4.6 Article

Influence of regeneration conditions on the cyclic performance of amine- grafted mesoporous silica for CO2 capture: An experimental and statistical study

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 65, 期 14, 页码 4166-4172

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2010.04.029

关键词

CO2 adsorption; MCM-41; Aminosilane grafting; Desorption rate; Adsorbent regeneration

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR)
  3. Mexican National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work deals with the behavior of amine-grafted mesoporous silica (referred to as TRI-PE-MCM-41) throughout adsorptiondesorption cycles in the presence of 5% CO2/N-2 using various regeneration conditions in batch experiments. The criteria proposed to determine the optimum regeneration conditions are the working adsorption capacity, the rate of desorption and the change of adsorption capacity between consecutive cycles. Using a 2(3) factorial design of experiments, the impact on the performance of the adsorbent of different levels of temperature, pressure, and flow rate of purge gas during desorption was determined. It was found that all the parameters under study have a statistically significant influence on the working adsorption capacity, but only temperature is influential with respect to desorption rate. Regeneration using temperature swing was found to be attractive, as the highest CO2 adsorption capacity (1.95 mmol g(-1)) and the fastest desorption rate (9.82 x 10(-4) mmol g(-1) s(-1)) occurred when desorption was carried out at 150 degrees C. However, if vacuum is applied, regeneration can be achieved at a temperature as low as 70 degrees C with only a 13% penalty in terms of working adsorption capacity. It was also demonstrated that under the proper regeneration conditions, TRI-PE-MCM-41 is stable over 100 adsorptiondesorption cycles. (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