4.7 Article

Reactivity of soot emitted from different hydrocarbon fuels: Effect of nanostructure on oxidation kinetics

期刊

FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
卷 236, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2022.107401

关键词

Soot nanostructure; Oxidation kinetics; Soot reactivity; Premixed flames

资金

  1. Department of Mechanical Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Nottingham [2017PJ5XXX]
  2. PRIN [2017PJ5XXX]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soot oxidation kinetics and its relationship to nanostructure were studied in this research. The study found that soot oxidation is a multistep process with two activation energies. The nanostructure of soot has an impact on its propensity to be oxidized.
Soot oxidation kinetics is relevant for the exhaust pollutant reduction through processing in abatement systems based on filtering and oxidation as diesel particulate filters. Soot nanostructure impact on oxidation reactivity was studied by thermogravimetric analysis of soot produced in premixed laminar flames burning different hydrocarbon fuels, namely methane, ethylene and benzene, and characterized by spectroscopic and microscopic analysis. Soot oxidation kinetics was multistep and two activation energies, 180 and 240 kJ/mol, could be evaluated. Preexponential factors obtained upon data fitting of the Arrhenius plots with the two activation energies, showed an increasing trend going from aliphatic (methane, ethylene) toward benzene soot, consistently with the rise of the maximum oxidation temperature. The higher and lower activation energies were correlated, respectively, to amorphous carbon, coalesced on soot particles and present in form of tortuous and not-stacked lamellae inside the particle, and to the rest of the particle, characterized by a better nanoscale organization. Through a detailed chemico-physical characterization, the different propensity to be oxidized of soot samples was correlated to the nanostructural features of the most ordered part burning at 240 kJ/mol.

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