4.5 Article

Performance enhancement of adsorption cooling cycle by pyrolysis of Maxsorb III activated carbon with ammonium carbonate

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REFRIGERATION
卷 126, 期 -, 页码 210-221

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2020.12.036

关键词

Adsorption isotherm; Adsorption kinetics; COP; Maxsorb III; SCP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study modified Maxsorb III activated carbon and experimentally measured its adsorption isotherms and kinetics towards HFC404A, as well as calculated the isosteric heat of adsorption. The experimental results show that the modified Maxsorb III has a maximum uptake of 2.65 kg.kg(-1) of HFC404A at 25 degrees C.
Maxsorb III is the best available microporous activated carbon. The parent Maxsorb III has been modified by pyrolysis in the presence of ammonia carbonate. The adsorption isotherms and kinetics of HFC404A onto the modified Maxsorb III are experimentally measured over 25 degrees C to 75 degrees C. Toth and Dubinin-Astakhov models are utilized to fit the experimentally measured data. The isosteric heat of adsorption is calculated by applying the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. The adsorption kinetics of the modified Maxsorb III/HFC404A are fitted using the linear driving force model and Fickian Diffusion equation. Experimental measurements indicate that the modified Maxsorb III has a maximum uptake of 2.65 kg.kg(-1) of HFC404A at 25 degrees C, which is the highest reached value till today. Additionally, the adsorption cooling system efficacy is evaluated under typical operating conditions using the modified Maxsorb III/HFC404A pair. The modified Maxsorb III/HFC404A could achieve a specific cooling power (SCP) of 747 W per kg of adsorbent along with a coefficient of performance (COP) of 0.40. Compared to the parent Maxsorb III/HFC404A pair, the pyrolyzed Maxsorb III/HFC404A pair provides the SCP and COP by a factor of 2.23 and 1.7, respectively, which are are the current benchmark. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. 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

4.5
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