Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 392

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Flue Gas Desulfurization: The State of the Art

Open access
Srivastava, R. K., Jozewicz, W.·2001·Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Abstract

Coal-fired electricity-generating plants may use SO2 scrubbers to meet the requirements of Phase II of the Acid Rain SO2 Reduction Program. Additionally, the use of scrubbers can result in reduction of Hg and other emissions from combustion sources. It is timely, therefore, to examine the current status of SO2 scrubbing technologies. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the state of the art in flue gas desulfurization (FGD) technologies for coal-fired boilers. Data on worldwide FGD applications reveal that wet FGD technologies, and specifically wet limestone FGD, have been predominantly selected over other FGD technologies. However, lime spray drying (LSD) is being used at the majority of the plants employing dry FGD technologies. Additional review of the U.S. FGD technology applications that began operation in 1991 through 1995 reveals that FGD processes of choice recently in the United States have been wet limestone FGD, magnesium-enhanced lime (MEL), and LSD. Further, of the wet limestone processes, limestone forced oxidation (LSFO) has been used most often in recent applications. The SO2 removal performance of scrubbers has been reviewed. Data reflect that most wet limestone and LSD installations appear to be capable of approximately 90% SO2 removal. Advanced, state-of-the-art wet scrubbers can provide SO2 removal in excess of 95%. Costs associated with state-of-the-art applications of LSFO, MEL, and LSD technologies have been analyzed with appropriate cost models. Analyses indicate that the capital cost of an LSD system is lower than those of same capacity LSFO and MEL systems, reflective of the relatively less complex hardware used in LSD. Analyses also reflect that, based on total annualized cost and SO2 removal requirements: (1) plants up to approximately 250 MWe in size and firing low- to medium-sulfur coals (i.e., coals with a sulfur content of 2% or lower) may use LSD; and (2) plants larger than 250 MWe and firing medium- to high-sulfur coals (i.e., coals with a sulfur content of 2% or higher) may use either LSFO or MEL.

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 · 10.1080/10473289.2001.10464387

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 392

Metadata

Authors
Srivastava, R. K., & Jozewicz, W.
Venue
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Published
2001-12
Volume
51
Issue
12
Pages
1676-1688
ISSN
  • 1047-3289 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-2247
  • 2162-2906
OpenAlex
W2080815644
Cited by
392
References
0
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Flue Gas Desulfurization: The State of the Art. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10473289.2001.10464387
The paper
Srivastava, R. K., & Jozewicz, W. (2001). Flue Gas Desulfurization: The State of the Art. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2001.10464387

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.