4.6 Article

Exploring the Decomposition Products of 1,3,3,3Tetrafluoropropene and Perfluoro-(3-methylbutan-2-one) Gas Mixtures in Medium -Voltage Electrical Switchgear as Alternatives to SF6

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 6, 期 33, 页码 21534-21542

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.1c02512

关键词

-

资金

  1. Basque Country Government [Elkartek KK-2017/00090]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research explores binary and ternary gas mixtures as alternatives to SF6 in medium-voltage electrical equipment. Decomposition products in the gas mixtures were identified and quantified, along with an evaluation of their toxicity and global warming potential to determine the most suitable replacement for SF6.
In this work, binary and ternary gas mixtures of 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, HF0234ze(E), and perfluoro-(3-methylbutan-2-one), CF3C(0)CF(CF3)2 with CO, and synthetic air, are presented as alternatives to SF6 in medium-voltage electrical equipment. They were used in four medium voltage switchgear cubicles replacing SF6 gas, and after a period of time, under permanent 30 kV AC voltage, gas mixture samples were extracted and analyzed on the same day using a validated methodology' based on gas chromatography (GC) coupled to mass spectrometry (MS) and thermal conductivity (TCD). CF4 (tetrafluoromethane), C2F6 (hexafluoroethane), C,F6 (hexafluoropropylene), C3FIF7 (1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoropropane), CHF, (difluoromethane), and the cis and trans-C3H2F4 (1,3,3,3 tetrafluoropropene) have been identified as decomposition products in these gas mixtures. In addition, a quantity of water has been observed, as well as CO in one of the cubicles. The most abundant decomposition products identified in gas mixture samples (C3HF7 and C3F6) together with water and CO content have been quantified using commercial gas mixture reference standards. The toxicity and global warming of the analyzed compounds are evaluated to determine the most adequate gas mixture among those studied as a candidate to substitute SF6.

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

4.6
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