Field Evaluation of Wet Electrostatic Precipitator Efficiency During Commissioning in a Sulfuric Acid Plant

Authors

  • Rudi Irmawanto Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Muhammadiyah University of Surabaya, Surabaya 60113, Indonesia Author
  • Alfian Roziqi Yahya Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Muhammadiyah University of Surabaya, Surabaya 60113, Indonesia Author
  • Reynanda Bagus Widyo Astomo Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Muhammadiyah University of Surabaya, Surabaya 60113, Indonesia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51747/energy.v16i2.p531-541

Keywords:

Wet electrostatic precipitator, commissioning, collection efficiency, migration velocity, voltage utilization, sulfuric acid plant

Abstract

Copper smelting and associated sulfuric acid production generate gas streams containing sulfur dioxide and fine particulate matter, requiring effective emission-control systems. This study evaluates the field performance of a wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) during commissioning at a sulfuric acid plant. A quantitative descriptive evaluation was conducted using operational records, field measurements, and inspection observations collected between February and April 2024. The analysis considered DC voltage and current, voltage utilization relative to the 80 kV design value, estimated particle resistivity, particle migration velocity, and the condition of collecting electrodes. The recorded operating voltages were approximately 27.3–30.5 kV, corresponding to voltage utilization of 35.3–38.1% across the five reported fields. The manuscript reports an actual collection efficiency of 35%, compared with a design target of 99.52%; however, the underlying calculation and supporting inlet/outlet particulate measurements must be verified before this value can be interpreted as a measured efficiency. The reported migration velocity was 1.29 × 10⁻⁷ m/s, compared with a design-derived value of 1.49 × 10⁻⁴ m/s. The findings indicate that low operating voltage and observed electrode degradation may have contributed to the deviation from design performance. The study highlights the need to document the calculation basis and sampling record when evaluating WESP performance during commissioning.

References

[1] R.B. Chu, J. Smith, K.L. Tan, Performance evaluation of wet electrostatic precipitators in copper smelting, Energy 245 (2024) 118765.

[2] M. Zhang, L. Wang, Commissioning challenges of ESP systems under humid conditions, Energy 230 (2023) 117543.

[3] J.D. Anderson, Electrostatic Precipitation Technology, Springer, Berlin, 2022.

[4] P. Kumar, Emission control technologies, in: R. Gupta (Ed.), Advances in Metallurgical Engineering, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2021, pp. 145–168.

[5] S. Lee, H. Park, Optimization of WESP commissioning parameters, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Energy Systems, Tokyo, 2022, pp. 210–215.

[6] International Energy Agency (IEA), Air pollution control in non‑ferrous industries, 2024. Available at: https://www.iea.org (accessed 10 May 2026).

[7] H. Liu, L. Wu, C. Zheng, J. Li, and X. Liu, “Investigation of pollutant-removal performance and energy efficiency characteristics of wet electrostatic precipitator,” Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 520–536, 2022.

[8] N. H. Hansen, H. Sørensen, and J. Hærvig, “Experimental study of a full-scale wet electrostatic precipitator for particulate matter removal,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 146–156, 2023.

[9] M. M. Badami, R. Tohidi, V. Jalali, and V. Verma, “Design, optimization, and evaluation of a wet electrostatic precipitator for aerosol collection,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 308, 119858, 2023.

[10] H. Liu, G. Guo, and Z. Chen, “Study on WESP multi-pollutant emission reduction and energy efficiency test,” Power Generation Technology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 94–99, 2023.

[11] H. Guo, Z. Zhao, L. Wang, et al., “Flow field optimization and performance test of vertical honeycomb wet electrostatic precipitator,” Coatings, vol. 15, no. 9, 1047, 2025.

[12] S. Li, Z. Liu, and K. Yan, “Review on recent development of industrial electrostatic precipitation,” Int. Journal of Plasma Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 19, no. 2, 2025.

[13] A. Jaworek and K. Adamiak, “Recent progress in research on electrostatic precipitation,” Journal of Electrostatics, 2025.

[14] M. Badran and A. M. Mansour, “Evaluating performance indices of electrostatic precipitators,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 18, 6647, 2022.

[15] A. Jaworek, A. T. Sobczyk, and A. Krupa, “Hybrid electrostatic filtration systems for exhaust gas cleaning,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 2702, 012009, 2024.

[16] E. Sokolovskij, A. Kilikevičius, A. Chlebnikovas, et al., “Innovative electrostatic precipitator solutions for efficient removal of fine particulate matter,” Machines, vol. 12, no. 11, 761, 2024.

[17] B. Zhang, I. Aravind, S. Yang, et al., “Ion density-enhanced electrostatic precipitation using high-voltage nanosecond pulses,” Environmental Science: Advances, vol. 2, pp. 1566–1573, 2023.

[18] N. Farnoosh, R. Allan, and K. Adamiak, “3D computational modeling of wet electrostatic precipitators for submicron particle control,” IEEE Conference Proceedings, 2023.

[19] Y. Feng, K. Luo, and J. Fan, “Particle transport and charging mechanism within electrostatic precipitator,” Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 297–305, 2021.

[20] L. M. Dumitran, D. Blanchard, and P. Atten, “Estimation of effective migration velocity in electrostatic precipitators,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 2021.

Downloads

Published

2026-11-04

How to Cite

Field Evaluation of Wet Electrostatic Precipitator Efficiency During Commissioning in a Sulfuric Acid Plant. (2026). ENERGY: JURNAL ILMIAH ILMU-ILMU TEKNIK, 16(2), 531-541. https://doi.org/10.51747/energy.v16i2.p531-541