4.7 Article

Chemical kinetic modeling and parameter sensitivity analysis for the carbonation of Ca2+ and Mg2+ under ambient conditions

期刊

HYDROMETALLURGY
卷 167, 期 -, 页码 141-152

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.hydromet.2016.11.003

关键词

Mineral carbonation; Kinetic modeling; Sensitivity analysis; Genetic algorithm; Magnesian calcite

资金

  1. Faculty of Engineering of Monash University
  2. Australian Research Council [ARC - IH150100006]
  3. Monash Research Graduate School (MRGS)
  4. Faculty of Engineering
  5. CSIRO Flagship scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A reaction model was developed to predict kinetic parameters and competition of mg(2+) and Ca2+ ions during carbonation in mild conditions, i.e. ambient temperature and up to 3 atm for the CO2 partial pressure. The experimental carbonation results at different temperatures, Mg2+/Ca2+ ratios, and atmospheric pressure were used to validate and predict the kinetic parameters of individual reactions in the aqueous phase by applying genetic algorithm and reactor modeling. This model showed a good agreement with experimental results, and satisfactorily predicted the competition between Mg2+ and Ca2+ and the formation of magnesian calcite (MgNCa(l - N)CO3). In addition, a sensitivity analysis was conducted based on the validated kinetic model to maximize the precipitation rates of Mg2+ and Ca2+. It was found that the final yield for magnesian calcite is the highest for the Mg2+/Ca2+ molar ratio of 1, referring to an equal concentration of two cations in the leachate. This suggests the strongest synergy between both cations for their co-precipitation. The optimum ammonia amount used as a pH-swing agent was found to be equal to the amount of ammonia released from the leaching stage in a closed loop leaching-carbonation. This amount of ammonia led to similar to 100% Mg2+ and Ca2+ precipitation along with the highest magnesian calcite precipitation yield. (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