4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Thermally rearranged (TR) HAB-6FDA nanocomposite membranes for hydrogen separation

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 45, 期 37, 页码 18685-18692

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.07.052

关键词

Hydrogen separation; Polymer nanocomposite (PNC); Gas permeation; Thermal rearrangement; Selectivity

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi [FTP/PS-32/2006, BY/P-01/10-11]
  2. University Grants Commission, New Delhi [1263/943]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thermally rearranged (TR) polymers exhibited a good balance of high permeability and high selectivity. For this purpose HAB-6FDA polyimide was synthesized from 3,3 dihydroxy-4,4-diamino-biphenyl (HAB) and 2,2-bis-(3,4-dicarboxyphenyl) hexafluoro propane dianhydride (6FDA) by chemical imidization. Initially, the sample was modified from pure polymer to silica nanofiller doped polymer membrane. Further the modification was done by thermal rearrangement reaction at 350 degrees C temperature. This modification causes a mass loss in polymer structure and therefore enhances the fractional free volume (FFV). The gases used for the permeation test were H-2, CO2, N-2 and CH4. Selectivity was calculated for H-2/CO2, H-2/N-2 and H-2/CH4 gas pairs and plotted in the Robeson's 2008 upper bound and compared with reported data. The transport properties of these gases have been compared with the unmodified membrane. Permeability of all the gases has increased to that of unmodified polymer membrane. Thermally rearranged polymer nanocomposite exhibits higher gas permeability than that of silica doped and pure polymer. Also the selectivity for H-2/CO2 and H-2/N-2 gas pairs exceeds towards Robeson's upper bound limit. It crosses this limit dramatically for H-2/CH4 gas pair. Polymer nanocomposite can be utilized to obtain high purity hydrogen gas for refinery and petrochemical applications. (C) 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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