4.7 Article

Sooting propensity of dimethyl carbonate, soot reactivity and characterization

期刊

FUEL
卷 183, 期 -, 页码 64-72

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.06.058

关键词

Dimethyl carbonate; Pyrolysis; Soot; Reactivity; Characterization

资金

  1. Aragon Government
  2. European Social Fund
  3. MINECO [BES-2013-063049, CTQ2015-65226]
  4. FEDER [CTQ2015-65226]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxygenated compounds have gained interest in the last few years because they represent an attractive alternative as additive to diesel fuel for reducing soot emissions. Although dimethyl carbonate (DMC) seems to be a good option, studies about its propensity to form soot, as well as the knowledge of the characteristics of this soot are still missing. For that reason, this paper focuses on the potential of DMC to form soot, as well as on the reactivity and characterization of this soot. Results from pyrolysis experiments performed in an atmospheric pressure flow reactor at different temperatures (1075-1475 K) and inlet DMC concentrations (approximately 33,333 and 50,000 ppm) show that both soot and gas yields are affected by the pyrolysis temperature, while an increase in the inlet DMC concentration only affects slightly the soot yield, without notable influence on the gas yield. DMC shows a very low tendency to produce soot because the CO/CO2 formation is favoured and thus few carbon atoms are available for soot formation. A chemical kinetic model developed, without incorporating soot particles dynamics, can predict well the gas-phase trends. The comparison of the soot amount profile obtained with the PAH amount profile determined by the model suggests a good first approach toward a model including soot formation. The soot reactivity study toward O-2 (500 ppm) and NO (2000 ppm) at 1475 K, as well as its characterization, show that the higher the temperature and the inlet DMC concentration of soot formation, the lower the reactivity of the soot. (C) 2016 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