Who has actually measured the NOx content in the flue gas from catalytic cracking regeneration?
Thread Content
Dear everyone, I would like to ask: in actual production processes, who has measured the NOx content in the flue gas from catalytic cracking regeneration? What is that value? I recently came across a standard value set by Guangdong Province, which is 120 mg/m3; it seems quite difficult to meet this standard. Does anyone have actual measurement values? What is the actual concentration of NOX in the regeneration flue gas? Thank you all first
Recently we carried out calibration of our equipment and tested two sets of catalytic detectors: Sampling location, Sulfur dioxide in mg/m3, Nitrogen oxides in mg/m3. Catalytic cracking (with slag addition) – exhaust gas from regeneration: 110, 635; Catalytic cracking (with slag addition) – exhaust gas from regeneration: 59, 658; Paraffin oil catalytic cracking – exhaust gas from regeneration: 34, 118; Paraffin oil catalytic cracking – exhaust gas from regeneration: 45, 232. I think these values are on the low side.
Based on a set of environmental impact assessment data from a week ago, the nitrogen oxide concentration in the flue gases from our company’s catalytic units is around 130 mg/m3. The feed materials consist of reduced triple-line oil and hydrocracking tail oil, in a ratio of approximately 2-3:1. The NOx content in flue gas is highly dependent on the properties of the feedstock.
The plant we are currently building for the client, with a capacity of 1.5 million tons, has an emission standard of 101 mg/Nm3
According to national standards, for installations built before 1997, the value shall not exceed 420, while for those built after that date, it shall not exceed 240.
1 The NOx levels in the flue gas from catalytic cracking vary greatly depending on the facility; most are between 150-400 mg/m3n, with a few at 700-800 mg/m3n. In individual facilities, these levels may reach 1500-2000 mg/m3n or even higher, but such cases are rare. 2. The NOX measurement data may be inaccurate; furthermore, the benchmarks might differ, and the locations of the sampling points may also vary, making it difficult to make comparisons. It is necessary to address each of these issues individually.