The DOI matches its Crossref record.
SO2 scrubbing technologies: A review
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Recent advances in flue gas desulfurization gypsum processes and applications – A review
Koralegedara, N. H., Pinto, P. X., Dionysiou, D. D., & Al-Abed, S. R. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109572 · Cited by 319
Rezaei, F., Rownaghi, A. A., Monjezi, S., Lively, R. P., & Jones, C. W. (2015) · Energy & Fuels · doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b01286 · Cited by 283
CO 2 Mitigation via Capture and Chemical Conversion in Seawater
Rau, G. H. (2011) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es102671x · Cited by 134
Modeling of CO2 capture ability of [Bmim][BF4] ionic liquid using connectionist smart paradigms
Daryayehsalameh, B., Nabavi, M., & Vaferi, B. (2021) · Environmental Technology & Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.eti.2021.101484 · Cited by 111
Zeolite screening for the separation of gas mixtures containing SO 2 , CO 2 and CO
Matito-Martos, I., Martin-Calvo, A., Gutiérrez-Sevillano, J. J., Haranczyk, M., Doblare, M., Parra, J. B., Ania, C. O., & Calero, S. (2014) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c4cp00109e · Cited by 95
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.