactory because fluids leaving this vessel may be at saturation conditions. Thus, any
process upset may lead to condensation within the MRU, requiring the sorbent to be replaced.
Second, the MRU could be placed immediately before the water-saturated vapor is passed to the
Dehydration Unit. This arrangement is not satisfactory for any sorbent, for the same reasons as
placement after the Inlet Gas Coalescer. Third, the MRU could be placed after the BAHX
strainer. This is not satisfactory because it would allow any particulate matter from the MRU to
enter directly into the BAHX and cause abrasive damage to the aluminum oxide layer.

Operational Considerations
Bed Screens

Sacrificial guard beds are expected to operate isothermally, so there is generally no allowance
made for the expansion or contraction of the vessel. A regenerable bed however will experience
significant thermal stress during regeneration, and the bed screens must have a system in place to
accommodate this movement. Failure to mitigate bed screen movement might allow slip of both
particulates and untreated fluids into the BAHX.

Loading Conditions

Frequently, little consideration is given to the actual loading and unloading of sorbent materials;
however, these operations are crucial to the overall success of the packed bed, and should not be
overlooked. Sock loading is the most common method used to load beds. A sealed canvas sack
or drum containing the bed support material or sorbent material is suspended above the vessel
and then dumped into a cloth tube that conveys it into the vessel. The purpose of the cloth tube
(colloquially known as the sock) is to control the flow of material into the vessel. The sorbent
gradually distributes according to angle of repose on top of the support mesh screen and other
support media. It is good practice to check a sample of the sorbent for size and bulk density, to
verify that the Bill of Material is correct before material is loaded into the vessel.

BAHX Inlet Strainer

During loading operations, care must be taken not to load the bed materials too quickly. Doing so
will generate an excessive amount of small diameter particles (referred to as fines) via
mechanical agitation between particles. In the same way, operation of the bed can generate fines
if the momentum of the gas stream entering the vessel is not distributed correctly. Particles can
be perturbed within the bed and abrade each other or the vessel wall.

Once fines have been created, they will either be retained within the bed or pass through it.
Particles that are retained can plug the pore space of the packed bed and begin the process of
creating flow maldistribution and increased pressure differential. This could be misinterpreted as

122
a sign of mercury loading and prompt a re-fill due to the plugging, but not due to the bed being
spent. If the particles pass through the bed, the carryover will enter the BAHX, and possibly
abrade the protective aluminum oxide film. As discussed previously in the context of AMC, an
exposed aluminum surface allows mercury amalgamation to rapidly occur when the BAHX is
warmed. Given this knowledge, it is considered best practice to utilize a strainer immediately
before the BAHX, regardless of the upstream treating arrangement [5, 6, 7]. The Gas Processors
Association minimum is 80 Tyler Mesh (0.0070 in) with finer mesh at the discretion of the
BAHX manufacturer.

As a final note, it is common for the BAHX manufacturer to offer designs which are mercury
tolerant. This consideration means that the designer has minimized the area within the BAHX
where mercury can accumulate. This can be done via computational fluid analysis, in order to
determine where sloping and other geometries are necessary.

Material Disposal

The disposal of mercury containing materials must be in accordance with Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, most notably the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Based
on the level of mercury in the material, the mercury can be recovered and recycled or stabilized
and landfilled. The stabilization option is regulated according to the limitations given in the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).

Because the spent sorbent is a hazardous waste material, it is packaged within two barriers and
shipped to a waste processor. For mercury recycling, the vendor will subject the spent sorbent to
high vacuum retort in order to vaporize the mercury. This vapor can then be condensed and
distilled to generate high purity mercury for use in LCD screens, CFL bulbs, UV lamps, neon
lights, medical equipment, or other applications. More commonly, the guard bed material
undergoes stabilization; the spent sorbent is mixed with powdered sulfur polymer cement at
elevated temperatures in order to ensure all mercury has been reacted to the form mercury (II)
sulfide [36, 37]. This mixture is then liquefied and molded, followed by sealing in a container,
and shipping to a landfill for indefinite storage.

References
1. S. Willard, Field Repair of Brazed Aluminum Plate-fin Heat Exchangers, in Gas
Processors Association, San Antonio, 2015.
2. J. J. Jasper, The Surface Tension of Pure Liquid Compounds, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data,
vol. 1, no. 4, 1972.
3. S. M. Wilhelm, A. McArthur and R. D. Kane, Methods to Combat Liquid Metal
Embrittlement in Cryogenic Aluminum Heat Exchangers, in Seventy Third GPA Annual
Convention, 1994.
4. S. M. Wilhelm, Risk Analysis for Operation of Aluminum Heat Exchangers Contaminated
by Mercury, Process Safety Progress, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 259-266, 2009.
5. API Standard 662, Plate Heat Exchangers for General Refinery Service Part 2: Brazed
Aluminum Plate-fin Heat Exchangers, American Petroleum Institute, 2011.
6. Aluminum Plate-fin Heat Exchanger Manufacturers Association, The Standards of the
Brazed Aluminum Plate-fin Heat Exchanger Manufacturers Association, ALPEMA, 2010.

123
7. GPA-TB-M-001, GPA Technical Bulletin Brazed Aluminum Heat Exchangers, Gas
Processors Association, 2015.
8. L. Phannenstiel, C. McKinley and J. Sorensen, Mercury in Natural Gas, in Operational
Section of Transmission Conference, Las Vegas, 1976.
9. K. Reddy, A. Shoaibi and C. Srinivasakannan, Sulfur-Leaching Facts from Sulfur-
Impregnated Porous Carbons in the Mercury Removal Process, Energy & Fuels, vol. 29, pp.
4488-4491, 2015.
10. A. Costandi, Process for Removing Hydrogen Sulfide and Mercury from Gases. US Patent
4,786,483, 22 November 1988.
11. R. Ambrosini, R. Anderson, L. Fornoff and K. Manchanda, Selective Adsorption of
Mercury from Gas Streams. US Patent 4,101,631, 18 July 1978.
12. Porocel Data Sheet, DYNOCEL HG SULFIDED, January 2016.
13. A. Sugier and F. Villa, Process for Removing Mercury from a Gas of Liquid by Adsorption
on a Copper Sulfide Containing Solid Mass. US Patent 4,094,777, 13 June 1978.
14. D. Karatza, M. Prisciandaro, A. Lancia and D. Musmarra, Silver Impregnated Carbon for
Adsorption and Desorption of Elemental Mercury Vapors, Journal of Environmental
Sciences, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1578-1584, 2011.
15. M. Manes, Silver Impregnated Carbon. US Patent 3,374,608, 26 March 1968.
16. J. Park and L. Winstrom, Process for Reducing the Concentration of Mercury in Hydrogen
Gas. US Patent 3,257,776, 28 June 1966.
17. T. Y. Yan, A Novel Process for Hg Removal from Gases, Industrial & Engineering
Chemical Research, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 3010-3014, 1994.
18. R. Rogers, J. Holbrey and H. Rodriguez, Process for Removing Metals from
Hydrocarbons. US Patent 20120121485 A1, 17 May 2012.
19. Carnegie Mellon Environmental Health & Safety, Pyrophoric Handling Policy, June 2010.
[Online]. Available: www.cmu.edu.ehs. [Accessed 1 August 2016].
20. T. Matviya, R. Gebhard and M. Greenbank, Mercury Adsorbent Carbon Molecular Sieves
and Process for Removing Mercury Vapor from Gas Streams. US Patent 4,708,853, 24
November 1987.
21. W. Liu, R. Vidic and T. Brown, Optimization of Fixed-bed Application of Activated
Carbon-Based Sorbents for Gas-Phase Mercury Removal, Environmental Science &
Technology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 531-538, 1998.
22. W. Jozewicz, S. Krishnan and B. Gullet, Bench-scale Investigation of Mechanisms of
Elemental Mercury Capture by Activated Carbon, in Second International Conference on
Managing Hazardous Air Pollutants, Washington, D.C., 1993.
23. R. K. Sinha and P. L. Walker Jr., Removal of Mercury by Sulfurized Carbons, Carbon,
vol. 10, pp. 754-756, 1972.
24. W. Feng, E. Borguet and R. Vidic, Sulfurization of Carbon Surface for Vapor Phase
Mercury Removal I: Effect of Temperature and Sulfurization Protocol, Carbon, vol. 44,
pp. 2990-2997, 2006.
25. W. Feng, E. Borguet and R. Vidic, Sulfurization of Carbon Surface for Vapor Phase
Mercury Removal II: Sulfur Forms and Mercury Uptake, Carbon, vol. 44, pp. 2998-3004,
2006.
26. J. Boulegue, Solubility of Elemental Sulfur in Water at 298 K, Phosphorus and Sulfur and
the Related Elements, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 127-128, 1978.
27. C. R. Perry, A New Look at Iron Sponge Treatment of Sour Gas, in Laurance Reid Gas
Conditioning Conference, Norman, 1970.

124
28. L. Ji, S. Thiel and N. Pinto, Room Temperature Ionic Liquids for Mercury Capture from
Flue Gas, Industrial and Engineering Chemical Research, vol. 47, no. 21, pp. 8396-8400,
2008.
29. N. Papaiconomou, J.M. Lee, J. Salminen, M. Von Stosch and J. Prausnitz, Selective
Extraction of Copper, Mercury, Silver and Palladium Ions from Water using Hydrophobic
Ionic Liquids, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, p. 25, 2008.
30. A. Hassan, J. Holbrey, et al. Mercury Removal from Gas Streams using New Solid
Adsorbents, in International Gas Union Research Conference, 2011.
31. T. P. Thuy Pham, C.W. Cho and Y.S. Yun, Environmental Fate and Toxicity of Ionic
Liquids: A Review, Water Research, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 352-372, 2010.
32. B. Meyer, Elemental Sulfur, Chemical Reviews, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 367-388, 1976.
33. M. Steijns and P. Mars, The Adsorption of Sulfur by Microporous Materials, Journal of
Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 175-180, 1976.
34. J. Mock, R. Ramani and D. Messersmith, Experiences in the Operation of Dehydration and
Mercury Removal Systems in LNG Trains, in Laurance Reid Gas Conditioning Conference,
Norman, 2008.
35. Freeport Sulfur Company, The Sulphur Data Book, Port Sulphur, LA: McGraw-Hill, 1954.
36. D. Melamed, M. Fuhrmann, P. Kalb and B. Patel, Sulfur Polymer Cement Stabilization of
Elemental Mercury Mixed Waste, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Contract No. DE-
AC02-98CH10886, April 1998.
37. J. Boyle, B. Lawrence and S. Schreffler, Method and Apparatus for Generating Mercury (II)
Sulfide from Elemental Mercury. US Patent 7,691,361 B1, 6 April 2010.

125
126