Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

ISSN: 1047-3289 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by Hydrogen

Peroxide-Enhanced Gas-Phase Oxidation Of Nitric
Oxide

John M. Kasper , Christian A. Clausen III & C. David Cooper

To cite this article: John M. Kasper , Christian A. Clausen III & C. David Cooper (1996) Control
of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by Hydrogen Peroxide-Enhanced Gas-Phase Oxidation Of
Nitric Oxide, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 46:2, 127-133, DOI:
10.1080/10473289.1996.10467444

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1996.10467444

Published online: 09 Jan 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1177

View related articles

Citing articles: 17 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20

Download by: [195.76.178.7] Date: 15 September 2016, At: 20:33

TECHNICAL PAPER
Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by Hydrogen
Peroxide-Enhanced Gas-Phase Oxidation Of Nitric Oxide
John M. Kasper, Christian A. Clausen III, and C. David Cooper
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
ABSTRACT
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur oxides (SOX) are criteria air
pollutants, emitted in large quantities from fossil-fueled elec-
tric power plants. Emissions of SOX are currently being re-
duced significantly in many places by wet scrubbing of the
exhaust or flue gases, but most of the NOX in the flue gases is
NO, which is so insoluble that it is virtually impossible to
scrub. Consequently, NOX control is mostly achieved by us-
ing combustion modifications to limit the formation of NOX,
or by using chemical reduction techniques to reduce NOX to
N2. Low NOX burners are relatively inexpensive but can only
achieve about 50% reduction in NOX emissions; selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) can achieve high reductions but is
very expensive.
The removal of NOX in wet scrubbers could be greatly
enhanced by gas-phase oxidation of the NO to NO2, HNO2,
and HNO3 (the acid gases are much more soluble in water
than NO). This oxidation is accomplished by injecting liq-
uid hydrogen peroxide into the flue gas; the H2O2 vaporizes
and dissociates into hydroxyl radicals. The active OH radi-
cals then oxidize the NO and NO2. This NOX control tech-
nique might prove economically feasible at power plants
with existing SO2 scrubbers. The higher chemical costs for
H2O2 would be balanced by the investment cost savings,
compared with an alternative such as SCR.
The oxidation of NOX by using hydrogen peroxide has
been demonstrated in a laboratory quartz tube reactor. NO
conversions of 97% and 75% were achieved at hydrogen
IMPLICATIONS
Control of nitrogen oxide emissions from existing utilities
and other large combustion sources remains a difficult and
expensive proposition. Most approaches try either to mini-
mize the formation of NOX or to chemically reduce NOX to
N2 by treating the flue gas. This paper proposes injecting
H2O2 into the flue gases to promote the gas-phase oxida-
tion of NOX to soluble acid gases (HNO2 and HNO3) fol-
lowed by wet scrubbing. For power plants with existing
SO2 scrubbers, such an approach would be easier to ret-
rofit and would have much lower installation costs than
selective catalytic reduction (SCR). However, the operat-
ing (chemical) costs will be higher for the proposed pro-
cess owing to a higher unit cost and potentially higher
usage rate of H2O2, compared with ammonia, which is
used in SCR.
Volume 46 February 199§
ISSN 1047-3289 /. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 46: 127-133
Copyright 1996 Air & Waste Management Association
peroxide/NO mole ratios of 2.6 and 1.6, respectively. The
reactor conditions (500 °C, a pressure of one atmosphere,
and 0.7 seconds residence time) are representative of flue
gas conditions for a variety of combustion sources. The oxi-
dized NOX species were removed by caustic water scrubbing.
INTRODUCTION
Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, two regu-
lated air pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX). Most of the SO2 control technology used in
the United States is lime or limestone wet scrubbing. NOX
currently cannot be removed effectively in these scrubbing
systems due to the low solubility of NO, the major constitu-
ent of NOX in combustion flue gases. The solubility of N-
containing gases can be greatly increased by oxidizing them
further to NO2, HN0 2 , and HNO3, which is reflected by the
Henry's constants shown in Table 1. This suggests that fully
oxidized nitrogen species could be absorbed simultaneously
with SO2 in existing wet scrubbers at a number of U.S. power
plants, or along with HC1 in existing dry scrubbers at waste
incinerators. A key advantage of this approach compared to
selective catalytic reduction, for example, would be a large
savings in capital cost. Disadvantages would include the
possible effects of nitrites and nitrates on the water chemis-
try of the scrubber, on the quality of any gypsum by-prod-
ucts, and on the disposal of waste sludge.
Nitric oxide can be oxidized at low to moderate tempera-
tures using ozone (O3) or hydroxyl radicals (OH). In flue
gases the reactions can be complex, but some of the key
elementary steps are as follows:1-2
Table 1 . Values of selected Henry's constants (in water at 25 °C).
Gas H, atm/mol fraction
N2 86,400
NO 28,700
NO2 113
NA 0.71
HNO2 0.020
HNO3 4.8E-6
SO2 44
* For Henry's Law written for gas i as Pi = Hi X,, where Pi is partial pressure of
component i in the gas phase, and X, is mole fraction of gas i in the water phase.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 127
Kasper, Clausen III, and Cooper
O 3 -+NO->NO 2 + O 2
OH + NO -> NO 2 + H
OH + NO + M -> HNO 2 + M
OH + NO 2 + M -»• HNO 3 + M
HO 2 + NO -> NO 2 + OH
In examining reactions (1) through (5), it is apparent that
ozone oxidizes NO only to NO2, while OH radicals oxidize
NO to HNO2 and HNO3 as well as NO2. Both HNO2 and
HNO3 are much more soluble than NO or even NO2. The
promise of NOX removal in ordinary scrubbers makes the
use of OH radicals more attractive than ozone.
Absorption of NO and NO2 in aqueous solutions can be
complex because these gases may react with water and form
HNO2 and HNO3.3 NO oxidation to NO2 using ozone, and
subsequently removing the NO2 in a scrubber, has not been
economically attractive for large industrial and power plant
applications.4 However, recent studies have shown that us-
ing sulfite scrubber solutions to capture NO2 has promise.5
Other researchers have investigated the benefits of liq-
uid phase oxidation on the absorption of NOX.68 The pro-
posed process involved two vessels: in the first, various
peroxides or other oxidizing compounds in an acidic solu-
tion provided hydroxyl radicals to oxidize NOX to HNO3; in
the second, the HNO3 was removed in an alkaline solution.
Oxidizing the NOX in the gas phase would eliminate the
complexity and expense of the first scrubber.
One method of generating OH radicals is the thermal
decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide
injected into a stream of hot gases can decompose accord-
ing to one or more of the following reactions.
H2O2 -• 2OH (6)
H2O2 -> HO2 + H (7)
H2O2->H2O + V2O2 (8)
OH + H2O2 -> H2O + HO2 (9)
TEST GAS DILUTED WITH HOUSE AIR
INJECTOR
HEATING TAPE
TUBE FURNACE
WITH QUART? TUBE
REACTOR
SYRINGE PUMP
FOR INJECTING
H202
NOx ANALYZER
MOISTURE
TRAP
Figure 1 . Schematic flow diagram of the experimental apparatus.
128 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
(1) Of the first two reactions, reaction (7) is less likely to occur
(2) because the energy required to break the HOO-H bond is
(3) much greater than the energy required to break the HO-OH
(4) bond.9 Heterogeneous decomposition (reaction 8) occurs
(5) readily at surfaces, and is thought to predominate at tem-
peratures below about 400 °C; reaction (8) should be mini-
mized in order to maximize OH radical formation. 10
Hydroxyl attack of hydrogen peroxide can generate HO2 radi-
cals, but is only important at high hydrogen peroxide con-
centrations.11
Surface reactions affect the decomposition of hydrogen
peroxide, as noted by a number of authors. 1214 Generally,
peroxides are preserved at acidic surfaces and destroyed at
basic surfaces.15 In one study, boric acid treatment of the
interior walls of a reactor tube significantly reduced the de-
composition of hydrogen peroxide.16
EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES
The experimental apparatus used here was a modification
of the system used by Cooper and Clausen, who studied the
enhanced oxidation of organic vapors using hydrogen per-
oxide and ozone. 1718 The experimental system consisted of
four sub-systems: (1) the gas and hydrogen peroxide supply
sub-systems; (2) the quartz tube reactor and tube furnace;
(3) the scrubbers; and (4) the gas analyzers. A schematic of
the experimental system is shown in Figure 1.
The test gas was 5.0% (by volume) NO in nitrogen, drawn
from a high pressure bottle. It was diluted with air to achieve
the desired inlet concentration prior to entering the
reactor. The reactor was a quartz tube capable of operating at
800 °C, heated externally by a Lindberg tube furnace with
three independently controlled heating zones. The quartz
tube was 2.5 m long with a 5.9 mm inside diameter and a
heated volume of 70.5 cc. The inside surface of the first third
PRESSURE
GAGE
HEATING
TAPE ROTAMETERS
I METERING VALVES
(FILTER PACKAGE
«b cb
LAB SCRUBBER SYSTEM NITRIC OXIDE
HOUSE AIR
SUPPLY TEST GAS
EXHAUST
Volume 46 February 1996

HEATING TAPE
HEATING TAPE THERMOCOUPLE —
NOx/AIR INLET
INJECTOR TUBE
Figure 2 . Detailed diagram of reactor inlet zone (dimensions in cm).
of the tube was treated daily by wiping with a saturated boric
acid solution. Two thermocouples, each inserted down the
bore of the reactor from opposite ends, were used to monitor
gas temperatures. To avoid condensation in the exhaust tub-
ing, a heating tape was used to maintain the exhaust tubing
at approximately 50 "C. A similar heating tape preheated
the inlet gas just upstream of the H2O2 injection point.
An aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide was injected
into the reactor inlet through a 30 cm long, 1.6 mm OD teflon
tube (see Figure 2). The discharge end of the teflon tube was
wrapped in a wick of Pyrex glass wool. The wick was approxi-
mately 2.5 cm long and loosely filled the inside diameter of
the reactor. The wick was found to reduce oscillations in reac-
tor exit NOX levels during peroxide injection. It is believed
that the wick kept liquid droplets from forming at the end of
the tube, and so evenly distributed the liquid peroxide and
provided for smooth, continuous evaporation. However, the
wick surface may have contributed to significant heteroge-
neous decomposition of the H2O2, thus producing high ap-
parent usage rates of the peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide flow
was delivered by a syringe pump, which accurately controlled
the very low liquid flow rates required. The hydrogen perox-
ide solution was prepared from a stock solution of approxi-
mately 30% (by weight) hydrogen peroxide. The hydrogen
peroxide concentration was determined precisely by titration
with potassium permanganate.19
Laboratory scrubbers were used to remove and separate
HNO2 and HNO3 from the exhaust gas stream. The scrubber
Volume 46 February 1996
Kasper, Clausen III, and Cooper
TUBE FURNACE EXTERIOR WALL
i WICK
•BEGINNING OF HEATED ZONE
INSULATED PLUG
INLET AIR THERMOCOUPLE
•3.8
-8.8-
liquid for these tests was a deionized water/NaOH solution
with initial pH of 9. This scrubber liquid was chosen to
separate the HNO2 and HNO3 from the gases for analytical
reasons. It was not intended to simulate commercial SO2
scrubbers which are predominantly lime or limestone
based. The NO and NO2 remaining in the gas exiting the
scrubbers were measured by a chemiluminescent type NO*
gas analyzer (in this case a Thermo-Environmental, model
42H). Nitrate and nitrite ions in the scrubber liquid were
analyzed colorimetrically.19 Although there was probably
some reaction in the liquid of HNO2 to NO 2; 3 the overall
nitrogen mass balance was reasonable, as shown in the
Results section.
The first two scrubbers were each made from a 1-liter
graduated cylinder filled with Raschig rings (made of 0.635
cm OD glass tubing cut into 0.5 to 1 cm lengths). The first
two scrubbers were filled with 600 mL of scrubbing solution
(the net volume of the Raschig ring packing was approxi-
mately 400 mL). The third scrubber was made from a 500
mL Erlenmeyer flask, containing 350 mL of scrubbing solu-
tion, with no packing. A 15 cm length of perforated tubing
was attached to the discharge of the inlet tube in the third
scrubber, through which the gas was bubbled.
Pressure drops during scrubbing operation were in the
range of 30 to 32 inches (76 to 81 cm) of water. A metering
valve was placed in the scrubber bypass loop to adjust reac-
tor pressure during scrubber bypass operation to be equal to
the reactor pressure observed during scrubbing.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 129
Kasper, Clausen III, and Cooper

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION within about 0.3 seconds. Initial (injected) gas-phase hy-
The first series of tests determined the operating tempera- drogen peroxide concentrations varied up to about 1250
ture range for NO conversion (defined as the oxidation of ppm, and a blank was run by injecting deionized water.
NO to any other species, such as NO2, HNO2, or HNO3). As mentioned, scrubbers were used to remove soluble
Hydrogen peroxide was injected at an inlet concentration nitrogen species from the reactor exhaust stream. The reac-
of 1200 ppm. Nitric oxide conversion varied with reactor tor was started up and allowed to come to steady state with
temperature, as shown in Figure 3, revealing an optimum the gases being exhausted to the atmosphere. The gases were
temperature of about 500 °C. At temperatures below about switched into the scrubbing systems for periods of 15 min-
400 °C, it is thought that radical production is small; at utes at a time to collect data. During scrubbing, a large drop
temperatures above 600 °C, the rate of NO2 thermal reduc- in pH usually was observed.
tion to NO becomes appreciable. After determining the op- Figure 4 shows the decrease in outlet NO concentration
timum temperature, all further tests were run at a reactor as hydrogen peroxide initial concentration increased. At
residence time of 0.7 sec, a reactor temperature of 500 °C, 1222 ppm hydrogen peroxide, 97% conversion of NO was
and an inlet NOX concentration of 500 ppm. Later tests achieved at the reactor exit. At this point, the initial mole
revealed that the conversion of NO takes place quickly, ratio of hydrogen peroxide to NO was 1222/472 or 2.6. At
726 ppm hydrogen peroxide, 75% con-
version of NO occurred. Here, the hy-
drogen peroxide/NO mole ratio was
1.6. According to equations presented
earlier, oxidation of the NO to NO2,
HNO2, and HNO3 requires a hydrogen
peroxide/NO mole ratio of 0.5 to 1.0.
Thus, one should expect a hydrogen
peroxide/NO mole ratio between 0.5
and 1.0 based on stoichiometry, if all
of the hydrogen peroxide were con-
sumed in the oxidation of NO.
Non-useful destruction of OH radi-
cals (e.g., at reactor surfaces) would in-
crease the observed hydrogen
peroxide/NO mole ratio for a given NO
conversion. Because the observed hy-
drogen peroxide/NO mole ratio was
Figure 3. Variation of NO conversion with reactor temperature (at an initial concentration of higher than stoichiometric, it appears
1200 ppm H O in the gases). that significant destruction of OH radi-
cals still occurred at the wick and at
the reactor walls, despite the boric acid
treatment. It is expected that in a full-
scale application, these surface effects
would not occur, and a much lower
mole ratio would be observed.
Deionized water, with no peroxide,
was injected as a blank; the results show
that deionized water had no effect on
NO conversion relative to no injection
at all. The observed small drop in
NO concentration through the reactor
(16 ppm) was due primarily to the dilu-
INJECTED HYDROGEN PEROXIDE CONCENTRATION, ppm tion effects of adding the water.
Nitrogen species distribution varied
with injected peroxide concentration
as shown in Figure 5. This figure shows
Figure 4. Effect of hydrogen peroxide on NO conversion (all tests at 500 °C and 0.7 seconds that more HNO2 and HNO3 are pro-
residence time in reactor). duced at higher H2O2 injection rates.

130 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 46 February 1996
 Kasper, Clausen III, and Cooper

NOX species removal from the gas

stream increased concurrently with
the shift from NO towards HNO3, re-
flecting the higher solubilities of the
acid gases. The percent of total NOX
removed in the scrubbers increased
from about 18% with no hydrogen
peroxide injection to about 62% with
1222 ppm hydrogen peroxide in-
jected. Even higher removals would be
expected in commercial scrubbers for
reasons discussed below. It can be seen
from Figure 5 that in these experi-
ments, a significant fraction of the NO
was converted to NO2 in addition to INJECTED HYDROGIN PEROXIDE CONCENTRATION, ppm
the acid gases. In a commercial appli-
cation, a potential problem might oc-
Figure S. NO species distribution as a function of initial hydrogen peroxide concentration.
cur if the NO2 is not well scrubbed by
the FGD system. Even a small concen-
tration of NO2 in the stack gases might result in a "brown to be a trend towards higher positive errors as the concen-
plume," triggering a stack gas opacity violation. tration of H2O2 increased.
The experimental procedures resulted in a reasonably The scrubbers were operated in the batch mode, which,
good mass balance on nitrogen. NO and NOX were mea- even in a series configuration, is less efficient than a system
sured in the gas phase in the reactor inlet, the reactor exit, operating in the countercurrent mode. Furthermore, a sig-
and the scrubbers exit. HNO2 and HNO3 were measured in nificant drop in pH in the scrubber liquid was observed with
the combined scrubber liquid after fifteen minutes of scrub- time, which undoubtedly affected the absorption efficiency.
bing. Earlier tests had shown that very little HNO2 and Commercial scrubbers, which operate countercurrently with
essentially no HNO3 escaped through the liquid scrubbers. pH control and neutralization and purging of the HNO2 and
The small amount of HNO2 that did pass through the scrub- HNO3, likely can do much better. Thus, it is anticipated that
bers was detected by the NOX analyzer and reported as NO2. significant amounts of NOX could be removed from com-
Mass balances were made for each experimental trial, the bustion flue gases by oxidation of NO and NO2 to HNO2
results of which are shown in Table 2. As can be seen, the and HNO3. Some preliminary tests at the University of Cen-
mass of nitrogen into the system equalled the mass out to tral Florida have shown that HNO2 and HNO3 also can be
within an average absolute error of 4.5%. There did appear removed by passing the gases through powdered Ca(OH)2

Tfeble 2. Experimental results and nitrogen mass balance.

Reactor Reactor Reactor Scrubber Scrubber Scrubber Scrubber Nitrogen Nitrogen Mass
Reactor Inlet Inlet Exit Exit Exit Liq Liq Into Out of Balance
Test [H202] [NOJ [NO] [NO] [NO] [NO2] [NO2—N]* [NO3~N1* System System Error
Point ppmv ppmv ppmv ppmv ppmv ppmv mg mg mg mg mg%

1 0 496 467 451 407 25 0.96 0.83 10.25 10.71 -4.6

2 123 515 483 445 388 42 1.47 0.60 10.52 10.85 -3.2
3 247 499 469 335 289 53 2.71 1.14 10.19 10.84 -6.3
4 483 503 470 273 195 85 3.36 1.37 10.39 10.52 -1.2
5 726 495 463 114 103 119 3.32 2.12 10.26 10.04 2.1
6 971 507 477 80 83 135 ~ 3.17 2.49 10.50 10,17 3.1
7 1222 505 472 14 8 138 3.26 3.22 10.44 9.50 9.1
8 748 496 472 126 154 164 1.51 1.71 9.90 9.56 3.4
9 0 491 465 456 434 40 0.14 0.13 9.75 9.68 0.7
10 363 517 488 204 217 191 0.87 1.08 10.28 10.06 2.1
11 751 521 490 124 121 251 0.91 1.49 10.35 9.79 5.4
12 1264 500 471 8 12 297
. 0.45 2.06 9.94 8.66 12.9

Average absolute error 4.5%. *NO2-N = nitrite nitrogen; NO3-N = nitrate nitrogen.

Volume 46 February 1996 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association i 31
Kasper, Clausen III, and Cooper

Table 3. Simplified cost comparison of H2O2 injection (with existing wet scrubber) vs new SCR have wide application to power
for NOx control at a base case power plant. plants and other combustion
sources of NOX because the acids
SCR H?O? with Existing FGD
High Ratio Low Ratio
HNO2 and HNO3 will be removed in
existing wet or dry scrubbers used
Capital Cost ($) for the removal of SO2 and/or HC1.
$/kw $150/kw NA NA High conversions of NO were
for Base Plant $75 million $2 million demonstrated in the laboratory. A
97% conversion of NO was observed
Levelized cap. cost ($/yr)
at an initial mole ratio of peroxide/
(20 yrs, 6% interest) $ 6,600,000 $170,000
NO of 2.6; a 75% conversion of NO
(20 yrs, 4% interest) $ 5,500,000 $ 150,000
was seen at a peroxide/NO mole ra-
Chemicals Cost ($/yr) tio of 1.6. It is likely that commer-
Ammonia ($315/ton of 100% NH3) $ 840,000 cial applications of this process will
Catalyst (replace every 4 yrs) $ 300,000 use lower hydrogen peroxide/NO
mole ratios for a given NO conver-
H2O2 ($1360/ton of 100% H2O2) $18 million $3.6 million sion, due to reduced OH radical de-
Extra limestone $ 150,000 $150,000
struction at reactor surfaces. The
* Notes: optimum temperature is between
1. Base case is assumed to be a 500 MW plant with a wet limestone FGD system, operating at a capacity factor 400 °C and 650 °C.
of 0.65, and requiring a NOX emissions reduction of 7200 tons per year.
2. High ratio is 2.5 mol H2O2/mol NOX; low ratio is 0.5 mol/mol.
Daily treatment of the reactor
3. Hydrogen peroxide is available at 50% or 70% solutions, but cost is the same on a "pure" basis. surface with a boric acid solution
4. Estimate for capital cost of H2O2 system includes rail car unloading, pumps, pipes, tankage, and injectors. significantly increased NO conver-
sion in the laboratory tube reactor.
This treatment was believed to pre-
or MgO supported on a fabric. Thus, it is anticipated that vent destruction of hydrogen peroxide and OH radi-
commercial removal of these acid gases could be done in cals on the surfaces of the reactor. However, the higher
an existing baghouse with dry sorbent injection. than theoretical mole ratios of H2O2 to NOX indicated
The economic feasibility of this proposed method for that there was still significant non-productive destruc-
NOX control was not studied in detail, but a "back of tion of H2O2.
the envelope" estimation was made. Assume as a base
case a 500 MW power plant with an existing wet flue RECOMMENDATIONS
gas desulfurization system, that must now remove 80 to Laboratory scale demonstration of the enhanced oxida-
90% of its NOX emissions, or about 7200 tons per year. As tion and removal of NOX has been accomplished. More
shown in Table 3, an SCR system would cost about $75 data is required to accurately determine the mechanism
million to install, and would incur about $1.1 million per and the kinetic constants. Pilot scale studies and larger
year in ammonia and catalyst costs. The H2O2 injection scale demonstrations using gases with other constitu-
system could probably be installed (either just upstream ents found in power plant flue gas should be started to
or downstream of the economizer) for about $2 million, gather economic and technical feasibility data for full
and would incur chemical costs of about $3.6 to $18 mil- scale industrial application of this technology. The eco-
lion per year, depending on the actual usage ratio of hy- nomic feasibility depends critically on the usage ratio of
drogen peroxide to NOX. Depending on this ratio, the H2O2 to NOX. Also, studies of the effects of nitrites and
process might be economically viable, with its savings in nitrates on scrubber chemistry and sludge disposal re-
capital costs offsetting its higher chemical costs. quirements are needed.

CONCLUSIONS
It has been experimentally demonstrated that NO can
be oxidized to NO2, HNO2, and HNO3 in the gas phase
by OH radicals generated by the thermal decomposi-
tion of hydrogen peroxide. The process temperatures
and residence times used were representative of down-
stream zones of many types of combustion devices. This
process may be directly applicable to the treatment of
flue gases for the removal of NOX. This process may
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was funded in part with Federal funds as part
of the program of the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance
Research Center, which is supported under cooperative
agreement R815197 with the United States Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. The contents do not necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. EPA nor does the
mention of trade names or commercial products consti-
tute endorsement or recommendation for use.

132 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 46 February 1996
 Kasper, Clausen III, and Cooper

REFERENCES
1. Anderson, J.G.; Margitan JJ; Kaufman, F. "Gas phase recombina-
tion of OH with NO and NO 2 " /. Chemical Physics 1974, 60, No. 18.
2. Chao, D.C. Kinetic Modeling of the Hydrogen Peroxide or Ozone En-
hanced Incineration of Nitric Oxide and/or Carbon Monoxide, Master's
Thesis, University of Central Florida: Orlando, FL, 1994.
3. Counce, R.M.; Perona, JJ. "Scrubbing of gaseous nitrogen oxides in
packed towers," AIChE Journal 1983, 29, 26.
4. Harrison, J. W. Technology and Economics ofFlue Gas NOx Oxidation by
Ozone U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Government
Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1976; EPA-600/7-76-033.
5. Shen, C.H.; Rochelle, G.T. NO2 Absorption into Sulfite Solutions: 9/92-
9/93 Progress Report Department of Chemical Engineering, Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin, 1993.
6. Perlmutter, H.D.; Ao, H.; Shaw, H. "Absorption of NO promoted by
strong oxidizing agents: Organic tertiary hydroperoxides in n-
hexadecane," Environmental Science and Technology 1993, 27, No. 1.
7. Littlejohn, D.; Chang, S.G. "Removal of NOx and SO2 from flue gas
by peracid solutions,", Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1990, 29, No. 7.
8. Cooper, H.B.H. "Removal and recovery of nitrogen oxides and sul-
fur dioxide from gaseous mixtures containing them," U.S. Patent
4426364, 1984.
9. Sanderson, R.T. Simple Inorganic Substances. Robert E. Krieger Pub-
lishing Company: Malabar, FL, 1989.
10. Satterfield, C.N.; Stein, T.W. "Homogeneous decomposition of hy-
drogen peroxide vapor," Journal ofPhysical Chemistry 1957,61, 537.
11. Martinez, A.; Geiger, C; Hewett, M.; Clausen, C.A.; Cooper, CD.
"Using hydrogen peroxide or ozone to enhance the incineration of
volatile organic vapors," Waste Management 1993, 13, 261-270.
12. Wilson, W.E., Jr. "A critical review of the gas-phase reaction kinetics
of the hydroxyl radical," /. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 1972,1, No. 2.
13. Hoare, D.E. "Studies of the reactions of the hydroxyl radicals," Pro-
ceedings of the Royal Society, London, 1966, A291, 76.
14. Schumb, W.B.; Satterfield, C.N.; Wentworth, R.L. Hydrogen Peroxide
A.C.S. Monograph No. 128, Reinhold Publishing: New York, 1958.
15. Drysdale, D.D.; Lloyd, A.C. "Gas phase reactions of the hydroxyl
radical," Oxidation and Combustion Reviews 1970, 4.
16. McLane, C.K. "Hydrogen peroxide in the thermal hydrogen oxygen
reaction: Thermal decomposition of hydrogen peroxide" Journal of
Chemical Physics 1949, 17, 379-385.
17. Cooper, CD.; Clausen, C.A.; Tomlin, D.; Hewett, M.; Martinez, A.
"Enhancement of organic vapor incineration using hydrogen per-
oxide," /. Haz. Materials 1991, 27.
18. Clausen, C.A.; Cooper, CD.; Hewett, M.; Martinez, A. "Enhance-
ment of organic vapor incineration using ozone," /. Haz. Materials
1992, 31.
19. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater;
(Greenberg, A.E.; Trussell, R.R.; Clesceri, L.S., Editors); Port City Press:
Baltimore, MD, 1985.
About the Authors
Mr. John Kasper, a recent Master's graduate from the
University of Central Florida, is an environmental engi-
neer with Grove Scientific Company in Orlando,
Florida. Dr. Christian A. Clausen III is a Professor in
the Chemistry Department at UCF. Dr. C. David Coo-
per (corresponding author) is Professor of Engineer-
ing in the Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department at UCF, Orlando, Florida, 32816-2450. All
work was conducted at the University of Central Florida.

• »• *
« • _ *•

'. 1-*' '

•
Air & Waste Management Association's
'»! •

SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
est 1983

Jtiff
FUNDING THE FUTURE
•4 WANTED: Scholarship Contributors and Applicants

The Association's Scholarship Fund Program continues to grow — over

$100,000 in scholarships have been awarded — but the Association needs
your continued support to further enhance its efforts of educating future
environmental professionals!
For questions about contributing to the A&WMA scholarship
program - or to receive an application for a graduate study scholarship,
please contact Brenda Cunningham, Manager Finance/Information Services,
at (412) 232-3444, ext. 3129 or e-mail: bcunningham@awma.org.
Members may also make contributions to the scholarship fund on an
annual basis by checking the appropriate box on the Association's member-
ship renewal form, and then mailing a check along with your renewal.

Air & Waste Management Association

One Gateway Center, Third Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Volume 46 February 1i96 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 133