Cloud Chamber Technology vs.
Wet Electrostatic Precipitators
Electrostatic Precipitators – Cloud Chamber technology is often confused with
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) because both use electric charge. Aside from this superficial similarity,
the technologies are strikingly different. Only the Cloud Chamber system uses charged droplets.
CCS only charges the water droplets. The billions of droplets are collectors.
Electrostatic precipitators are commonly used for treating particles. They work by charging the
particles in the gas stream, causing them to migrate through an electrostatic gradient to metal plates
for collection. In general, dry electrostatic precipitators are not suitable for submicron particle
applications because of particle size, resistivity, back corona, re-entrainment, and other issues.
However, wet electrostatic precipitators that use water to condition and rinse particles from the
collector surfaces can be effective on certain fine particulate. Multiple stages are usually needed
and acceptable results are sometimes simply not attainable. Corrosion is a common problem,
as are channeling and dry spots. Loading density and the presence of coarse particles create
problems too. Caution must be exercised in design and operation because of the presence of
both very high voltage and amp draw. Arcing and space charge effects are serious
limitations for wet electrostatic precipitators.
Limitations of Corona Charging in
Wet Electrostatic Precipitators
Fine particulate in conventional wet electrostatic precipitators
In contrast, Cloud Chamber technology removes submicron particles simply and effectively.
The Cloud Chamber Scrubber charges only the collector (that is, the water droplets) and mingles
the collector droplets with the particles.
When a particle passes within 20 microns of a droplet, the droplet charge induces a dipole
charge on the particle, which causes the particle to move the short distance to the droplet
for capture and collection. The charged droplet "cloud" is able to handle even heavy particle
loading with high efficiency. The CCS does not have the very high voltage plus high amp
draw demanded by corona charging, or the associated arcing, sparking, and current
suppression (space charge) limitations.
Another sharp contrast between wet electrostatic precipitators and CCS is power use.
Wet electrostatic precipitators have a high power draw that increases proportionally to the
number of particles, while the CCS requires only 6-10 watts per 1000 cfm regardless of
particle loading. According to vendor literature, wet ESPs use 1000 - 3000 watts per 1000 cfm.
CCS uses some pumping energy to circulate water, but the total system energy draw is
substantially less.
A final distinction between the two technologies is that, unlike wet electrostatic precipitators,
CCS systems simultaneously remove acid gases at efficiencies equal to or greater than those of
packed bed wet scrubbers.
Wet Electrostatic Precipitators: Charging Particles vs.
CCS: Charging Water Particles
Additional Advantages of the CCS vs.
Wet Electrostatic Precipitators
- The efficiency of wet electrostatic precipitators declines in the submicron range because of
limitations inherent in corona field charging and diffusion charging.
- The submicron particle size region has the greatest impact on opacity control.
Failure to remove enough submicron particles can lead to opacity issues.
- Particle capture by diffusion in the ultrafine (less than submicron) region is theoretical
and requires a combination of high ion density and lengthy exposure.
- CCS removes coarse, fine, submicron, ultrafine and condensable particulate.
- CCS provides greater flexibility: particles larger than a few microns compromise
the function of wet electrostatic precipitators.
Hinds, Aerosol Technology, Second Edition, 1999.
- Wet electrostatic precipitators, for optimum performance, are preceded by a device for
removing particles larger than 2.5 micron. This is unnecessary with CCS.
- Wet electrostatic precipitators often require removal of acid gases to prevent accelerated
corrosion by electricity. CCS scrubs acid gases and particulate simultaneously.
- Wet electrostatic precipitators are not efficient for gas removal in general, and usually
need to operate with a wet scrubber in tandem.
- CCS is highly efficient, capturing acid gases; coarse, fine, ultrafine, and condensable PM.
- CCS is much more energy efficient, particularly when wet electrostatic precipitators
are combined with a second device.
Wet electrostatic precipitators often require a second device. CCS does not.
Download Wet Electrostatic Precipitators vs. CCS flyer
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the CCS for your application,
Tri-Mer conducts an active Pilot Plant Program.
Have a potential application? Tell Us About It . . .
We Can Help You with Some Guidelines.
For more information contact:
Kevin Moss (801) 294-5422
kevin.moss@tri-mer.com
CCS HOME / CASE STUDIES / CCS NEWS / CLOUD CHAMBER SCRUBBER BROCHURE /
CCS or Fabric Filters / Baghouses? Considerations and Comparisons /
HISTORY / PILOT TESTING / CCS Q&A / CONTACT US / TRI-MER HOME
HOME / ULTRATEMP HOT GAS FILTRATION / CCSS FOR SUBMICRON PARTICULATE
MULTIPHASE VOC CONTROL / WHIRL WET WET DUST COLLECTOR / TRI-NOx SCRUBBERS
VERTICAL FLOW SCRUBBERS / CROSSFLOW SCRUBBER / TANKS
Select by Trade Name / Select by Need / Literature / Articles – Cloud Chamber / Articles – MultiPhase
Press / Q&A / Awards & Alliances / Reps / Contact / Product Catalog /
News, Conference Talks, Industry Events
Tri-Mer Corporation
1400 Monroe Street • P.O. Box 730 • Owosso, MI 48867; USA
Phone: (989) 723-7838 • Fax: (989) 723-7844
salesdpt@tri-mer.com
© Copyright 2010 Tri-Mer Corporation
Website designed by Marketing Services Inc. |
