2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2004.07.035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An experimental adsorbent screening study for CO2 removal from N2

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

6
185
1
3

Year Published

2007
2007
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 335 publications
(195 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
6
185
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Although dynamic separation capacity depends on experimental parameters such as f low rate and sample dimensions, Mg-MOF-74 is clearly a landmark among MOFs, with a separation capacity more than twice the nearest candidate and far milder regeneration conditions in breakthrough experiments run under similar conditions. NaX zeolite is among the most effective porous adsorbents considered for CO 2 separation (22,24). Breakthrough experiments performed on NaX under identical conditions to those performed on Mg-MOF-74 show that the MOF material, with dynamic capacity of 8.9 wt.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Although dynamic separation capacity depends on experimental parameters such as f low rate and sample dimensions, Mg-MOF-74 is clearly a landmark among MOFs, with a separation capacity more than twice the nearest candidate and far milder regeneration conditions in breakthrough experiments run under similar conditions. NaX zeolite is among the most effective porous adsorbents considered for CO 2 separation (22,24). Breakthrough experiments performed on NaX under identical conditions to those performed on Mg-MOF-74 show that the MOF material, with dynamic capacity of 8.9 wt.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Though various CO 2 capture technologies including physical absorption (Little et al, 1991;Chiesa and Consonni, 1999), chemical absorption (Bishnoi and Rochelle, 2000;Aroonwilas and Veawab, 2004;Rochelle, 2009), adsorption (Harlick and Tezel, 2004;Chang et al, 2009a), and membrane (Powell and Qiao, 2006) exist, they are not matured yet for post-combustion power plants. This is because that huge amount of flue gas is needed to treat and significant mass transfer limitations exist in the processes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently in 2013, these authors pointed out that the adsorption of CO2 by non-functionalized porous carbons is mainly determined by the volume of the micropores with only a size below 0.8 nm (Sevilla et al, 2013). Some studies related to the study of inorganic materials as adsorbents suggested that pore sizes of 0.5 nm are the most adequate for CO2 adsorption (Harlick and Tezel, 2004;Saha et al, 2010). These discrepancies are responsible for the research effort driven on developing advanced carbon adsorbents with optimal porous size distributions to maximize CO2 uptake.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%