4.7 Article

Pyrolysis and in-line catalytic steam reforming of polystyrene through a two-step reaction system

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL AND APPLIED PYROLYSIS
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 502-510

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2016.10.006

关键词

Hydrogen; Pyrolysis; Reforming; Polystyrene; Plastic waste; HDPE; Conical spouted bed; Deactivation; Coke

资金

  1. Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of the Spanish Government [CTQ2013-45105-R, CTQ2014-59574-JIN]
  2. EDRF funds
  3. Basque Government [IT748-13]
  4. University of the Basque Country [UFI 11/39]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrogen production from polystyrene (PS) has been studied following continuous pyrolysis and in line steam reforming. The first step was carried out at 500 degrees C in a conical spouted bed reactor and the subsequent reforming one was performed in a fluidized bed reactor on a commercial Ni catalyst at 700 degrees C. The effect space time and time on stream have on the reaction indexes (reforming conversion, yields of H-2, CO2, CO, CH4 and hydrocarbons, and H-2 production) has been determined. Furthermore, the process performance has been compared with the results obtained in a previous study conducted by feeding HDPE under the same conditions. Full reforming of PS derived volatiles and high H-2 production of 29.1 wt% were attained at zero time on stream. However, a significantly poorer performance of the catalyst was observed after 100 min continuous operation, with the decrease in activity being more acute than that observed for HDPE in a previous study. This deactivating behaviour has been related to the aromatic nature of PS thermal degradation products. The cokes deposited in the degradation of PS and HDPE have been analysed by means of temperature programmed oxidation (TPO) and electron microscopy, and the higher deactivation rate observed in the case of PS has been related to the condensed and encapsulating nature of the coke formed from aromatic hydrocarbons. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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