4.5 Article

Experimental and theoretical studies of hydrogen permeation for doped strontium cerates

期刊

SOLID STATE IONICS
卷 181, 期 29-30, 页码 1328-1335

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssi.2010.07.002

关键词

Dense ceramic membranes; Hydrogen permeation; Modelling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-galvanic hydrogen permeation properties of SrCe(0.95)Yb(0.05)O(3-alpha), (SCYb-5) and SrCe(0.95)Tm(0.05)O(3-alpha) (SCTm-5) dense membranes were investigated in a 'wet' hydrogen atmosphere where water vapour partial pressures were well defined and monitored for the entire duration of the experiments. The theoretical modelling of hydrogen permeation flux for SCYb-5 and SCTm-5 was also undertaken, and compared with experimental results. The parameter tuning was also performed by fitting the model to the experimental data obtained in this study. The experimental hydrogen permeation flux for SCYb-5 and SCTm-5 dense membranes was 6.8e(-9) mol/cm(2)/s and 7.1e(-9) mol/cm(2)/s, respectively, under the upstream hydrogen partial pressure of 0.25 atm (25%H(2)/Ar) at 900 degrees C. As expected, the hydrogen permeation flux increases with the increase in the upstream hydrogen partial pressures, reaching the maximum flux of 1.4e(-8) mol/cm(2)/s and 1.6e(-8) mol/cm(2)/s, for SCYb-5 and SCTm-5 respectively, under the upstream hydrogen partial pressure of 1 atm (100%H(2)) at 900 degrees C. Previous modelling used hydrogen permeation data collected by others in a permeation test conducted in a 'dry' hydrogen atmosphere (with unknown water vapour pressures). The modelled hydrogen permeation flux agreed well with the experimental data attained in this study, for both SCYb-5 and SCTm-5 samples. The parameter tuning further improved the model predictions for those samples. It was apparent that the modelled hydrogen flux agreed better with the experimental data obtained in this study (i.e. in a wet hydrogen atmosphere with known water vapour pressures). (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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