4.7 Article

Effect of oxygen blowing on the competitive removal rate of silicon and iron from molten copper

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.02.106

关键词

Oxygen blowing; Silicon; Iron; Interfacial reaction area; Rate constant; Liquid phase mass transfer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of blown oxygen on the competitive removal of impurities from liquid copper was studied at a temperature of 1673 K. Oxygen blowing can effectively separate silicon and iron impurities, the dominant impurities in molten copper, into the slag. The interfacial area for oxidation of impurities was estimated by considering bubble and cavity formation for both top-blowing and bottom blowing methods. The kinetic model based on liquid phase mass transfer of impurities was verified to be valid for understanding the competitive removal of impurities from liquid copper through comparisons between experimental and theoretical results.
The effect of blown oxygen on the competitive removal of impurities from liquid copper was investigated at 1673 K. Silicon and iron, which are the dominant impurities in molten copper, are clearly separated into the slag by oxygen blowing. Since the area of the reaction site for impurities' oxidation was found to be one of the most influential aspects, the interfacial area for both cases of top-blowing and bottom blowing was carefully estimated by considering bubbles and cavity formation. The removal rate of the impurities in competitive oxidation regime could be theoretically analyzed. By a comparison of the apparent rate constant obtained from the oxidation experiments with that was theoreti-cally calculated, the present kinetic model based on liquid phase mass transfer of impu-rities could be verified to be valid for the understanding the competitive removal of the impurities from liquid copper.(c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

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