Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Advanced Powder Technology 22 (2011) 236244

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advanced Powder Technology


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apt

Original Research Paper

Evaluation of primary and secondary fugitive dust suppression methods using enclosed water spraying systems at bulk solids handling
J. Faschingleitner , W. Hinger
Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Chemical Engineering, Getreidemarkt 9, A-1060 Vienna, Austria

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
To suppress effectively fugitive dust emissions using water spraying systems at bulk solids handling an optimal design of these devices is necessary. The dust suppression mechanism for example at conveyor belt hand over points can be subdivided in a primary and a secondary dust minimization effect. In this case the moistening of the bulk solids is a primary dust minimization effect and the airborne dust capture is a secondary dust minimization effect. In this work the evaluation of both dust minimization effects is carried out. As a rst step an experimental investigation of the total and the secondary dust suppression efciency took place. A model of two separators which are acting in series got used to compare the measured efciencies and to calculate the primary dust suppression efciency. The secondary dust suppression effect showed low performance compared to the primary dust suppression efciency. So it has to be claried if the streaming situation and the dust concentration situation at the position where the nozzle operates can get improved. Therefore enquiries at different positions in the middle and aside a concentrated particle ow got carried out. The results provide an informative basis how water spraying systems can get improved to suppress fugitive dust emissions at bulk solids handling. 2010 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier B.V. and The Society of Powder Technology Japan. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 30 July 2010 Received in revised form 30 November 2010 Accepted 22 December 2010 Available online 6 January 2011 Keywords: Fugitive dust Bulk solids Dust suppression Water spray Primary and secondary separation action

1. Introduction 1.1. Fugitive dust emission Fugitive dust emissions are air dispersed particles which are arising from dust sources which are not as composed as conducted sources. Diffuse dust sources have often the following characteristics: considerable spatial extension, inhomogeneous source structure, emission-relevant sectors that cannot be located or described easily, low height of source, emission mass ow that varies with time and high ambient air concentrations in the vicinity of the source. Diffuse dust sources can be assigned by geometry like point source, line source, area source or volume source [1]. Dust sources which create fugitive dust are created for example by exposure of open faces (construction, mining or agricultural sites), roads or parking areas, stock piles or bulk solid processing to wind or mechanical stress [2]. A remarkable high fraction of total emitted dust can already be assigned to fugitive dust emissions [3]. One reason for that is that

emissions of non conducted sources are much harder to detect and control. 1.2. Problems at primary dust suppression The reduction of dust from diffuse dust sources is carried out by primary actions which prevent dust generation or secondary actions which suppress the generated dust. Examples for primary actions are bulk solids moistening or granulation of powdery materials or procedural provisions for example at hand over points at conveyor belts to reduce the drop height or using bulk solid slides or choosing operating conditions so that an optimal dense particle ow of the dropping bulk solid is generated [4]. These measures regarding the procedural dust generation process show often high dust suppression efciencies. But they are often only partial solutions and represent no universal applicable dust suppression technique as the compositions of diffuse dust sources are alternating [5]. 1.3. Problems at secondary dust suppression

Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 1 58801 15910; fax: +43 1 58801 15999.
E-mail addresses: joerg.faschingleitner@tuwien.ac.at whoein@mail.zserv.tuwien.ac.at (W. Hinger). (J. Faschingleitner),

The dust reduction despite primary action takes place by secondary action. Examples are to enclose the diffuse source and suck off the dust laden air and separate the dust by ltration [6,7] or to

0921-8831/$ - see front matter 2010 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier B.V. and The Society of Powder Technology Japan. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apt.2010.12.013

J. Faschingleitner, W. Hinger / Advanced Powder Technology 22 (2011) 236244

237

separate the dust by scrubbing [8]. These methods are effective but the necessary ventilation has the drawback of possible dust explosions. At the ltration the lter cleaning is an issue and at scrubbing the problem is waste water treatment and high water consumption. 1.4. Problems at combined primary and secondary dust suppression action A primary as well as secondary action which is competitive and universal applicable to minimize dust, is the operation of spray nozzles. The spray nozzles are operated for fugitive dust suppression at bulk solids handling, bulk solids crushing as well as at mining and storing of bulk solids. As an example the dust suppression efciency of snow cannons got reviewed [9]. The requirement to apply spray nozzles in general is that the bulk solid is water tolerable. The dust suppression of fugitive dust using water sprays at bulk solids handling got improved for example by use of surfactants [1013]. The problem is that the surfactant often has to be aligned with material type which leads to problems at changing bulk solids composition [14,15]. To improve airborne dust capture the droplet size of sprays got minimized by use of high pressure nozzles, atomizing or fogging sprays, ultra sonic resonance nozzles, two phase nozzles or using vapor. It also was tried to improve airborne dust capture by electrical charging of sprays [16,17]. The drawback at this method is that the higher dust suppression efciency per water consumption is overcompensated by droplet evaporation which leads to redispersing of already captured dust and water solved minerals [18]. Nevertheless the dust suppression action at bulk solids handling using water sprays is competitive and universal applicable. Therefore the application of water sprays to suppress fugitive dust should be studied and improved. 1.5. Problems at fugitive dust suppression action using water sprays The dust minimizing effect at water spraying systems at bulk solids handling can be subdivided in a primary and secondary dust minimization effect. The evaluation and comparison of primary and secondary dust minimization effects would be necessary to

optimize the design of water spraying dust minimization devices and to increase their efciency. The general problems at the secondary dust minimization effect using spray nozzles are the air entrainment which causes dilution, redispersion and shifting of dust clouds [19] and secondly that at non conducted diffusive dust sources the propagation of dust emissions is likely to be irregular [20]. Therefore the dust laden airstream often doesnt hit the spray so that the droplets cant perform airborne dust capture. 1.6. Approach to examine the problems To compare the primary and secondary dust suppression efciency at fugitive dust suppression using water sprays a hand over point at a conveyor belt was chosen as test subject. A hand over point at a conveyor belt was chosen to examine water spray dust suppression because primary and secondary dust suppression effects are present, speciable and easily accessible see Fig. 1. The dust suppression of diffuse dust emission was measured in an encasing where irregular propagation of fugitive dust takes place. The large scale encasing is compared to the nozzle spray so capacious that fugitive dust suppression can get examined at applicable conditions for open space (as the dust isnt forced through the spray). Therefore are the results assignable to airborne dust capture at open space. At the same time in this encasing dilution or shifting of dust clouds away from the detector can get avoided. Therefore the secondary fugitive dust suppression efciency can get measured accurately. The dust suppression using water sprays at bulk solids handling can be seen as two separators which are acting in series. So the separation efciency of a water spraying system can be calculated as the total suppression efciency gtot of the efciencies of two separators (g1 and g2), which are connected in series [21].

gtot g1 g2 g1 g2

g1 is the primary dust suppression efciency (), g2 is the secondary dust suppression efciency (), gtot is the total dust suppression efciency (). The total dust suppression efciency and the secondary dust suppression efciency of a hand over point at a conveyor belt can get measured in different designed test rigs, respectively. Using Eq. (1) the primary dust suppression efciency can than get

Fig. 1. Primary and secondary dust reducing effects at suppression of fugitive dust using spray nozzles at conveyor belt hand over points.

238

J. Faschingleitner, W. Hinger / Advanced Powder Technology 22 (2011) 236244

calculated. Therefore all elements of fugitive dust suppression of a hand over point of a conveyor belt which was chosen as a representative role model are accessible. The general problem of secondary dust minimization effect using spray nozzles is that the dust laden airstream has to hit the spray so that the droplets can perform airborne dust capture. At non conducted diffusive dust sources the propagation of dust emissions is likely to be irregular. To examine the general problem at secondary dust suppression efciency a lab scale test rig has to be built in a manner that such an irregular propagation of fugitive dust emissions can be simulated. In this context it has to be claried if the secondary dust suppression efciency could be increased by increasing the possibility to catch diffuse spreading dust emissions by the use of numerous nozzles next to each other in a broad range at the same total water ux as a single nozzle. 2. Methods 2.1. Total dust suppression efciency In a test series the total dust suppression at bulk solid handling was determined on a laboratory test rig to investigate the dust arising from falling bulk solids, where a spraying nozzle performs dust suppression. By doing so, two effects are acting in series. First of all the bulk solid gets moistened during falling which prevents dust generation and secondly the still generated dust gets segregated by water droplet capturing. The scheme of the apparatus is shown in Fig. 2. As a nozzle a two phase water/air resonance nozzle, type 1005 VSR Industrietechnik GmbH [22] with water ows adjustable between 0.36 and 60 L/h, pressurised air: of 15 bar and with a median droplet size of about x50,3 = 52 lm got used. The falling bulk material was dried construction rubble and steel slag. The reduction of the particle concentration was measured by a cascade impactor for the two different bulk solids and at 9 different water volume ows and 3 different air pressures of the nozzle. The measurement of air humidity and temperature at the air inlet and air outlet was necessary to calculate the evaporating water volume ow at each experiment.

2.2. Secondary dust suppression efciency In a series of experiments the fractional separation efciency due to water spraying for a dust, dispersed into the inlet air ow should be measured. Therefore a lab scale test equipment (Fig. 3) was built in a manner that a concentrated particle ow matchable to bulk solid drop experiments hits the nozzle at similar position as at examinations to detect total dust suppression efciency. The nozzle is situated just above the outlet of the dust laden air stream (Fig. 4). The dust material was a test dust, usually used for lter tests [23] (Pural NF, aluminium oxide) and was dispersed by a LTG NDF 100 dust generator [24]. The mass median particle size was about 4 microns. The dust material characteristics are matchable to steel slag and construction rubble which were used at experiments to detect total dust suppression efciency [25]. The dust concentration created by the dust generator in the concentrated particle ow was comparable to bulk solid drop experiments ($1 g/m3). The particle size distribution of dust dispersed into the air stream was measured at the encasing outlet using a Palas PCS 2000 scattered light sensor. The reduction of particle concentration was determined at 3 different water volume ows. 2.3. Inuence of the streaming situation and dust concentration on secondary dust suppression efciency At non conducted diffusive dust sources the propagation of dust emissions is likely to be irregular. Therefore a lab scale test rig (described in chapter 2.2.) was built in a manner that such an irregular propagation of fugitive dust emissions can be simulated. It should get claried if the streaming situation and the dust concentration situation at the position where the nozzle operates have an impact on the secondary dust suppression efciency. To clarify the dependence of the secondary dust suppression efciency on the nozzle position, the nozzle was positioned in the middle between the inlet and the outlet air stream opening and varied in several distances to the side (Fig. 5). The secondary dust suppression efciency of particles smaller than 10 lm g2(10) was measured at 10 L/h total water volume ow

Fig. 2. Scheme of the test rig to investigate the dust arising from falling bulk solids.

J. Faschingleitner, W. Hinger / Advanced Powder Technology 22 (2011) 236244

239

Fig. 3. Scheme of the laboratory test equipment for determining the minimization efciency by water droplets alone.

Fig. 4. Position of the nozzle in the test encasing for investigation of secondary dust suppression effect (precipitation of dust by water droplets).

Fig. 5. Positions of nozzle set up in the encasing. Fig. 6. Nozzle set up of 2 nozzles with different distances between each other shown as example for the central position (position 1).

with one nozzle spraying from the top of the encasing down to the bottom at central position (position 1) and at 0.1; 0.2; 0.3 (position 2,3,4) and at 0,4 m (position 5) distance from the center stream line of the encasing. The dust suppression tests at a lab-scale test equipment with different nozzle positions shown in Fig. 6 were carried out. The dust separation of one nozzle (water ow 10 L/h) and two nozzles, each one with a water ow of 5 L/h were compared at different distances between the two nozzles as well as at different positions of the set of two nozzles. Therefore the middle point between these two nozzles was in the same way varied to the side as for the single nozzle tests. The distances between two nozzles were varied from 0.02; 0.1; 0.2; 0.4 and 0.8 m.

3. Results 3.1. Total dust suppression efciency At fugitive dust suppression like at bulk solids handling, the operating conditions (temperature, air humidity, ventilation rate and supplying water ow) are often different. A part of the supplying water volume ow is evaporating. To make dust suppression efciencies at different operating conditions comparable the application of an effective water volume ow, which is actually available to perform dust suppression, has to be worked out. Experiments were carried out at 10 different supplying water vol-

240

J. Faschingleitner, W. Hinger / Advanced Powder Technology 22 (2011) 236244

ume ows in the range of 0.3610.0 L/h. By measuring the air humidity and temperature at the air inlet and outlet at a certain ventilation rate the evaporating water volume ow can get calculated at each experiment. The measured data could be described using Eq. (2) where the effective water volume ow (Q0 Q) can get calculated for different operating conditions (temperature, air humidity, ventilation rate and supplying water ow). Details are in [25] where a data array of q at different operating conditions is described.

E Eres E0 Eres ekQ Q 0

Q 0 Q 0max 1 eqQ

Q is the supplying water volume ow (L/h), Q0 is the partial water volume ow which evaporates inside the dust encasing (L/h), Q0max is the maximum evaporating water volume ow for a certain air ow (L/h), q is the kinetic evaporation constant (empirical constant obtained by regression) (h/L), (Q0 Q) is the effective water volume ow (L/h). The remaining dust concentration of particles smaller than 10 lm for fallen bulk material dependent on the supplying water volume ow and the water evaporation at different ventilation rates can get modelled by the following equation:

E is the remaining dust concentration [mg/kg bulk solid] when spraying on the arising dust and a falling bulk material with a water volume ow of Q, E0 is the dust concentration without water spraying [mg/kg bulk solid], Eres is the residual dust concentration, which remains, even if an innite high water volume ow is used [mg/kg bulk solid], and k is the kinetic constant, which describes the dust minimization (empirical constant obtained by regression) [h/L]. With these equations the loss of water due to evaporation and its effect on dust minimization can be modelled. Figs. 7 and 8 show the calculation results. For calculation of the model curves the process specic constants (k and q) have to be determined by regression, details are in [25].

gtot 1 E=E0

Using Eq. (4) gtot the total separation efciency can be determined and referred to an effective water volume ow. The effective water volume ow is the water volume ow which is available for dust suppression after evaporation at different operating conditions. At operating conditions at experiments (temperature, air humidity, ventilation rate) and a supplying water ow of 10.0 L/h

Fig. 7. Reduction of the dust particle concentration for construction rubble using different supplying water ows.

Fig. 8. Reduction of the dust particle concentration for steel slag using different supplying water ows.

J. Faschingleitner, W. Hinger / Advanced Powder Technology 22 (2011) 236244

241

an effective water volume ow of 8.8 L/h was determined using Eq. (2). So at these conditions 8.8 L/h are available to cause a total separation efciency of particles smaller than 10 lm gtot(10) of 63% for steel slag and 75% for construction rubble. 3.2. Secondary dust suppression efciency The mass of particles of a certain particle size encountered before water spray dust suppression and after water spray dust suppression was determined at 3 different water volume ows as described in Section 2.2. The corresponding fractional separation efciency T(x) was calculated using following equation. (Eq. (5))

The secondary separation efciency of particles smaller than 10 lm g2 was calculated see Eq. (6).

g2 1 R Dmwith waterspray x=R Dmwithout waterspray x 100

T x 1 Dmwith waterspray x=Dmwithout waterspray x

T(x) is the fractional separation efciency (), Dmwith waterspray(x) is the mass of particles at certain particle size x encountered after water spray dust suppression (g), Dmwithout water spray(x) is the mass of particles at a certain particle size x encountered before water spray dust suppression (g).

The particle size distribution of dust dispersed into the air stream was measured at the encasing outlet. The measurement results of the dust particle size distribution without water spraying and for different effective water volume ows are shown in Fig. 9. The effective water volume ows at the operating conditions during experiments were calculated using Eq. (2) and the data array of q at different operating conditions [25]. The corresponding fractional efciency T(x) is illustrated in Fig. 10. The secondary separation efciency of particles smaller than 10 lm, show Fig. 11. As a result it can be stated that at airborne dust capture using water sprays at bulk solids handling the fractional separation efciency T(x) and the secondary separation efciency of particles smaller than 10 lm g2(10) show rather low values for different water volume ows.

Fig. 9. Dust particle size distribution on air outlet for different supplying water ows.

Fig. 10. Fractional separation efciency for different supplying water ows.

242

J. Faschingleitner, W. Hinger / Advanced Powder Technology 22 (2011) 236244

Fig. 11. PM(x) separation efciency of secondary dust suppression effect at bulk solids handling.

3.3. Comparison of total, primary and secondary fugitive dust suppression effects The measured secondary and total dust separation efciencies can be compared because they were determined at similar dust concentrations and nozzle positions. The different operating conditions at the test assemblies which inuence water evaporation were taken into account by calculating the effective water ow which is actually available for dust suppression. The dust suppression efciencies are only comparable at the same effective water ow. The measured secondary dust separation efciency of particles smaller than 10 lm (Eq. (6)) could get referred to an effective water ow of 8.8 L/h calculated at the environmental conditions at experiments using Eq. (2). The corresponding total dust separation efciency at 8.8 L/h effective water volume ow could get calculated using Eqs. (2), (3) and (4)which was derived from bulk solid drop experiments. The comparison using Eq. (1) can roughly show the difference of the minimization efciencies between the primary and secondary dust separation mechanisms. Nevertheless are the denitions of PM10 of EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and of the EU-guideline 1999/30/EG are different. But in both cases the particulate matter is referred to an aerodynamical diameter. At experiments of gtot a cascade impactor got used. Its measurement results are referred to an aerodynamical diameter. At experiments of g2 a PCS got used where the measurement results are referred to an optical diameter. Although these experiments were executed with different measurement devices and different dust materials (but similar particle densities and comparable size distributions for Pural NF, steel slag and construction rubble), the difference in minimization efciency found, is an informative basis for optimization strategies.

3.4. Inuences of the streaming situation and dust concentration on secondary dust suppression efciency The primary dust suppression efciency is approximately 4 times the secondary dust suppression efciency. It has to be claried what the reasons are that the secondary dust suppression efciency is so small. The dust laden airstream often doesnt hit the spray so that the droplets cant perform airborne dust capture. The possibility to catch diffuse spreading dust emissions could be increased by use of more nozzles next to each other in a broad range. In this context it was also claried if the streaming situation and the dust concentration situation at the position where the nozzle operates have an impact on the secondary dust suppression efciency. The secondary dust suppression efciency (of particles smaller than 10 lm) of nearly 80% (at an effective water ow of 10L/h for a single nozzle at position 1) decreases down to 35% at position 4 as shown in Fig. 12. So a strong dependence of g2(10) on the position of the nozzle in the encasing can be followed. The same observation was made for a set of two nozzles with different distances to each other. So it depends on the streaming regime at the position where the nozzle operates if a single nozzle is better than two nozzles with the same total water ow. At the concentrated particle ow g2 is much higher but besides this ow g2 decreases tremendously. Thats how the difference of g2(10) of a single nozzle to two spray nozzles with the same total water ow as the single nozzle was claried. The possibility to catch diffuse spreading dust emissions could be increased by use of more nozzles next to each other in a broad range.

4. Discussion

gtot(10) total dust separation efciency of particles smaller than 10 lm at 8.8 L/h effective water ow (at dust suppression at
bulk solids drop experiments) $70% g2(10) secondary dust suppression efciency of particles smaller than 10 lm at 8.8 L/h effective water ow (due to droplet precipitation) = 16% When using Eq. (1) to calculate g1(10) from gtot(10) and g2(10) it comes out that g1(10) is approximately 64%, this is manifold that of g2(10). That means that the main minimization effect is due to bulk solids moistening.

At fugitive dust suppression using water spraying systems the moistening of the bulk solids (primary dust suppression) compared to the capturing of particles by water droplets (secondary dust suppression) has the predominant inuence on dust minimization. Thats the reason why in this regard the secondary fugitive dust suppression should get improved. The problem is that at non conducted diffusive dust sources the propagation of dust emissions is likely to be irregular. Therefore a lab scale test rig (described in chapter 2.2.) was built in a manner that such an irregular propagation of fugitive dust emissions can be simulated. By measuring the secondary dust suppression efciency in that encasing a very

J. Faschingleitner, W. Hinger / Advanced Powder Technology 22 (2011) 236244

243

Fig. 12. PM10-separation efciency at different nozzle set ups at different positions in the encasing.

strong dependence on streaming situation and position of the nozzle was discovered. In this context constant large secondary fugitive dust suppression efciencies of water sprays at open places have to be seen critically. It should be kept in mind that these efciencies could be only pretended, because the water spray is only diluting the dust concentration or shifting the dust cloud aside from dust detectors like it is demonstrated in Fig. 13. This effect is avoided in our test rig encasing. So the inuence of nozzle position could be studied. If the water spray dont get hit by a concentrated particle ow g2 is very weak. The chances that such concentrated particle ows arent caught at diffuse spreading dust emissions are very high but the possibility to catch such concentrated particle ows can be increased by increase the number of nozzles which was simulated by use of a set of two nozzles compared to a single nozzle. Comparing the dust suppression efciency of a single nozzle at central position with the dust suppression efciency of a set of two nozzles where one of the two nozzles is situated in central position following observation could be made. If a concentrated particle ow strikes the single nozzle spray directly the dust suppression efciency encountered is higher than striking one nozzle of a set of two nozzles directly. This can be explained by the fact that only half of the water ow is active in this case. If a single nozzle and sets of two nozzles is compared aside the concentrated particle ow in case of irregular propagation of fugitive dust emissions the opposite is the case. By changing nozzle positions at experiments over all a set of two nozzles achieves in average higher secondary dust suppression efciencies. This achievement could only

be made if the distance between the nozzles is small enough to block particle ows from passing between the sprays. By splitting the total water ow by number of nozzles each single nozzle has much lower suppression efciency. Irregular and diluted dust propagation around non conducted fugitive dust sources is very likely at open faces. As encountered in experiments in this case the application of numerous small nozzles next to each other is in average more efcient. 5. Conclusion In order to design optimal water spraying devices to minimize fugitive dust emissions generated at bulk solids handling the physical mechanisms responsible for their arising and their precipitation have to be understood. The dust suppression mechanism at bulk solids handling during water spraying can be divided into a moistening step of bulk solids, which prevents dust generation (primary dust suppression effect) - and secondly into a step by which the still generated dust particles will be captured by the water droplets (secondary dust suppression effect). This primary and secondary dust suppression effects were compared. To do so, it was necessary, to make separation efciencies measured at different operating conditions comparable, which was shown by an effective water ow which actually performs dust suppression. As at fugitive dust suppression like at bulk solids handling, operating conditions (temperature, air humidity and wind speed) are often different the denition of an effective water ow to which the dust suppression effect has to be referred will be applicable. The comparison method of primary and secondary dust minimization effects which appear at dust suppression using water sprays at bulk solids handling could get carried out by a formula usually used for two separators which are acting in series. Calculations from the investigated total dust suppression efciency and the secondary dust suppression efciency showed that the primary dust separation effect is the main separation effect. It is approximately 4 times higher than the secondary dust suppression effect. By tests to detect the secondary dust separation efciency at different dust concentrations and streaming situations it could be proven that the position of the nozzle plays an important role for the separation efciency and can be very low by positioning the nozzle at a wrong place. If the water spray doesnt get hit by a concentrated particle ow the secondary dust suppression effect is very weak. The chances that such concentrated particle ows

Fig. 13. Dilution of the dust concentration and shifting the dust cloud aside during water spraying.

244

J. Faschingleitner, W. Hinger / Advanced Powder Technology 22 (2011) 236244 [8] M. Lemann, F. Widmer, Einuss von Kondensationsvorgngen in mit Wasserdampf gesttigten Staub-Luftgemischen auf die Staubabscheidung in einem Venturiwscher Dissertation, ETH Zrich, 1977. [9] U. Klenk, E. Schmidt, Use of water sprays for reduction of airborne dust pollution, in: Proc. 10th World Filtration Congress, III, Leipzig, 2008, pp. 423 427 [10] T.F. Tomb, J.E. Emmerling, R.H. Kellner, Collection of airborne coal dust by water spray in a horizontal duct, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 33 (11) (1972) 715 721. [11] S.J. Page, J.C. Volkwein, Foams for dust control, Eng. Min. J. 187 (10) (1986) 50 52, 54. [12] J.A. Kost, G.A. Shirey, C.T. Ford, In-Mine Tests for Wetting Agent Effectiveness, Inc. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, 1980. [13] E.J. Meets, A.F. Neethling, Some experiences in the use of wetting agents to suppress dust at Sigma colliery, J. Mine Vent. Soc. S. Afr. Oct (1987) 126133. [14] Q. Hu, H. Polat, S. Chander, Effect of surfactants in dust control by water sprays, in: Proc. Symposium on Emerging Process Technologies for a Cleaner Environment. Littleton, Inc., 1992, pp. 269276 [15] J.C. Tien, J. Kim, Respirable dust control using surfactants, Appl. Occ. Env. Hyg. 12 (12) (1997) 957963. [16] J. Bigu, M.G. Grenier, Reduction of airborne radioactive dust by means of a charged water spray, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 50 (7) (1989) 336345. [17] N.I. Jayaraman, R.A. Jankowski, Atomization of water sprays for quartz dust control, Appl. Ind. Hyg. 3 (1988) 327331. [18] J. McCoy, J. Melcher, J. Valentine, D. Monaghan, T. Muldoon, J. Kelly, Evaluation of charged water sprays for dust control, U.S. Bureau of Mines Pittsburgh, 1983. [19] J. Gospodarek, Fluid dynamical analysis of encased dust systems with implemented two-phase nozzle sprays for the purpose of fugitive dust suppression, Masterarbeit HW, Hamburg, 2010. [20] VDI DIN 3790/Part 1, Determination of diffusive emissions by measurements Basic concepts VDI, Dsseldorf, 2005. [21] M. Stie, Mechanische Verfahrenstechnik Partikeltechnologie 1, SpringerVerlag Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. [22] www.vsr-industrietechnik.de. [23] VDI DIN 3926, Testing of Cleanable Filtermedia, VDI, Dsseldorf, 2004. [24] www.ltg-ag.de. [25] W. Hinger, J. Faschingleitner, G. Mauschitz, Z. Liu, G. Zhang, Inuence of Water Evaporation on Dust Minimization Efciency using Enclosed Water Spraying Systems, Proc. 6th International Conference for Conveying and Handling of Particulate Solids (CHOPS), Brisbane, 2009.

arent cached at diffuse spreading dust emissions are very high. To increase the possibility to catch concentrated particle ows at diffuse spreading dust emissions numerous nozzles are necessary to cover a broad range with sprays at minimum water consumption. By experiments it could get proven that it depends on the streaming regime at the position where the nozzle operates if a single nozzle is better than two nozzles with the same total water volume ow. So the water ow, the number of nozzles as well as the distance between the nozzles have to be matched with the occurring ambient dust laden air ow so that a maximal range can be covered with sprays and maximum dust suppression can be realized at minimum water consumption. The evaluation and comparison of primary and secondary dust minimization effects as well as the clarication of the inuence of the streaming situation and dust concentration pointed out possibilities how water spraying dust minimization devices can be optimized to increase their efciency. References
[1] VDI DIN 3790/Part 3, Emissions of gases, odours and dusts from diffusive sources (Storage, transhipment and transportation of bulk materials,) VDI, Dsseldorf, 2010. [2] T. Davis, J.G. Watson, J.C. Chow, T.G. Pace, Air Pollution Engineering Manual (Chapter 4 Fugitive Dust Emissions), Wiley, New York, 2000. [3] Umweltbundesamt, Emissionstrends 1990-2007. berblick ber die sterreichischen Verursacher von Luftschadstoffen (Datenstand 2009). Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Vienna, 2009. [4] P. Wypych, D. Cook, P. Cooper, Controlling dust emissions and explosion hazards in powder handling plants, Chem. Eng. Process. 44 (2005) 323326. [5] F.N. Kissell., Handbook for Dust Control in Mining. NIOSH. CDC Workplace Safety and Health. Information Circular 9465, Pittsburgh, 2003. [6] V. Mondy, R. Jakhete, A. Mulloy, Dust Control Handbook for Minerals Processing, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1987. [7] P.R. Stahura, Conveyor Skirting vs Fugitive Material, Martin Engineering Co., USA, 1991.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai