4.5 Article

Comparative Study of Methane Activation Process by Different Plasma Sources

期刊

PLASMA CHEMISTRY AND PLASMA PROCESSING
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 647-661

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11090-013-9456-6

关键词

Plasma source; Methane activation; Optimization; Product selectivity

资金

  1. MKE (Ministry of Knowledge Economy)
  2. ISTK (Korea Research Council for Industrial Science and Technology) of the Republic of Korea [B551179-11-03-00]
  3. National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST), Republic of Korea [OD1160] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we compare the characteristics of methane activation by diverse plasma sources. The test conditions of reactant flow rate and composition are fixed for each plasma source to eliminate any possible misleading effects from varying test conditions. Among the diverse characteristics of each plasma source, we focus on the electron energy and degree of thermal activation in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of methane decomposition. The reaction is evaluated based on the selectivity of specific products, including H-2, C2H6, and C2H2. Among the tested plasma sources, those that provide a somewhat thermal environment have a rather high degree of warmness, resulting in higher methane conversion and lower operational costs. As the non-thermal characteristics of the plasma sources become stronger, the selectivity of C2H6 increases. This reflects C2H6 formation from the direct collision of CH4 with high-energy electrons. On the other hand, as the degree of warmness increases, the selectivity of H-2 and C2H2 increase. The results give an insight into possible tools for process control or selectivity control by varying the degree of warmness in the plasma source. The process optimization and cost reduction of methane activation should be based on this concept of selectivity control.

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

4.5
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