4.7 Review

Ambient temperature complete oxidation of carbon monoxide using hopcalite catalysts for fire escape mask applications

期刊

ADVANCED COMPOSITES AND HYBRID MATERIALS
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 501-519

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s42114-019-00108-5

关键词

Carbon monoxide; Hopcalite catalyst; Combustion; Escape mask and respiratory

资金

  1. Department of Civil Engineering and Chemical Engineering and Technology, Indian Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University) Varanasi, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon monoxide (CO) is one of the most poisonous gases present in the atmosphere. It also called the silent killer of twenty-first century. CO is produced into the environment by incomplete combustion of carbon containing compounds. It causes lots of people die every year including the firefighters. The main aim of this work to find out the literature study of standard respiratory escape masks for ambient temperature CO oxidation purposes. The research under concern is applicable for developing respiratory protection systems for military, mining, and space devices. There are many catalysts which are active for this process under different conditions. Among these catalysts, the hopcalite (CuMnOx) is one of the best-known catalysts for low-temperature CO oxidation. It is a low-cost, easily available, and highly stable catalyst. The hopcalite catalyst is active for a longer time and would be tolerant of moisture and impurities in reacting gases. The catalyst surface and reacting gases forever play a key role in catalytic reactions. Hopcalite is an ideal catalyst for use in next-generation respiratory protection devices. Although there are numerous research papers present on this topic until now no one review are present for demanding this issue. So there is a space in this area; it has been made an attempt to seal this hole by this review. Summary center dot To develop a standard fire escape masks for protection of respiratory systems in military, mining, and firefighting, etc.

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