Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-m789k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-09T03:15:34.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of the Physical Structure of Alumina/Copper Oxide Solids On Their Reactivity for SO2 Removal From Flue Gases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Laurent A. Dall'aglio  and
Stratis V. Sotirchos
Laurent A. Dall'aglio
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627
Stratis V. Sotirchos
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627
Get access

Abstract

CuO/Al2O3 sorbents based on three aluminas of different pore structure and surface area around 125 m2/g were prepared. Two of the aluminas exhibited bimodal pore size distribution, while the third had narrow unimodal distribution. The effect of copper loading on the physical characteristics of the aluminas (pore size distribution and surface area) was examined using mercury porosimetry and gas adsorption. The reactivity of the sorbents towards SO2 was investigated by carrying out thermogravimetric experiments using simulated flue gas.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 344: Symposium I – Materials and Processes for Environmental Protection , 1994 , 335
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. McCrea, D. H, Forney, A.J., and Myers, J.G., J. Air Poll. Control Assoc., 20, 819 (1970).Google Scholar
2. Dautzenberg, F.M., and Nader, J.E., van Ginneken, A.J.J., Chem. Eng. Prog., 67, 86 (1971).Google Scholar
3. Yeh, J.T., Demski, R.J., Strakey, J.P. and Joubert, J.I., Environ. Prog., 4, 223 (1985).Google Scholar
4. Yeh, J.T., Drummond, C.J., and Joubert, J.I., Environ. Prog., 6, 44 (1987).Google Scholar
5. Pollack, S.S., Chisholm, W.P., Obermeyer, R.T., Hedges, S.W., Ramanathan, M., and Montano, P.A., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 27, 2276 (1988).Google Scholar
6. Centi, G., Riva, A., Passarini, N., Brambilla, G., Hodnett, B.K., Delmon, B., and Ruwet, M., Chem. Eng. Sci., 45, 2679 (1990).Google Scholar
7. Kartheuser, B., Hodnett, B.K., Riva, A., Centi, G., Matralis, H., Ruwet, M., Grange, P., and Passarini, N., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 30, 2105 (1991).Google Scholar
8. Friedman, R.B., Freeman, J.J., J. Catal., 55, 10 (1978).Google Scholar
9. Jacono, M. Lo, Cimino, A., and Inversi, M., J. Catal., 76, 320 (1982).Google Scholar
10. Mu, J., and Perlmutter, D.D. , D.D., Ind. Eng. Process Des. Dev., 20, 640 (1981).Google Scholar
11. Barrett, E.P., Joyner, L.G., and Halenda, P.P., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 73, 373 (1951).Google Scholar
12. Steward, F.R., Karman, D., and Kocaefe, D., Can. J. Chem. Eng., 65, 342 (1987).Google Scholar
13. Cho, H.C., and Lee, W.K., J. Chem. Eng. Japan, 16, 127 (1983).Google Scholar