4.7 Article

Development of PIBSI type dispersants for carbon deposit from thermal oxidative decomposition of Jet A-1

期刊

FUEL
卷 158, 期 -, 页码 91-97

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2015.05.008

关键词

Jet A-1; Carbon deposit; Dispersant; Polyisobutenyl succinimide; Amino ether

资金

  1. Human Resources Development from the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning grant - Korean government Ministry of Knowledge Economy [20114010203050]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When Jet fuels are exposed to high temperatures and pressures, carbon deposits are formed, and cause a number of performance issues in aircraft systems. One method for reducing the amount of carbon deposits is by the addition of dispersants to jet fuels. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of polyisobutenyl succinimide (PIBSI) type dispersants in reducing the carbon deposits formed by thermal oxidative decomposition of Jet A-1. PIBSI type dispersants have amphiphilic structures consisting of a polar head and a nonpolar tail. The polar head adsorbs onto the carbon deposit precursors and the nonpolar tail prevents the aggregation of the precursors. An important factor governing the extent of adsorption is the polarity of the head, which is dependent on the polar surface area and the orbital electronegativity. Diethylenetriamine (DETA), triethylenetetramine (TETA), tetraethylenepentamine (TEPA), and pentaethylenehexamine (PEHA) were used as the head groups of alkyleneamines in this study. It was found that the dispersants that had head groups with a large polar surface area and orbital electronegativity strongly adsorbed onto the carbon deposit precursors and exhibited high efficiency with carbon deposit reduction. Based on these results, we propose dispersants containing amino ether groups in the head, as they showed improved carbon deposit reduction efficiencies compared to typical dispersants containing alkyleneamines in the head group. (C) 2015 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