4.4 Article

Influence of external mass transfer and support resistances for hydrogen permeation through composite palladium membranes

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ep.13692

关键词

hydrogen; membrane; modeling; palladium; separation

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Palladium membranes are a viable option for obtaining high purity hydrogen for industrial applications. Experimental and calculated hydrogen flux data through composite palladium/alumina membranes were compared, showing that considering external mass transfer and support resistances can significantly affect the accuracy of the calculated hydrogen flux.
Palladium membranes represent a suitable alternative to obtain high purity hydrogen for industrial applications. The modeling of hydrogen permeation through composite membranes is important to understand gas separation systems. Here, experimental and calculated hydrogen flux data through composite palladium/alumina membranes were compared. A dense palladium film of 2.4 mu m thick was deposited on a porous support and the produced composite membrane presented infinite hydrogen/nitrogen selectivity. Experimental molecular hydrogen flux at 100 kPa and 723 K was 0.1015 +/- 0.0009 mol m(-2) s(-1). Calculated molecular hydrogen fluxes with the conventional permeation model, without considering external mass transfer and support resistances, were at least 5.7 times greater than experimental data. However, calculated hydrogen flux was only 6.7% lower than the experimental flux at 100 kPa and 723 K when external mass transfer and support resistances were included in the conventional permeation model. Thus, external mass transfer resistances and the permeation through the porous support should be considered for a suitable description of hydrogen fluxes through composite palladium membranes.

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

4.4
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