4.8 Article

Particle size influence on the pore development of nanopores in coal gasification chars: From micron to millimeter particles

Journal

CARBON
Volume 112, Issue -, Pages 37-46

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2016.10.088

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology
  2. National Research Foundation of South Africa (Coal Research Chair Grant) [86880, UID85643, UID85632]
  3. Australian Science and Industry Endowment Fund Special Research Program for Synchrotron Science
  4. Sasol

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The influence of particle size on the growth of nanopores arising from gasification of a South African coal-char was investigated using small angle X-ray scattering. Three different char sizes (75 mu m, 2 and 20 mm) were gasified between 800 and 1000 degrees C to specific conversions up to 50% and the pore development during CO2 and steam gasification was compared. For the CO2 gasified chars studied here, particle size influenced the rates of individual pore growth for all pore sizes and an increased development of micro-, and macropores was observed as particle size increased. For the steam gasified chars studied here, particle size only influenced the rates of individual pore growth for larger pores, with prevalence of macropore development. A novel application of monitoring pore development as a function of distance from the surface was applied to the 20 mm gasified char, spanning the surface to the interior of the spherical particle. The portion closest to the surface, showed the greatest pore development over the entire pore range, followed by the interior and centre. The radial changes in growth rate for individual pore sizes demonstrated intra-particle mass transfer limitations for the 20 mm particle studied here under these conditions. (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