Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 275

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

SO2 scrubbing technologies: A review

Srivastava, Ravi K., Jozewicz, Wojciech, Singer, Carl·2001·Environmental Progress

Abstract

Electricity generating units may use sulfur dioxide (SO 2) scrubbers to meet the requirements of Phase II of the Acid Rain SO 2 Reduction Program. Additionally, the use of scrubbers can reduce mercury emissions. It is timely, therefore, to review the commercially available flue gas desulfurization (FGD) technologies that have an established record of performance. Data on worldwide applications reflect that wet FGD technologies have been used at most of the installations, 522 out of 668, completed through 1998. In reviewing the SO 2 removal performance of scrubbers, data reflect that most wet limestone and lime spray drying installations appear to be capable of about 90% SO 2 removal. Advanced, state‐of‐the‐art wet scrubbers can provide removal in excess of 95%. This paper also reviews recently reported advances in SO 2 scrubbing technologies. Some of these advances have been aimed at improving the performance and cost‐effectiveness of established processes. Others, like wet ammonia FGD, have focused on developing new processes. Costs associated with limestone forced oxidation (LSFO) technology are analyzed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ep.670200410

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 275

Metadata

Authors
Srivastava, R. K., Jozewicz, W., & Singer, C.
Venue
Environmental Progress
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-12
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
219-228
ISSN
  • 0278-4491 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-5921
OpenAlex
W2161240730
Cited by
275
References
0
FWCI
6.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: SO2 scrubbing technologies: A review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ep.670200410
The paper
Srivastava, R. K., Jozewicz, W., & Singer, C. (2001). SO2 scrubbing technologies: A review. Environmental Progress. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.670200410

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.