4.7 Article

Combustion chemistry and flame structure of furan group biofuels using molecular-beam mass spectrometry and gas chromatography - Part III: 2,5-Dimethylfuran

期刊

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
卷 161, 期 3, 页码 780-797

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2013.05.026

关键词

2,5-Dimethylfuran; Low-pressure flame; Detailed kinetic model; Reaction flow analysis; Molecular-beam mass spectrometry; Gas chromatography

资金

  1. Alexander von Humboldt foundation
  2. STSM program of COST Action [CM 0901]
  3. European Commission (Clean ICE ERC Advanced Research Grant)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work is the third part of a study focusing on the combustion chemistry and flame structure of furan and selected alkylated derivatives, i.e. furan in Part I, 2-methylfuran (MF) in Part II, and 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF) in the present work. Two premixed low-pressure (20 and 40 mbar) flat argon-diluted (50%) flames of DMF were studied with electron-ionization molecular-beam mass spectrometry (EI-MBMS) and gas chromatography (GC) under two equivalence ratios (phi = 1.0 and 1.7). Mole fractions of reactants, products, and stable and radical intermediates were measured as a function of the distance to the burner. Kinetic modeling was performed using a reaction mechanism that was further developed in the present series, including Part I and Part II. A reasonable agreement between the present experimental results and the simulation is observed. The main reaction pathways of DMF consumption were derived from a reaction flow analysis. Also, a comparison of the key features for the three flames is presented, as well as a comparison between these flames of furanic compounds and those of other fuels. An a priori surprising ability of DMF to form soot precursors (e.g. 1,3-cyclopentadiene or benzene) compared to less substituted furans and to other fuels has been experimentally observed and is well explained in the model. (C) 2013 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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