4.8 Article

High density Mongolian anthracite based porous carbon monoliths for methane storage by adsorption

Journal

APPLIED ENERGY
Volume 190, Issue -, Pages 257-265

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.124

Keywords

Anthracite based activated carbons; Carbon monoliths; Methane adsorption; Porous characterization; Adsorbed natural gas storage

Funding

  1. Korea-India International Cooperation Program from the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, Republic of Korea [NRF-2012K1A3A1A19036491]
  2. Department of Science and Technology, India [INT/KOREA/P-17]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2012K1A3A1A19036491] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Carbon monoliths for methane adsorption were prepared from Mongolian anthracite based activated carbons using carboxy-methyl cellulose as a binder under different molding pressures. Nitrogen adsorption/ desorption studies were carried out to obtain the specific surface area, pore volume, pore size distribution and adsorption energy distributions of the monoliths. Methane adsorption experiments on the monoliths were conducted at isothermal condition and at pressures up to around 3.5 MPa in a volumetric adsorption apparatus. As expected, adsorption results indicated that the gravimetric methane capacities of the carbon monoliths increase with increasing surface area. On the other hand, the maximum volumetric uptake of methane was observed as 162 V/V at 293 K and 3.5 MPa on a sample, PMAC1/2-3-65, which has low specific surface area and high packing density comparing with other monoliths. This result implies that the specific surface area of adsorption media is not always a major factor in storing of gases such as methane. (C) 2016 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available