4.7 Article

Adsorption of dimethyl ether (DME) on zeolite molecular sieves

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 256, 期 -, 页码 335-346

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2014.07.001

关键词

Adsorption; DME; Molecular sieves; Isotherm; Heat of adsorption; Adsorption kinetics

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Research Council, UK (EPSRC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years there has been growing interest in the use of dimethyl ether (DME) as an alternative fuel. In this study, the adsorption of DME on molecular sieves 4 angstrom (Mol4A) and 5 angstrom (Mol5A) has been experimentally investigated using the volumetric adsorption method. Data on the adsorption isotherms, heats of adsorption, and adsorption kinetic have been obtained and used to draw conclusions and compare the performance of the two adsorbents. Within the conditions considered, the adsorption capacity of Mol5A was found to be around eight times higher than the capacity of Mol4A. Low temperature adsorption and thermal pre-treatment of the adsorbents in vacuum were observed to be favourable for increased adsorption capacity. The adsorption isotherms for both adsorbents were fitted to the Freundlich model and the corresponding model parameters are proposed. The adsorption kinetic analysis suggest that the DME adsorption on Mol5A is controlled by intracrystalline diffusion resistance, while on Mol4A it is mainly controlled by surface layering resistance with the diffusion only taking place at the start of adsorption and for a very limited short time. The heats of adsorption were calculated by a calorimetric method based on direct temperature measurements inside the adsorption cell. Isosteric heats, calculated by the thermodynamic approach (Clasius-Clapeyron equation), have consistently shown lower values. The maximum heat of adsorption was found to be 25.9 kJ mol(-1) and 20.1 kJ mol(-1) on Mol4A and Mol5A, respectively; thus indicating a physisorption type of interactions. (C) 2014 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