4.7 Article

Isothermal reduction of V2O5 powder using H2 as oxygen carrier: Thermodynamic evaluation, reaction sequence, and kinetic analysis

期刊

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 378, 期 -, 页码 785-794

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2020.10.045

关键词

V2O5 reduction; Thermogravimetric analysis; Reaction sequence; Apparent activation energy

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFC1900500]
  2. Graduate Scientific Research and Innovation Foundation of Chongqing, China [No.CYS20002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

V2O3 was prepared by reducing V2O5 powder using H-2 as the oxygen carrier. Oxygen potential and equilibrium calculations were performed to determine reasonable experimental conditions for the H-2-based reduction. The reduction process from V2O5 to V2O3 followed a specific sequence and was controlled by chemical reactions, with an apparent activation energy of 47.11 kJ.mol(-1).
V2O3 was prepared by reducing V2O5 powder using H-2 as the oxygen carrier. To initially determine reasonable experimental for the H-2-based reduction, oxygen potential and equilibrium calculations were performed. The reaction sequence of the V2O5 powder reduction was predicted by V=O phase diagram assessments and was then verified by XRD and XPS measurements under various experimental condition. It was observed that the reduction followed the path of V2O5-VnO(2n+1)(n = 3 and 6)-VO2-VnO(2n-1)(n = 7, 6, 5, 4, and 3)-V2O3. Isothermal reduction experiments and kinetic analysis were performed using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) at 813 K, 823 K, and 833 K, under a pure H2 gas flow. The entire reduction process, from V2O5 to V2O3, obeyed the unreacted shrinking core model (with random instant nucleation and three-dimensional growth of nuclei) and was controlled by chemical reactions. Mathematical fitting showed that the reduction process could be described as G (alpha) = [-ln(1-alpha)]1/3, and the apparent activation energy was determined to be 47.11 kJ.mol(-1). (C) 2020 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

4.7
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