4.6 Article

Tortuosity of hierarchical porous materials: Diffusion experiments and random walk simulations

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 264, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2022.118136

关键词

Tortuosity; Random walk; Silica; Diffusion; Conductivity

资金

  1. French national research agency ANR
  2. Vietnam Min-istry of Education and Training
  3. [ANR-TAMTAM ANR-15-CE08-0008-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diffusion experiments, effective medium theory calculations, and random walk simulations were conducted on hierarchical porous materials. The tortuosity, defined as the ratio of fluid mean square displacements in the absence and presence of the porous medium, was proposed as the main result of the mesoscopic simulations. The study compared the calculated tortuosity with experimental data and effective equations, and found a maximum value for the apparent tortuosity versus probe size/pore size ratio.
Diffusion experiments, effective medium theory calculations and random walk simulations were carried out on hierarchical porous materials. The main throughput of the mesoscopic simulations proposed here is the tortuosity defined as the ratio of the fluid mean square displacements calculated in absence and in presence of the porous medium. This is a well-defined definition that has the advantage to be compa-rable to the ratio of self-diffusion coefficients for the bulk and confined fluid. Such tortuosity can also be compared with the ratio of bulk and effective electrical conductivities. These calculations are applied to hierarchical materials such as those encountered in chromatography, membrane science or catalysis. The simulation results are compared to experimental data as well as to effective equations (Maxwell) which are often invoked to infer tortuosity expressions based on effective mean field theories. The different methods show that the apparent tortuosity versus probe size/pore size ratio display a maximum.(c) 2022 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

4.6
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