4.7 Article

A continuous denitrification technology based on metal-organic framework without using ammonia

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 279, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123685

关键词

Metal organic framework; Regenerable; Continuous; Denitrification; Free radical

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2019YFC1906900]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A metal-organic framework was successfully synthesized and used for catalytic reduction of nitric oxide without ammonia, achieving significant removal efficiency. A two-tube reactor was designed for continuous removal and catalyst regeneration. The catalyst could be easily regenerated using a simple method and maintained high removal efficiency after multiple cycles.
Ammonia is widely used as the reductant in selective catalytic reduction of nitrogen oxide. However, ammonia slip results in environmental problems. In this work, a metal-organic framework was synthesized and applied in catalytic reduction of nitric oxide without using ammonia. As a result, the catalyst removed 100% of nitric oxide at 400 degrees C. A two-tube reactor was designed to ensure a continuous removal and catalyst regeneration at the same time. After the catalyst lost effect in nitric-oxide removal, it was easily regenerated by a simple hydrothermal method, and reached removal rates of 90.7-99.6% for several cycles. Mass spectrometer and electron paramagnetic resonance analysis revealed that nitric oxide was effectively reduced by carbon species, including carbons, ligands, derived gases, benzene free radical, and phenoxy-type radical. After calculation, 2.4 t of the catalyst could reduce 1400 Nm(3) h(-1) of flue gas, when nitric oxide concentration was 250 mg Nm(-3) in it. Therefore, the investigated technology is a green and sustainable denitrification strategy, which would potentially substitute typical selective catalytic reduction of nitrogen oxide in the future. (c) 2020 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