4.7 Article

A continuous-flow exposure method to determine degradation of polyphenylene sulfide non-woven bag-filter media by NO2 gas at high temperature

期刊

ADVANCED POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 30, 期 12, 页码 2881-2889

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apt.2019.08.032

关键词

Bag-filter media; Polyphenylene sulfide; Degradation; NO2 gas; Tensile strength

资金

  1. JSPS, Japan KAKENHI [JP17K06891]
  2. committee for duct collection technology in the Association of Powder Process Industry and Engineering, Japan (APPIE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The degradation behavior of polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) fabric filter media by NO2 gas at high temperatures was investigated in detail with a continuous-flow type exposure method, as specified in ISO16891:2016. An increase in the exposure time to NO2 gas lessened the tensile strength and elongation of the PPS filter media in both machine and transverse directions. These reductions were observed in the transverse direction (TD) more markedly than in the machine direction (MD). Exposure to NO2 gas enhanced the oxidation of sulfur, and introduced new oxygen-containing functional groups (e.g., -SO- and O = S = O) into the PPS molecular structure, which reduced the atomic ratio of carbon in the PPS filter media with increasing exposure time. These chemical degradations severely damaged the PPS fiber through cracking, splitting, and formation of protrusions on the surface. Furthermore, assuming that the chemical reaction between PPS and NO2 gas is diffusion-controlled by NO2, a model to estimate the change in the conversion of PPS and the NO2 concentration in the exhaust gas was proposed, based on an unreacted core model. It could successfully reproduce the experimental data. A model to evaluate the change in the tensile strength of the filter media was also proposed, which could express experimental data only in the MD. (C) 2019 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier B.V. and The Society of Powder Technology Japan. 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