4.6 Article

Suitability of a Solid Amine Sorbent for CO2 Capture by Pressure Swing Adsorption

期刊

INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH
卷 50, 期 9, 页码 5634-5641

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ie2000709

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) Site in Chemical Engineering at the University of South Carolina [EEC-0851997]
  2. Center for Strategic Approaches to the Generation of Electricity at the University of South Carolina
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Engineering Education and Centers [0851997] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study showed that a solid amine, composed of poly(ethylenimine) immobilized into a CARiACT G10 silica substrate, is a feasible sorbent for applications in a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) process for postcombustion CO2 capture. This deduction materialized from an extensive study of the behavior of this material over a wide range of industrially relevant conditions using thermogravimetric analysis. The temperature ranged from 40 to 100 degrees C, the CO2 partial pressure ranged from 1.2 to 100 vol % with the total pressure fixed at 1 atm, the relative humidity ranged from dry conditions to 2 vol %, and the number of consecutive adsorption and desorption cycles ranged from 4 to 76. The results revealed that this solid amine sorbent was very stable under the conditions investigated. Water vapor at a low relative humidity exhibited only a minor and reversible effect on both the thermodynamics and kinetics of the CO2 uptake and release. The isothermal CO2 working capacity ranged between 0.25 and 2.8 mol/kg, increased with increasing CO2 concentration, exhibited a maximum with increasing temperature, and produced a heat of adsorption/reaction of around 50.0 kJ/mol. It was also determined that the optimal operating temperature for a PSA process was around 80 degrees C for CO2 partial pressures > 10 kPa and 60-70 degrees C for CO2 partial pressures < 10 kPa.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据