EVALUATION OF CHEMICAL FUEL ADDITIVES TO

CONTROL CORROSION AND EMISSIONS IN DUAL

PURPOSE DESAL/POWER PLANTS
1
P.C.Mayan Kutty and Abdul Ghani Dalvi
Research & Development Center, Saline Water Conversion Corporation,
P.O.Box 8328, AL-Jubail 31951, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
M. A. Farhan Al-Ghamdi, Abdullah Hodan & Assim Daghustani
SWCC, P.O.Box 7624, Jeddah Plant, Jeddah 21221, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
ABSTRACT
Use of heavy fuel oils in industrial furnaces is known to produce a host of corrosion
and environmental related problems. Severe corrosion in hot and cold zones of the
furnace and emissions of obnoxious gases, particulates and acid smut to the
atmosphere are a few to name which will cost millions by way of forced shut downs and
unscheduled maintenance, besides creating environmental pollution. A cost effective
solution to mitigate some of the above problems is the use of chemical fuel additives.
The effectiveness of chemical additives in heavy oil fired boilers is site specific and
requires testing of several additives in the boiler under actual operating conditions
to optimize the additive regime to obtain the maximum gains.
1
SWCC's boilers attached to the dual purpose desal/power plants in the Western
Province of Saudi Arabia are using heavy residual fuel (fuel oil #6) containing high
sulfur (approximately 3.5%) and low vanadium (approximately 40 ppm). These plants
are reported to have chronic corrosion problems causing unscheduled shut-downs and
frequent replacement of equipment and parts resulting in high maintenance costs and
loss of production besides creating environment problems. In an attempt to eliminate
boiler internal corrosion and to reduce the hazardous nature of the flue gases some
chemical fuel additives were trial tested for extended duration in a power house boiler
from the Western Province. Three magnesium based additives were tested, at different
dose rates; the test duration for each chemical lasting from 6 to 10 weeks. Various flue
gas parameters such as SO
2
, SO
3
, and NO
x
contents, acid dew points and rates of acid
build up were determined. Quantitative evaluation of boiler soots from the test unit as
well as from a control unit without additive dosing were also carried out for
comparison. Effects of additive dosing on the boiler performance were also
monitored by evaluating boiler load, efficiency, flue gas outlet temperature, opacity,
1
* Prize winning paper presented at the IDA conference, Abu Dhabi, 18- 24 Nov., 1995
1163
fuel and steam flows, etc. Boiler internals were Inspected before and after the testing
of each additive. Results of these tests are summarized in this paper.
INTRODUCTION
Saline Water Conversion Corporation (SWCC), besides being the largest producer of
desalinated water in the world with installed capacity of around 600 MGPD. operates
several power generating units in conjunction with their dual purpose plants. The
total electricity generated by these units currently stands above 4000 MW [l]. After
meeting the in-house requirements. SWCC exports the excess power to the Kingdoms
power distribution grids.
The major SWCC plants in the Eastern Province of the Kingdom are using gaseous
fuels causing practically negligible or little corrosion problems. In the Western
Province power plants, however, residual fuel oil Bunker C (#6) is the primary fuel.
This fuel is known to cause extensive corrosion and emission problems. Corrosion
within the plant appurtenance causes forced shut-downs, thereby increasing the
maintenance and operational costs.
The largest dual purpose desal/power plants operated by SWCC in Western Province is
in the city of Jeddah on the Red Sea coast. Jeddah facility consists of three phases and
produces a total of 112 MGPD of desalinated water and 924 MW of electricity. Both
water and electricity produced by SWCC plants constitute the major share of these two
essential commodities for the Jeddah populace.
When all Jeddah boilers are in operation at full loads about 312 T/hr of fuel oil #6 is
consumed discharging large quantities of soot and gaseous pollutants into the
atmosphere. The quality and quantity of the emissions generally depends on the quality
of the fuel used. In Jeddah the so called high sulfur-low vanadium type residual fuel
is used. Besides these two most troublesome constituents, this oil also contains traces of
sodium and nickel which arc known to increase the severity of corrosion and
environmental problems. While sulfur has been identified as the single most
troublesome constituent of furnace oils, a host of other constituents and operational
conditions also assist the former in its destructive role.
During combustion sulfur forms SO
2
by reacting with O
2
in the combustion air,
S + O
2
> SO
2 (1)
While this reaction is quantitative, about 1% of SO2 is oxidized to SO3 by reaction with
atomic oxygen present in the combustion air near hot zones in the furnace:
SO
2
+ O > SO
3 (2)
1164
Reaction (2) is accelerated by the catalytic action of oxides of metals such as V, Ni, and
Fe. While V and Ni are present in the fuel in trace quantities and get converted to their
oxides during combustion iron oxides are ubiquitous inside the boiler on the heat
transfer surface as corrosion products. Higher levels of excess combustion air also
enhance SO
3
generation. SO
3
in the gaseous state is a harmless entity. But when the
flue gas temperature drops below the acid dew point temperature, SO
3
will condense
with water vapour to form sulfuric acid creating severe corrosive environment. Acid
mist absorbed on unburnt carbon also will cause corrosive particulate fall out from the
power station stacks.
Acid constituents in flue gases, apart from creating environmental hazards, will cause
cold-end corrosion in air heaters, air handling ducts etc. Other fuel oil impurities such
as V and Na form highly corrosive deposits on the heat transfer surfaces in hot areas
such as the furnace tubes, super heater and economizer tubes etc resulting in metal
losses, During combustion organic vanadium compounds in the oil thermally
decompose and oxidize in the gas stream to V
2
O
3
and V
2
O
5
[2]. Sodium present as
NaCl in the oil, vaporizes and reacts with SO
3
[3]. Subsequent reactions between V
and Na compounds result in the formation of complex vanadates having melting points
lower than those of the original compounds. The various reactions can be summarized
as follows :
NaCl >> Na
2
O (vaporization followed by oxidation) (3)
Na
2
O + SO
3
>> Na
2
SO
4 (4)
Oxidation
( Or g a n i c ) > > V2 O5 ( 5 )
Na
2
S O
4
+ V
2
O
5
>> 2NaVO
3
+ SO
3
I I I
(6)
M.P. 1150
o
K 964
o
K 902
o
K
Tube-metal temperatures encountered in furnace and super heater tube banks of many
oil fired boilers are in the range of 800-866
o
K [2] and exceed the melting
temperatures of many of the compounds found in the deposits and maintain the latter in
molten state causing metal corrosion. SO3 formed through various routes of reactions,
also results in the formation of alkali pyrosulphates (Na2S2O7 or K2S2O7) which are
corrosive at temperatures 673 - 755K [4]. Pyrosulphates are believed to react with
Fe
2
O
3
or Fe
3
O
4
to form trisulphates, Na
3
Fe (SO
3
)
3
or K
3
Fe (SO
4
)
3
which are
responsible for corrosion in hot temperature zones.
2Fe
2
O
3
+ 6K
2
S
2
O
7
> 4K
3
Fe(SO
4
)
3
1165
Various methods have been used with varying degrees of success to reduce hazardous
stack emissions and prevent plant corrosion. The most effective method is the use of
clean fuel instead of the dirty fuel. Lower contents of S, V and Na will significantly
reduce, if not completely eliminate, most of the problems. If that choice is not available
due to cost consideration other methods such as modification of combustion conditions,
use of fuel oil additives, desulfurization of flue gases etc. are also employed to reduce
the severity of some of the problems.
Use of oils having low sulfur content has helped reduce corrosion problems
considerably. However, though low S contents proportionately decreases SO
2
, the
reduction in SO
3
due to lower S contents is not quite dramatic. As stated by Radway
[5,6], burning of low S fuel does not yield the expected reduction in SO
3
and
particulate sulfates. A five fold reduction in fuel sulfur lowers SO
3
only by 40%.
Despite their high costs, hydrodesulfurization (HDS) of heavy oils, as well as flue gas
desulfurization (FGD), have become increasingly popular over the years after they went
into commercial operation in 1968 [7].
By carefully controlling the levels of excess air to the minimum, at around less than 5%
(1% excess O
2
), significant decrease in SO
3
generation and subsequently reduced
corrosion can be achieved. While this mode of operation has an additional advantage of
improved boiler efficiency, several associated problems such as disproportionate
production of both soot and SO
3
due to poor mixing of combustion air and the fuel oil
has been experienced. However, operation at low excess air has become popular in
recent years.
Preventing the condensation of SO
3
with water vapour in the flue gases by controlling
the flue gas exit temperature is another method followed by all boiler operators as a
general practice. The exit flue gas temperature should be maintained higher than the
acid dew point temperature by about 20-25C. But maintaining the flue gas
temperatures uniformly above the dew points through out the operational life is difficult
to achieve due to sudden swings in boiler loads dictated by varying consumer demands,
changes in ambient air qualities etc creating potential corrosion environment.
Addition of certain chemicals in trace quantities into some selected zones of the boiler
system has been in use for several years in many utilities around the world as a
successful solution to many taxing problems such as hot-and cold-end corrosions,
fugitive emissions etc. Type, concentration and dosing point of the chemicals depend
very much on the nature of the most troublesome problem faced by the utility in
question. An excellent review of the data on the use of various chemical additives in
utility boilers in US has been published by D.W.Locklin et al [8] based on the results
from an EPRI (US) research project conducted by Battelle-Columbus. This paper
contains the evaluation of the data from 445 separate additive trials from 38 US power
utilities. Several other informative publications are also available in literature such as
1166
one classical paper from J.W.Radway and L.M.Exley [5] and another from Thomas
Garcia-Borras [9].
Use of fuel additives has been reported to reduce emission of SO
3
, acid fly ash, acid
smut, tube fouling, fireside corrosion in air heaters and economizers (low temperature
zone), in furnaces and superheaters (high temperature zone) as well as to promote
carbon burn out [8].
The most effective among the several fuel additives used are based on MgO or
Mg(OH)
2
, which are generally available in oil dispersed forms. Oil-soluble,
organometallic additives based on Mg or Mg-Mn combinations are also being used
quite successfully. In cases where the primary aim of the fuel additive is to achieve
improved fuel combustion, additives based on a combination of metals including Mg,
Mn and some transition metals are used quite effectively. To reduce back-end corrosion
use of MgO either as powder or in suspended form has been reported to be effective if
injected in the convective passes where most of the SO
3
is formed catalytically [5]
MgO inhibits the catalysis of SO
2
to SO
3
by oxides of vanadium and iron. It also reacts
with V
2
O
5
and Na
2
SO
4
to form high-melting compounds such as magnesium vanadates
and sodium magnesium vanadates. As the melting points of the new products are much
higher than the metal temperature normally encountered, metal loss due to high
temperature corrosion resulting from the presence of molten compounds such as
Na
2
SO
4
and V
2
O
5
on the furnace surfaces are greatly reduced.
MgO, in addition to inhibiting the formation of SO
3
, also effectively neutralizes the acid
that condenses on the cooler parts of the air heating system, forming neutral MgSO
4
.
FUEL ADDITIVE TESTS IN JEDDAH BOILERS:
In 1989 some preliminary tests were carried out for a short period using a commercially
available Mg(OH)
2
based additive in a boiler in Jeddah, Phase IV [l0]. These tests
yielded promising results such as reduced SO
3
content and acid dew point, reduced
quantity and improved quality of ash, etc. But since the duration of the test was very
short no conclusive data was obtained from these tests. Therefore it was decided to
undertake a more extensive test programme to obtain detailed informations on the
effects of chemical additives on Jeddah boilers. This paper summarises the results
of a long term study carried out in a boiler unit in Jeddah, Phase-III using three
different fuel additives.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The test programme was scheduled to last six months and intended to achieve the
following objectives:
1167
(a)
( b)
( c)
(d)
(e)
To test several potential chemical additives to evaluate their comparative
performances and to optimize their dose rates.
To evaluate the hot and cold side corrosion potential in the presence of the
additives.
To determine the effect of additives on SO
3
, SO
2
and NO
x
generations and acid
dew point.
To evaluate the quantity and quality of soot/dust production.
To check if the additives have any adverse effect on the boiler performance.
SELECTION OF ADDITIVES AND THE TEST UNIT
Following three additives were selected for the study:
(1)
(2)
(3)
MGOH, a magnesium hydroxide based inorganic additive dispersed in an
organic solvent.
MGOA, a magnesium oxide based additive, dispersed in an organic solvent.
MGOB, a special grade MgO powder, dispersed in demineralized water
locally.
First two chemicals were pumped neat into the fuel oil header at the required dose
rate. MgO powder was slurried in demineralized water as 10% slurry before pumping
to the fuel line.
Boiler # 7 from Jeddah Phase III was selected for the extended study due to its better
instrumentation and control systems. Jeddah phase III has four front wall fired boilers,
each with nine burners at three elevations. The fuel oil flow is about 24 TPH at the
maximum MCR of 350 TPH of steam generating 60 MW of electricity.
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
The test unit was put in operation and after achieving stable condition several
operational and chemical parameters were monitored for a period of 2 weeks. Then the
first chemical was dosed at a dose rate of 250 ppm (as Mg), maintained the dose rate
for 2-3 weeks, monitoring all test parameters, Tests were repeated at dose rates of 200
and 150 ppm by the same procedure. Then the unit was shut down for internal
inspection at the end of testing the first chemical. After restarting the boiler the other
two chemicals were tested following the same procedure.
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS AND PROCEDURES
1. Flue Gas Analysis
1168
The following parameters were determined in the boiler flue gases as per methods
indicated against each.
(a) SO
2
and SO
3
- USEPA method # 6 [11].
(b) Acid dew point and rate of acid build up (RBU) - determined using a portable
Land Instrument Model 200.
(c) Oxides of nitrogen (NO
x
) - USEPA method # 7 [12].
(d) CO
2
and O
2
- by Orsat analyzer.
(e) Moisture contents - by gravimetric method by absorbing known volume of the
flue gas by anhydrous calcium sulfate.
2. Soot Analysis
The following parameters of the boiler soot samples were analyzed by standard
methods:
(a) Weight, bulk density and moisture content.
(b) pH and conductivity of 1% slurry.
(c) Magnesium (soluble and insoluble), vanadium and carbon contents
(d) Acid content.
3. Boiler Operation Parameter
Fuel and steam flows, boiler efficiency, temperature of the flue gases at inlet to the air
heater, air heater delta P, and flue gas opacity were monitored on daily basis.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Flue Gas Parameter
Concentration of SO
3
in flue gases in the absence and presence of various additives are
shown in Fig.1. The data show that all three chemicals were able to achieve
substantial reduction in SO
3
levels in flue gases in comparison to its concentration in
the flue gases in the absence of the additives. Average reduction of SO
3
in the flue
gases, independent of additive dose rates, were 31.7, 29.4 and 28.3% by MGOH,
MGOA and MGOB, respectively. Effect of dose rates on SO
3
reduction was significant
but not very dramatic. For instance, in the case of MGOH the highest reduction was
found to be 37% at 250 ppm Mg, and decreased to 31 and 27% at 150 and 100 ppm ,
respectively. With MGOA the decreases were 38.0, 33.5 and 25% as the dose rates
were reduced in the same order. MGOB addition resulted in a reduction of SO
3
by 29%
at 150 ppm while that at 100 ppm was only 14%. With respect to SO
3
reduction all the
1169
three chemicals exhibited similar performance and quite favorably compare with the
literature data [5].
SO
3
content in the flue gases is the major contributing factor determining the
magnitude of the acid dew point, The following simplified equation to calculate the
dew point from SO
3
concentration was used by several workers based on a procedure
developed by Peter Muller [13]:
[
X
Log
] = 0.612(T T - 7.52 (8) Water Vapour Conc.
Where, X = SO
3
conc. in ppm
and = Dew point temperature - water saturation temperature.
But, since the calculated and measured values were reported to be conflicting quite
often [5], a portable Land Instrument was used to experimentally measure the dew
points in our studies. A typical determination by graphical extrapolation is shown in
Fig. 2 in the absence and presence of the additive. A significant decrease in the dew
points from 135C to 115
o
C in the absence and presence of the additives, respectively,
is evident from the figure.
Maximum, minimum and the average dew points obtained during the present studies
are shown in Fig. 3, independent of the additive dose rates. Average acid dew points
in the presence of both MGOH and MGOA were quite similar, 114 and 111
o
C,
respectively. This constitutes decreases of 2 1.5 and 24.5
o
C in dew points by these two
additives which is quite comparable with literature data [5,6]. Highest decrease was
observed with MGOB additive, but this value is not quite reliable since the boiler could
not be maintained steady at full load during the tests with MGOB due to operational
constraints as was done during tests with the other additives. At lower loads SO
3
generation and consequently acid dew points will be comparatively low.
The rate of acid build up (RBU) has been reported to be a good indicator of the
corrosiveness of the flue gases - at higher RBU, flue gases are more corrosive and
vice-versa. Several previous studies had shown that RBU of close to or less than 100
mA/min is indicative of non-corrosive flue gases [14]. During the present study RBU
were determined at various excess oxygen levels in the presence of 150 ppm additive.
Figs. 4 (a-c) show the RBU data obtained with the three additives. It can be seen that
in the presence of all three additives RBU values decreased quite significantly from the
control value (>l000 uA/min without additives) and stabilized at around 100 uA/min.
It may be seen from the summary of the results as shown in Fig. 5 that RBU also
decreases with excess oxygen since it is a function of SO
3
content in the flue gases and
1170
the latter is low at low excess O
2
. MGOH exhibited slightly better performance than
MGOA. Though MGOB showed the lowest RBU values among the three additives,
this could be due to low boiler loads during most part of the MGOB test period as
mentioned above. The results in general indicate very effective neutralization of the
flue gas SO
3
by the additives.
As a result of improved carbon burn-out in the presence of the additives operation of
the boiler with low excess air is not accompanied by problems usually encountered due
to improper mixing of air and fuel oil. Formation of acid smut is eliminated by
reduction in the levels of SO
3
and V
2
O
5
and the dust collection is made easy due to the
formation of high melting compounds and absence of acidic constituents. Decrease in
acid dew point of the flue gases due to additive dosing also helps to reduce the flue gas
exit temperature and thereby improve fuel efficiency. Since the costs of the additives
are only 0.5-I.0% of the fuel costs, saving obtained through improved efficiency by
additive dosing could be substantial.
Effect of additives on the SO
2
and NO
x
levels in the flue gases was negligible in
agreement with other reported studies [8].
Boiler Soot Characteristics
The ability of the additives to reduce acid content has been further confirmed by the
boiler soot quality. pH of 1% slurry of the soot samples increased above 3.5 during
additive dosing, accompanied by decrease of sulfuric acid below detection level.
Comparative values of pH and sulfuric acid are shown in Table 1. In general pH of 1%
slurry of soot samples collected during the trials of all 3 additives showed that soot
samples were non-corrosive and free from sulfuric acid. pH below 3.5 is considered to
bc corrosive and indicates the presence of acid as seen from the soot quality before
additive dosing. MGOH produced the most neutral soot among the three additives.
Other soot characteristics also indicated remarkable improvements during the additive
dosing. While the soot continued to be quite dry and friable its soluble magnesium
content increased from 30 ppm (before additive dosing) to greater than 10, 000 ppm
with MGOH and MGOA dosing. This further confirms the effective neutralization of
acidic mist in the soot with MgO forming soluble magnesium sulfate. The third
chemical, MGOB, also indicated good neutralization, though the soluble magnesium
content was less than 8000 ppm.
Vanadium content in the soot samples also increased considerably during additive
dosing. While MGOH dosing yielded the highest increase of vanadium (about 5 fold),
increase during MGOA dosing was about three fold. The third chemical also
indicated the same trend, but to a lesser extent, These results show that vanadium is
being effectively converted to high melting species by reaction with magnesium which
1171
is easily being blown out of the boiler under normal gas velocities, In the absence of
magnesium vanadium forms low melting oxides, depositing on to boiler surfaces in
high temperature areas causing high temperature corrosion. Vanadium oxides will also
abet corrosion in low temperature zones by catalyzing the conversion of SO
2
to SO
3
which condenses on to cooler surfaces. The results, therefore, show that the additives
may be quite effective in reducing both types of corrosions.
Soot quantities decreased to approximately one third during MGOH and MGOA dosing
as seen from Table - 1. Reduced quantity as well as improved quality of the soot
generated during the additive dosing are expected to make soot collection and disposal
safer and more cost effective. Soot quantity could not be determined during MGOB
trials due to operational reasons,
Boiler Performance
Among the boiler parameters monitored the most relevant to the tests were boiler
efficiency, air heater AP, flue gas exit temperature and flue gas density. No perceptible
decrease in boiler efficiency was noticed on account of additive dosing. Though the flue
gas exit temperature showed an increase of 30-40C and 50C during MGOH and
MGOA dosing, respectively, it did not adversely affect the boiler efficiency. The
observed rise in flue gas temperature may be due to the formation of a reflective coating
of MgO on the heat transfer tubes. Internal inspection of the boiler after each additive
testing showed that most of the tubes surfaces in super heater and economiscr areas
were covered with thick deposits. The deposits were much thicker after tests with
MGOA than with MGOH. MGOB produced the least deposits probably due to smaller
particle size and/or short test duration. The deposits were found to be consisting mostly
of magnesium, sulfur, iron, vanadium and nickel. These deposits are expected to
protect the metal surfaces from corrosive flue gases though they may lead to lower heat
transfer. But the results did not indicate any perceptible decline in the boiler
efficiency.
The air heater AP remamed constant indicating the absence of fouling which was
further confirmed during shut-down inspection. Flue gas density data did not indicate
any reliable trend during the trials with all the chemicals. The readings were found to
be quite erratic even during the absence of additive dosing, probably due to faulty
meter and therefore, no conclusion could be drawn from these data.
Internal Condition of the Boiler
Internal surfaces of all boiler areas (combustion chamber, high temperature zones and
cold-ends) were covered with deposits as observed during the inspections. Similar
observations were widely reported in literature [6]. The deposits consisted mainly of
1172
neutral oxide and sulfate of magnesium with traces of other compounds such as oxides
of V, Fe, Ni and other complex compounds containing these species. They normally
form thin, reflective coating on the heat transfer surfaces and prevents corrosion by
acting as a barrier between the flue gases and the metal surfaces. In some cases these
white deposits were reported to have affected the boiler efficiency due to low heat
transfer coefficients of the deposits in comparison to those of the metals. But the
present trials did not indicate any perceptible reduction in boiler efficiency as a result
of deposit formation as stated above.
Deposits observed on the air handling ducts were thin and uniform and consisted
mainly of neutral compounds of magnesium. This is expected to provide effective
corrosion protection to the metal surfaces.
CONCLUSIONS
Results of the trial tests had established that magnesium based additives are quite
effective in decreasing the SO
3
content in boiler flue gases resulting in a substantial
reduction of the acid dew points. The results were also substantiated by near
neutralization of the flue gases as indicated by low rate of acid build up (RBU).
Conversion of low melting compounds into high melting compounds by chemical
reactions with the additives during combustion was also achieved as indicated by the
dry nature of the boiler soot. Soot quantity was reduced considerably in addition to
improvements in the soot quality as indicated by the absence of sulfuric acid in the soot
samples.
These results indicate that significant reduction in the corrosion incidences of the boiler
internals can be achieved by chemical dosing. Improved quality and reduced quantity
of soot will reduce the hazardous nature of soot emissions and will also facilitate easier
soot handling.
Boiler operation parameters were not adversely affected during the additive dosing.
Fouling of air heaters, clogging of burner nozzles etc. were also not observed.
Performances of all three additives tested were quite comparable, with MGOH
appearing to be the best among the three. Though slight reductions in the
performance efficiencies were noticed as the additive dose rates were decreased an
optimum dose rate of 150 ppm appeared to be quite cost effective.
1173
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Saline Water Conversion Corporation, Annual Report, 1993
Bellar J. and Elghobashi S., Fuel Composition Effects on High Temperature
Corrosion in Industrial/Commercial Boilers, J. Engg. for Gas Turbines and
Power, July, 1985. p. 744.
Babcock and Wilcox, "Fuel Ash Effects and Boiler Design and Operation",
Steam: Its Generation and Use, 1992. p. 15.
Reid W.T., External Corrosion and Deposits, Boiler and Gas Turbines, "
American Elsevier Publication Co., NY, 1971. p. 116-142.
Radway J.E. and Exley L.M., A Practical Review of the Cause and Control of
Cold End Corrosion and Acidic Stack Emissions in Oil - Fired Boilers,
Combustion, Dec. 1977. p. 7.
Radway J.E., Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 12. April 1978.
p. 388.
Abdullah A. Al-Azzaz, P.C. Mayan Kutty and Mahmoud Srouji,
Environment and Corrosion Aspects of Stack Emission in Power Plants, Proc.
Industrial Air Pollution Symp., King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia,
1993. p. 48.
Locklin D.W. et al, Fireside Additive Trials in Utility Boilers - Overview of
an EPRI Survey, Combustion, Feb. 1980 p. 26.
Thomas Garcia-Borras, How to Control Corrosion Fouling and Slagging in
Boilers Using Residual Fuel Oils, Corrosion Prevention and Control. 1984.
p.15.
A. Al-Azzaz, J. Abrams, S. Zaczek and L. Awerbuch, Jeddah Stack
Emissions Problems and Solutions, Proc. Fourth World Congress on
Desalination and Water Reuse, Kuwait, Vol.-I, 1989. p. 459-470.
EPA-40 CFR-Ch. 1, Part 60, Method 6, 1987. p. 587.
EPA-40 CFR-Ch. 1, Part 60, Method 7, 1987. p. 308.
Peter Muller, Chemie-Ing- Techn., 1959. 5: p 345.
Radway J.E., Measurement Technique Evaluates Boiler Fuel Additives,
Hydrocarbon Processing, Feb. 1977.
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179