4.7 Article

Desorption kinetics of lithium amide/magnesium hydride systems at constant pressure thermodynamic driving forces

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 3298-3304

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.11.071

Keywords

Hydrogen storage materials; Desorption kinetics; Lithium amide; Magnesium hydride

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy
  2. U.S. Department of Transportation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lithium amide and magnesium hydride are lightweight materials with high hydrogen-holding capacities and thus they are of interest for hydrogen storage. In the present work mixtures with initial molar compositions of (LiNH2 + MgH2) and (2LiNH(2) + MgH2) were ball milled with and without the presence of 3.3 mol% potassium hydride dopant. Temperature programmed desorption, TPD, analyses of the mixtures showed that the potassium hydride doped samples had lower onset temperatures than their corresponding pristine samples. The dehydrogenation kinetics of the doped and pristine mixtures was compared at 210 degrees C. In each case a constant pressure thermodynamic driving force was applied in which the ratio of the plateau pressure to the applied hydrogen pressure was set at 10. Under equivalent conditions, the (LiNH2 + MgH2) mixture desorbed hydrogen about 4 times faster than the (2LiNH(2) + MgH2) mixture. The addition of potassium hydride dopant was found to have a 25-fold increase on the desorption rates of the (2LiNH(2) + MgH2) mixture, however it had almost no effect on the desorption rates of the (LiNH2 + MgH2) mixture. Activation energies were determined by the Kissinger method. Results showed the potassium hydride doped mixtures to have lower activation energies than the pristine mixtures. Copyright (C) 2011, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available