For the sulfur foam produced by the HPF method, plate and frame filtration and spiral centrifugation are used – which one offers better cost-performance?
Thread Content
Currently, it is being considered to dehydrate the sulfur foam produced by the HPF method before subjecting it to drum drying; the following two techniques are proposed: 1. Plate and frame filter press, with the filtrate then fed into a drum dryer； 2. Horizontal screw centrifuge; after centrifugation, the material goes into a drum dryer. Please share your opinions and conduct a comparative analysis of these two technologies. Thank you! Currently, some people say that: 1. Plate and frame filter presses have a high dehydration rate, are easy to maintain, and are inexpensive, but they produce a strong odor at the site and create a harsh operating environment ； 2. The dewatering efficiency of horizontal screw centrifuges is lower than that of plate and frame filter presses; their maintenance requirements are higher, but the operating conditions on site are better. I checked online, and it seems that Shaanxi Coking has switched to horizontal spiral centrifuges, which appear to work very well.
We can discuss this; using a centrifuge is more convenient, especially when the material is loose and has a low moisture content. Plate-and-frame filters take up a lot of space and have low efficiency
This post was last edited by pzhmotor on 2022-10-14 09:47, with a few additional points added (I use plate and frame presses as well as diaphragm presses; there are also screw centrifuges for feeding materials): 1. Plate and frame presses (including diaphragm presses) operate in a batch mode； The centrifuge operates continuously. For materials with high viscosity, manual scrapers are required when using plate and frame filter presses for discharge (devices that use water for automatic cleaning will wet the material). For filter-pressed desulfurized substances, manual unloading is highly likely to occur! 2. In corrosive environments, the plate-and-frame structure provides a large area for corrosion protection, and certain requirements are imposed on its corrosion resistance during maintenance ； Centrifuges require maintenance personnel to have the necessary skills for handling moving equipment. 3. Accidents of finger pinching can easily occur when operating plate and frame filter presses, as well as when replacing filter cloths and filter plates. If there are no special requirements regarding the moisture content of the output, it is recommended to choose a centrifuge.
First, it is necessary to determine what the material is intended for. In my opinion, for horizontal centrifugal dewatering, the material should have good hydrophobic properties; as for desulfurization liquid with high foam viscosity, pressure filtration is a better option for dewatering. If sulfur melting is involved, pressure filtration is recommended.
Based on the owner’s description, here are my personal suggestions:
I. Plate and frame filter press:
1. Low level of automation; high labor requirements.
2. It requires a high pressure from the feed pump, which can lead to damage to the pump and increase costs.
3. Its operating principle is simple, making maintenance and operation easy.
4. The working cycle is long – it takes several hours to process one frame, resulting in low efficiency.
5. The investment cost is low, energy consumption is minimal, and the structure is simple; the manufacturing process isn’t complicated, so the cost remains low. As a result, the price of this type of filter press is more affordable.
6. It cannot handle large particles or sludge, and it’s prone to clogging or damaging the filter cloth, making cleaning difficult.
7. Operation requires an open environment during discharge or cleaning, which poses environmental concerns.
II. Horizontal screw centrifuge:
1. It uses the principle of centrifugal sedimentation for solid-liquid separation. Since there are no filters or filter cloths, clogging does not occur.
2. It can be used with solutions of various concentrations and operates automatically.
3. It can run continuously, with a low rate of maintenance needs.
4. It occupies less space, is easy to install and adjust, and can operate in a fully enclosed manner.
5. However, its energy consumption is higher than that of the plate and frame filter press.
III. Suggestions:
1. If environmental regulations are a concern, a centrifuge is recommended.
2. If cost is a priority, a plate and frame filter press is the better choice.
3. Personally, I would suggest considering a sulfur melting tank. Our company has used all three types mentioned above, and I find that the sulfur melting tank has advantages in almost every aspect
I. Plate and frame filter press:
1. Low level of automation; high labor requirements.
2. It requires a high pressure from the feed pump, which can lead to damage to the pump and increase costs.
3. Its operating principle is simple, making maintenance and operation easy.
4. The working cycle is long – it takes several hours to process one frame, resulting in low efficiency.
5. The investment cost is low, energy consumption is minimal, and the structure is simple; the manufacturing process isn’t complicated, so the cost remains low. As a result, the price of this type of filter press is more affordable.
6. It cannot handle large particles or sludge, and it’s prone to clogging or damaging the filter cloth, making cleaning difficult.
7. Operation requires an open environment during discharge or cleaning, which poses environmental concerns.
II. Horizontal screw centrifuge:
1. It uses the principle of centrifugal sedimentation for solid-liquid separation. Since there are no filters or filter cloths, clogging does not occur.
2. It can be used with solutions of various concentrations and operates automatically.
3. It can run continuously, with a low rate of maintenance needs.
4. It occupies less space, is easy to install and adjust, and can operate in a fully enclosed manner.
5. However, its energy consumption is higher than that of the plate and frame filter press.
III. Suggestions:
1. If environmental regulations are a concern, a centrifuge is recommended.
2. If cost is a priority, a plate and frame filter press is the better choice.
3. Personally, I would suggest considering a sulfur melting tank. Our company has used all three types mentioned above, and I find that the sulfur melting tank has advantages in almost every aspect
Let’s consider the environmental implications that arise from such comparisons. There isn’t really much difference in terms of equipment selection; what matters is which combination results in less odor and lower maintenance requirements. Personally, I think it’s better to choose a filter press with a high degree of automation