combustion of urban solid wastes in an experimental fluidized bed combustor · 2014-05-16 ·...

Combustion of urban solid wastes in an experimental fluidized bed combustor C. A. Torres-Balcazar1, G. Lopez-Ocaña1, R. G. Bautista-Margulis1, J. R. Hernandez-Barajas1, H. O. Rubio-Arias2 & R. A. Saucedo-Teran3 1The Juarez Autonomous University of Tabasco, Mexico 2The Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Mexico 3

Abstract

Outdoor incineration of low-grade solid fuels is still an inadequate and common practice in developing countries worldwide. To date, advanced combustion systems, such as fluidized bed, have been successfully developed and implemented to deal with these environmental issues. However, optimum operating conditions have to be attained in order to reach the highest combustion efficiency of each particular system. The objective of this investigation was to study the combustion efficiency behaviour of urban solid wastes (USW) in an experimental fluidized bed combustor under various operating conditions. Five experimental tests were conducted by using USW collected in the city of Villahermosa-Tabasco, Mexico. The experimental tests were carried out under the following conditions: excess air of 281%, bed particle size of 0.8 mm and static bed height of 0.2 m. The combustion efficiency varied from 54 to 82% at a bed temperature between 770 and 914ºC, being significantly correlated to a minimum square regression model (R2 = 0.87, p < 0.01). At bed temperatures lower than 800ºC, the USW composition and heterogeneity affected the combustion efficiency (54-64%), giving rise to an increase in CO emissions (1,092 ppm). At bed temperatures greater than 870ºC, however, high combustion efficiencies (80-82%) were achieved with maximum SO2 (18 ppm) and NO (11 ppm) emission levels complying with the maximum permissible levels established in the Mexican environmental legislation (NOM-098-SEMARNAT). The proposed experimental prototype was demonstrated to be both technically and environmentally feasible for USW treatment via fluidized bed technology. Keywords: combustion, urban solid waste, fluidized bed.

INIFAP, Mexico

Energy and Sustainability II 469

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line)

© 2009 WIT PressWIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 121,

doi:10.2495/ESU090431

1 Introduction

In developing countries, it is common for municipalities to spend 20-50% of their available recurrent budget on solid waste management. Yet, it is also common that 30-60% of all USW in developing countries is uncollected and less than 50% of the population is served. In some cases, as much as 80% of the collection and transport equipment is out of service, in need of repair or maintenance. In most developing countries, open dumping with open burning is the norm. To date, state of the art on incineration systems have demonstrated to achieve the highest levels of control and destruction of USW over traditional direct methods (e.g., landfill and underground injection). To reduce waste volume, local governments or private operators can implement a controlled burning process called combustion or incineration. In addition to reducing volume, combustors, when properly equipped, can convert water into steam to fuel heating systems or generate electricity. The United States has about 89 operational USW-fired power generation plants, generating approximately 2,500 megawatts, or about 0.3% of total national power generation [1]. Incineration facilities can also remove materials for recycling. Over one-fifth of the U.S. USW incinerators use refuse derived fuel (RDF). In contrast to mass burning—where the USW is introduced “as is” into the combustion chamber—RDF facilities are equipped to recover recyclables (e.g., metals, cans, glass) first, then shred the combustible fraction into fluff for incineration. Burning waste has been a common means of disposal throughout history. In 1995, The U.S. EPA estimated that 16% of solid waste had been disposed of by some form of combustion. Incinerators reduce the volume of waste by about 90% [2], a significant reduction of waste that would otherwise go into a landfill. Incineration at high temperatures also destroys many of the toxins and pathogens in medical waste and other hazardous wastes, in addition to reducing volume. However, the variation in the composition of USW affects the emissions impact. For example, if USW containing batteries and tires are burned, toxic materials can be released into the air. A variety of air pollution control technologies are used to reduce toxic air pollutants from USW power plants [3]. The incinerator provides a means to control the combustion process through the application of a proven technology. However, the incinerators must comply with a given regulation for performance and operation, such as: high combustion efficiency, removal and destruction of toxic gases, permissible limits for particulate emission, semi-continuous monitoring in the process, a specific minimum temperature, and acceptable levels of residence time in the exhaust gases [4–6]. In this context, various incineration technologies have been developed to deal with different types and physical forms of residues [7, 8]. Some of these technologies have been highlighted in the following categories: moving grate, fixed grate, liquid injection, rotary kilns and fluidized bed incinerators. The fluidized bed combustors represent one of the most promising technologies for incinerating organic and plastic residues, contaminated sludge, biomass and

470 Energy and Sustainability II



other industrial wastes [9–13]. Also, control of the combustion process has been selected as the main strategy for reducing emissions into the atmosphere. Furthermore, a strong correlation has been found among temperature, residence time and emission rate [14, 15]. Fluidized bed combustion can be used for energy production or incineration for almost any material containing carbon, hydrogen and sulfur in a combustible form, whether it is in the form of a solid, liquid, slurry or gas. The technology’s fuel flexibility arises from the fact that the fuel is present in the combustor at a low level and is burnt in the mass of a thermally inert bed material (typically this is limestone if sulfur capture is required, otherwise sand). However, fuel flexibility must either be built into the design of the combustor or alternatively the FBC system must be tailored for a specific fuel or combination of fuels. In addition, the designer must consider issues like heat release patterns, ash characteristics (particularly if the ash has any potential for agglomeration or fouling of heat transfer surfaces or blockage of the return valve in the case of a circulating FBC) and any special requirements of the fuel such as the need for sulfur or hydrochloric acid capture [16]. The objective of the present investigation was to evaluate the combustion efficiency and gases products from a three-phase combustor in order to thermally treat specific USW generated in Villahermosa-Tabasco, Mexico. The experimental combustor was specifically designed and constructed to cope with the operating and fluidizing requirements in the current study. Also, the flue gas composition (CO, NO and SO2) was determined during the combustion process under various operating conditions, and compared with the NOM-098-SEMARNAT-2002 in Mexico.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Characterization of USW

The USW samples were taken according to the Mexican technical norm specifications [17]. The fieldwork was performed at the open municipal waste site located outskirts Villahermosa city in Tabasco, Mexico. Indirect methods were employed to quantify the USW, the loading count and the truck number [18]. To determine the USW generation, the samples were applied for a period of eight days and analyzed in seven days. Nevertheless, the first day of USW sampling was excluded for not being representative. In this study six sectors were considered throughout the sampling: central downtown (S1: 17º 59′ 04.95″ N, 92º 56′ 14.19″ W), northeast (S2: 18º 00′ 10.18″ N, 92º 56′ 59.98″ W), southwest (S3: 17º 58′ 10.94’’ N, 92º 58′ 09.94″ O), north-northeast (S4: 18º 01′ 17.31″ N, 92º 53′ 56.80″ W), east (S5: 17º 58′ 47.17″ N, 92º 54′ 51.88″ W) and peripheral area (S6: surroundings of the city). Samplings were carried out three times a week within each sector, allowing for a specific classification and quantification of the products and by-products.




2.2 Design and operating characteristics of the experimental combustor

The combustor was made up of mild steel and constructed in three cylindrical sections with an internal diameter of 0.1 m, as can be seen in Figure 1. The bed and plenum sections are 0.45 m and 0.25 m high, respectively; while the height (freeboard) of the two remaining sections is 0.50 m each. Two tubes in “V” shape were coupled to the combustor walls in a 45° angle. Such adjacent tubes were employed, on the one hand, for the pilot burner and, on the other hand, as an observation port. To feed the USW, an open area was made in the bed section. The bed material was made up of silica sand with a mean particle size of 0.8 mm. The plenum comprised the air and gas distributor and was constructed in stainless steel with a 0.1 m internal diameter and 0.01 thick. To distribute the air and gas inside the combustor, five standpipes were made of stainless steel with 9 mm diameter and 54 mm length. At the top of each standpipe, four orifices were perforated with 2 mm diameter.

Figure 1: Experimental setup for the combustion trials.

The feeding of USW into the experimental prototype was performed manually and discontinuously, working as a batch reactor. The USW was triturated to get an average size of 5 mm diameter [20, 21]. Thermocouples type “K” was used to monitor the temperature in the bed, the freeboard and the exit flue gas. The thermocouple material was stainless steel with a temperature interval between -129 to 1371°C, and ± 0.1% error. The temperature was recorded in a Pro TM 45 panel control (43/4 Digit Microprocessor Based Temperature/Process Indicator). The air for both the pilot burner and combustion system was supplied by a compressor with a capacity of 0.56 m3/min and 14 kg/cm2 pressure. The temperature and concentration of the combustion products were measured with a portable analyzer TESTO 300 M&XL.

Fluidized Bed Combustor

Hooper

FeedingSystem

Conveying System

Perspex Window

Vibrating Tray

Fluidizing Air Propane for Start-Up

Cooling System

Observation Port

Exit Flue Gas

Cyclone

Catchpot




Five experiments were conducted as follows: test C1 was a preliminary trial to calibrate the prototype when operated at Tb= 770 – 914 °C; tests C2, C3 and C4 were carried out when the combustor operated at a Tb range between 850 and 900°C (typical operating conditions of commercial incinerators). The results were plotted by considering the efficiency as dependent variable and the temperature as independent variable in order to observe a particular trend, so that the appropriate regression model was adjusted. Finally, test C5 was conducted to run a broader Tb range, from 400 to 900°C, and using the same USW mixture. All the experiments were conducted under the following operating conditions: 1-3 h operating time; 66-90 g/min mass flowrate; 800-900°C bed temperature; 0.35-1.06 kg/cm2 air pressure; 12.0-16.9% excess oxygen; 0.8 mm mean particle bed size and 5 mm average residue size.

2.3 Combustion efficiency

The combustion efficiency (η) was determined by monitoring carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) in the exit flue gases. The CO and CO2 concentrations were measured with a portable combustion gas analyzer and used to calculate the combustion efficiency, as follows:

( ) ( )

++

−++

−−=

COCOnet

COgr

gr

ag

CO

agnet CCQ

CQkQ

TTX

CTT

K22

1

10002.41.2210

100η

Where Tg is the flue gas temperature, Ta is the room temperature, CCO2 is the CO2 concentration measured, CCO is the CO concentration measured, X is the moisture content plus the hydrogen content in the fuel, Knet = 0.390, k1 = 40, Qr= 53.42 y Qnet = 48.16. In addition, nitric oxide (NO) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) were measured in the exhaust gases. The combustion products were analyzed every 10-15 min period after reaching stable operating conditions, that is, 5 min of constant bed temperature. The desired bed temperature was obtained by adjusting the USW feeding flow.

3 Results and discussion

From the USW estimated in six sectors of Villahermosa city, sector S1 was shown to be the highest generation with 210 tons/day and average density of 230.3 kg/m3. The other five sectors produced various quantities of volumetric weight and USW generation, as illustrated in Table 1. In average, the six sectors generated 747 tons/day throughout the sampling period. In some sectors, certain materials are recovered before its final disposal. In Mexico, this pre-selection of recycled material is known as “pepena”. Because of this activity, the information shown in Table 1 does not represent the USW generation but the USW composition at site. Given the highest generation, sector S1 was chosen to be the fuel supply for feeding the USW in the experimental fluidized-bed combustor. Such a sector represents approximately 28% of the total USW volume generated in the city and the “pepena” reduces the recyclable material (e.g., textiles, aluminum, cardboard, paper and cans).




Table 1: USW generation (mean ± standard deviation) for each sector.

Sector 1 Sector 2 Sector 3 Sector 4 Sector 5 Sector 6 Volumetric weight (kg/m3)

230.3 ±

49.7

203.7 ±

11.3

216.3 ±

8.7

.9 ± 14.1 180.3 ±

29.7

200.2 ±

19.8

Generation (Tons/day)

210.0 ±

50

160.0 ±

40

100.0 ±

40

70.0 ± 30 92.0 ±

18

115.0 ±

35

Subproducts Percentage (%) Rigid plastic

10.0 ± 2.3

2.7 ± 3.1 26.7 ±

7.2

26.3 ±

3.4

12.7 ± 3.2

13.0 ± 3.3

Paper

17.3 ± 5.8

5.9 ± 6.3 15.8 ±

4.2

7.0 ± 3.4 29.0 ± 3.5

11.2 ± 1.2

Polyetilene

15.5 ± 1.2

9.7 ± 1.6 12.7 ±

2.2

11.9 ±

2.5

9.9 ± 1.4

8.9 ± 1.3

Plastified cardboard

7.7 ± 1.0 6.3 ± 1.0

Organic matter

43.6 ± 5.4

47.9 ± 5.6 29.0 ±

8.2

29.0 ±

8.1

30.3 ± 3.9

47.7 ± 6.3

Glass 3.2 ± 4.0 10.3 ± 3.9 4.6 ±2.3 0.9 ± 2.7

Fine residues 2.7 ± 3.2 11.9 ± 2.3 1.7 ± 3.9 3.9 ± 3.8

Textiles 2.9 ± 0.2 1.0 ± 0.3 2.3 ± 0.1

Aluminum 2.2 ± 1.2 9.9 ± 3.2

Polystyrene 6.8 ± 2.8 0.9 ±0.3

Cardboard 8.3 ± 3.1 11.3 ±

3.6

Cans 7.5 ± 1.5 14.4 ±

2.8

5.8 ± 2.5

The following by-products were found in S1: rigid plastic (10%), paper (17.3%), polyetilene (15.5%), organic matter (43.6%), glass (3.2%) and fine residues (2.7%). Likewise, Table 2 shows the elemental analysis for the USW composition from S1 to S6.




Table 2: Ultimate analysis (mean ± standard deviation) of USW collected.

Ultimate analysis of USW (% in weight) Sector C H O N S Ash Moisture

1 32.7 ±4.3

4.6 ±0.2

20.6 ±1.4

1.4 ±0.4

2.0 ±0.2 20.1 ±7.9 18.6 ±1.4

2 41.5 ±0.5

5.9 ±0.1

30.0 ±1.0

3.4 ±0.1

0.3 ±0.1 5.2 ±4.1 13.7 ±2.3

3 26.3 ±3.7

5.5 ±0.5

28.0 ±3.0

0.3 ±0.2

0.2 ±0.1 7.0 ±3.8 32.7 ±3.7

4 34.4 ±3.6

4.3 ±0.7

32.2 ±4.8

1.8 ±0.1

0.5 ±0.05 4.0 ±0.2 22.8 ±0.2

5 42.2 ±0.8

5.5 ±0.5

29.3 ±2.3

1.6 ±0.3

0.3 ±0.1 2.2 ±0.8 18.9 ±0.2

6 34.2 ±3.8

5.0 ±1.0

30.6 ±3.3

0.4 ±0.2

2.3 ±0.1 3.6 ±0.1 23.9 ±1.9

Carbon (C), Hydrogen (H), Oxygen (O), Nitrogen (N), Sulfur (S). N.B. Oxygen was obtained by difference [100% - Σ (C + H + N + S)].

Bed temperature [°C]750 800 850 900

Com

bust

ion

effic

ienc

y [%

]

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Figure 2: Quadratic regression fitting for combustion efficiency with different temperature increases for C1, C2, C3 and C4 experimental tests. —x— Standard error; Original data; ……… Polinomial approach.

In test C1 (Figure 2), the combustion efficiency varied from 54.4 to 82.3% at Tb ranging from 810 to 914°C, respectively. The CO concentration diminished from 810 to 278 ppm as the Tb increased from 820 to 900°C. This behavior may be explained by the oxidation of CO to form CO2 at high temperatures, since the reaction velocity at 900°C is six times higher than that at 820°C [22]. On the contrary, the CO2 and NO values increased as the temperature was raised above 820°C. The increase in NO concentration was presumably due to the kinetic reaction of NO, according to the extended Zeldovich mechanism, where the atomic oxygen reacts with the molecular nitrogen to form NO and atomic




nitrogen. At 900°C, the NO reaction velocity is 20 times higher than that at 800°C, which favors its formation [22]. Meanwhile, the SO2 concentration did not present a clear tendency. Also, it was observed that maximum SO2 values of 11 ppm were attained for Tb= 900°C. In the data obtained from tests C1, C2, C3 and C4, the combustion efficiency increased as increasing the bed temperature to some extent. The statistical data presented a R2 value of 0.87 (Figure 2) which resulted to be highly significant (p < 0.01) and well correlated with a = -0.0015; b = 2.7197; c = -1139.5247 en η = aT2 + bT + c (where T is expressed in ºC). For the computed model, the efficiency increased linearly 2.67 units per degree centigrade, particularly in the range of 770 and 817°C. However, the parabolic trend shows a decrease of 0.002 units of efficiency per degree centigrade for temperatures above 900°C. The results obtained in test C5 showed that the combustion efficiency increased when increasing the temperature of the fluidized bed combustor, having a decrease in CO concentration (Figure 3). At Tb= 400°C, the efficiency obtained was approximately 43% with CO concentrations of 1,973 ppm; while at Tb= 900°C, the efficiencies increased up to 80% and the CO levels diminished to 237 ppm.

Bed temperature [°C]400 500 600 700 800 900

Car

bon

mon

oxid

e [p

pm]

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Com

bust

ion

effic

ienc

y [%

]

40

50

60

70

80

90

Figure 3: Combustion efficiency (η) and CO concentration at different operating temperatures (Test C5). — — — Carbon monoxide; — + — Efficiency.

In the experimental combustor, it is desirable to favor the oxidation from CO to CO2 in order to assure complete combustion of the fuel and thus avoid any environmental damage. The high CO concentration in the flue gases was due to incomplete combustion of the elemental carbon within the fluidized bed combustor (low temperature and insufficient excess air) which, in turn, gave rise to an inefficient mixing of USW with the supplied air into the system. The NO and SO2 were below the maximum permissible levels (MPL) established by the Mexican Normativity [17]. The maximum values obtained for NO y SO2 were 18 and 10 ppm at the corresponding operating temperatures of 880 and 900°C,




respectively (Figures 4 and 5). On the contrary, the average values for CO were 220 ppm at the same high temperatures, exceeding the MPL of discharge to the atmosphere established by the above referred Normativity (Figure 6).

Temperatura vs CO

Bed temperature [ºC]400 500 600 700 800 900

Nitr

ogen

mon

oxid

e [p

pm]

0

10

20

300

310

Figure 4: NO concentration at different operating temperatures and its comparison with the maximum permissible level. — — NO; ……… MPL NOM 098 SEMARNAT-2002.


Sul

fur d

ioxi

de [p

pm]

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 5: SO2 concentration at different operating temperatures and its comparison with the maximum permissible level. — — SO2; ……… MPL NOM 098 SEMARNAT-2002.

Although the current experimental combustor does not have any connection to other treatment system or gas recirculation by-pass, the combustion efficiencies achieved in the fluidized bed were reasonably high (82.3%) at high temperatures (900°C). The NO and SO2 concentrations were found to be below the maximum permissible levels established in the Mexican environmental legislation [17]. The proposed experimental prototype showed that high combustion efficiencies can be proportional to the increase in temperature within





Car

bon

mon

oxid

e [p

pm]

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Figure 6: CO concentration at different operating temperatures and its comparison with the maximum permissible level. — — CO; ……… MPL NOM 098 SEMARNAT-2002.

the fluidized bed combustor. In this case, the combustor could presumably reach higher efficiencies if heat losses to the surroundings were reduced and the excess air was appropriate [7]. In a fluidized-bed incinerator at pilot scale, Saxena and Jotshi [19] reported that oxygen concentrations in the flue gas should be ranging between 13.4 and 16.1%; Swithenbank et al. [20] determined an optimum oxygen concentration of 16.9% during the incineration of clinical waste. Previous works on this field have also found that commercial incinerators were operated under similar excess oxygen conditions. In agreement with these investigations, the proposed fluidized bed combustor presented similar oxygen concentrations varying from 12.0 to 16.9% throughout the experiments. On the other hand, companies like Energy Incorporated Co (EIC) and Energy Products of Idaho (EPI) reported CO2 values in the flue gas in the range of 5.2 and 6.6% [21]. For a clinical waste incinerator, the CO2 discharges were found to be in 3.1% [19]. While in the current experimental combustor, the CO2 concentrations were measured between 1.5 and 6.3%. In this context, Saxena and Jotshi [19] reported SOx and NOx values in the range of 20-35 ppm and 100-139 ppm, respectively. The EIC and EPI prototypes showed SOx concentrations of 350 ppm and NOx concentrations of 35 ppm. Likewise, Swithenbank et al. [20] found higher emission levels for NOx (51 mg/m3) than SO2 (17 mg/m3) from the incineration of clinical residues. In the current experiments, the SO2 and NO concentrations never exceeded 40 ppm in the exhaust gases under similar operating conditions (900°C). Regarding the combustion efficiency, the experimental works mentioned above reported higher values (93-99%) than those obtained in this investigation (80-82%) since they combined the fluidization process with pyrolysis. Those prototypes operated at temperatures between 850 and 950°C and excess air ranging from 35 to 60%.




4 Conclusions

The experimental combustor demonstrated to be technically and environmentally feasible for the thermal treatment of USW via fluidized bed combustion. The highest combustion efficiency (82.3%) was obtained at 914°C bed temperature and 14.5% excess oxygen. The experimental results suggest that higher combustion efficiencies may be achieved if: 1) the USW mixtures are homogenized; 2) a continuous feeding system is used; and 3) the combustor is well insulated as to avoid important energy losses to the surroundings. Also, the SO2 and NO emissions did not exceed the MPL established by the Mexican environmental legislation. Nevertheless, CO emission levels were over 200 ppm at Tb= 900°C, exceeding the MPL presumably due to a heterogeneity of the USW mixture in the fluidized bed combustor. It is recommended to run more experiments in order to better understand the heterogeneous combustion fundamentals of USW as well as its solid and gaseous emissions, under various fluidizing and operating conditions.

References

[1] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Combustion and incineration regulations, 40 CFR Part 60.

[2] Knox, A. (2005) Overview of incineration, an overview of incineration and EFW technology as applied to the management of municipal solid waste (MSW), University of Western Ontario, Canada.

[3] SEMARNAT (2002) Dirección general de manejo integral de contaminantes. Página web, http://www.semarnat.gob.mx. Correo: [email protected]

[4] Scala F, Salatino P (2001) Modeling fluidized bed combustion of high-volatile solid fuels. Chemical Engineering Science. 57: 1175-1196.

[5] Lin W, Johansen KD, Frandsen F (2003) Agglomeration in bio fuel fired fluidized bed combustors. Chemical Engineering Journal. 96: 171-185.

[6] Oxley JH (1995) Combustion in fluidized beds. 1st International colloquium on pollution control and diagnosis. Instituto de Investigaciones Eléctricas. Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico. 10-12 July 1995. pp 1-24.

[7] Kaynak B. Topal H. Atimtaya AT (2005) Peach and apricot stone combustion in a bubbling fluidized bed. Fuel Processing 86: 1175-1193.

[8] Lin CL, Wey MY, Yu WJ (2005) Emission characteristics of organic and heavy metal pollutants in fluidized bed incineration during the agglomeration/defluidization process. Combustion and Flame. 143: 139-149.

[9] Oka SN ET (2004) Fluidized bed combustion. Marcel Dekker. [10] Kisuk CPE (1998) Solid waste incineration. U.S. Corps. of Engineers,

Engineering Division, Report Tl 814-21, Washington D.C. [11] Hristov JY (2002) Fluidized Bed Combustion as a Risk-Related

Technology: a Scope of Some Potential Problems. IFRF Combustion Journal. Article No. 200208, ISSN 1562-479X, 1-34 pp.




[12] Scala F, Chirone R (2004) Fluidized bed combustion of alternative solid fuels. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science. 28(7):691-699.

[13] Scala F, Chirone R, Salatino P (2003) Fluidized bed combustion of tyre derived fuel. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science. 27(4):465-471.

[14] Fang M, Yang L., Chen G, Shi Z. Luo Z, Cen K (2004) Experimental study on rice husk combustion in a circulating fluidized bed. Fuel Processing Technology. 85: 1273-1282.

[15] Yan R, Liang DT, Tsen L (2005) Case studies–problem solving in fluidized bed waste fuel incineration. Energy Conversion & Management. 46: 1165-1178.

[16] Anthony, E.J. (1995) Fluidised bed combustion of alternative solid fuels; status, successes and problems of the technology. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 21(3):239-268.

[17] Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-098-SEMARNAT-2002, Protección ambiental-incineración de residuos, especificaciones de operación y límites de emisión de contaminantes.

[18] Tchobanoglous G, Theisein H, Vigil SA (1994) Gestión Integral de Residuos Sólidos. Ed. McGraw-Hill. México, D.F.

[19] Saxena SC, Jotshi CK (1994) Fluidized-Bed incineration of waste materials. Prog. Energy Combust. Sel. 20: 281-324.

[20] Swithenbank J, Nasserzadh V, Ewan and Delay BCR, Lawrence D, Jones B (1997) Research investigations at the municipal and clinical waste incinerators in Sheffield, UK. Environmental Progress. 16(1): 65-81.

[21] Wiley SK (1987). “Incinerate-bed your hazardous waste”. Hydrocarbon Processing. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

[22] Borman GL, Ragland KW (1988) Combustion engineering. The McGraw-Hill Companies. USA. 613 pp




combustion of urban solid wastes in an experimental fluidized bed combustor · 2014-05-16 ·...

Documents