polypropylene dioxin scrubber?

[ttweed@wildrockies.org (Tony Tweedale)]

in an english lang. 'germany today' type newsletter of April '98 I was
idling through I came across the following in a blurb article:

"Scientists at the Karlsruhe Research Center [in] (Baden Wu:rtenburg)...in
early April the Center announced a major breakthrough towards env. sound
incineration:  a simple & cost-efficient process that all but elimantes
dioxins.  In the Karlsruhe test incinerator, dioxin contaminated smoke is
passed through a filter of PP pellets at 60dC (140dF).  The pellets are
then removed and "washed" in a jet of 130dC (266dF) air.  The re-released
dioxins are then burned seperately at 600dC (1,112dF).  This process, the
center says, removes better than 99 percent of dioxin emissions."


Unclear what the stated 2 nines destruction efficiency is--overall
efficency to the atmosphere past another traditional control device
(probably not), the efficiency of the PP absorbtion plus the 600dC
destruction w/ direct venting to atmosphere, or just of the PP.  Hopefully
the latter!   In any case it doesn't seem to be any answer to the burn
conundrumm--total Cl in :: dioxins  & O-Cl's out (air & ash).

If anyone knows the theory & efficacy of the PP absorbtion, please do post
to me plus any of the 3 lists above you're on.  Could it be that the
sitance between atoms in PP is ideal to absorb PCDD/F, or something else?
Why is PP better than say PE?  Obviously a plain hydrocarbon plastic is
chosen for its BTU content


Tony Tweedale

Causality is a concept not subject to empirical demonstration. -David Hume
(1711-'76)

Temperate but endangered planet.  Enjoys weather, northern lights,
continental drift.  Seeks caring relationship with intelligent lifeform.
      -Friends of the Earth