4.7 Article

Experimental and kinetics study of NO heterogeneous reduction on semi-coke and its chars: Effects of high-temperature rapid pyrolysis and atmosphere

期刊

ENERGY
卷 264, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.126300

关键词

NO heterogeneous Reduction; Rapid pyrolysis; Semi-coke; High temperature; Kinetic analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the reactivity and kinetics of NO reduction over semi-coke and its rapid pyrolysis chars. The results showed that rapid pyrolysis at around 1100 degrees C can promote NO reduction over semi-coke, while excessive temperatures hinder the reaction. The presence of CO enhances NO reduction, while the addition of oxygen inhibits it.
The high-temperature rapid pyrolysis has an evident impact on NO heterogeneous reduction over semi-coke char, which is rarely reported before. This study systematically evaluated the reactivity and kinetics of NO reduction over semi-coke and its rapid pyrolysis chars with the presence of O2 and CO using a fixed-bed reactor. The experimental results showed that the rapid pyrolysis at a desirable temperature of roughly 1100 degrees C can promote NO reduction over semi-coke, but excessively high and low pyrolysis temperatures were unfavorable for char-NO reaction. Partially explaining the situation was the trend of a rise before fall in specific surface area and C-O bond content of char with the rising pyrolysis temperature. The rapid pyrolysis char formed above 1100 degrees C showed lower activation energy than the fixed-bed pyrolysis char by 24.10%, but the higher one by 12.55% at 900 degrees C. The presence of CO noticeably promoted the NO reduction and reduced the activation energy by up to 41.73% at 0.75% CO, while the addition of oxygen inhibited NO reduction over semi-coke char. The suitable pyrolysis temperature with the presence of CO favored NO reduction over rapid pyrolysis char, which guided semi-coke utilization as a fuel or reducing agent.

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