Possibilities of mercury removal in the dry flue gas cleaning lines of solid waste incineration units

Dry methods of the flue gas cleaning (for HCl and SO2 removal) are useful particularly in smaller solid waste incineration units. The amount and forms of mercury emissions depend on waste (fuel) composition, content of mercury and chlorine and on the entire process of the flue gas cleaning. In the c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of environmental management 2016-01, Vol.166, p.499-511
Hauptverfasser: Svoboda, Karel, Hartman, Miloslav, Šyc, Michal, Pohořelý, Michael, Kameníková, Petra, Jeremiáš, Michal, Durda, Tomáš
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 511
container_issue
container_start_page 499
container_title Journal of environmental management
container_volume 166
creator Svoboda, Karel
Hartman, Miloslav
Šyc, Michal
Pohořelý, Michael
Kameníková, Petra
Jeremiáš, Michal
Durda, Tomáš
description Dry methods of the flue gas cleaning (for HCl and SO2 removal) are useful particularly in smaller solid waste incineration units. The amount and forms of mercury emissions depend on waste (fuel) composition, content of mercury and chlorine and on the entire process of the flue gas cleaning. In the case of high HCl/total Hg molar ratio in the flue gas, the majority (usually 70–90%) of mercury is present in the form of HgCl2 and a smaller amount in the form of mercury vapors at higher temperatures. Removal of both main forms of mercury from the flue gas is dependent on chemical reactions and sorption processes at the temperatures below approx. 340 °C. Significant part of HgCl2 and a small part of elemental Hg vapors can be adsorbed on fly ash and solid particle in the air pollution control (APC) processes, which are removed in dust filters. Injection of non-impregnated active carbon (AC) or activated lignite coke particles is able to remove mainly the oxidized Hg2+ compounds. Vapors of metallic Hgo are adsorbed relatively weakly. Much better chemisorption of Hgo together with higher sorbent capacity is achieved by AC-based sorbents impregnated with sulfur, alkali poly-sulfides, ferric chloride, etc. Inorganic sorbents with the same or similar chemical impregnation are also applicable for deeper Hgo removal (over 85%). SCR catalysts convert part of Hgo into oxidized compounds (HgO, HgCl2, etc.) contributing to more efficient Hg removal, but excess of NH3 has a negative effect. Both forms, elemental Hgo and HgCl2, can be converted into HgS particles by reacting with droplets/aerosol of poly-sulfides solutions/solids in flue gas. Mercury captured in the form of water insoluble HgS is more advantageous in the disposal of solid waste from APC processes. Four selected options of the dry flue gas cleaning with mercury removal are analyzed, assessed and compared (in terms of efficiency of Hg-emission reduction and costs) with wet methods and retrofits for more efficient Hg-removal. Overall mercury removal efficiencies from flue gas can attain 80–95%, depending on sorbent type/impregnation, sorbent surplus and operating conditions. •Dry cleaning of flue gas is considered at temperatures 120–340 °C.•Mercury in flue gas is present in forms of Hgo, HgCl2, HgO and as adsorbed on dust.•Four typical cases of cleaning methods based on soda and Ca(OH)2 are analyzed.•Active carbon based sorbents for Hg are applicable for temperatures below 180 °C.•Removal of mercury from flue
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.001
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1758942484</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0301479715303558</els_id><sourcerecordid>3900895121</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-d3f35bbc452d4c460a10d4b9b2f03678f662a45ce9eec269afb53c929b05a03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc1r1kAQhxex2Nfqn6AsePGSOPuZ5CRS_IKChXpfNptJ3ZDs1t3klf733ZJXD170NDA8vxlmHkJeMagZMP1uqicMx8WGmgNTNWM1AHtCDgw6VbVawFNyAAGskk3XnJPnOU8AIDhrnpFzrlXbtowfCF7HnH3vZ796zDSOdMHktnRPEy7xaGfqA11_IB1Ka5w3pLc2UzejDT7c0tmHPZXj7Af6y-YVS8KVdrKrj4Fuwa_5BTkb7Zzx5alekJtPH79ffqmuvn3-evnhqnKS67UaxChU3zup-CCd1GAZDLLvej6C0E07as2tVA47RMd1Z8deCdfxrgdlQVyQt_vUuxR_bphXs_jscJ5twLhlwxrVdpLLVv4PClIILXhB3_yFTnFLoZyxU0xIrQqldsql8tCEo7lLfrHp3jAwj8LMZE7CzKMww5gpwkru9Wn61i84_En9NlSA9zuA5W9Hj8lk5zE4HHxCt5oh-n-seACyzqm4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1750413465</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Possibilities of mercury removal in the dry flue gas cleaning lines of solid waste incineration units</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Svoboda, Karel ; Hartman, Miloslav ; Šyc, Michal ; Pohořelý, Michael ; Kameníková, Petra ; Jeremiáš, Michal ; Durda, Tomáš</creator><creatorcontrib>Svoboda, Karel ; Hartman, Miloslav ; Šyc, Michal ; Pohořelý, Michael ; Kameníková, Petra ; Jeremiáš, Michal ; Durda, Tomáš</creatorcontrib><description>Dry methods of the flue gas cleaning (for HCl and SO2 removal) are useful particularly in smaller solid waste incineration units. The amount and forms of mercury emissions depend on waste (fuel) composition, content of mercury and chlorine and on the entire process of the flue gas cleaning. In the case of high HCl/total Hg molar ratio in the flue gas, the majority (usually 70–90%) of mercury is present in the form of HgCl2 and a smaller amount in the form of mercury vapors at higher temperatures. Removal of both main forms of mercury from the flue gas is dependent on chemical reactions and sorption processes at the temperatures below approx. 340 °C. Significant part of HgCl2 and a small part of elemental Hg vapors can be adsorbed on fly ash and solid particle in the air pollution control (APC) processes, which are removed in dust filters. Injection of non-impregnated active carbon (AC) or activated lignite coke particles is able to remove mainly the oxidized Hg2+ compounds. Vapors of metallic Hgo are adsorbed relatively weakly. Much better chemisorption of Hgo together with higher sorbent capacity is achieved by AC-based sorbents impregnated with sulfur, alkali poly-sulfides, ferric chloride, etc. Inorganic sorbents with the same or similar chemical impregnation are also applicable for deeper Hgo removal (over 85%). SCR catalysts convert part of Hgo into oxidized compounds (HgO, HgCl2, etc.) contributing to more efficient Hg removal, but excess of NH3 has a negative effect. Both forms, elemental Hgo and HgCl2, can be converted into HgS particles by reacting with droplets/aerosol of poly-sulfides solutions/solids in flue gas. Mercury captured in the form of water insoluble HgS is more advantageous in the disposal of solid waste from APC processes. Four selected options of the dry flue gas cleaning with mercury removal are analyzed, assessed and compared (in terms of efficiency of Hg-emission reduction and costs) with wet methods and retrofits for more efficient Hg-removal. Overall mercury removal efficiencies from flue gas can attain 80–95%, depending on sorbent type/impregnation, sorbent surplus and operating conditions. •Dry cleaning of flue gas is considered at temperatures 120–340 °C.•Mercury in flue gas is present in forms of Hgo, HgCl2, HgO and as adsorbed on dust.•Four typical cases of cleaning methods based on soda and Ca(OH)2 are analyzed.•Active carbon based sorbents for Hg are applicable for temperatures below 180 °C.•Removal of mercury from flue gas is difficult at temperatures over 300 °C.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-4797</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-8630</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26588812</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JEVMAW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adsorption ; Air pollution ; Catalysis ; Coal ; Coal Ash - chemistry ; Dry cleaning ; Environmental Pollutants - analysis ; Environmental Pollutants - chemistry ; Flue gas ; Incineration ; Mercury ; Mercury - analysis ; Mercury - chemistry ; Mercury removal ; Oxidation-Reduction ; Pollution control ; Solid sorbents ; Solid Waste ; Sorption ; Sulfides - chemistry ; Sulfur - chemistry ; Thermodynamics ; Waste incineration ; Waste Management - methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of environmental management, 2016-01, Vol.166, p.499-511</ispartof><rights>2015 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Academic Press Ltd. Jan 15, 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-d3f35bbc452d4c460a10d4b9b2f03678f662a45ce9eec269afb53c929b05a03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-d3f35bbc452d4c460a10d4b9b2f03678f662a45ce9eec269afb53c929b05a03</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1638-098X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479715303558$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26588812$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Svoboda, Karel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartman, Miloslav</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Šyc, Michal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pohořelý, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kameníková, Petra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jeremiáš, Michal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durda, Tomáš</creatorcontrib><title>Possibilities of mercury removal in the dry flue gas cleaning lines of solid waste incineration units</title><title>Journal of environmental management</title><addtitle>J Environ Manage</addtitle><description>Dry methods of the flue gas cleaning (for HCl and SO2 removal) are useful particularly in smaller solid waste incineration units. The amount and forms of mercury emissions depend on waste (fuel) composition, content of mercury and chlorine and on the entire process of the flue gas cleaning. In the case of high HCl/total Hg molar ratio in the flue gas, the majority (usually 70–90%) of mercury is present in the form of HgCl2 and a smaller amount in the form of mercury vapors at higher temperatures. Removal of both main forms of mercury from the flue gas is dependent on chemical reactions and sorption processes at the temperatures below approx. 340 °C. Significant part of HgCl2 and a small part of elemental Hg vapors can be adsorbed on fly ash and solid particle in the air pollution control (APC) processes, which are removed in dust filters. Injection of non-impregnated active carbon (AC) or activated lignite coke particles is able to remove mainly the oxidized Hg2+ compounds. Vapors of metallic Hgo are adsorbed relatively weakly. Much better chemisorption of Hgo together with higher sorbent capacity is achieved by AC-based sorbents impregnated with sulfur, alkali poly-sulfides, ferric chloride, etc. Inorganic sorbents with the same or similar chemical impregnation are also applicable for deeper Hgo removal (over 85%). SCR catalysts convert part of Hgo into oxidized compounds (HgO, HgCl2, etc.) contributing to more efficient Hg removal, but excess of NH3 has a negative effect. Both forms, elemental Hgo and HgCl2, can be converted into HgS particles by reacting with droplets/aerosol of poly-sulfides solutions/solids in flue gas. Mercury captured in the form of water insoluble HgS is more advantageous in the disposal of solid waste from APC processes. Four selected options of the dry flue gas cleaning with mercury removal are analyzed, assessed and compared (in terms of efficiency of Hg-emission reduction and costs) with wet methods and retrofits for more efficient Hg-removal. Overall mercury removal efficiencies from flue gas can attain 80–95%, depending on sorbent type/impregnation, sorbent surplus and operating conditions. •Dry cleaning of flue gas is considered at temperatures 120–340 °C.•Mercury in flue gas is present in forms of Hgo, HgCl2, HgO and as adsorbed on dust.•Four typical cases of cleaning methods based on soda and Ca(OH)2 are analyzed.•Active carbon based sorbents for Hg are applicable for temperatures below 180 °C.•Removal of mercury from flue gas is difficult at temperatures over 300 °C.</description><subject>Adsorption</subject><subject>Air pollution</subject><subject>Catalysis</subject><subject>Coal</subject><subject>Coal Ash - chemistry</subject><subject>Dry cleaning</subject><subject>Environmental Pollutants - analysis</subject><subject>Environmental Pollutants - chemistry</subject><subject>Flue gas</subject><subject>Incineration</subject><subject>Mercury</subject><subject>Mercury - analysis</subject><subject>Mercury - chemistry</subject><subject>Mercury removal</subject><subject>Oxidation-Reduction</subject><subject>Pollution control</subject><subject>Solid sorbents</subject><subject>Solid Waste</subject><subject>Sorption</subject><subject>Sulfides - chemistry</subject><subject>Sulfur - chemistry</subject><subject>Thermodynamics</subject><subject>Waste incineration</subject><subject>Waste Management - methods</subject><issn>0301-4797</issn><issn>1095-8630</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc1r1kAQhxex2Nfqn6AsePGSOPuZ5CRS_IKChXpfNptJ3ZDs1t3klf733ZJXD170NDA8vxlmHkJeMagZMP1uqicMx8WGmgNTNWM1AHtCDgw6VbVawFNyAAGskk3XnJPnOU8AIDhrnpFzrlXbtowfCF7HnH3vZ796zDSOdMHktnRPEy7xaGfqA11_IB1Ka5w3pLc2UzejDT7c0tmHPZXj7Af6y-YVS8KVdrKrj4Fuwa_5BTkb7Zzx5alekJtPH79ffqmuvn3-evnhqnKS67UaxChU3zup-CCd1GAZDLLvej6C0E07as2tVA47RMd1Z8deCdfxrgdlQVyQt_vUuxR_bphXs_jscJ5twLhlwxrVdpLLVv4PClIILXhB3_yFTnFLoZyxU0xIrQqldsql8tCEo7lLfrHp3jAwj8LMZE7CzKMww5gpwkru9Wn61i84_En9NlSA9zuA5W9Hj8lk5zE4HHxCt5oh-n-seACyzqm4</recordid><startdate>20160115</startdate><enddate>20160115</enddate><creator>Svoboda, Karel</creator><creator>Hartman, Miloslav</creator><creator>Šyc, Michal</creator><creator>Pohořelý, Michael</creator><creator>Kameníková, Petra</creator><creator>Jeremiáš, Michal</creator><creator>Durda, Tomáš</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Academic Press Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1638-098X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20160115</creationdate><title>Possibilities of mercury removal in the dry flue gas cleaning lines of solid waste incineration units</title><author>Svoboda, Karel ; Hartman, Miloslav ; Šyc, Michal ; Pohořelý, Michael ; Kameníková, Petra ; Jeremiáš, Michal ; Durda, Tomáš</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c426t-d3f35bbc452d4c460a10d4b9b2f03678f662a45ce9eec269afb53c929b05a03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adsorption</topic><topic>Air pollution</topic><topic>Catalysis</topic><topic>Coal</topic><topic>Coal Ash - chemistry</topic><topic>Dry cleaning</topic><topic>Environmental Pollutants - analysis</topic><topic>Environmental Pollutants - chemistry</topic><topic>Flue gas</topic><topic>Incineration</topic><topic>Mercury</topic><topic>Mercury - analysis</topic><topic>Mercury - chemistry</topic><topic>Mercury removal</topic><topic>Oxidation-Reduction</topic><topic>Pollution control</topic><topic>Solid sorbents</topic><topic>Solid Waste</topic><topic>Sorption</topic><topic>Sulfides - chemistry</topic><topic>Sulfur - chemistry</topic><topic>Thermodynamics</topic><topic>Waste incineration</topic><topic>Waste Management - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Svoboda, Karel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartman, Miloslav</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Šyc, Michal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pohořelý, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kameníková, Petra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jeremiáš, Michal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durda, Tomáš</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of environmental management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Svoboda, Karel</au><au>Hartman, Miloslav</au><au>Šyc, Michal</au><au>Pohořelý, Michael</au><au>Kameníková, Petra</au><au>Jeremiáš, Michal</au><au>Durda, Tomáš</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Possibilities of mercury removal in the dry flue gas cleaning lines of solid waste incineration units</atitle><jtitle>Journal of environmental management</jtitle><addtitle>J Environ Manage</addtitle><date>2016-01-15</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>166</volume><spage>499</spage><epage>511</epage><pages>499-511</pages><issn>0301-4797</issn><eissn>1095-8630</eissn><coden>JEVMAW</coden><abstract>Dry methods of the flue gas cleaning (for HCl and SO2 removal) are useful particularly in smaller solid waste incineration units. The amount and forms of mercury emissions depend on waste (fuel) composition, content of mercury and chlorine and on the entire process of the flue gas cleaning. In the case of high HCl/total Hg molar ratio in the flue gas, the majority (usually 70–90%) of mercury is present in the form of HgCl2 and a smaller amount in the form of mercury vapors at higher temperatures. Removal of both main forms of mercury from the flue gas is dependent on chemical reactions and sorption processes at the temperatures below approx. 340 °C. Significant part of HgCl2 and a small part of elemental Hg vapors can be adsorbed on fly ash and solid particle in the air pollution control (APC) processes, which are removed in dust filters. Injection of non-impregnated active carbon (AC) or activated lignite coke particles is able to remove mainly the oxidized Hg2+ compounds. Vapors of metallic Hgo are adsorbed relatively weakly. Much better chemisorption of Hgo together with higher sorbent capacity is achieved by AC-based sorbents impregnated with sulfur, alkali poly-sulfides, ferric chloride, etc. Inorganic sorbents with the same or similar chemical impregnation are also applicable for deeper Hgo removal (over 85%). SCR catalysts convert part of Hgo into oxidized compounds (HgO, HgCl2, etc.) contributing to more efficient Hg removal, but excess of NH3 has a negative effect. Both forms, elemental Hgo and HgCl2, can be converted into HgS particles by reacting with droplets/aerosol of poly-sulfides solutions/solids in flue gas. Mercury captured in the form of water insoluble HgS is more advantageous in the disposal of solid waste from APC processes. Four selected options of the dry flue gas cleaning with mercury removal are analyzed, assessed and compared (in terms of efficiency of Hg-emission reduction and costs) with wet methods and retrofits for more efficient Hg-removal. Overall mercury removal efficiencies from flue gas can attain 80–95%, depending on sorbent type/impregnation, sorbent surplus and operating conditions. •Dry cleaning of flue gas is considered at temperatures 120–340 °C.•Mercury in flue gas is present in forms of Hgo, HgCl2, HgO and as adsorbed on dust.•Four typical cases of cleaning methods based on soda and Ca(OH)2 are analyzed.•Active carbon based sorbents for Hg are applicable for temperatures below 180 °C.•Removal of mercury from flue gas is difficult at temperatures over 300 °C.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>26588812</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.001</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1638-098X</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0301-4797
ispartof Journal of environmental management, 2016-01, Vol.166, p.499-511
issn 0301-4797
1095-8630
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1758942484
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Adsorption
Air pollution
Catalysis
Coal
Coal Ash - chemistry
Dry cleaning
Environmental Pollutants - analysis
Environmental Pollutants - chemistry
Flue gas
Incineration
Mercury
Mercury - analysis
Mercury - chemistry
Mercury removal
Oxidation-Reduction
Pollution control
Solid sorbents
Solid Waste
Sorption
Sulfides - chemistry
Sulfur - chemistry
Thermodynamics
Waste incineration
Waste Management - methods
title Possibilities of mercury removal in the dry flue gas cleaning lines of solid waste incineration units
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T01%3A00%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Possibilities%20of%20mercury%20removal%20in%20the%20dry%20flue%20gas%20cleaning%20lines%20of%20solid%20waste%20incineration%20units&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20environmental%20management&rft.au=Svoboda,%20Karel&rft.date=2016-01-15&rft.volume=166&rft.spage=499&rft.epage=511&rft.pages=499-511&rft.issn=0301-4797&rft.eissn=1095-8630&rft.coden=JEVMAW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3900895121%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1750413465&rft_id=info:pmid/26588812&rft_els_id=S0301479715303558&rfr_iscdi=true