Feature
Cover Story
Report
Controlling SO2 Without
Corroding the Bottom Line
Bill Looney and Brian Baleno
Solvay Advanced Polymers, LLC
Greg L. Boles
Koch-Otto York Separations Technologies
Jacob Tetlow
Arizona Public Service Co., Cholla Plant
A
mong the many types of pollu-
tion-abatement systems that
are in use today, wet fluegas
desulfurization (FGD) systems
— also known as wet scrubbers — are
notoriously capital- and maintenance-
intensive. These systems are widely
used by electric power plants and
chemical process facilities to capture
and neutralize sulfur-laden fluegas,
and help plant operators to meet strict
federal and state mandates related to
SO2 emissions.
Mist eliminators are an integral
part of most wet FGD systems, and
the ongoing maintenance and frequent
replacement of these components is to
blame for a large portion of the overall
operating costs of a wet scrubber sys-
tem. Today, mist eliminators used in
wet scrubber towers are available in
a variety of materials — namely poly-
propylene (PP), fiberglass-reinforced
polymer (FRP), polysulfone, and stain-
less steel — and each has its own dis-
tinct advantages and disadvantages.
As discussed in this article, material
selection has a direct impact on both
the operations and maintenance re-
quirements, and the capital and oper-
ating costs, associated with mist elim-
inators used in wet FGD systems.*
While the high-performance, engi-
neering thermoplastic polysulfone is
more costly than other non-metallic
materials, extensive use of this mate-
rial for wet-scrubber mist eliminators
has been shown to significantly reduce
the number and duration of routine
cleaning cycles, trim operation and
maintenance costs; extend the overall
service life of the mist eliminator com-
30 Chemical Engineering www.che.com January 2008
Mist eliminators in wet scrubbers comprise a
large portion of system operating costs. Consider
these material selection and replacement criteria
to curb chronic maintenance requirements
ponents; and improve the longterm re-
liability of these capital- and mainte-
nance-intensive, pollution-abatement
systems. This article presents com-
parisons between polysulfone and the
other prevailing materials of construc-
tion (polypropylene, FRP and stainless
steel) that are routinely used for mist
eliminators, and related brackets and
supports. The article includes data
and anecdotal evidence from three
plants that were surveyed during its
development (Table 1) — the Cholla
Station for Arizona Public Service
(APS), Colstrip Montana Station for
PPL Corp., and the Gavin Station for
American Electric Power (AEP). Each
has operating experience with several
of the competing materials.
The diverse operating experience
of these utilities helps to showcase
polysulfone’s distinct performance
advantages over the other materi-
als, in terms of improved short-term
thermal properties, greater longterm
load-bearing capacity and stiffness at
elevated operating temperatures, and
better resistance to fouling and oxida-
tive attack by the alkaline-scrubbing
reagents and acid gases found inside
the wet scrubber. Common failure
modes associated with the prevailing
materials, such as melting and dis-
tortion from loading (polypropylene),
pitting and corrosion (stainless steel),
and delamination and overall degra-
dation (FRP), are also discussed. An
* The findings discussed in this article were first
presented by these authors in a paper entitled,
“Mist Eliminators — Proper Material Selection
Can Reduce Maintenance Costs and Improve
Reliability in Wet Scrubbers,” at the 2006 Mega
Symposium Conference.
economic analysis that illustrates
polysulfone’s lifecycle-cost advan-
tages over the competing materials is
also included.
Removing acid gases from
post-combustion fluegas
Wet scrubbing is one of the most pop-
ular technologies for removing acid
gases, such as SO2 and HCl, from the
fluegas that is produced during coal-
fired power generation and industrial
combustion-related processes. Wet
scrubbers equipped with mist elimina-
tors are not reserved solely for power
plants; rather, such systems are also
routinely used during industrial opera-
tions throughout the chemical process
industries (CPI), to capture acid and
particulate-laden fluegas streams pro-
duced by thermal oxidizers, incinera-
tors, boilers, kilns, foundries and other
combustion units, and to treat other
sulfur- or acid-laden process-exhaust
streams produced during various pe-
troleum refining, gas processing, pet-
rochemical, chemical, pharmaceutical
and metals-smelting operations.
The reliable operation of wet scrub-
bers has a direct impact on a facility’s
ability to ensure regulatory compli-
ance with mandated SO2 limits, and
problems with mist eliminators can
lead to unplanned or excessive down-
time of the wet scrubber. Making
matters worse, when backup scrub-
bing capacity is not available — as
was the case with the PPL Colstrip
Station surveyed during the develop-
ment of this article — the resulting
downtime required for mist elimina-
tor cleaning can lead to megawatt
 Table 1. Relevant details about each of
the three surveyed power plants
Cholla Station Gavin Station Colstrip Station
APS AEP PPL Corp.
Location Joseph City, Ariz. Winfield, W.Va. Colstrip, Mont.
Unit number 2 1 and 2 1 and 2
Generating capacity 280 MW 2,600 MW 716 MW
Coal used Lee Ranch North PRB
McKinley Appalachian sub-bituminous
Table 2. Mist Eliminator Performance Profile
Polypropyl- Vinyl ester FRP Polysul- Stainless
ene fone steel
Relative installed cost 1.0 2.3 2.8 4.8
Melting/softening point* 320°F 212–260°F 365°F 2,550°F
Oxidative stability 149°F 266°F 284°F Not a
(longterm temperature) limitation
Relative ease of cleaning Difficult Most difficult Easiest Most difficult
Failure modes Melting and Delaminating Loss of Pitting
loss of and damage ductility
strength from cleaning
* FRP materials maintain significant mechanical properties above their softening point,
polysulfone gradually softens, and polypropylene forms a viscous melt.
losses, the need to purchase supple- Mist eliminators: the basics
mental or replacement power, and Mist eliminators, which are installed
even the possibility of costly service near the top of the spray tower, typi-
interruptions at the power plant. (A cally rely on one or more chevron-
more detailed discussion of the finan- shaped trays or baffles that remove the
cial implications of these megawatt fine droplets of the alkaline reactant
losses is provided below.) slurry that become entrained in the
Inside a wet scrubber, the incom- fluegas stream inside the tower dur-
ing sulfur-laden exhaust stream is ing operation. These droplets typically
contacted with a circulating stream contain water, the salt (either unre-
of an alkaline solution (most often a acted alkali or reacted sulfate/sulfide
slurry of caustic reagents). Contact compounds), and small amounts of
between the two streams converts the acidic gases containing SO2, SO3
the acid gases in the fluegas into and other acidic species that must be
neutral salts and other solid byprod- removed from the fluegas prior to dis-
ucts (which are eventually removed), charge from the tower.
and raises the pH of the fluegas to Chevron mist eliminators can be
7–8 prior to discharge. installed and operated in either a
The most widely used reagents are horizontal or vertical orientation. Two
lime and limestone. With such an ap- layers are typically used: The first to
proach, a slurry containing calcium remove the bulk of the entrained liq-
hydroxide or calcium carbonate is uids, and the second to remove resid-
used to convert SO2 to calcium sul- ual liquid.
fite and calcium sulfate, which then By design, chevron mist elimina-
precipitate out of the solution as a by- tors provide a tortuous path for the
product sludge. fluegas stream, forcing any entrained
Although several different scrub- droplets to impinge upon the baffle
ber configurations are available, spray plates and coalesce into larger drop-
towers that use banks of high-pres- lets, which then fall back into the ves-
sure nozzles to atomize the scrubbing sel. These falling droplets mix with
liquid into a fine cloud of tiny, reactive the spray from the slurry nozzles,
droplets, are the most commonly used, creating a mist that promotes intense
so the balance of this article focuses on mixing between the acid gases and
mist eliminators used in wet scrubber alkaline reactants.
spray towers. The extraordinary sur- Additional reactions also occur in
face-area-to-volume ratio of the drop- the slurry and byproduct sludge that
lets intensifies the contact between collect in the base of the tower. This
the acid-laden fluegas stream and the byproduct sludge is ultimately dewa-
scrubbing liquid, and this maximizes tered using settling ponds, belt filters,
mass transfer of the pollutant from plate-frame filters or other means, so
the gas phase to the liquid and pro- that the solids can be disposed, and the
motes the neutralizing reactions. water can be recycled. The returned
Chemical Engineering www.che.com January 2008
scrubbing liquids can be recirculated
for reuse, while the cleaned fluegas
stream is then discharged, essentially
free of mist.
Tough operating conditions
Mist eliminators used in wet scrubbers
routinely experience material buildup
during ongoing operation, and many
of the most widely used mist-elimi-
nator materials suffer from longterm
deterioration in the hot, corrosive and
erosive conditions found inside a typi-
cal wet scrubber. In particular, many
of the most commonly used materials
experience the damaging effects of
exposure to sulfuric acid attack over
a wide pH range, in the presence of
fuel-derived chlorides and fluorides.
As a result, proper material selection
is of critical importance to both short
and longterm performance, operations
and maintenance costs, and overall
lifecycle costs of mist eliminators used
in wet scrubbers.
The environment inside a wet
scrubber can wreak havoc on all wet
scrubber internal components, includ-
ing the mist eliminator and each of
the leading materials of construction
— polypropylene, FRP, polysulfone
and stainless steel — has a range of
cost and performance attributes. As a
result, proper material selection has
enormous and direct implications for
the overall operation, reliability and
lifecycle costs associated with both the
mist eliminator and the wet scrubber.
Under normal operating conditions,
the temperature inside a wet scrubber
is approximately 130°F. However, tem-
perature excursions above 250–350°F
are not uncommon — the result of
upset conditions that can result from
unexpected power outages, problems
with the gas bypass system, clogging
and failure of the slurry piping or
spray header system, or loss of slurry
flow for any reason.
The presence of sulfuric and hydro-
chloric acids makes the environment
inside a wet scrubber extremely cor-
rosive, and, the presence of flyash,
calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate
and other particulate matter in coal-
combustion fluegas creates erosive
conditions inside the wet scrubber. Ir-
respective of differences in the scrub-
ber reactants used (lime, limestone,
31
 Cover Story
flyash or others), or variations in the
sulfur and/or ash content of the vari-
ous types of coals used, wet scrubber
operators routinely experience both
solids buildup on their mist elimi-
nator components, and a variety of
temperature-related problems during
wet scrubbing.
While insufficient data are available
to determine the impact of the differ-
ent scrubbing reagents, or the type of
coal, on the fouling of mist eliminator
components, the vast experience of
the utilities surveyed during the de-
velopment of this article (as well as
anecdotal evidence from many other
customers of the authors’ various com-
panies) shows that proper material se-
lection has a direct impact on both the
frequency of the solids buildup on the
mist eliminator chevrons, and the ease
and frequency associated with their
cleaning. Proper material selection
can also help to mitigate the thermal
aging problems that typically plague
most wet-scrubber mist eliminators.
Material selection options
Table 2 provides a summary of the
various material properties, perfor-
mance attributes and relative cost
differences that are associated with
each of the four mist eliminator ma-
terials discussed in this article. In
this section, the primary performance
tradeoffs and limitations of each ma-
terial — in the context of wet-scrub-
ber mist eliminators — are discussed,
with illustrative anecdotes from the
surveyed power plants provided later
to showcase the particular capabilities
and limitations of each material.
When specifying particular materi-
als of construction for any type of in-
dustrial duty, the anticipated, steady-
state operating conditions must be
taken into account. To the best ex-
tent possible, any excursions (such as
short-term temperature spikes) that
could occur as a result of potential
upset conditions should also be antici-
pated and factored in during materi-
als selection.
Polypropylene. Among the four pre-
vailing materials, polypropylene is the
lowest-cost option (on a material-cost
basis), and it is easily formed, molded
and extruded. Polypropylene is also
considered to be a broadly chemically
32 Chemical Engineering www.che.com January 2008
3,000
2,500
2,000
Storage modulus, MPa
1,500
1,000
500
0
20 70 120
Temperature, °F
Figure 1. Shown here is the typical change in flexural modulus as a function of
temperature for both polypropylene (PP) and polysulfone (PSU)
resistant polymer, especially in the face
of both acidic and alkaline constituents
that are found inside a typical wet
scrubber. As a result, polypropylene is
currently the most widely used among
the three polymer-based options for
wet-scrubber mist eliminators.
Fiberglass-reinforced polymer:
FRP is comprised of a vinyl ester or
polyester resin matrix, to which con-
tinuous glass fibers have been added
to provide structural reinforcement.
FRP is widely used in corrosion-resis-
tant piping and vessels due to its low
cost relative to the corrosion-resistant
metals, broad resistance to chemical
attack and corrosion, light weight,
strength, rigidity, and load-bearing
capabilities. The use of FRP for mist
eliminator construction has followed
from its success in other industrial ap-
plications.
Polysulfone: This high-temperature
engineering polymer is more costly
than both polypropylene and FRP
from a material standpoint. However,
for use in mist-eliminator applica-
tions, a variety of factors help to jus-
tify polysulfone’s premium cost over
the lifetime of the mist eliminator
unit. These include its broad resis-
tance to both oxidation and hydrolysis
in the hot, moist, acidic environment
found inside a wet scrubber, and its
improved retention of flexural modu-
PSU
PP
170 220 270
lus, toughness, rigidity and other ther-
mal and mechanical properties at el-
evated temperatures, compared to the
other polymeric options. (Polysulfone’s
particular performance advantages in
mist eliminator applications are dis-
cussed in greater detail below.)
Stainless steel: Stainless steel is the
most costly of the four prevailing mist
eliminator materials. It is valued for
its superior mechanical strength and
rigidity under prolonged exposure to
elevated temperatures. It is also per-
ceived to be easier to clean, because
its superior mechanical strength al-
lows the operator to use water blast-
ing at significantly higher pressure
to remove solids buildup. However, as
discussed below, stainless steel’s par-
ticular vulnerability to surface pitting
by oxidative attack makes this percep-
tion more of a misconception under
real-life, wet-scrubber conditions.
Problems in the field
The types of problems that are rou-
tinely experienced with mist elimina-
tors typically fall into two basic cat-
egories: Fouling and corrosion; and
heat-related damage to the mist elimi-
nator components.
Fouling and corrosion have the big-
gest impact on the system operating
efficiency, and on operation and main-
tenance requirements. Fouling occurs
 Figure 2. During a test installation,
APS’s coal-fired Cholla Station, Unit 2,
installed mist eliminators made from each
of the competing materials (from left to
right: polysulfone, FRP, stainless steel,
polypropylene), in order to compare the
performance of each under identical wet-
scrubber operating conditions

and dibasic acid (DBA), are sometimes

when solids and salts — produced dur-
ing the wet scrubbing process — ac-
cumulate on the chevron mist elimi-
nators. Corrosion occurs as a result of
oxidative or chemical attack to the sur-
faces and crevices of mist eliminator
components, when they are exposed to
hot, moist acid gases in the wet scrub-
ber environment.
In particular, when solids are al-
lowed to accumulate on the surfaces
of the wet-scrubber mist eliminators,
the buildup can close off the available
open area within the chevron baffles.
This leads to increased pressure drop,
raises local velocities in the constricted
passageways, and reduces the collec-
tion efficiency of the mist eliminator,
which can result in mist carryover
out of the tower. Such solids buildup
increases the frequency and duration
of cleaning, which brings with it atten-
dant costs associated with extensive
system downtime and maintenance.
Material buildup on the chevrons
can also result in excessive mechani-
cal loading, which can be especially
challenging for mist eliminators and
related connectors and support brac-
ing that are made from several of
the polymeric materials that tend to
lose their mechanical strength when
subjected to the hot, corrosive envi-
ronment inside a wet scrubber. For
instance, under prolonged exposure
to elevated operating temperatures,
components made from polypropylene
can experience softening and melting.
Coupled with excessive loading from
solids buildup, this loss of thermal
and mechanical integrity can lead to
warping, buckling and the premature
failure of the components. In some
cases, polypropylene mist eliminators
require extra bracing to accommodate
the excessive load on the chevron baf-
fles that resulted from solids buildup
(this was the case for the APS Cholla
power plant surveyed during the de-
velopment of this article).
Figure 1 compares the modulus of
polysulfone and polypropylene as a
function of temperature. At typical
operating temperatures found inside
a wet scrubber, polypropylene has a
flexural modulus of 20–25% that of
polysulfone, which is the material
with the next lowest mechanical prop-
erties. In the face of the low modulus
of polypropylene and the high solids
loading, it’s no wonder polypropylene
mist-eliminator chevrons often call for
additional bracing.
Meanwhile, the wear and tear as-
sociated with frequent, high-pressure
water blasting — the most widely used
cleaning method — coupled with the
thermal aging (described below) work
in tandem to shorten the overall service
life of the chevrons, and lead to more
frequent component replacement.
Cleaning challenges
As noted earlier, once the acid gases in
the coal-combustion fluegas are con-
verted into calcium sulfite and calcium
sulfate during wet scrubbing, these
byproduct solids precipitate and drop
out of suspension, accumulating on the
surfaces and internal passageways of
the chevron mist eliminator. In gen-
eral, calcium sulfite precipitates as a
soft, white or yellow sludge that is rel-
atively easily washed from any surface
onto which it settles. By comparison,
calcium sulfate tends to form a harder
precipitate. When allowed to settle on
surfaces and in crevices, such buildup
is not only difficult to remove during
routine cleaning operations, but also
adds to surface roughness, which pro-
motes and accelerates further precipi-
tation, calling for even more frequent
cleaning (and related downtime).
To minimize this fouling, chemical
additives, such a magnesium, sulfur
Chemical Engineering www.che.com January 2008
added to inhibit the formation and de-
position of such precipitates within a
wet scrubber system. Meanwhile, the
use of spray headers — with optimized
spray patterns — can also help to mini-
mize the amount of fouling that occurs
during normal operations. However,
neither of these two approaches can
completely eliminate scaling and foul-
ing inside a wet scrubber.
As a result, wet scrubbers with mist
eliminators must routinely be shut
down for periodic manual cleaning.
Periodic-cleaning methods range from
the use of a simple fire hose with the
mist eliminator remaining installed in
the tower, to removal of the mist elim-
inator components from the scrub-
ber tower so that they can be cleaned
using high-pressure water jets.
Making matters worse, many wet-
scrubber operators report that the
corrosive and erosive environment
inside a wet scrubber can roughen
the surface of the mist eliminator
components, particularly those made
from polypropylene, FRP and stain-
less steel. While different mechanisms
are to blame for each of the different
materials, the end result is the same
— increased surface roughness that
not only makes the removal of accu-
mulated solids more difficult, but ac-
tually accelerates solids buildup over
time, thereby shortening the duration
between required cleanings.
The APS Cholla power plant re-
cently performed an experiment in
which mist eliminators constructed
from each of the four prevailing mist
eliminator materials were installed
in one of the power plant’s four wet
scrubber towers (a tower that is 80-
ft tall by 30-ft dia. and housed in the
portion of the facility known as Unit
2; Figure 2).
The photographs shown in Figures
3–6 provide a visual comparison of the
solids buildup that occurred on mist
eliminator chevrons of each of the
different materials after two months
in service at the APS Cholla facility.
Scale is clearly shown on the polypro-
pylene, FRP and stainless-steel ribs
33
 Cover Story

(Figures 3, 4 and 5), while the

chevrons made from polysul-
fone show minimal buildup
(Figure 6; note that in this
photo, solids buildup did occur
on the polypropylene brackets
that are used to support the
Figure 3. Shown here is a polypropylene Figure 5. During the APS Cholla experi-
polysulfone chevron blades). mist eliminator with considerable solids ment, the buildup on the stainless-steel
Based on its experiments buildup, from the trial installation at the APS mist-eliminator chevrons occurred mainly
comparing the four leading Cholla power plant at the edges
mist eliminator materials,
and its favorable operating
experience with polysulfone,
the APS Cholla facility is in
the process of retrofitting its
remaining wet scrubber tow-
ers in Unit 2 with mist elimi-
nators constructed from poly-
sulfone, as each of the existing
polypropylene mist elimina-
tors reaches the end of its use-
ful life. Plans are also in the
works to retrofit the existing
wet scrubbers in Unit 1 and Figure 6. The polysulfone mist-elimina-
tor chevrons remained largely free of solids
Unit 4 at the same plant with Figure 4. During the APS Cholla trial instal- buildup during the APS Cholla trial, while the
polysulfone mist eliminators, lation, the mist-eliminator chevrons made from supports made from polypropylene did experi-
as well. FRP also experienced solids buildup ence the telltale solids buildup
The following section con-
tains a more detailed discussion of When particles are able to become a wet scrubber can also damage mist
how each of the various materials embedded in the polypropylene chev- eliminators composed of FRP, lead-
fares in terms of solids buildup and rons that have softened under the ing to the formation of cracks on the
surface damage under typical wet elevated temperatures found inside surface, weight loss, and reduction in
scrubber conditions. the wet scrubber, they create a signifi- bending strength [1]. In particular,
Polypropylene: As noted earlier, cantly roughened surface on a micro- at temperatures on the order of 140–
polypropylene is subject to oxida- scopic level. The resulting roughened 160°F, and relative humidity in the
tion when exposed to the high tem- surface helps to explain the experience neighborhood of 85% (both of which
peratures inside a scrubber, and of many operators — including those are common within a wet scrubber),
often experiences softening at el- at the APS Cholla facility — who rou- FRP tends to experience hydrolytic
evated operating temperatures. A tinely report that once polypropylene attack, which weakens the bonds be-
surface morphology examination of mist eliminators have been put into tween the resin matrix and the glass
used polypropylene and polysulfone service, no amount of cleaning can fibers. Different rates of thermal ex-
mist eliminator components from the ever restore the mist-eliminator chev- pansion and contraction between the
APS Cholla facility, carried out using rons to a good-as-new quality again. glass and resin matrix cause the for-
scanning electron microscopy (SEM), Instead, polypropylene users con- mation of tiny cracks and voids, which
revealed an interesting finding. sistently report that after operation increases the potential for delamina-
As shown in the SEM images pro- through an initial fouling and clean- tion. The cracks and exposed glass
vided in Figures 7 and 8, the sample ing cycle, subsequent fouling seems to fibers create a rough surface, which
taken from the cleaned but aged poly- occur more frequently, and that more — similar to what is experienced by
propylene mist eliminator chevron is rigorous, more-frequent offline clean- used polypropylene mist eliminators
roughened, and shows the presence of ing must be undertaken to remove the — makes it difficult to restore the
embedded particles. To the operator’s buildup. The operators at APS Cholla, components to a truly pristine condi-
surprise, chemical analysis indicated when surveyed during the develop- tion during periodic cleaning.
that these particles do not contain ment of this article, summed it up this Polysulfone: When it comes to re-
calcium — thus, they do not represent way: “No matter how much we clean sistance to fouling, solids buildup,
a buildup of post-scrubbing sludge. the polypropylene, it’s never the same and corrosion from acid attack, the
Rather, their composition closely mim- as new packing. It just doesn’t func- high-temperature engineering plastic
ics that of the ash found in the McKin- tion as well, even if it looks clean.” polysulfone shows the greatest chemi-
ley and Lee Ranch coal that is burned FRP: As many power plant operators cal/oxidative stability in mist elimina-
at the facility. have found, the environment inside tor applications, compared to both of
34 Chemical Engineering www.che.com January 2008

Figure 7. SEM examination of used poly-
propylene mist-eliminator sample, 1k magni-
fication
its polymer-based alternatives, and
stainless steel. In particular, polysul-
fone withstands damage from expo-
sure to mineral acids, alkali and salt
solutions. In numerous utility applica-
tions, it shows a considerably longer
service life, compared to polypropyl-
ene and FRP, under the range of op-
erating conditions found inside a typi-
cal wet scrubber. Meanwhile, because
it demonstrates greater resistance to
the type of surface roughness, pitting
problems and surface buildup that are
commonly experienced by polypropyl-
ene, FRP and stainless steel, polysul-
fone is also the easiest to clean of all
competing mist eliminator materials.
At the APS Cholla power plant, fa-
cility operators report they are able to
operate their polysulfone mist elimi-
nators 50% longer than with polypro-
pylene before the unit must be taken
to remove solids buildup from the mist
eliminator (from an average cleaning
frequency of once every three to six
months for polypropylene, to an aver-
age cleaning frequency of once every
10–12 months for polysulfone).
In addition, when very rapid turn-
around is required, the polysulfone
mist eliminators can be cleaned in
situ. However, to ensure complete
cleaning — and maximize the duration
between cleaning cycles — both the
polypropylene and polysulfone com-
ponents are typically removed from
the tower. Once they are removed, the
polysulfone components — thanks to
their sustained improved mechanical
strength compared to polypropylene
— can withstand being cleaned using
more aggressive cleaning techniques.
The removal of the polypropylene
mist eliminators every three to six
months is “a brutal undertaking, cost-
ing us $100,000 to overhaul and re-
build the scrubber tower each time,”
say the APS Cholla facility operators.
By comparison, they note that the
Figure 8. Adhered and embedded particles,
on the used polypropylene mist-eliminator
sample at 3k and 15k magnification
longer duration between cleaning of
the towers that use polysulfone mist
eliminators gives the facility added
flexibility to schedule the necessary
scrubber downtime at a more conve-
nient time (that is, in anticipation of
peak demand seasons).
The APS Cholla operators also
found that solids buildup is so easily
removed from the polysulfone mist
eliminators that the duration of the
cleaning cycle for polysulfone compo-
nents is roughly 20% less than what
is required for the polypropylene mist
eliminator components.
Stainless steel: As noted above,
stainless steel, while valued for its
improved mechanical strength and
rigidity at elevated temperatures, is
subject to corrosion in the face of the
aggressive conditions found inside a
typical wet-scrubber tower, mainly in
the form of pitting and crevice corro-
sion. These types of corrosion are well
documented [2] and typically result in
areas where there is a high concentra-
tions of chlorides or other halogens.
Pitting not only increases surface
roughness, which promotes solids
buildup and makes cleaning more dif-
ficult, but in extreme situations, it can
also lead to perforations. This was the
case at AEP’s Gavin Plant, which is the
largest generating station in Ohio.
That plant’s two units produce 2,600
MW, and include six wet scrubber tow-
ers (each 41-ft dia.). After unfavorable
experience with Type 317L stainless-
steel mist eliminators, AEP has up-
graded each of its six wet-scrubber
mist eliminators to polysulfone. Ac-
cording to the AEP facility operators,
after one year of service, “the upper
set of stainless-steel mist eliminators
looked like Swiss cheese.” The upper
level of mist eliminators is particu-
larly vulnerable to pitting corrosion
because rinse water often does not
reach the top of the upper deck, and
Chemical Engineering www.che.com January 2008
this creates a wet-dry interface
where acidic components can
concentrate [2].
Mechanical and
thermal properties
Mist eliminators used during
wet-scrubber service have two
primary mechanical require-
ments. First, the chevron struc-
tures must be able to maintain their
basic shape (not buckling or warping
at elevated temperatures or excessive
solids buildup), in order to allow for a
predictable fluegas flow. In addition,
they must be able to withstand the
high-pressure water blasting that is
required to clean them.
As noted earlier, during operation,
both elevated temperatures and harsh
acidic conditions can compromise
the rigidity, strength and overall me-
chanical integrity of various materi-
als. When it comes to mist-eliminator
applications in wet-scrubber service,
the ranking of the four prevailing ma-
terials by mechanical strength, from
highest to lowest, is as follows: stain-
less steel, FRP, polysulfone and poly-
propylene. The mechanical integrity
of each material under wet scrubber
conditions is discussed below.
Polypropylene: As shown earlier in
Figure 1, the flexural modulus and
hardness of polypropylene decreases
significantly with increasing tempera-
ture allowing mist eliminators made
from polypropylene to soften, melt and
buckle at elevated temperatures. By
comparison, the flexural modulus of
the other materials remains relatively
constant over the range of normal op-
erating temperatures typically seen in
a wet scrubber.
Because polypropylene melts at
320°F, the material is also particularly
susceptible to damage from short tem-
perature excursions that can occur as
a result of temporary upsets in oper-
ating conditions. For instance, when
a pump tripped at AEP’s Gavin Plant
sending a blast of particularly hot acid
gas through one scrubber, the polypro-
pylene supports (used with its some
of its recently retrofitted polysulfone
mist eliminators) melted.
Similarly, when PPL Montana expe-
rienced a blackout that shut down the
water spray nozzles in the scrubbers,
35
 Percent Retention of Flexural Strength
120

Cover Story PSU

100

the resulting temperature excursion 80

to 400°F melted the polypropylene
brackets, while the polysulfone baffles
merely softened. In another incident
at PPL Montana, an operator was
welding and a spark from the torch
ignited the polypropylene brackets.
PPL Montana has since replaced all of
its polypropylene brackets with those
made from polysulfone. Although
polysulfone can burn, it is much more
difficult to ignite than polypropylene,
and is less likely to sustain burn-re-
lated damage. Added protection can
be gained by adding flame retardant
chemicals to polypropylene.
In general, the oxidative stability of
polypropylene strongly depends upon
the use of antioxidants added during
the manufacture of the plastic. How-
ever, as polypropylene ages, its addi-
tives are consumed. Once its additives
are depleted polypropylene materials
tend to fail very rapidly. The rate at
which the additives are depleted is
highly dependent on the environment
— operators should be aware that the
hot, moist environment found inside a
wet scrubber tends to accelerate the
aging of polypropylene.
FRP: As noted above, punishing
wet-scrubber conditions can lead to
a loss of bonding between the resin
matrix and the glass mat, which
not only increases surface rough-
ness (contributing to solids buildup
and making FRP difficult to clean),
but also causes FRP mist elimina-
tors to experience a loss of flexural
strength over time. To evaluate the
performance of FRP in comparison to
polysulfone, Solvay Advanced Poly-
mers conducted internal testing of
both materials (using two different
FRP matrix materials). The testing
conditions were designed to simulate
wet-scrubber conditions (exposure to
6,000 ppm sulfuric acid, 1,000 ppm
fuming sulfuric acid, and 1,000 ppm
hydrochloric acid at 210°F, for one to
three months). At the end of the test-
ing, the FRP samples had resulted
in a loss of flexural strength rang-
ing from 40–80%, while the flexural
strength of the polysulfone samples
was essentially unaffected.
Although the FRP materials were
much stronger than the polysulfone
at the beginning of the test, by the
36 Chemical Engineering www.che.com January 2008
Percent retention
60
FRP 1
40
FRP 2
20
0
1 2
Months of exposure
Figure 9. Exposure to acids causes a degradation in the mechanical properties of
many polymeric materials. The laboratory data shown here illustrate the loss of flex-
ural strength over time for both fiberglass-reinforced polymer (FRP) and polysulfone
(PSU) under simulated scrubber conditions
end of the testing cycle, FRP 1 had
approximately the same strength as
polysulfone, and FRP 2 had the same
strength as polysulfone — despite
having had an initial strength four
times that of polysulfone at the out-
set of the test. These test results are
shown in Figure 9. Similar reports
from Reference [1] report a decrease
in FRP’s flexural modulus simply as a
result of elevated temperature under
high humidity.
Polysulfone: Thermal-aging data
show that polysulfone demonstrates
greater resistance to thermal aging
compared to both of its polymeric
counterparts (polypropylene and
FRP). For instance, accelerated test-
ing for thermal aging in air that
was carried out at Solvay Advanced
Polymers’ laboratories shows that
the half life for the tensile strength
of polypropylene compounds ranges
from 1,000 to 2,000 h at a tempera-
ture of 302°F. By comparison, polysul-
fone has a tensile-strength half life of
approximately 16,000 h at 338°F, a
temperature at which polypropylene
typically melts.
However, over the course of an ex-
tended service life, polysulfone mist-
eliminator units may experience a
loss of ductility under hot, acidic
conditions, which can result in some
cracking during cleaning operations,
particularly if the mist eliminator
units are removed for cleaning, and
in many cases, the associated costs
makes polysulfone cost-prohibitive.
3
Stainless steel: Clearly, stainless
steel outperforms all of its polymeric
counterparts when it comes to inher-
ent mechanical strength and struc-
tural integrity under elevated tem-
peratures. However, the corrosion that
commonly results from acid attack
can not only lead to surface pitting
and acid concentrations in crevices
but, over time, can lead to perforation
of the stainless steel chevrons in ex-
treme cases. The major impact of the
pitting is increased surface roughness,
which makes the surfaces more diffi-
cult to clean.
Economic considerations
Switching from polypropylene to
polysulfone. After its less-than-favor-
able experience with mist eliminators
made from polypropylene, (and earlier
experience with FRP and stainless
steel), the APS Cholla facility carried
out an economic analysis to support its
decision to switch from polypropylene
to polysulfone mist eliminators exclu-
sively in Unit 2. As part of that eco-
nomic analysis, plant operators noted
that each offline cleaning cycle for
polypropylene — requiring complete
removal of the chevron baffles from
the wet scrubber, and an offline power
wash carried out by a crew of nine
workers — costs more than $100,000
in manpower alone. Based on the abil-
ity to cut in half the frequency of its
offline cleaning (from once every three
to six months, to once every ten to
twelve months) by switching to poly-
sulfone, the facility is saving $50,000
per tower per year.
An additional justification in APS
Cholla’s economic analysis was that
polysulfone components do not have
to be replaced as frequently as poly-
propylene components. Despite the
fact that a polysulfone mist elimi-
nator is two to three times more ex-
pensive than one made from polypro-
pylene, it can operate much longer
before it requires replacement. For
instance, at APS Cholla, the poly-
propylene mist eliminator would be
replaced in less than a year because
the increasing difficulty in cleaning
them made breakage of the chevrons
more prevalent (and the “cleaned”
components less desirable). By com-
parison, the polysulfone mist elimi-
nators have already been in service
there for more than three years —
“something that is unheard of,” say
the facility operators. Polysulfone’s
extended service life and reduced
replacement frequency is currently
helping the utility to realize an ad-
ditional savings of $13,880 per year
per tower for those equipped with
polysulfone mist eliminators.
The bottom line: When the APS
Cholla facility upgraded the first of
four wet scrubbers in Unit 2 from poly-
propylene to polysulfone mist elimina-
tors, it spent an additional $52,000 on
the premium components — but that
material replacement has saved the
facility more than $146,640 over the
first three years of operation. This rep-
resents an ROI of 13 months. As the
operators at APS Cholla said during
the survey conducted for this paper:
“Polysulfone pays for itself. We’re done
with polypropylene.”
Switching from stainless steel to
polysulfone: PPL Montana operates
22 wet scrubbers (six of these 35-ft.-
dia. scrubbers use polysulfone mist
eliminators, and the remaining ones
use stainless-steel mist eliminators).
When PPL Montana carried out an
analysis to determine the economic
advantages of polysulfone versus
stainless steel for wet-scrubber mist
eliminators, the experience taught
them that polysulfone’s improved
ability to withstand solids buildup
and corrosion allowed the operators to
take the scrubbers down for cleaning
twice a year, while the stainless steel
mist eliminators must be taken offline
for cleaning eight times per year.
The average cost per 13-h shut-
down, in terms of labor, is roughly
$5,000. However, PPL Montana has
no backup scrubbing capacity, so the
downtime required for each sched-
uled mist-eliminator-cleaning event
also engendered some hidden costs —
namely, those associated with a load
reduction of 80 MW. These megawatt
losses have enormous cost implica-
tions for the facility. According to PPL
Montana, assuming an energy cost of
$32 per MWh for the 13-h downtime
sessions, the annual MW losses alone
incurred by the towers using poly-
sulfone mist eliminators (taken of-
fline twice/year) cost $76,560, while
the annual MW losses incurred by
the scrubbers equipped with stain-
less-steel mist eliminators (which are
taken offline eight times per year)
cost the utility $306,240.
As a result, the ability to stem the
MW losses associated with exces-
sive downtime by using polysulfone
mist eliminators instead of those
made from stainless steel is helping
PPL Montana to save $229,680/yr.
And the facility operators note that
if power demand is high, the utility
often has to buy replacement power
during those downtimes, at a cost of
$50–100/MW.
Conclusions
Polysulfone, while more costly than
polypropylene or FRP for the con-
struction of mist eliminators that are
used in wet scrubbers, offers demon-
strable performance advantages that
can help to reduce overall lifecycle
operation and maintenance costs by
reducing the need for (and duration
of) periodic offline cleaning to remove
solids buildup during operation. Poly-
sulfone’s longer service life helps to
reduce capital expenditures over the
lifecycle of the mist eliminator.
Meanwhile, polysulfone’s ability
to maintain its structural strength
and mechanical integrity at the el-
evated temperatures found inside a
wet scrubber also allows it to com-
pete with costly stainless-steel com-
ponents, with the added bonus that
unlike stainless steel, polysulfone is
Chemical Engineering www.che.com January 2008
considerably less vulnerable to pit-
ting corrosion under hot, acidic wet
scrubber conditions. It is this type of
surface corrosion that makes stain-
less-steel mist eliminators so notori-
ously hard to clean.
Acknowledgements
The authors of this paper wish to
thank Paul Shook of PPL’s Colstrip
Station and Frank Fetty of AEP’s
Gavin Station, as well as other power
plant personnel, for sharing their ex-
tensive experience in the application
of different materials for mist elimi-
nator components in FGD equipment.
We also wish to thank Suzanne Shel-
ley, former CE editor, for her extensive
efforts during the writing and editing
of this article. ■
Edited by Rebekkah Marshall
References
1. Nishizaki, I., and Meiarashi, S., Long-Term
Deterioration of GFRP in Water and Moist
Environments, Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 6., No. 1., February 2002.
2. Shoemaker, L.E., and Crum, J.R., Experience
in Effective Application of Metallic Materials
for the Construction of FGD Systems, Spe-
cial Metals Corp.
Authors
Bill Looney is senior global market manager
for Solvay Advanced Polymers, L.L.C. (4500
McGinnis Ferry Road, Alpharetta, GA 30005;
Phone: 770-772-8200; Email: bill.looney@sol-
vay.com) with 25 years experience in high-per-
formance polymers. For the last 15 years he has
worked extensively in helping Solvay’s custom-
ers understand where high performance plas-
tics can be used to replace corrosion-resistant
metals. He earned his B.S.Ch.E from Michigan
Technological University.
Brian Baleno is a business development
representative for Solvay Advanced Polymers
(Email: brian.baleno@solvay.com). Brian has
spent nearly a decade managing material so-
lutions for customers in automotive, aerospace,
chemical processing, healthcare and, of course,
the power plant industry.
Greg L. Boles is FGD Marketing Manager
for mist eliminators associated with scrubbers
for wet-fluegas-desulfurization applications
at Koch-Otto York Separations Technologies
(4111 East 37th Street North, Wichita, KS
67208; Phone: 316-828-5668; Email: greg.boles
@kochglitsch.com). Boles has spent 20 years
with the Koch Chemical Technology Group,
in various capacities of process design, sales,
and marketing. Greg earned his B.S. from Fort
Hays State University and M.S. from Friends
University.
Jacob Tetlow is overhaul planning manager
at the Arizona Public Service Co. Cholla Plant
(P.O. Box 188, M.S. 4455, Joseph City, AZ 86302;
Phone: 928-288-1537; Email: jtetlow@apsc.
com). He is responsible for planning, schedul-
ing and executing overhauls on four coal fired
units. With more than 12 years of experience
in engineering, operations and maintenance,
Tetlow has worked on numerous power plant
projects and overhauls.
37