For treating painting exhaust gas with high flow rates and low concentrations (400 mg/m3), should an RTO or an RCO be used?
Thread Content
This post was last edited by cxgnl on 2016-11-3 at 10:38. Our company needs to build a painting line in the near future; the required air flow is estimated to be 15,000 m3/h, with low VOC levels of around 400 mg/m3. For waste gas treatment, we need effective solutions. What are the costs and performance characteristics of RTO and RCO systems? What are the differences between VOC-XC and RCO? What type of equipment is most commonly used in the coating industry these days?
I would like to learn more about this as well. With increasingly strict environmental policies, it is still necessary to invest in environmental protection measures.
Concentrate first and then use an RTO with a flow rate of 15,000 – that’s not considered high.
We are a coating manufacturing company, and our waste gases are similar to those of coating businesses. The combustion method is limited by the enterprise’s explosion-proof safety distance. In recent years, we have used ultraviolet photolysis treatment, and the results have been quite good. You can consider the options.
Personally, I think RTO is better after concentration.
The concentration of waste gas is relatively low; it can first be concentrated using zeolites before being processed in an RTO. The cost of an RTO is higher than that of an RCO, but it achieves a better removal rate of waste gas. Additionally, RCO is a catalytic oxidation device. The general process is as follows: VOCs gases are sent to the purification unit via a piping system under the action of an exhaust fan. First, they pass through a dust and flame arrestor system, then enter a heat exchanger for preheating. After that, they go into an auxiliary combustion chamber where they are heated to the temperature required for the catalyst reaction (250–300°C). As the heated gases pass through the catalytic bed, rapid chemical oxidation reactions occur, resulting in the formation of carbon dioxide and water, along with the release of heat. Catalytic combustion is a catalytic burning process that does not involve an open flame; it makes use of the heat generated by the catalytic oxidation of the exhaust gases themselves to heat and oxidize those gases, thereby saving fuel. Feel free to communicate if you have time: 345173858@qq.com
We are a coating manufacturing company, and our waste gases are similar to those of coating businesses. The combustion method is limited by the enterprise’s explosion-proof safety distance. In recent years, we have used ultraviolet photolysis treatment, and the results have been quite good. You can consider the options. Is there any data showing that ultraviolet light is effective? Theoretically, it shouldn’t have much effect. Ultraviolet light is effective; then how can the ozone level in the air exceed the limits? Let’s take a look at the formation mechanism of photochemical smog.
For large volumes of low-concentration gases, RTOs are generally not suitable, especially in chemical industries. In addition to the explosion-proof requirements, RTOs also have high energy consumption, and it is not cost-effective to use them for treating low-concentration gases. If concentration is carried out first before using an RTO, the equipment investment becomes excessive. Moreover, the rotary drum concentration technology available in China is of poor quality and has low efficiency； The coating industry uses a variety of solvents; adsorption and concentration occur, the adsorbents are selective, and regeneration poses a problem. For this type of waste gas, we primarily use advanced oxidation treatment, which avoids secondary pollution; users are very satisfied with it, Q349921807
It is UV photocatalytic photolysis. The exhaust gas after photolysis contains a significant amount of ozone, but when released at high altitudes, it is quickly reduced by other substances in the air.
A wind volume of 15,000 is considered low. I’m not sure whether the paint used in your company’s coating line is water-based, oil-based, or of a mixed type. The current mainstream approach for oil-based coatings is zeolite wheel concentration combined with RTO/RCO processes. In terms of cost, RTO is higher than RCO. There is little difference in efficiency. RTO is mainly suitable for continuous operation (such as operating around the clock throughout the year), while RCO is more appropriate for intermittent operation (such as 8 hours of work per day). The purpose of the rotary drum concentration is to increase the concentration of the exhaust gases, so as to meet the self-heating requirements of subsequent RTO/RCO units and reduce the energy consumption of those devices (diesel, natural gas, etc.). We currently have extensive experience in both the automotive painting and motorcycle painting industries; feel free to message me if you need any assistance.