CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 1
Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants Dr. Johannes Mayer, Zentrale Analytikdienstleistungen E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen / Deutschland Dipl.-Ing. Sebastian Hopf, Institut für Apparate und Umwelttechnik Otto-von-Guerike Universität Magdeburg, Merseburg / Deutschland Dr. Frans van Dijen, Laborelec / GDF SUEZ, Linkebeek / Belgium Dr. Alessio Baldini, Emission Technical Support Enel Produzione, Firenze / Italy Abstract
In the context of the implementation or tightening of mercury emission limits on a national
(German) and European level the question may be raised how mercury emissions can be
measured reliably at very low concentrations. Furthermore, especially upstream of a wet
scrubber for flue gas desulphurization, the oxidation stage of the mercury in the flue gas is
of specific importance to achieve further reduction of mercury emissions. The European
standard reference method for determination of total mercury in flue gases EN 13211 is
not adequate to control emission limits in the range of 1 - 3 µg/m3, as already proposed
and partly agreed for single new build projects of power plants in Europe. In addition, the
standard reference method delivers only numbers for total mercury but does not allow
differentiation between elemental (metallic) mercury and oxidized mercury which can be
removed in a wet scrubber much more easily.
In this project, which has been funded by VGB, alternative manual and automatic
measuring methods following the adsorption principle, as well as alternative continuous
measuring methods have been compared with each other and with the standard reference
method. In the scope of two measuring campaigns, performance data regarding the
equivalency of alternative methods and standard reference method and the uncertainty of
measurement have been determined. Conventional and newly developed continuous
monitoring systems have been included in the comparison. During this work the so-called
Dowex®/Charcoal method for differentiation of oxidized and elemental mercury in flue
gases has been validated in terms of total mercury determination. This allows a significant
simplification of flue gas measurements in the future which focus on further optimization of
mercury oxidation and removal from the flue gas.
CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 2
1. Introduction
Mercury emissions from large combustion plants to air have been regulated on a
European level at the first time with enacting of the European Directive 2010/75/EU on
industrial emissions (IED) [1]. However, in this directive a mercury emission limit value
(ELV) has only been fixed for waste incineration plants at 50 µg/m3 based on a
sampling/measuring time of 0.5 to 8 hours. For large combustion plants firing coal or
lignite only the request for annual measurements of total mercury emissions has been
established in the directive.
In Germany, ELVs for mercury of large combustion plants have been assigned by law for
the first time with revision of the German large combustion plant ordinance [2] in 2004.
Limits were set to 50 and 30 µg/m3 respectively as half hourly and daily average values.
Unless specifically exempted by the authorities continuous monitoring of mercury was
mandatory. With the latest revision of the German large combustion plant ordinance in
May 2013 the existing ELVs for mercury have been confirmed and in addition an annual
average ELV of 10 µg/m3 has been introduced.
In the first draft of the LCP-BREF document [3] BAT associated emission levels for
mercury emissions to air from the combustion of anthracite and bituminous coal (> 300
MWth) are referred to as 0.2 - 2 µg/m3 for new plants and as 0.2 - 6 µg/m3 for existing
plants.
In Europe there are meanwhile a couple of legally binding operating permits for new and
recently modified coal fired power plants in place where limits of mercury emissions to air
have been fixed to values in the range of 1 – 3 µg/m3.
In the context of the above described implementation or tightening of mercury emission
limits on a national (German) and European level the question may be raised how
mercury emissions can be measured reliably in very low concentrations. Furthermore,
especially upstream of a wet scrubber for flue gas desulphurization, the oxidation stage of
mercury in the flue gas is of specific importance to achieve further reduction of mercury
emissions. For the European standard reference method for determination of total
mercury in flue gases EN 13211 [4] 2.6 µg/m3 is mentioned as the detection limit and
repeatability is described as 1.7 µg/m3. This is not sufficient to control emission limits in
the range of 1 - 3 µg/m3, as they are already effective in individual permits of coal fired
power plants in Europe. In addition, the standard reference method delivers only numbers
for total mercury but does not allow differentiation between elemental (metallic) mercury
and oxidized mercury which can be removed in a wet scrubber much more easily.
CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 3
2. Benefits of alternative measuring methods to standard reference method
The European standard reference method EN 13211 for measuring mercury emissions to
air was released already in 2001. At that time ELVs were in place only in the range of 30 –
50 µg/m3 and the lower application limit of EN 13211 was appropriate for monitoring
mercury emissions within that context. Nowadays, when ELVs are in the range of 1 – 3
µg/m3, alternative methods with lower application limits are necessary to demonstrate
reliably compliance with such low emission limits.
EN 13211 is a wet chemical measuring method with limited flue gas throughput and
limited sampling time. Furthermore it requires a lot of manual operations. Therefore
reducing the lower application limit is not so easy. Many of the existing alternative
methods are based on the adsorption of mercury on solid adsorbent traps, consisting of
activated charcoal or iodized activated charcoal. Other solid adsorbents like potassium
chloride (KCl) or the ion exchange resin Dowex® retain selectively oxidized mercury.
Handling of the traps is usually very easy and the sampling can easily be automated
which allows extension of the sampling time from hours to days and weeks. In particular,
the combination of KCl or ion exchange traps with activated charcoal traps allows
furthermore the differentiation of oxidized and elemental mercury in the flue gas duct.
The aforementioned benefits make adsorbent trap measuring methods a valuable
alternative to the standard reference method as they allow easy and cost effective
verification of mercury mitigation measures as part of permit obligations, differentiation of
mercury oxidation state and thus reduction of costs for base line and performance tests
required by authorities and finally verification of performance guarantees from catalyst
suppliers regarding mercury oxidation activity of SCR catalysts.
In this project, that has been funded by VGB and the participating power companies GDF
SUEZ, Enel and E.ON, the main focus was on the so-called Dowex®/Activated Charcoal
method, later called the Dowex/AC method, which has been applied and enhanced across
many years by E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH and the Otto-von-Guericke
University Magdeburg. Other adsorption methods based on the US EPA method 30B [5]
and continuously operating mercury monitors have been included in the project and
compared against the standard reference method.
3. The Work Programme
The practical work within this project was carried out at two different coal-fired power
plants with anticipated low mercury emissions. The initial goal was to compare the
following four different sampling and measuring techniques for the determination of
CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 4
mercury concentrations in flue gases: The European standard reference method EN
13211, the Dowex/AC method for speciation of the mercury oxidation state, a semi-
automatic method according to EPA Method 30B using activated charcoal traps and finally
the continuously operating PSA mercury monitor using thermo-catalytic mercury reduction
and atomic fluorescence spectrometry for detection. In addition to these four methods
other available systems for mercury measurement in flue gases have been included in to
this comparison, e.g. the plant operators calibrated mercury CEM and temporary
installations that have been operated at the plants for test reasons. For evaluation of the
test results and for validation of alternative methods compared to the standard reference
method the European Technical Specification CEN/TS 14793 [6] was applied.
Determination of the uncertainty of emission measurement for both, the standard
reference method EN 13211 and the Dowex/AC method was performed according to VDI
Guideline 4219:2009 [7].
The first measuring campaign was performed in October 2011 at a 510 MWel hard coal-
fired power plant with a conventional flue gas cleaning system consisting of high-dust
SCR, ESP and wet FGD. Mercury concentrations in the exhausted clean gas were
expected to be on average below 5 µg/m3. For the test campaign a fuel blend of South
African coal with a mercury content of approx. 0.1 mg/kg and a chlorine content of 0.04 –
0.06 wt.% and a Columbian coal with ~ 0.05 mg/kg mercury and 0.01 wt.% chlorine was
anticipated.
The second measuring campaign was carried out in December 2012 at a 108 MWel
lignite-fired power plant with a flue gas cleaning system consisting of pulverized lignite
coke and lime injection followed by an ESP. The fuel fired during the test campaign was
mainly lignite with significant amounts of waste derived fuel and sewage sludge. Historic
mercury concentrations in the cleaned flue gas were mostly in the range below 20 µg/m3.
The goal of the project was to compare different measurement systems and thus provide
as far as possible identical flue gas to all of the tested systems. Therefore no grid
measurements were performed but instead of that it was intended to extract the flue gas
for all systems as close together as possible at the same point in the middle of the duct.
All samplings and measurements should ideally be started and terminated simultaneously
and six samplings / measurements a day, each lasting one hour, were planned for each of
the methods. Each manual or automated sampling test should be carried out in duplicate.
The first measuring campaign covered all four of the above mentioned methods and in
addition three other measurement systems were available to deliver comparable mercury
data for at least a part of the time. Unfortunately during the second campaign the PSA
CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 5
mercury analyser of Enel was not available and only one other system provided
comparable data. Table 1 gives an overview of all the involved methods and systems in
both measuring campaigns including the underlying measuring principle and the type of
data provision.
Table 1: Applied methods and available instruments for delivery of mercury data during the two measuring campaigns
1. Measuring campaign in October 2011 at a hard coal-fired power plant Methods applied by the participating research institutes
Applied method Applied by Measuring principle Type of data
EN 13211 E.ON New Build
& Technology
Absorption in a KMnO4/H2SO4
sampling train, European SRM
Total mercury
Dowex/AC Otto von Geuricke
University [OvGU]
Solid adsorption traps with Dowex
and iodized charcoal
Elemental and
oxidized vapour
phase mercury
EPA 30B Laborelec /
GDF SUEZ
Solid adsorption traps with activated
charcoal
Total vapour phase
mercury
PSA CEM Enel Atomic fluorescence spectrometry
after catalytic reduction
Elemental and total
vapour phase
mercury
Methods applied by plant operator and equipment manufacturers
Applied method Applied by Measuring principle Type of data
Sick Mercem Plant operator Photometrically after wet chemical
reduction
Total vapour phase
mercury
Amesa M,
applying EPA 30B
Environnement SA
Deutschland
Solid adsorption traps with activated
charcoal
Total vapour phase
mercury
Sick Mercem300Z Sick GmbH Zeeman AAS after thermal converter Total vapour phase
mercury
2. Measuring campaign in December 2012 at a lignite-fired power plant Methods applied by the participating research institutes
Applied method Applied by Measuring principle Type of data
EN 13211 E.ON New Build
& Technology
Absorption in a KMnO4/H2SO4
sampling train, European SRM
Total mercury
Dowex/AC Otto von Geuricke
University [OvGU]
Solid adsorption traps with Dowex
and iodized charcoal
Elemental and
oxidized vapour
phase mercury
EPA 30B Laborelec /
GDF SUEZ
Solid adsorption traps with activated
charcoal
Total vapour phase
mercury
Methods applied by plant operator
Applied method Applied by Measuring principle Type of data
SM4 Mercury Instruments Atomic absorption spectrometry
after thermo-catalytic converter
Total vapour phase
mercury
4. Results of the Mercury Measuring Campaigns
The first measuring campaign in October 2011 resulted in a set of 36 flue gas samples
from each of the three discontinuous sampling methods (3 x 6 samples, all performed in
duplicate). At the first two of the three days the PSA analyser delivered 12 comparable 1-
hour-average values. The AMESA M system was operated only on the third day of the
CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 6
measuring campaign and delivered 6 duplicate samples. Fortunately, the newly developed
Mercem300Z system was also installed and operated by the manufacturer for a test run.
The instrument was only ex-works calibrated but not fully calibrated according to EN
14181.
Figure 1 summarizes all results of the seven different measuring methods. If duplicate
samples were taken the average value of the two individual results is printed in the graph.
As can be seen from this figure all seven methods delivered more or less comparable
results. Within the discontinuous manual sampling methods the EN 13211 and the
Dowex/AC method fit best together, followed by the EPA 30B method and the AMESA M
system. Within the continuously operating measuring systems the PSA monitor showed
systematic lower values than the standard reference method on the first day and
systematic higher values on the second day. The official calibrated CEM delivered the
lowest values of all and the Mercem300Z delivered also values very close to the EN
13211 values with exception of the first day. Furthermore Figure 1 shows a very similar
trend of the mercury concentrations determined with the different methods in a range
between 1.3 and 4.0 µg/m3.
Figure 1: Summarized results of seven different measuring methods during the first measuring campaign at a hard coal-fired power plant.
During the second measuring campaign in December 2012 at the lignite-fired plant only
three of the four project partners were able to participate and they applied the three
CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 7
methods EN 13211, Dowex/AC and EPA 30B. Again the schedule was to take 6 duplicate
samples on each of the three successive days. Due to equipment failures some measure-
ments were missing at the end and thus the second measuring campaign resulted in only
12 fully comparable duplicate measurements for each method. In addition to the manual
sampling systems the continuously operating mercury monitor SM4 was installed by the
plant operator for a test run and delivered 18 comparable 1-hour-average values.
As Figure 2 shows the mercury concentrations in the flue gas of this plant were
temporarily significantly higher compared to the first campaign and up to almost 20 µg/m3.
The values resulting from the methods EN 13211 and Dowex/AC match perfectly for both
the lower and the higher concentrations. The values resulting from the EPA 30B method
match also very well in some sampling series but are significantly lower in other series. An
explanation for this was seen by the handler to be due to poor sealing of the adsorbent
traps in the probe causing occasional leakages and fouling of the equipment in previous
tests. Finally the SM 4 instrument delivered well-matching values for higher mercury
concentrations but did not follow quickly enough the trend towards lower values. This
observation might be due to memory effects in the sample gas line from the stack to the
analyser.
Figure 2: Summarized results of four different measuring methods during the second measuring campaign at a lignite-fired power plant.
CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 8
5. Validation of an alternative method according to CEN/TS 14793
Figure 3 gives a summary of the whole set of data resulting from the three manual
methods that have been employed in both measuring campaigns. This set of data has
been used for evaluation of the comparability of the two alternative methods according to
CEN/TS 14793:2005.
Figure 3: Summary of the whole set of data resulting from the three methods involved in both measuring campaigns.
The requirements for application of CEN/TS 14793 are:
• Up to 30 pairs of comparative values for each method
• Outlier test according to Grubbs to be applied for each set of comparative values
The conditions that need to be fulfilled for acceptance of the alternative method are:
• Repeatability of the alternative method must not be higher than the repeatability of
the standard reference method
• Linear regression must be evaluated (y = C1x + C0)
• The following conditions must be fulfilled:
R ≥ 0.97 1-Sr(Zq)/Zq ≤ C1 ≤ 1+Sr(Zq)/Zq C0 ≤ Sr(Zq)
with Zq and Sr(Zq) from standard reference method EN 13211:
Zq = 10 µg/m3, Sr(Zq) = 1.2
CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 9
In the first instance the evaluation of comparability of the Dowex/AC method with
EN13211 was carried out. For this purpose a set of 30 duplicate samples were suitable for
evaluation and have been subject to a Grubbs test [8] in the first step of the evaluation. No
outliers have been detected within the duplicate samples from EN 13211. Within the
Dowex/AC samples in total 5 outliers according to Grubbs could be identified. In this case
the identified values from both methods have been eliminated leaving a set of 2 x 25
verified duplicate values for both of the methods. Figure 4 shows the evaluation matrix
according CEN/TS 14793 for the alternative method.
Figure 4: Evaluation matrix according to CEN/TS 14793 for the alternative method Dowex/AC.
The graph of the resulting regression line is given in Figure 5. The final test for
acceptance of the alternative method, as given in Table 2, shows that all three
requirements for acceptance are fulfilled. For this reason the Dowex/AC method for
measuring concentrations of total mercury in flue gases can be considered to be
equivalent to the standard reference method in the range of 1 to 20 µg/m3.
CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 10
Figure 5: Regression line of the comparison between Dowex/AC method and the standard reference method EN 13211
Table 2: Results of acceptance test of alternative method Dowex/AC
Test for Acceptance of Alternative Dowex/AC Method
Condition:
Condition:
Condition:
R ≥ 0,97 1-Sr(Zq)/Zq ≤ C1 ≤ 1+Sr(Zq)/Zq C0 ≤ Sr(Zq)
1-0,12 ≤ C1 ≤ 1+0,12 C0 ≤ 1,2
R = 0,996028 C1 = 0,978187 C0 = -0,063747
yes yes yes
When applying the criteria of CEN/TC 14793 to the data of the EPA 30B method the
requirements for acceptance as an alternative method were not fulfilled. This is mainly
due to the results from the second measuring campaign where some problems with
leakages and fouling occurred. Also validation of the determination of mercury oxidation
state by use of the Dowex/AC method and the use of the PSA analyser was not possible
within this project because agreement of the results from the first campaign was not very
good and the PSA analyser was not available during the second campaign. Both issues
are subject to further investigation.
CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 11
6. Determination of the uncertainty of measurement of EN 13211 and Dowex/AC methods
The determination of the measurement uncertainty of emission measurements by
repeated sampling and analysis of the same object of measurement is usually not
possible since locally and temporally varying distributions of the exhaust gas components
can occur in the measurement cross section. Sampling of reference materials as
alternative is also mostly not possible since appropriate reference materials and testing
facilities are not available for this complex exhaust gas matrix. Therefore the
determination of measurement uncertainty has been performed on the basis of the
performed paired measurements using the overall measurement method (direct approach)
according to VDI Guideline 4219. In the direct approach to determine measurement
uncertainty by means of paired measurements, the influence of all factors is investigated
in a pooled way.
According to VDI 4219 the paired measurements shall be independently of each other, in
order to reveal random and systematic errors during uncertainty determination. Therefore,
the measurements shall also be performed with separate sampling and analytical
systems. In this case separate sampling systems have been applied and the joint use of
analytical systems was accepted because their contribution to the total variance was
assumed to be less than 5 % (see DIN EN ISO 20988). For both methods, the EN 13211
and the Dowex/AC method, the 25 simultaneous paired measurements of section 5, used
for equivalency validation, have been used to evaluate the uncertainty of measurement of
each method. The following equations have been applied according to VDI 4219:
The variance of the measurement results y from paired measurements is calculated as:
where: y (1, j) jth measured value of the first measuring system
y (2, j) jth measured value of the second measuring system
N number of evaluated paired measurements
A significant bias uB is given if uB2/var(y) ≥ 0.5, where the bias is calculated as:
CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 12
The standard uncertainty u(y) of a measurement result y that is determined by the given
measurement method is calculated as:
The expanded uncertainty Up(y) of a measurement result y for a confidence level p is
calculated by multiplying the standard uncertainty u(y) by the coverage factor k, which
corresponds to the confidence level p and the number of degrees of freedom ν, according
to the following equation:
For a confidence level of p = 95 % and a number of degrees of freedom of 25, the factor
k = 2.060 was used.
The results of uncertainty evaluation are given in Table 3. This table shows that the
expanded uncertainties of both methods with values of 0.3 and 0.4 µg/m3 are very close
together and on a low level. In the standard reference method EN 13211 a repeatability of
1.2 µg/m3 and a reproducibility of 1.7 µg/m3 is reported.
Table 3: Results of determination of uncertainty for the methods EN 13211 and
Dowex/AC
Statistical parameter
Method EN 13211
Method Dowex/AC
Unit Explanation
ymin = 1.9 1.6 µg/m3 lower limit of measuring range
ymax = 19.6 19.4 µg/m3 upper limit of measuring range
N = 25 25 number of pairs (degrees of freedom)
k = 2.060 2.060 coverage factor for 95 % confidence
uB2/var(y) = 0.8 0.5 bias is significant if ≥ 0.5
u(y) = 0.1 0.2 µg/m3 standard uncertainty
U0,95 = k u(y) = 0.3 0.4 µg/m3 expanded uncertainty
CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 13
7. Summary and conclusions
Within two measuring campaigns at two different power plants several discontinuous
manual and automated measuring methods as well as different continuously operating
monitors for determination of mercury concentrations in flue gases have been compared
in a mercury concentration range of 1 to 20 µg/m3. From these trials it finally can be
concluded that all of the applied measuring methods gave more or less comparable
results as long as they are applied properly. The various adsorption tube methods
including the Dowex/AC method, the EPA 30B method and the AMESA M system didn’t
show systematic deviations from the standard reference method (SRM) EN 13211. In
contrast to that, the involved continuously measuring systems (CEMs) sometimes showed
higher deviations from the SRM. The Dowex/AC method was the only method that could
be successfully validated according to CEN/TS 14793 as an alternative method to the
SRM in the concentration range of 1 to 20 µg/Nm3. According to literature, the Ontario
Hydro Method and EPA Method 30B are suitable as well [9]. Uncertainties of
measurement of the two methods EN 13211 and Dowex/AC in the covered concentration
range have been determined as 0.3 and 0.4 µg/m3 respectively. Unfortunately, due to a
lack of comparable data, a validation of the differentiation between elemental mercury and
oxidized mercury with the methods Dowex/AC and PSA was not possible.
8. References
[1] Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24
November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control);
Official Journal of the European Union, L 334/17, 17.12.2010
[2] Thirteenth Ordinance on the Implementation of the German Federal Ambient Air
Control Act (Ordinance on Large Combustion Plants and Gas Turbine Plants – 13.
BImSchV) of 20 July 2004; Federal Law Gazette I p. 1717
[3] Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Large Combustion
Plants, Draft 1 (June 2013); Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies, Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit, European
IPPC Bureau
[4] European Standard EN 13211 - “Air Quality – Stationary source emissions – Manual
method of determination of the concentration of total mercury”, June 2001
[5] EPA Method; Method 30B - “Determination of Total Vapor Phase Mercury
Emissions from Coal-fired Combustion Sources using Carbon Sorbent Traps”,
November 2007
CEM 2014 – Conference on Emission Monitoring 14th – 16
th May 2014 Istanbul, Turkey
Presenter: Dr. Johannes Mayer, E.ON New Build & Technology GmbH, Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Presentation: Measurement of low Mercury Concentrations in Flue Gases of Combustion Plants 14
[6] European Technical Specification CEN/TS 14793 – “Stationary source emission –
Intralaboratory validation procedure for an alternative method compared to a
reference method”, June 2005
[7] VDI Guideline 4219 – “Determination of the uncertainty of emission measurements
by use of discontinuous measurement methods”; August 2009
[8] F. Grubbs; “Procedures for Detecting Outlying Observations in Samples”;
Technometrics, Vol. 11 (1969) 1 – 21
[9] D. L. Laudal; “Evaluation of alternatives to the Ontario Hydro Method as a reference
method for CAMR”; 2007-EERC-02-04