Catalyst mixture for the treatment of waste gas

Abstract

A catalyst comprises a mixture of 95% vol. to 30% vol. of an activated carbon catalyst and from 5% vol. to 70% vol. of a filler material as well as a configuration of such a catalyst for the removal of SO.sub.2, heavy metals and/or dioxins form waste gas and liquids.

Claims

1. A catalyst, comprising: a heterogeneous, random mixture of 95% vol. to 30% vol. of an activated carbon catalyst, based on a total volume of the mixture, and from 5% vol. to 70% vol. of a filler material made of distinct, individual particles that are added to the activated carbon catalyst, based on a total volume of the mixture; wherein said filler material is ceramic; and wherein the mixture contains no other solid ingredients than the activated carbon catalyst and the filler material.

2. The catalyst as claimed in claim 1, wherein the filler material comprises a free volume of 87% vol to 97% vol, based on a total volume of the filler material.

3. The catalyst as claimed in claim 1, wherein the filler material is present in an amount from 5% vol. to 56% vol., based on a total volume of the mixture.

4. The catalyst as claimed in claim 1, configured for the removal of SO.sub.2 from waste gas.

5. The catalyst according to claim 1, configured for the removal of heavy metals and dioxins from waste gas or liquids.

6. The catalyst as claimed in claim 1, wherein the mixture comprises 95% vol. to 46% vol. of the activated carbon catalyst, based on a total volume of the mixture, and from 5% vol. to 54% vol. of the filler material, based on a total volume of the mixture.

7. The catalyst as claimed in claim 1, wherein the filler material has a shape comprising ring shaped, ball shaped, torus shaped or prism shaped.

8. The catalyst as claimed in claim 1, wherein the filler material has a shape comprising ring shaped, torus shaped or prism shaped.

9. A catalyst, comprising: a mixture of between 30% vol. and 60% vol. of an activated carbon catalyst impregnated with sulfur, based on a total volume of the mixture, between 30% vol. and 60% vol. of an activated carbon catalyst impregnated with iron, based on a total volume of the mixture, and between 5% vol. and 40% vol. of a filler material, based on a total volume of the mixture, wherein said filler material comprises plastic, alumina, metal, ceramic materials or mixture thereof, and wherein the mixture contains no other solid ingredients than the activated carbon catalyst and the filler material.

10. The catalyst as claimed in claim 9, wherein the mixture comprises between 40% vol. and 50% vol. of the activated carbon catalyst impregnated with sulfur, based on a total volume of the mixture.

11. The catalyst as claimed in claim 9, wherein the activated carbon catalyst impregnated with sulfur comprises between 5% weight and 20% weight of sulfur, based on a total weight of the activated carbon catalyst impregnated with sulfur.

12. The catalyst as claimed in claim 9, wherein the mixture comprises between 40% vol. and 50% vol. of the activated carbon catalyst impregnated with iron, based on a total volume of the mixture.

13. The catalyst as claimed in claim 9, wherein the activated carbon catalyst impregnated with iron comprises between 10% weight and 30% weight of iron, based on a total weight of the activated carbon catalyst impregnated with iron.

14. The catalyst as claimed in claim 9, wherein the mixture is a heterogeneous, random mixture; and the filler material is made of distinct, individual particles that are added to the activated carbon catalyst.

15. The catalyst as claimed in claim 9, wherein the filler material has a shape comprising saddle shaped, ring shaped, ball shaped, torus shaped or prism shaped.

16. A catalyst, comprising: a heterogeneous, random mixture of 95% vol. to 52% vol. of an activated carbon catalyst and from 5% vol. to 48% vol. of a plastic filler material made of distinct, individual particles that are added to the activated carbon catalyst, based on a total volume of the mixture; wherein the mixture contains no other solid ingredients than the activated carbon catalyst and the plastic filler material, and.

17. The catalyst as claimed in claim 16, wherein the plastic filler material has a shape comprising ring shaped, ball shaped, torus shaped or prism shaped.

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

(1) Further details and advantages of the disclosure can be taken from the following detailed description of a possible embodiment of the disclosure on the basis of the accompanying FIG. 1. In the drawings:

(2) FIG. 1 is a schematic view of a plant to depollute gas containing SO.sub.2 and/or dioxins;

(3) FIG. 2 is a graph showing the values measured during Test 1 of the SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases at the inlet and outlet of the reactor;

(4) FIG. 3 is a graph showing the values measured during Test 2 of the SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases at the inlet and outlet of the reactor;

(5) FIG. 4 is a graph showing the values measured during Test 3 of the SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases at the inlet and outlet of the reactor;

(6) FIG. 5 is a graph showing the values measured during Test 4 of the SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases at the inlet and outlet of the reactor.

(7) FIG. 6 is a graph showing the values measured during Test 5 of the SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases at the inlet and outlet of the reactor;

(8) FIG. 7 is a graph showing the values measured during Test 6 of the SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases at the inlet and outlet of the reactor.

(9) FIG. 8 is a graph showing the values measured during Test 7 and 8 of the SO.sub.2 loading capacity of an active carbon catalyst and of a mixture of an active carbon catalyst and a filler.

(10) FIG. 9 is a graph showing the values measured during Test 7 and 8 of the drying time of an active carbon catalyst and of a mixture of an active carbon catalyst and a filler.

(11) FIG. 10 is a graph showing the removal efficiency of an active carbon catalyst alone and different ways of mixing an active carbon catalyst with filler in relation to Test 12a, b, c and d.

(12) FIG. 11 is a graph showing the removal efficiency of an active carbon catalyst mixed with different quantities of a first filler material in relation to Test 13,

(13) FIG. 12 is a graph showing the removal efficiency of an active carbon catalyst mixed with different quantities of a second filler material in relation to Test 14,

(14) FIG. 13 is a graph showing the removal efficiency of an active carbon catalyst mixed with ¼ of different sized filler materials in relation to Test 15,

(15) FIG. 14 is a graph showing the removal efficiency of different types of active carbon catalyst mixed with ¼ of filler materials in relation to Test 16,

DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

(16) The test arrangement shown in FIG. 1 in order to illustrate the disclosure comprises a test reactor 10, to the lower part 12 of which a test gas is supplied and in the upper part 14 of which water is sprayed.

(17) For the purpose of these tests, instead of waste gas a test gas is used to simulate the waste gases. The test gas comprises ambient air which is used as is, at a temperature between 10-12° C. and to which SO.sub.2 is subsequently added from a pressurized cylinder 18 via corresponding valve 22. A first measuring device 26 analyses the composition (SO.sub.2 content, O.sub.2 content), the temperature, the flow volume and the flow rate of the test gas.

(18) The test gas is then cooled to saturation temperature in a quench 28 by evaporation of water. The test gas is drawn via the quench 28 into the reactor 10 by a fan 30. A coalescer, a droplet separator or a mist collector at the outlet of the quench 28 collects any droplets that might be contained in the test gas as it exits from the quench.

(19) The test gas flows through the reactor 10 and through the activated carbon catalyst or the filling material or a combination of an activated carbon catalyst and filling material 32 arranged inside the test reactor 10. The test gas flows from the bottom to the top of the reactor 10 and is then examined once it is discharged from the test reactor 10 in a second measuring device 34 for the same parameters as in the first measuring device 26, i.e. composition (SO.sub.2 content, O.sub.2 content), the temperature, the flow volume and the flow rate, and is then released into the atmosphere.

(20) The water required in the process is fed from a storage container 36 via a metering device 38, where the flow is measured, and a pump 40 into the upper part 14 of the test reactor 10, where the water flows through the activated carbon catalyst or the filling material or a combination of activated carbon catalyst and filling material 32 in counterflow to the test gas.

(21) Alternatively however, the water required in the process can also be fed through the reactor in co-current flow with, i.e. in the same direction as, the test gas. The selection of a co-current or counterflow method depends for example on the local conditions.

(22) The water required for the quench 28 comes directly from the water supply and is circulated within the quench.

(23) The SO.sub.2 is catalytically converted into SO.sub.3 on the activated carbon catalyst, and is then converted into sulfuric acid if water is added.

(24) The filling material is randomly mixed with the activated carbon catalyst and the mixture is located above the sieve i.e. a metallic mesh sieve with mesh inferior to the particle size of the mixture of catalyst and filler (e.g. >2 mm.

(25) The sulfuric acid formed is rinsed off from the activated carbon catalyst by intermittent spraying with water, as a function of the volume of the catalyst and of the SO.sub.2/SO.sub.3 concentration, in counterflow to the gas.

(26) The presence of filling material surprisingly improves the conversion efficiency during SO.sub.2 catalytic reaction and/or during spraying with water due to liquid/gas interaction. The presence of the filling material seems to enhance the liquid and gas flows as well as their repartition through the catalyst bed that allows a more uniform liquid and gas coverage of each catalyst grain and thus a higher SO.sub.3 to H.sub.2SO.sub.4 conversion. Indeed the regeneration of the activated carbon catalyst is quicker and more efficient leading to a shorter regeneration-cycle time.

(27) It has been found that there is a

(28) Good fluid distribution

(29) Low pressure drop in the reactor

(30) Less temperature gradient

(31) These main parameters may explain the better performance of the system.

(32) The filler material may optionally be impregnated as stated before.

(33) In the test reactor described above, spraying with water was carried out 1-4 times/hour using an amount of water of 12.5-125 l/hour/m.sup.3 of mixture. The water is collected in a container 42 in the lower part 12 of the test reactor 10 together with the aqueous sulfuric acid solution produced during the process. The acid content is determined by means of a measuring device 44. The sulfuric acid solution is then pumped off by a pump 46 and the flow volume is ascertained using a further measuring device 48.

(34) In the system described above, the sulfur dioxide of the waste gases is catalytically converted via SO.sub.3 on wet catalyst particles to form sulfuric acid. The method was tested successfully under the following conditions: Water saturation of the waste gases before entry into the reactor by quenching. SO.sub.2 content of the flue gases between 300 ppm and 6000 ppm. Gas temperature between 10 and 12° C. O.sub.2 content approximately 20% by volume. Water saturation and eventually cooling of the waste gases by quenching.

(35) Tested catalysts were provided by CABOT NORIT Nederland B.V. of Postbus 105 NL-3800 AC Amersfoot and Jacobi Carbons GmbH Feldbergstrasse 21 D-60323 Frankfurt/Main under the names Norit®_RST-3, respectively JACOBI_EcoSorb® VRX-Super. These catalysts are an extruded wood/charcoal based activated carbon catalysts with a particle size of about 3 mm. The following general properties are guaranteed by the manufacturer: iodine number 900-1200 mg/g; inner surface (BET) 1000-1300 m2/g; bulk density 360-420 kg/m3; ash content 6-7% by weight; pH alkaline; moisture (packed) 5% by weight.

(36) It must be noted that the active carbon catalysts do not contain: a. any iodine, bromine or a compound thereof, b. any water repellent, c. any catalytically active metals such as Platinum, Palladium, Rhodium etc. or d. any organic/catalytically active metal complexes based on metals such as Platinum, Palladium, Rhodium etc.

(37) The active carbon catalyst is not hydrophobized by means of hydrophobic polymer compounds such as polytetrafluoroethylene, polyisobutylene, polyethylene, polypropylene or polytrichlorfluorethylen.

(38) In the tests, flue gas analyzers of a German company named Testo were used. The devices were calibrated by the manufacturer. In addition, the analysis data of these flue gas analyzers was confirmed by wet-chemical measurements carried out in parallel. The results of all measurements fell within the admissible deviation tolerances.

(39) The progression of the SO.sub.2 conversion by H.sub.2SO.sub.4 on the catalyst surface corresponds to the following total formula:
SO.sub.2+½O.sub.2+nH.sub.2O(catalytically).fwdarw.H.sub.2SO.sub.4+(n−1)H.sub.2O

(40) Without wanting to be committed to a particular theory, it is assumed that: O.sub.2 and SO.sub.2 migrate toward the active centers of the catalyst where they are converted into SO.sub.3. SO.sub.3 migrates out from the active centers of the catalyst and forms H.sub.2SO.sub.4 with the aqueous covering around the catalyst core. SO.sub.2 reacts with oxygen and water to form sulfuric acid in accordance with the reaction equation above.

(41) The filling material mixed with activated carbon catalyst enables an optimal liquid and gas interaction with catalyst active sites.

(42) Softened or demineralized water is used to wash out the catalyst.

(43) The specific level of SO.sub.2 saturation achieved in the pores of the catalyst in respect of the sulfuric acid formation occurs in the reactor once sufficient SO.sub.2 has been converted into SO.sub.3 and starts to form sulfuric acid.

(44) Such a condition is reached after approximately 20 to 100 operating hours depending on the approach adopted (amount of SO.sub.2/SO.sub.3 fed and corresponding water spraying rate). The percentage by weight of acid produced is independent of the duration—i.e. the time of contact between the gas and the catalyst. The SO.sub.2 to H.sub.2SO.sub.4 conversion is dependent on the SO.sub.2 to SO.sub.3 conversion efficiency and on the amount of water or aqueous solution used. For this reason, this process can produce solutions with different percentages by weight of sulfuric acids (H.sub.2SO.sub.4).

(45) TABLE-US-00005 Test 1: (Comparative Test) The tests were carried out under the following conditions: Raw gas volume flow min. 200 m.sup.3/h max. 300 m.sup.3/h SO.sub.2 content (inlet) min. 2000  ppm max. 3000  ppm Gas temperature min. 10° C. max. 12° C. Relative Humidity of the gas 100 % O2 content >20% by volume

(46) The reactor is made of inert glass fiber reinforced plastics material, has a volume of approximately 2 m.sup.3 and is filled with 1.2 m.sup.3 of an activated carbon catalyst of the Norit®_RST-3 type.

(47) In a first phase the test system was run for approximately 50 hours with the addition of SO.sub.2 from gas cylinders, and in this instance between 2,000 and 3,000 ppm of SO.sub.2 were added. Overall, the reactor was charged with approximately 88 kg of SO.sub.2 (approximately 73 kg of SO.sub.2/m.sup.3 of catalyst bed). In accordance with this test, the addition of water at 15 l/hour was divided into 2 portions/hour (10.2 l/hour/m.sup.3 of catalyst bed). The SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases was measured at the inlet and at the outlet of the reactor, as illustrated in FIG. 1. The measurements were taken every 30 seconds and are shown in graphs in FIG. 2. The first measurements shown in this case were taken after saturation of the catalyst, i.e. 50 hours after start-up of the reactor. The SO.sub.2 outlet concentration fluctuated repeatedly between 600 ppm and 900 ppm, with a SO.sub.2 removal efficiency of 66%. The test was carried out continuously over approximately 9 hours.

(48) TABLE-US-00006 Test 2: The tests were carried out under the following conditions: Raw gas volume flow min. 200 m.sup.3/h max. 300 m.sup.3/h SO.sub.2 content (inlet) min. 2000  ppm max. 3000  ppm Waste gas temperature min. 10° C. max. 12° C. % of relative humidity 100 % O.sub.2 content >20% by volume

(49) The reactor is made of inert glass fiber reinforced plastics material, has a volume of approximately 2 m3 and is filled with 1.2 m3 of an activated carbon catalyst of the JACOBI_EcoSorb® VRX-Super type.

(50) Contrary to the test 1, the reactor was charged immediately when running with the addition of SO.sub.2 from gas cylinders, and in this instance between 2,000 and 3,000 ppm of SO.sub.2 were added. In accordance with this test, the addition of water at 15 l/hour was divided into 2 portions/hour (10.2 l/hour/m.sup.3 of catalyst bed). The SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases was measured at the inlet and at the outlet of the reactor, as illustrated in FIG. 1. The measurements were taken every 30 seconds and are shown in graphs in FIG. 3. The first measurements shown in this case were taken directly after start-up of the reactor. The SO.sub.2 outlet concentration fluctuated repeatedly between 600 ppm and 900 ppm with a SO.sub.2 removal efficiency of 64%. The test was carried out continuously over approximately 6 hours.

(51) TABLE-US-00007 Test 3: The tests were carried out under the following conditions: Raw gas volume flow min. 200 m3/h max. 300 m3/h SO.sub.2 content (inlet) min. 2000  ppm max. 3000  ppm Waste gas temperature min. 10° C. max. 12° C. % of relative humidity 100 % O2 content >20% by volume

(52) The reactor is made of inert glass fiber reinforced plastics material, has a volume of approximately 2 m.sup.3 and is filled with 1.2 m.sup.3 of an activated carbon catalyst of the Norit®_RST-3 type modified by CPPE by mixing with 0.27 m.sup.3 of a ceramic filling material (Novalox® saddle Acidur-Special-Stoneware supplied by Vereinigte Füllkörper-Fabriken).

(53) Like the test 2, the reactor was charged immediately when running with the addition of SO.sub.2 from gas cylinders, and in this instance between 2,000 and 3,000 ppm of SO.sub.2 were added. In accordance with this test, the addition of water at 15 I/hour was divided into 2 portions/hour (10.2 l/hour/m.sup.3 of catalyst bed). The SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases was measured at the inlet and at the outlet of the reactor, as illustrated in FIG. 1. The measurements were taken every 30 seconds and are shown in graphs in FIG. 4. The first measurements shown in this case were taken directly after start-up of the reactor. The SO.sub.2 outlet concentration fluctuated repeatedly between 15 ppm and 95 ppm with a SO.sub.2 removal efficiency of 96%. The test was carried out continuously over approximately 7 hours.

(54) TABLE-US-00008 Test 4: The tests were carried out under the following conditions: Raw gas volume flow min. 200 m.sup.3/h max. 300 m.sup.3/h SO.sub.2 content (inlet) min. 2000  ppm max. 3000  ppm Waste gas temperature min. 10° C. max. 12° C. % of relative humidity 100 % O.sub.2 content >20% by volume

(55) The reactor is made of inert glass fiber reinforced plastics material, has a volume of approximately 2 m.sup.3 and is filled with 1.2 m.sup.3 of an activated carbon catalyst of the JACOBI_EcoSorb® VRX-Super type modified by CPPE by mixing with 0.27 m3 of a ceramic filling material (Novalox® saddle Acidur-Special-Stoneware supplied by Vereinigte Füllkörper-Fabriken).

(56) Like the test 2, the reactor was charged immediately when running with the addition of SO.sub.2 from gas cylinders, and in this instance between 2,000 and 3,000 ppm of SO.sub.2 were added. In accordance with this test, the addition of water at 15 l/hour was divided into 2 portions/hour (10.2 l/hour/m.sup.3 of catalyst bed). The SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases was measured at the inlet and at the outlet of the reactor, as illustrated in FIG. 1. The measurements were taken every 30 seconds and are shown in graphs in FIG. 5. The first measurements shown in this case were taken directly after start-up of the reactor. The SO.sub.2 outlet concentration fluctuated repeatedly between 15 ppm and 92 ppm with a SO.sub.2 removal efficiency of 97%. The test was carried out continuously over approximately 7 hours.

(57) TABLE-US-00009 Test 5: The tests were carried out under the following conditions: Raw gas volume flow min. 200 m.sup.3/h max. 300 m.sup.3/h SO.sub.2 content (inlet) min. 2000  ppm max. 3000  ppm Waste gas temperature min. 10° C. max. 12° C. % of relative humidity 100 % O2 content >20% by volume

(58) The reactor is made of inert glass fiber reinforced plastics material, has a volume of approximately 2 m.sup.3 and is filled with 1.2 m.sup.3 of an activated carbon catalyst of the Norit®_RST-3 type modified by CPPE by mixing with 0.27 m.sup.3 of a ceramic filling material (Novalox® saddle Acidur-Special-Stoneware supplied by Vereinigte Füllkörper-Fabriken).

(59) Like the test 2, the reactor was charged immediately when running with the addition of SO.sub.2 from gas cylinders, and in this instance between 2,000 and 3,000 ppm of SO.sub.2 were added. In accordance with this test, the addition of water at 71 l/hour was divided into 2 portions/hour (48.3 l/hour/m.sup.3 of catalyst bed). The SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases was measured at the inlet and at the outlet of the reactor, as illustrated in FIG. 1. The measurements were taken every 30 seconds and are shown in graphs in FIG. 6. The first measurements shown in this case were taken directly after start-up of the reactor. The SO.sub.2 outlet concentration fluctuated repeatedly between 9 ppm and 43 ppm, with a SO.sub.2 removal efficiency of 98%. The test was carried out continuously over approximately 4 hours.

(60) TABLE-US-00010 Test 6: The tests were carried out under the following conditions: Raw gas volume flow min. 200 m3/h max. 300 m3/h SO.sub.2 content (inlet) min. 2000  ppm max. 3000  ppm Waste gas temperature min. 10° C. max. 12° C. % of relative humidity 100 % O2 content >20% by volume

(61) The reactor is made of inert glass fiber reinforced plastics material, has a volume of approximately 2 m.sup.3 and is filled with 1.2 m.sup.3 of an activated carbon catalyst of the Norit®_RST-3 type modified by CPPE by mixing with 0.27 m.sup.3 of a plastic filling material (Pall®-V-ring supplied by Vereinigte Füllkörper-Fabriken).

(62) Like the test 2, the reactor was charged immediately when running with the addition of SO.sub.2 from gas cylinders, and in this instance between 2,000 and 3,000 ppm of SO.sub.2 were added. In accordance with this test, the addition of water at 15 l/hour was divided into 2 portions/hour (10.2 l/hour/m.sup.3 of catalyst bed). The SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases was measured at the inlet and at the outlet of the reactor, as illustrated in FIG. 1. The measurements were taken every hour and are shown in graphs in FIG. 5. The first measurements shown in this case were taken directly after start-up of the reactor. The SO.sub.2 concentration fluctuated repeatedly between 90 ppm and 160 ppm, with a SO.sub.2 removal efficiency of 95%. The test was carried out continuously over approximately 30 hours.

(63) TABLE-US-00011 Test 7: The tests were carried out under the following conditions: Raw gas volume flow min. 200 m.sup.3/h max. 300 m.sup.3/h SO.sub.2 content (inlet) min. 18000 ppm max. 22000 ppm Waste gas temperature min. 10° C. max. 12° C. % of relative humidity <10 % O.sub.2 content >18% by volume

(64) The reactor is made of inert glass fiber reinforced plastics material, has a volume of approximately 2 m.sup.3 and is filled with 1.2 m.sup.3 of an activated carbon catalyst of the Norit®_RST-3 type.

(65) The quench was switched off during this test and dried activated carbon catalyst is used.

(66) Like the test 2, the reactor was charged immediately when running with the addition of SO.sub.2 from gas cylinders, and in this instance between 18,000 and 22,000 ppm of SO.sub.2 were added without addition of water during the SO.sub.2-loading phase. The SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases was measured at the inlet and at the outlet of the reactor, as illustrated in FIG. 1. The measurements were taken each minute. The SO.sub.2 inlet concentration fluctuated repeatedly between 18,000 ppm and 22,000 ppm, with a SO.sub.2 removal efficiency of more than 99%. The test was carried out over approximately 106 minutes until SO.sub.2 outlet was higher than 100 ppm. The SO.sub.2-loading efficiency was 23 kg of SO.sub.2 per cubic meter of activated carbon catalyst. After this SO.sub.2-loading step, the activated carbon catalyst was washed continuously for two hours through addition of water at 50 l/hour. In a next step, ambient air, heated at 80° C., is pulled through the catalytic bed and the activated carbon catalyst is dried after a time period of 74 hours.

(67) TABLE-US-00012 Test 8: The tests were carried out under the following conditions: Raw gas volume flow min. 200 m.sup.3/h max. 300 m.sup.3/h SO.sub.2 content (inlet) min. 18000 ppm max. 22000 ppm Waste gas temperature min. 10° C. max. 12° C. % of relative humidity <10 % O.sub.2 content >18% by volume

(68) The reactor is made of inert glass fiber reinforced plastics material, has a volume of approximately 2 m.sup.3 and is filled with 1.2 m.sup.3 of an activated carbon catalyst of the Norit®_RST-3 type modified by CPPE by mixing with 0.27 m.sup.3 of a ceramic filling material (Novalox® saddle Acidur-Special-Stoneware supplied by Vereinigte Füllkörper-Fabriken).

(69) The quench was switched off during this test and dried activated carbon catalyst is used.

(70) Like the test 2, the reactor was charged immediately when running with the addition of SO.sub.2 from gas cylinders, and in this instance between 18,000 and 22,000 ppm of SO.sub.2 were added without addition of water during the SO.sub.2-loading phase. The SO.sub.2 content of the waste gases was measured at the inlet and at the outlet of the reactor, as illustrated in FIG. 1. The measurements were taken each minute. The SO.sub.2 inlet concentration fluctuated repeatedly between 18,000 ppm and 22,000 ppm, with a SO.sub.2 removal efficiency of more than 99%. The test was carried out over approximately 117 minutes until SO.sub.2 outlet was higher than 100 ppm. The SO.sub.2-loading efficiency was 26 kg of SO.sub.2 per cubic meter of activated carbon catalyst. After this SO.sub.2-loading step, the activated carbon catalyst was washed continuously for two hours through addition of water at 50 l/hour. In a next step, ambient air, heated at 80° C., is pulled through the catalytic bed and the activated carbon catalyst is dried after a time period of 63 hours.

(71) All the above tests have been carried out with 1.2 m.sup.3 of catalyst (activated carbon). In the tests carried out with addition of filler (whatever its shape): 0.27 m.sup.3 of filler were added to the initial 1.2 m.sup.3 of catalyst.
Vol % of the filler=0.27/(0.27+1.2)*100=18.36% vol.

(72) A positive effect of the filler can be measured between 5% vol filler and 50% filler, the remaining being activated carbon catalyst.

(73) The surprising effect is that the removal of SO.sub.2 is more efficient when the catalyst is mixed with fillers than the catalyst alone since more SO.sub.2 is converted with the same amount of catalyst as shown in FIG. 10.

(74) In addition in case of dry process conditions, the SO.sub.2-loading capacity of activated carbon catalyst is higher and the regeneration cycle is shorter in case the activated carbon catalyst is mixed with fillers as shown in FIG. 8 and in FIG. 9.

(75) In the tests conducted it was found that ceramic filler material having a saddle shape seem to be the most efficient. Saddle shape means in the context of the present disclosure: shaped in the form of a horse's saddle, a shape that is bent down at the sides so as to give the upper part a rounded form, respectively an object having the form of an anticlinal fold.

(76) Test 9—Removal of Heavy Metals and Dioxins from Gas—Plant Scale

(77) Emission sampling during two days was performed at the outlet of the Kombisorbon® process reactor, filled with a specific mixture: 45% of activated carbon catalyst impregnated with sulfur supplied from Jacobi Carbons, 45% of activated carbon catalyst impregnated with iron supplied from Watch-Water, and 10% of a plastic filler material.

(78) The removal rate of cadmium was 99.9%, for mercury more than 99.9% and more than 99.9% removal rate for dioxins. The initial levels were 5 mg/dscm for cadmium, 1 mg/dscm for mercury and 350 ng/dscm for dioxins.

(79) The presence of activated carbon catalyst mixture and filler material allowed a better gas flow distribution and subsequently the cleaning of a higher concentrated inlet gas due to an increased removal rate of contaminants.

(80) The presence of filler allowed a more efficient washing of the activated carbon catalyst with sulfates removal coming from the reaction between SOx and NOx with water vapors from inlet flue gas.

(81) The presence of filler allowed a quicker drying step after regeneration with water flow.

(82) Test 9-b Comparative Example—Removal of Heavy Metals and Dioxins from Gas—Plant Scale

(83) Emission sampling during two days was performed at the outlet of the Kombisorbon® process reactor, filled with a 100% of activated carbon catalyst impregnated with sulfur supplied from Jacobi Carbons.

(84) The removal rate of cadmium was 99%, for mercury more than 99% and more than 99% removal rate for dioxins. The initial levels were 5 mg/dscm for cadmium, 1 mg/dscm for mercury and 350 ng/dscm for dioxins

(85) Test 10—Removal from Liquid—Laboratory Scale—Single Pass

(86) 500 cm.sup.3 of a mixture: 30% of activated carbon catalyst impregnated with sulfur supplied from Jacobi Carbons, 30% of activated carbon catalyst impregnated with iron supplied from Watch-Water, 40% of a plastic filler material was used during this test.

(87) The level of heavy metals in a phosphoric acid solution was reduced significantly. 20% removal rate for cadmium and mercury and 35% removal rate for arsenic.

(88) Test 11—Removal of Heavy Metals from Liquids—Laboratory Scale—Single Pass

(89) 500 cm.sup.3 of a mixture of 45% of activated carbon catalyst impregnated with sulfur, 45% of activated carbon catalyst impregnated with iron supplied from Watch-Water, and 10% of a plastic filler material was used during this test.

(90) The level of heavy metals in a phosphoric acid solution was reduced significantly. 75% removal for cadmium and mercury and 65% removal for arsenic. The initial concentrations were 39 ppm for cadmium, 0.1 ppm for mercury and 23 ppm for arsenic.

(91) The presence of filler material allowed less clogging from silica coming from the phosphoric acid media inside the activated carbon catalyst bed.

(92) The presence of filler material allowed a more efficient washing of the activated carbon catalyst with easier silica removal.

(93) Test 11-b—Comparative Example—Removal of Heavy Metals from Liquids—Laboratory Scale—Single Pass

(94) 500 cm.sup.3 of 100% of activated carbon catalyst impregnated with sulfur supplied from Jacobi Carbons was used during this test.

(95) The level of heavy metals in a phosphoric acid solution (As: 23 ppm, Hg: 0.1 ppm and Cd: 39 ppm) was reduced. 20% removal rate for mercury and 35% removal rate for arsenic

(96) Test 11-c—Comparative Example—Removal of Heavy Metals from Liquids—Laboratory Scale—Single Pass

(97) 500 cm.sup.3 of 100% of activated carbon catalyst impregnated with iron supplied from Watch-Water was used during this test.

(98) The level of heavy metals in a phosphoric acid solution (As: 23 ppm, Hg: 0.1 ppm and Cd: 39 ppm) was reduced. 50% removal rate for cadmium and mercury and 15% removal rate for arsenic

(99) The activated carbon catalyst used in the tests above had a specific high catalytic surface area (BET at least 700 m.sup.2/g) with impregnation (like Br, Cu, Fe, S, OH . . . ).

(100) The activated carbon catalyst was mixed with various types of filler materials of different shapes (cylinder, balls, “Sattelkörper”, . . . ) and different material (plastic, alumina, ceramic, . . . ) in various ratios (1/5; 1/3; 1/10; . . . ). Different suppliers of activated carbon catalysts for companies like Jacobi, Cabot Carbon, Chemviron, Desotec, Carbotech and ATEC were tested.

(101) Test 12—FIG. 10: Effect of Bed Design

(102) In these tests different types of mixing and bed designs were tested and compared to each other in a reactor as depicted on FIG. 1.

(103) The conditions were as follows: Test 12a Gas flow: 200-300 m3/h Gas temperature: starting from 10° C. Gas flow inlet: 2000-3000 ppm Activated carbon catalyst: 1.2 m.sup.3 of extruded activated carbon catalyst with particle size 2-4 mm Filler material: 0.27 m.sup.3 of 38.1 mm wide ceramic saddle filling material Mixing method: random mixture (called “COPE mixing” in the FIG. 10): most efficient with 90-100% SO.sub.2 removal efficiency as shown on FIG. 10—left hand side

(104) Comparative Example Test 12b—FIG. 10

(105) The conditions were as follows: Gas flow: 200-300 m.sup.3/h Gas temperature: starting from 10° C. Gas flow inlet: 2000-3000 ppm Single activated carbon catalyst bed: 55-65% SO.sub.2 removal efficiency as shown on FIG. 10—second from the left.

(106) Comparative Example Test 12c—FIG. 10

(107) The conditions were as follows: Gas flow: 200-300 m.sup.3/h Gas temperature: starting from 10° C. Gas flow inlet: 2000-3000 ppm Activated carbon catalyst: 1.2 m.sup.3 of extruded activated carbon catalyst with particle size 2-4 mm Filler material: 0.27 m.sup.3 of 38.1 mm wide ceramic saddle filling material Multilayered design: Two activated carbon catalyst beds (0.5 m.sup.3 and 0.7 m.sup.3 respectively) separated by a layer of 0.27 m.sup.3 of filling material: less efficient with 50-65% SO.sub.2 removal efficiency as shown on FIG. 10—third from the left.

(108) Comparative Example Test 12d—FIG. 10

(109) The conditions were as follows: Gas flow: 200-300 m.sup.3/h Gas temperature: starting from 10° C. Gas flow inlet: 2000-3000 ppm Activated carbon catalyst: 1.2 m.sup.3 of extruded activated carbon catalyst with particle size 2-4 mm Filler material: 0.27 m.sup.3 of 38.1 mm wide ceramic saddle filling material Multilayered design: activated carbon catalyst/filler material layers (0.3 m.sup.3 and 0.054 m.sup.3 respectively) was much less efficient with 70-80% SO.sub.2 removal efficiency as shown on FIG. 10—right hand side

(110) Test 13—FIG. 11 Effect of Filler Material/Activated Carbon Volume Ratio

(111) The conditions were as follows: Gas flow: 200-300 m3/h Gas temperature: starting from 10° C. Gas flow inlet: 2000-3000 ppm Activated carbon catalyst: extruded activated carbon with particle size 2-4 mm Filler material: 38.1 mm wide ceramic saddle filling material Mixing method: random mixture with different ratio in volume (Filler material/extruded activated carbon catalyst): 1/20: 5 vol % filler material and 95 vol % activated carbon catalyst 1/10: 9 vol % filler material and 91 vol % activated carbon catalyst 1/5: 17 vol % filler material and 83 vol % activated carbon catalyst 1/4: 20 vol % filler material and 80 vol % activated carbon catalyst 1/3: 25 vol % filler material and 75 vol % activated carbon catalyst This test shows the highest efficiency with 99% SO.sub.2 removal when operating with 20 vol % filler material and 80 vol % activated carbon catalyst (ratio 1/4) as shown on FIG. 11.

(112) Comparative Test 14—FIG. 12: Effect of Filler Material/Activated Carbon Volume Ratio

(113) The conditions were as follows: Gas flow: 200-300 m3/h Gas temperature: starting from 10° C. Gas flow inlet: 2000-3000 ppm Activated carbon catalyst: extruded activated carbon with particle size 2-4 mm Filler material: 50 mm wide plastic pall ring filling material Mixing method: random mixture with different ratio in volume (Filler material/extruded activated carbon catalyst): 1/20: 5 vol % filler material and 95 vol % activated carbon catalyst 1/10: 9 vol % filler material and 91 vol % activated carbon catalyst 1/5: 17 vol % filler material and 83 vol % activated carbon catalyst 1/4: 20 vol % filler material and 80 vol % activated carbon catalyst 1/3: 25 vol % filler material and 75 vol % activated carbon catalyst Highest efficiency with 82% SO.sub.2 removal efficiency when operating with 20 vol % filler material and 80 vol % activated carbon (ratio 1/4) as shown on FIG. 12.

(114) Test 15—FIG. 13: Effect of Filler Size

(115) The conditions were as follows: Gas flow: 200-300 m3/h Gas temperature: starting from 10° C. Gas flow inlet: 2000-3000 ppm Activated carbon catalyst: extruded activated carbon catalyst with particle size 2-4 mm Filler material: saddle filling material with different size from 12.7 (normalized size 1) to 76.2 mm (normalized size 6) Mixing method: random mixture with 20 vol % filler material and 80 vol % activated carbon catalyst (ratio 1/4) Higher efficiency with 88-99% SO.sub.2 removal when operating with between 38.1 mm (normalized size 3) and 63.5 mm (normalized size 5) saddle filling material as shown on FIG. 13

(116) Test 16—FIG. 14: Effect of Filler Particle Size

(117) The conditions were as follows: Gas flow: 200-300 m3/h Gas temperature: starting from 10° C. Gas flow inlet: 2000-3000 ppm Activated carbon catalyst: bead, extruded or granulated activated carbon catalyst Filler material: 38.1 mm wide ceramic saddle filling material Mixing method: random mixture with 20 vol % filler material and 80 vol % activated carbon catalyst (ratio 1/4) Higher efficiency with 99% SO.sub.2 removal when operating with extruded activated carbon catalyst as shown on FIG. 14.

(118) Although the present disclosure has been described in considerable detail with reference to certain preferred versions thereof, other versions are possible. Therefore, the spirit and scope of the appended claims should not be limited to the description of the preferred versions contained herein.

(119) All the features disclosed in this specification (including any accompanying claims, abstract, and drawings) may be replaced by alternative features serving the same, equivalent or similar purpose, unless expressly stated otherwise. Thus, unless expressly stated otherwise, each feature disclosed is one example only of a generic series of equivalent or similar.