4.7 Article

Optimal Faujasite structures for post combustion CO2 capture and separation in different swing adsorption processes

期刊

JOURNAL OF CO2 UTILIZATION
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 100-111

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcou.2017.03.007

关键词

Zeolite; CO2 capture; Sequestration; Molecular simulation; Swing adsorption process

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [CTQ2014-53987-R]
  2. Generalitat de Catalunya [2014SGR1582, FI-DGR-2015]
  3. Generalitat de Catalunya

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Grand Canonical Monte-Carlo (GCMC) simulations are used in this work, to assess optimum faujasite structures, the well-known family of zeolites, in CO2 capture processes. Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) and Vacuum Swing Adsorption (VSA) procedures have been considered to evaluate purity, working capacity and breakthrough time. To this purpose, ten faujasite structures with different Al content were selected, and the best conditions for CO2 capture maximization have been calculated for each structure. Further results show that zeolites having intermediate Al content are the most effective for VSA processes, whereas low Al content faujasites perform better at PSA conditions. Remarkably, present work best results clearly improve Faujasite 13X VSA-PSA performances, so far considered the industrial reference in absence of water. Moreover, combined VPSA processes, in terms of working capacity and adiabatic work required for compression/expansion, have also been studied, showing that VPSA systems are more efficient than pure PSA/VSA, for structures with intermediate Al content. Finally, an improved methodology has been derived, where GCMC mixture isotherms and energetic cost calculations are combined, and a more accurate way of estimating working capacities and breakthrough times is proposed. This new approach allows more realistic evaluations of adsorbents' performances, than those found in the literature based on pure adsorption data. (C) 2017 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

4.7
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