Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:44:59.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Effect of Sodium Catalyst Dispersion on the Carbon Dioxide Gasification Rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

Jian Li
Affiliation:
Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada and McGill University, Department of Chemical Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 2A7
R. P. Adriaan
Affiliation:
Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada and McGill University, Department of Chemical Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 2A7
Van Heiningen
Affiliation:
Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada and McGill University, Department of Chemical Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 2A7
Get access

Abstract

The CO2 gasification rate of black liquor char (b1c) is studied in a thermogravimetric analysis set-up at temperatures between 600 to 800° C. B1c is prepared via fast pyrolysis of the dry solids in spent liquor of the kraft wood pulping process. B1c gasification by CO2 is well described by Langmuir-Hinshelwood type kinetics. The gasification rate of blc is one order of magnitude larger than a high surface area activated carbon impregnated with 12% Na2CO3. Also, the gasification rate of b1c remains high at sodium-carbon ratios where the rate of Na2CO3 impregnated chars would be strongly reduced. With SEM-EDS mapping and line scans it is shown that the unique gasification properties of b1c are caused by a very fine distribution of sodium in the carbon structure.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

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. McKee, D.W., in Chemistry and Physics of Carbon, Vol.16, (Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 19 ), p.l.Google Scholar
2. Wen, W.Y., Catal. Rev.-Sci. Eng., 22(1), 1 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Wood, B.J. and Sancier, K.M., Final Report, SRI International, DOE Contract No. DE-AC21-80MC14953 (1984).Google Scholar
4. Mims, C.A. and Pabst, J.K., Fuel, 62(2), 176 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Sams, D.A. and Shadman, F., AIChE J., 32(7), 1132 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Freriks, I.L.C., et al, Fuel, 60, 463 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Yuh, S.L. and Wolf, E.E., Fuel, 63, 1604 (1984).Google Scholar
8. Li, J. and van Heiningen, A.R.P., JPPS, 12(5), J146 (1986).Google Scholar
9. Li, J. and van Heiningen, A.R.P. (submitted to J. Can. Chem. Eng. 1987).Google Scholar
10. Li, J., Master Thesis, McGill University (1986).Google Scholar
11. Walker, P.L. Jr., et al, Advan. Catal., 11, 133 (1959).Google Scholar
12. Austin, L.G. and Walker, P.L. Jr., AIChE J., 9(3), (1963).Google Scholar
13. McKee, D.W., Carbon, 20(1), 59 (1982).Google Scholar
14. Spiro, C.L. et al, Fuel, 62(3), 323 (1983).Google Scholar
15. Wigmans, T., Ph.D.Thesis, University of Amsterdam (1982).Google Scholar
16. Sams, D.A. and Shadman, F., Fuel, 62(8), 880 (1983).Google Scholar