4.7 Article

A multistage NOx reduction process for a FCC regenerator

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 173, 期 2, 页码 296-302

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2011.06.070

关键词

NOx; FCC; Regenerator; Reduction; Multi-redox-stage

资金

  1. NSFC [20736004, 20736007]
  2. China National program [2008BAB41B00]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation for Young Scientists of China [21006056]
  4. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [20100470306]
  5. Company Commission [20092001139]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

NOx emission from a fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) regenerator is of environmental concern. A new NOx reduction technology that comprised only a simple change in the configuration and operating condition of a commercial FCC regeneration process was proposed. NO reduction by CO in a lab scale fluidized bed reactor under simulated FCC regeneration conditions was investigated. The results indicated that a multistage regenerator would give a higher efficiency for NO reduction than a single stage regenerator. The conversion of NO was increased to 90% in a multistage regenerator as compared to 50% in a single stage regenerator under the same operation conditions. The carbon content of the regenerated catalyst was less than 0.02 wt%. In the range of 400-700 degrees C, a higher temperature gave more NO conversion to N-2. The O-2 and CO concentrations were crucial factors that affected the conversion of NO. The catalyst in the FCC process limits the use of the regeneration temperature to less than 700 degrees C and mole ratio of O-2/CO to less than 0.25% in the reduction stage of the regenerator. A phase diagram of the NO + O-2 + CO reaction was obtained that was divided into a slow reaction zone and a rapid reaction zone. The regenerator can also be used as a flue gas denitrification facility located downstream of the catalyst regenerator or a coal-burning boiler to reduce the NO concentration in the flue gas to under 20 ppm. (C) 2011 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