4.7 Article

Experimental study on oxy-fuel combustion behavior of lignite char and carbon transfer mechanism with isotopic tracing method

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 386, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2019.123977

关键词

Oxy-fuel combustion; Isotopic (COO)-O-18-O-18 tracing; CO2 gasification reaction

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51736002]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFB0600802]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate School of Southeast University [YBPY1856]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, the conventional combustion in O-2/Ar and O-2/CO2 atmospheres at temperatures of 700-1000 degrees C and isotopic tracing experiments at 700-800 degrees C were conducted respectively in a micro fluidized bed reactor to clarify the conversion characteristics of lignite char and influence mechanism of elevated CO2 concentrations. The isotopic method employing (COO)-O-18-O-18 provides an intuitive insight into the CO2 gasification behavior by tracking the evolution of the O-18 atom throughout the oxy-fuel combustion. The results reveal that char conversion rate significantly reduces when the atmosphere is switched from O-2/Ar to O-2/CO2 at low temperature range (e.g. 700-800 degrees C), primarily caused by thermo-physical properties of CO2. However, at higher temperature range (e.g. 950-1000 degrees C), the C-O-2 reaction is limited by the external O-2 diffusion and the C-CO2 reaction contributes to the carbon consumption, resulting in a higher combustion rate, especially at O-2-deficient conditions. The presence of the atomic O-18 in the product (COO)-O-18-O-16 originating from (COO)-O-18-O-18 confirms that CO2 is indeed involved in the whole oxy-fuel combustion process and the overall reaction could be described as C + (COO)-O-18-O-18+(OO)-O-16-O-16 -> 2C(18)O(16)O. Besides, total contributions to carbon conversion by the C-CO2 reaction decrease as O2 concentrations and particle sizes increasing.

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