4.7 Article

Glycerol steam reforming for hydrogen production: Traditional versus membrane reactor

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 44, 期 45, 页码 24719-24732

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.07.046

关键词

Steam reforming; Glycerol; Hydrogen; Traditional reactor; Membrane reactor; Modeling

资金

  1. North Portugal Regional Operational Program, under the Portugal 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund [NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000005 -LEPABE-2-ECO-INNOVATION]
  2. FCT [SFRH/BD/137106/2018]
  3. ESF
  4. Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/137106/2018] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A phenomenological model was developed for predicting the performance of a traditional reactor (TR) versus a membrane reactor (MR) for hydrogen production via glycerol steam reforming (GSR), which was validated against experimental data. The results were evaluated in terms of glycerol conversion and products yield and selectivity, and for the MR the hydrogen recovery was also accounted. A parametric analysis was carried out for different ranges of conditions, namely: temperatures of 773-973 K for the TR and 673-773 K for the MR (due to thermal restrictions of Pd-based membranes), water-to-glycerol feed ratios (WGFRs) of 4-12 and total pressures of 100-500 kPa. For the same operating conditions (773 K, WGFR of 12 and 300 kPa), the MR with a membrane thickness of 15 mu m showed a significant improvement in the H-2 yield of 74% when compared to the TR (with a simultaneous decrease of 87% in the CH4 yield). Finally, when the maximum amount of H-2 production was analyzed for both reactor configurations, an increase of 15% was observed in the MR with a membrane thickness of 15 mu m while allowing to reduce the operating temperature by 200 K as compared to the TR. (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