4.7 Article

Acid stability evaluation of CHA-type zeolites synthesized by interzeolite conversion of FAU-type zeolite and their membrane application for dehydration of acetic acid aqueous solution

期刊

MICROPOROUS AND MESOPOROUS MATERIALS
卷 158, 期 -, 页码 141-147

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2012.03.030

关键词

Interzeolite conversion; FAU-type zeolite; Acid stability; CHA-type zeolite membrane; Acetic acid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-silica CHA-type zeolites with various Si/Al ratios were prepared by interzeolite conversion of FAU-type zeolite using the benzyltrimethylammonium (BTMA(+)) cation as a structure-directing agent (SDA), and the acid-resistance (structure stability and composition stability) of these materials was compared with SSZ-13 zeolite synthesized using the N,N,N-trimethyl-1-adamantammonium (TMAda(+)) cation as a conventional SDA. Si/Al ratios of zeolite ranging from 5 to 10 produced no difference in the 90 vol% acetic acid stability between the high-silica CHA synthesized with BTMA(+) and the SSZ-13 synthesized with TMAda(+). In the case of Si/Al ratio >10, considerable differences were observed in the composition stability. To elaborate, an increase in the Si/Al ratio was observed for the SSZ-13 after acetic acid treatment, whereas no differences in the Si/Al ratios prior and subsequent to the treatment were observed for the CHA synthesized with BTMA(+). These findings strongly indicate a high acetic acid stability of the CHA-type zeolite synthesized by the interzeolite conversion method. Their high acid stability towards several common mineral acids, such as HCl, H2SO4, and HNO3, was also confirmed. The CHA-type zeolite membrane was fabricated on a porous alpha-alumina tube, and the membrane performance was measured in a feed mixture of water/acetic acid (50/50 wt%) at 75 degrees C. The membrane demonstrated a high separation factor, alpha(H2O/CH3COOH), of ca. 2500 with a permeate flux of ca. 8 kg m(-2) h(-1). (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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