Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Fuel 87 (2008) 761–767

www.fuelfirst.com

Emissions during co-firing of RDF-5 with bituminous coal, paper sludge and
waste tires in a commercial circulating fluidized bed co-generation boiler
Hou-Peng Wan a,*, Ying-Hsi Chang a, Wen-Cheng Chien b, Hom-Ti Lee a, C.C. Huang b
a
Energy and Environment Laboratory, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Bldg. 64, 195, Sec. 4, Chung Hsing Road,
Chutung, Hsinchu 310, Taiwan, ROC
b
Yuen Foong Yu Paper MFG CO., LTD., 250, Hsia Chuang Tsu, Yuan An Tsun, Hsin Wu Hsing, Tao Yuan Hsing 327, Taiwan, ROC

Received 31 December 2006; received in revised form 5 June 2007; accepted 5 June 2007
Available online 5 July 2007

Abstract

Biomass fuel is the largest renewable energy resource and the fourth largest primary energy supply in the world. Because of its com- plex characteristics when compared
to fossil fuel, potential problems, such as combustion system stability, the corrosion of heat transfer tubes, the qualities of the ash, and the emission of pollutants, are major
concerns when co-firing the biomass fuel with fossil fuel in a traditional boiler. In this study, co-firing of coal with a biomass blend, including fuel derived from densified
refuse, sludge, and waste tires, were conducted in a 130 ton/h steam circulating fluidized bed co-generation boiler to investigate the feasibility of utilizing biomass as a
complemental fuel in a traditional commercial coal-fired boiler. The properties of the fly ash, bottom ash, and the emission of pol- lutants for various fuel ratios are
analyzed and discussed in this study.
© 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Biomass; Co-firing; Circulating fluidized bed; Pollution emission; Densified refuse derived fuel (d-RDF or RDF-5)

1. Introduction
The co-firing of biomass and fossil fuel in the same power plant is
one of the most important issues when pro- moting the utilization of
renewable energy in Taiwan. According to the draft of the Taiwanese
Renewable Energy Development Act, biomass energy is defined as the
energy produced by utilizing or processing agricultural crops and forest
plants, biogas, municipal solid waste (MSW), agri- cultural wastes, and
general industrial wastes, etc.
Recently, the co-firing of fossil fuel together with bio- mass fuel,
such as ‘‘densified refuse derived fuel’’ (d-RDF or RDF-5) or RPF
(refuse paper & plastic fuel) from waste, has been considered as an
environmentally sound and economical approach to both waste
remediation and
energy production [1]. A large number of beneficial engi- neering tests
have been performed in order to understand the characteristics of
emissions and ash by burning RDF- 5 as fuel in mass burn or fluidized bed
combustion systems [2–6].
Chang et al. [4] evaluated the comparative effects by burning MSW
and RDF-5 in the same small scale modular incinerator. It appeared that
the combustion of RDF-5 presented a relatively better performance in
several aspects, including heat balance, ash property, and the quality of flue
gas.
Fluidized bed combustors (FBC) constitute one of most important
technologies used in the co-firing process [7–9]. Hupa [10] reviewed
several of the interactions of various fuels in various FBCs and found
that factors such as flue gas emissions, fouling tendency or bed-sintering
tendency seldom revealed a simple linear function of the fuel mix- ture.
Rather, non-linear relationships were often the norms in these cases.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 3 5915424; fax: +886 3 5820030.
E-mail address: hpwan@itri.org.tw (H.-P. Wan).

0016-2361/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2007.06.004
762 H.-P. Wan et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 761–767

Generally, the ability to use a variety of fuels as feed- stock and the
resulting low pollution emissions are two of the more significant
advantages of using circulating flu- idized bed (CFB) combustion
technology. However, the interaction between the emission of
hazardous gas, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and chloride while
co-fir- ing of coal and biomass in a CFB is still an interesting issue.
Ducarne et al. [11] conducted co-firing of coal and MSW in a CFB.
The results indicated that the acid flue gas increased as the proportion
of MSW increased, and, fur- thermore, the SOx decreased as the amount
of HCl in the flue gas increased. The main points identified by Liang
et al. [12] showed that a large variation of chloride capture was displayed
depending on temperature, moving from a low of 18% gaseous HCl at
700 °C to 99% at 950 °C. Liu et al. [13] found that HCl could be
removed by adding an additional amount of CaO, which then reacted
with the chlorine and produced CaCl 2. In an FBC system, it was
determined that the temperature was a critical param- eter in this reaction.
The authors suggested that 650 °C was the optimal temperature for
maximum HCl capture. They also evaluated the HCl removal capability
of Ca(OH)2 by measuring the fraction of HCl emissions in the flue gas.
There were several factors affecting the emission of diox-
ins from the combustion sources, including dioxins in the feed,
precursors in the feed, chlorine in the feed, combus- tion temperature,
residence time, oxygen availability, feed processing, and supplemental
fuel [14]. McKay [14] pub- lished a comprehensive and intimate survey of
dioxin char- acterization and formation during MSW incineration. To
remove dioxins using end-of pipe treatment systems, flue gas quenching,
semi-dry lime scrubbing and bag filtration coupled with activated carbon
injection adsorption were all helpful in the prevention or minimization
of dioxins in the final emission of flue gases into the atmosphere.
In this study, RDF-5 composed of paper rejects was co- fired with
coal in a CFB boiler in order to investigate the feasibility of burning
RDF-5 in a commercial coal-fired boiler. The properties of the fly ash,
bottom ash, and the emission of pollutants for various fuel ratios are
analyzed and discussed in this study.
air preheater, a flue gas treatment system, and an electricity generation
system, etc.
The fluidized bed furnace is 25 m in height with a rectan- gular cross-
section of 3.8 · 7.7 m. The fuel feeding system employs the over-bed
feeding of fuel, including coal, waste tires and a mixture of paper sludge
and RDF-5. The com- bustion air is divided into two streams. The
primary air is pre-heated at 150 °C and is used as fluidization gas through
the gas distributor above the windbox. The secondary air, pre-heated to
130 °C for complete combustion, is injected to sites arranged at two levels
above the distributor. Addi- tionally, the operating temperatures of the
bed, the free- board outlet, and the hot cyclone outlet were around
880, 980, and 1000 °C, respectively.
2.2. Fuels and bed materials
A fuel blend composed of bituminous coal, paper sludge, waste
tires, and RDF-5 was employed as feedstock for the CFBB used in this
study. The paper sludge was col- lected from the wastewater treatment
facility at a paper mill plant. The waste tires were shredded into pieces
prior to the feed. The RDF-5 or RPF was composed of paper rejects
following processing by shredding, magnetic separa- tion, drying, air
separation, and pelletizing. The analytical data for the four fuels used
in this study are listed in Table 1.
As the heat transfer and mass transfer in CFB are strongly
affected by the bed material, selecting a suitable carrying medium is
extremely significant. In order to match the original design of the CFBB,
silica sand with a mean diameter of 0.180 mm was chosen as the carrying
medium. In addition, the bed material also consisted of a minor
quantity of the fuel ash remaining in the bed after combustion.
2.3. Operating conditions
The operating conditions used in this study are summa- rized in Table
2, in which the co-firing ratio means the pro-

Table 1
The proximate and ultimate analyses of fuels used in this study
2. Experiment and apparatus Property Coal Waste tires Paper sludge RDF-5
Proximate analysis (wt%)
2.1. The circulating fluidized bed boiler (CFBB) Moisture 5.20 4.03 63.47 4.50
Ash 4.18 8.16 10.22 6.37
All experimental investigations were conducted using a Volatiles 46.31 63.82 21.88 81.17
Fixed carbon
130 ton/h (538 °C @140 kg/cm2) atmospheric circulating 44.30 23.99 4.43 7.97
LHV(kcal/kg) 4978 8070 607 5703
fluidized bed co-generation boiler (CFBB). The co-genera- Ultimate analysis (wt%)
tion plant designed and manufactured by Foster Wheeler
Carbon 53.31 76.70 8.75 45.98
Corporation has a thermal output of 103 MWth and an Hydrogen 5.13 5.76 1.25 6.43
electric capacity of 27 MW. The plant consists of a furnace Oxygen 29.96 2.73 15.73 34.55
with a windbox, a hot cyclone recycle system, risers, a loop- seal, a fuel Nitrogen 1.27 0.36 0.35 0.25
feeding system, an air supply system, heat con- vection sections, Sulfur 0.90 2.17 0.22 1.08
Chlorine 0.06 0.09 0.02 0.85
including superheater, economizer, and
 H.-P. Wan et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 761–767 763

portion of the heat input provided by RDF-5 to the total 300

heat input provided by fuel mixture during the tests. The
capacity of the CFBB was fixed at a Maximum Continuous

The SOx concentration in the flue g as (ppm)

Rating (MCR) of 103 MWth using various fuel ratios. The 250
feeding rates for the waste tires and paper sludge were fixed
during the tests, while the feeding rate for the RDF-5 chan-
200
ged depending on the test. As the base fuel used in this study, the
feeding rate for the coal was adjusted based on the total energy fuel input
required under the various oper- ating conditions. The superficial gas
150
velocity of the furnace was around 5.2 m/s. The temperature in the
furnace and the flue gas in the stack were controlled at 850 °C, and
160 °C, respectively. 100

2.4. Flue gas emission analysis

50
The components of the flue gases, such as SOx, NOx, O2, CO, and
opacity, measured on-site via the stack exhaust, were analyzed by
employing a SICK GM 31 non-dispersive ultraviolet (NDUV) multi- 0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
component gas analyzer, and a SICK GM 901 CO concentration CEMS
during the exper- iments. The sampling process and the analysis RDF-5 co-firing ratio (% in total heat input)
approach for the HCl in the flue gas were based on the NIEA Fig. 1. SOx emissions for various RDF-5 co-firing ratios.
A412.70A method issued by Environmental Protection
Administration, R.O.C.
100

3. Results and discussion

The NOx concentration in the flue gas (ppm)

80

3.1. Emissions as a result of co-firing RDF-5

60
In this study, the RDF-5 co-firing ratio means the share of the energy
input from the RDF-5 in the total energy input from all fuel blends.
The concentration of air pollu- tant emissions as the RDF-5 co-firing
ratio increased is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The trend of SOx and NOx 40

emis- sions in the flue gas decreased as the RDF-5 co-firing ratio
increased. By comparing the results shown in Figs. 1 and 2 with the R.O.C
environmental regulations, it was deter- mined that all the requirements 20
of the regulations can be met.
The SO2 emission results for the fuel mixture revealed a

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
simple linear function when the flow of waste tires and
RDF-5 co-firing ratio (% in total heat input)
paper sludge were kept constant during the various tests. In the same
testing period [15], fouling deposits, usually Fig. 2. NOx emissions for various RDF-5 co-firing ratios.

Table 2 composed of sulfates and chlorides, were observed as the RDF-5 co-
The operating conditions for co-firing tests using coal and RDF-5
firing ratio increased. Furthermore, the trends
Item T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 for sulfur contents in both the bottom ash and the fly ash
Duration (day) 14 7 7 7 7 showed a slight increase as the RDF-5 co-firing ratio
Coal (ton/day) 265 219 190 160 137 increased. This may explain why the SO2 emissions became
120
RDF-5 (ton/day) 0 40 80 100 lower as the proportion of RDF-5 in the fuel mixture
Waste tire (ton/day) 113 118 114 118 120
Sludge (ton/day) 107 95 106 116 119 increased, as shown in Fig. 2.
Co-firing ratio (% in total heat input) 0 10 20 25 30 The results shown in Fig. 3 reveal that NOx emissions
Air rate (N m3/min) 2100 ~ 2600 displayed a similar declining trend to that of the SO2 emis-
O2 in flue gas (%) 4.3 ~ 5.1 sions as the RDF-5 co-firing ratio increased. In addition,
Furnace temperature (°C) 850 all of the NOx emission concentrations were lower than
764
100 ppm during co-firing tests. The main reason for this could possibly
be explained by the fact that the combustion temperature in the fluidized
bed was properly controlled to lower than 900 °C, even though waste tires
with high heat- ing value, up to 8000 kcal/kg, and sludge with a high mois-
ture content, higher than 60 wt%, were employed as feedstock.
However, when the RDF-5 co-firing ratio was increased to 30%, the
NOx emissions also increased in line with the RDF-5 ratio. This effect
can be explained by the fact that the increase in NO was caused by the
lower amount of char that had reacted with the NO in the fluidized bed
because the coal ratio was decreased. The volatile content of the RDF-
5 was higher than 80 wt% and the fixed carbon con- tent was less than 8
wt%, therefore, in RDF-5 combustion, the char remaining in the bed is
an order of magnitude lower [10], and less NO reduction takes place if
the ratio of RDF-5 is increased. Hence, the NOx emissions increase as a
higher ratio of RDF-5 combustion occurs.
A good qualitative explanation of this phenomenon was published by
Leckner et al. [16]. When small amounts of coal were added to the
wood, the input of fuel-nitrogen increased. However, at that stage, the
char concentration in the bed did not increase to the same extent as the
input of fuel-nitrogen, and the net effect was an increase in the overall
NO. However, when the proportion of coal was increased to
somewhere around 50 wt%, the char concen- tration became large
enough to compensate for the increased NO formation due to the
increased NO reduction.
Based on an analysis of the fuel, it can be found that the volatile matter
in the RDF-5, (higher than 80 wt%) was higher than that of coal (46
wt%). The volatile matter mixes easily with oxygen and burns much
easier than the
200
The CO concentration in the flue gas (ppm)
160
120
80
40
0
-5 0 5 10
RDF-5 co-firing ratio (% in total heat input)
Fig. 3. CO emissions for various RDF-5 co-firing ratios.
H.-P. Wan et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 761–767
fixed carbon in the furnace. Consequently, the residence time, the
temperature distribution, and the adjustment of the amount of primary
and secondary air were especially important during the combustion of
the RDF-5 compared to the test case when no RDF-5 was used. Fig. 3
shows that the variation of CO increased with the increasing RDF-5 co-
firing ratio. The average concentration of CO increased from 58 ppm to
180 ppm, which was caused by the higher volatile content in the RDF-5
as well as the shortening of the residence time of the combustion.
The ash forming matter contained in the biomass fuels can be divided
into two parts: the reactive fraction and the non-reactive fraction. The
non-reactive fraction, for instance silica based mineral matter, was
assumed to remain practically unchanged in the FBC combustion and
acted as basically inert fly ash. The reactive fraction, typically alkali
compounds of various kinds, had a strong tendency to convert to new
compounds during combus- tion, interacting with the gaseous
compounds in the flue gases, typically sulfur and chlorine, and with the
reactive parts of the other fuels fired in the same furnace [10].
Fig. 4 indicates the ‘Loss on Ignition’ (LOI) in the fly ash under
various co-firing conditions in the CFBB. The LOI increased slightly
with the increase in the RDF-5 co-firing ratio. Most of the LOI was
composed of unburned carbon in the fly ash. In the current study, the
total fixed carbon in the fuel blend decreased as the RDF-5 co-firing ratio
increased, while, at the same time, the total amount of volatile matter in
the fuel blend increased. However, the higher volatile matter in the fuel
implies that a longer residence time is required in order to achieve complete
com- bustion. From the trends indicated in Figs. 3 and 4, CO
concentration in the flue gas and LOI in the fly ash show
8.0
7.0
6.0
LOI in ash (%)
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
15 20 25 30 35 RDF-5 Co-firing ratio (% in total heat input)
Fig. 4. The loss on ignition (LOI) content in the fly ash for various RDF-5 co-firing ratios.
 H.-P. Wan et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 761–767 765

an increase with the higher RDF-5 co-firing ratio. In order to lower the CO 0.08
and LOI, an adjustment in the amount and partitions between the primary Chlorine content
and secondary air is neces- sary when the RDF-5 co-firing ratio is 0.07 Sulfur content

S and Cl content in the bottom ash (%)

increased. From the results shown in Fig. 4, all LOI data from this
study were lower than 6%, which apparently indicates that the 0.06
combustion efficiency was acceptable.
0.05
3.2. The chlorine and sulfur contents in the ash
0.04

Fuel ashes cause various types of problems, especially when the 0.03
interaction between ash from different fuels is poorly understood.
Chlorine is one of the key factors that affect the quality of the ash. Table 1 0.02
illustrates the fact that most of the molecular chlorine contained in the
fuel mix- ture is sourced from the RDF-5. As mentioned previously, the 0.01
RDF-5 was derived from paper rejects consisting of waste paper, waste
plastics, rubber, rope, staples, and steel 0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
wire, etc. As a result of the large proportion of plastics con- tained in the RDF-5 co-firing ratio (% in total heat input)
paper rejects (such as PVC), the chlorine con- tent of the RDF-5 in this
Fig. 5. The sulfur and chlorine content in the bottom ash for various RDF-5 co-firing
study was near to 0.85 wt%, which is much higher than that of the ratios.
other three fuels.
Although the results of the fuel analysis showed that the total chlorine
input correlated with the amount of RDF-5, the concentration of HCl in
the exhaust emissions mea- sured during the tests were lower than the 3

detection limit (<1 ppm). The phenomenon of de-HCl behavior in the flue Sulfur content
gas could be related to the addition of limestone to the CFB [13,17]. Chlorine content
2.5
When considering the behavior of chlorine and sulfur in the solid
S and Cl content in the fly ash (%)

phase, Figs. 5 and 6 further illustrate the data related to sulfur and
chlorine concentrations in the bottom ash and the fly ash. It was found that
2
the chlorine contents in the fly ash and the bottom ash increased as the
RDF-5 feeding amount increased. In contrast, the sulfur contents in both
the bottom ash and the fly ash seemed to have no apparent
1.5
correlation with the RDF-5 co-firing ratio, and even the measured data
were quite low. This phenom- enon implies that the addition of limestone
to the furnace during fluidized bed combustion could facilitate the cap-
1
ture of sulfur and chlorine during the gaseous phase. In short, all the
emission values measured during the tests
0.5

0
were much lower than the air pollution regulations for sta- -5 10 15 20 25 30 35 30 35

tionary pollution sources in Taiwan. RDF-5 co-firing ratio (% in total hear input)

Fig. 6. The sulfur and chlorine content in the fly ash for various RDF-5 co-firing ratios.
3.3. Dioxin emissions

Generally, high dioxin emissions from combustion pro- cesses are
mainly caused by the high chlorine content in fuels, incomplete
combustion, and a long duration of the gas in the zone around 250–400
°C. Chun et al. [18] found that SO2 can poison the catalyst provided by the
metal ele- ments to form dioxins with the chlorine. Hence, the sulfur in the
coal may restrict the formation of dioxins within the combustion of the
RDF-5. Moreover, a large content of limestone (CaCO 3) added to the
fluidized bed may also
absorb chlorine to a certain extent and is also effective in preventing
dioxins from forming [19].
The level of dioxin emissions in the flue gas is shown in Fig. 7. The
dioxin content in the flue gas increased as the RDF-5 co-firing ratio
increased. In this study, the average chlorine content in the RDF-5 was
0.85 wt%, however, the combustion temperature profile in the sand bed
of the CFBB was kept uniform at around 800 °C. Stable and
766 H.-P. Wan et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 761–767

complete combustion in the furnace led to the restraint of dioxin

Dioxin content in the bottom ash and fly ash (ng-TEQ/Nm3)

200
emissions to a low level (<0.03 ng-TEQ/N m3). Dioxin content in the fly ash
The dioxin contents in the fly ash and bottom ash, which were measured Dioxin content in the bottom ash
using high resolution GC-MS, are shown in Fig. 8. When compared to the
160
limits set forth in the regu- lations in Taiwan (1000 ng-TEQ/kg), the
values are quite low. In reality, it is not actually necessary to
categorize fly ash and bottom ash as hazardous waste.
120
4. Conclusions

In order to proliferate the usage of biomass energy in Taiwan,

80
applying biomass fuels in existing facilities is an effective approach.
MSW and general industrial and agricultural wastes are the main
sources of biomass fuel in Taiwan. Transferring waste to RDF-5 form is
profitable in elevating the utilization of waste energy, in abating the 40
contents of exhausted pollutants and CO2, and in reducing treatment
costs. Currently, using RDF-5 composed of paper rejects, recycled
paper and plastics, as and alterna- tive fuel for boilers is an important and
developing trend in Japan. The results from this study may possibly be 0
0 10 20 30
used as a reference for those existing CFBB systems that intend to utilize
RDF-5 co-firing ratio (% in total heat input)
RDF-5 as a complementary fuel.
In this study RDF-5 co-firing tests were performed in a commercial Fig. 8. Dioxin content in the ash for various RDF-5 co-firing ratios.
coal-fired CFBB. The results show that SOx and NOx emissions
decreased as the proportion of RDF-
5 in the feedstock increased, but that CO, LOI, dioxin emissions, Acknowledgment
and Cl content in the fly ash and bottom ash showed a reverse tendency.
In brief, all emission results measured in this study met Taiwanese The authors acknowledge financial support provided by the Bureau of
RDF-5 co-firing ratio environmental regulation requirements, and Energy, MOEA, Taiwan, ROC.
were better by even as much as 30%.
References

[1] Ekmann JM, Winslow JC, Ramezan SM. International survey of cofiring coal
0.04
with biomass and other waste. Fuel Process Technol 1998;54:171–88.
[2] Sommer EJ, Kenny GR, Roos CE. Mass burn incineration with a presorted MSW
fuel. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 1989;39:511–6.
[3] Bunsow W, Dobberstein J. Refuse-derived fuel: composition and emissions from
Dioxin in the flue gas (ng-TEQ/Nm3)

combustion. Resour Conserv 1987;14:249–56.

0.03 [4] Chang YH, Chen WC, Chang NB. Comparative evaluation of RDF and MSW
incineration. J Hazardous Mater 1998;58:33–45.
[5] Saxena SC, Rao NS. Fluidized-bed incineration of refuse-derived fuel pellets. Energy
Fuels 1993;7:273–8.
[6] Narukawa K, Chen Y, Yamazaki R, Mori S, Fujima Y. Refuse derived fuel
0.02 (RDF) combustion characteristics in circulating fluid- ized-bed incinerator. Kagaku
Kogaku Ronbunshu 1996;22:1408–14.
[7] Elanchezian C, Antonio F. Successful firing of paper mill sludges in Ahlstrom
Pyroflow CFB Boilers. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference of
fluidized bed combustion, vol. 1, ASME, New York; 1993. p. 231–8.
0.01 [8] Philippek C, Werther J. Co-combustion of wet sewage sludge in a coal-fired
circulating fluidized-bed combustor. J Inst Energy 1997;70: 141–50.
[9] Tsai MY, Wu KT, Huang CC, Lee HT. Co-firing of paper mill sludge and coal in an
industrial circulating fluidized bed boiler. Waste Manage 2002;22:439–42.
[10] Hupa M. Interaction of fuels in co-firing in FBC. Fuel 2005;84: 1312–9.
0
[11] Ducarne ED, Marty E, Martin G, Delfosse L. Co-combustion of coal and municipal
0 10 20 30 solid waste in a circulating fluidized bed. Fuel 1998; 77:1311–5.
RDF-5 co-firing ratio (% in total heat input) [12] D.T. Liang, E.J. Anthony, B.K. Loewen, D.J. Yates. Halogen capture by limestone
during fluidized bed combustion. In: Proceedings of the
Fig. 7. Dioxin emissions in the flue gas for various RDF-5 co-firing ratios.
 H.-P. Wan et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 761–767
international conference of fluidized bed combustion, vol. 2; 1991. p. 917—22.
[13] Liu K, Pan WP, Riley JT. A study of chlorine behavior in a simulated fluidized bed
combustion system. Fuel 2000;79:1115–24.
[14] McKay G. Dioxin characterisation, formation and minimisation during municipal
solid waste (MSW) incineration: review. Chem Eng J 2002;86:343–68.
[15] Wan HP, Chang YH, Yang CS, Adams BR, Chen SL. Corrosion monitoring in
a circulating fluidized bed boiler co-fired with biomass. In: Proceedings of the world
renewable energy congress IX, Florence, Italy; August 19–25, 2006.
767
[16] Leckner B, Amand LE. Co-combustion of sludge with coal or wood. Int J Power
Energy Syst 2004;24:172–8.
[17] Sugiyama H, Kagawa S, Kamiya H, Horio M. Chlorine behavior in fluidized bed
incineration of refuse-derived fuels. Environ Eng Sci 1998;15:97–105.
[18] Chun WL, Kilgroe JD, Raghunathan K. Effect of soot and copper combustor
deposits on dioxin emissions. Environ Eng Sci 1998;15: 71–84.
[19] Tagashira K, Torii I, Myouyou K, Takeda K, Mizuko T, Tokushita
Y. Combustion characteristics and dioxin behavior of waste fired CFB. Chem Eng Sci
1999;54:5599–607.