4.6 Article

Investigation of electrostatic charge distribution in gas-solid fluidized beds

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 65, 期 9, 页码 2771-2781

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2010.01.008

关键词

Gas-solid fluidization; Electrostatics; Faraday cup; Particle charging; Polymerization

资金

  1. Univation Technologies LLC (Texas, USA)
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past few decades there have been numerous attempts to measure electrostatic charges in gas-solid fluidized bed reactors; these charges have been prone to cause reactor downtime from electrostatic phenomena. In this study, a new system was developed that aimed to quantifying the electrostatic charge generation in three key areas within a gas-solid fluidized bed simultaneously: the bed particles, the particles that adhered to the column wall, and the particles that were entrained from the column. A unique online Faraday cup method was used to measure the electrostatic charge of the particles. The system was operated with dry air at two fluidizing gas velocities, one in the bubbling and the other in the slugging flow regime. An industrial polyethylene resin with a wide particle size range was utilized in all experiments. Results showed the occurrence of bi-polar charging in both flow regimes with entrained fines being mainly positively charged, whereas the bed particles and those attached to the column wall carrying a net negative charge. The charge-to-mass ratio (q/m) of the entrained fines in the bubbling regime was significantly higher than in the slugging regime. It was discovered that particles with a certain size range were predominantly adhering to the column wall with a significantly higher q/m than the other bed particles. These findings led to a proposed mechanism for the migration of particles within the fluidization column due to the effect of electrostatic charge generation. (C) 2010 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

4.6
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