4.8 Article

Hybrid Polymer/UiO-66(Zr) and Polymer/NaY Fiber Sorbents for Mercaptan Removal from Natural Gas

Journal

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
Volume 8, Issue 15, Pages 9700-9709

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.6b00897

Keywords

fiber sorbent; TBM removal; natural gas; UiO-66(Zr); NaY

Funding

  1. General Electric (GE)
  2. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
  3. Georgia Research Alliance
  4. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) of the DOE [DE-FE0007804]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Zeolite NaY and metal organic frameworks MIL-53(Al) and UiO-66(Zr) are spun with cellulose acetate (CA) polymer to create hybrid porous composite fibers for the selective adsorption of sulfur odorant compounds from pipeline natural gas. Odorant removal is desirable to limit corrosion associated with sulfur oxide production, thereby increasing lifetime in gas turbines used for electricity generation. In line with these goals, the performance of the hybrid fibers is evaluated on the basis of sulfur sorption capacity and selectivity, as well as fiber stability and regenerability, compared to their polymer-free sorbent counterparts. The capacities of the powder sorbents are also measured using various desorption temperatures to evaluate the potential for lower temperature, energy, and cost-efficient system operation. Both NaY/CA and UiO-66(Zr)/CA hybrid fibers are prepared with high sorbent loadings, and both have high capacities and selectivities for t-butyl mercaptan (TBM) odorant sorption from a model natural gas (NG), while being stable to multiple regeneration cycles. The different advantages and disadvantages of both types of fibers relative are discussed, with both offering the potential advantages of low pressure drop, rapid heat and mass transfer, and low energy requirements over traditional sulfur removal technologies such as hydrodesulfurization (HDS) or adsorption in a pellet packed beds.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available