Proceedings of the Institute, 28, 2000/pp. 1529–1536

ANALYSIS OF AN ELEMENTARY FOR OXIDATION IN SUPERCRITICAL

JOANNA L. DINARO,1 JACK B. HOWARD,1 WILLIAM H. GREEN,1 JEFFERSON W. TESTER1 and JOSEPH W. BOZZELLI2 1Department of Chemical Engineering and Energy Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139, USA 2Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Department New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, NJ 07102, USA

A benzene supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) mechanism, based on published low- benzene combustion mechanisms and submechanisms describing the oxidation of key intermediates, was developed and analyzed to determine the controlling reactions under SCWO conditions of 750–860 K, 139–278 bar, and equivalence ratios from 0.5 to 2.5. To adapt the combustion mechanisms to the lower temperature (Ͻ975 K) and higher pressure (Ͼ220 bar) conditions, new reaction pathways were added, and quantum Rice–Ramsperger–Kassel theory was used to calculate the rate coefficients and, hence, product selectivities for pressure-dependent reactions. The most important difference between the benzene oxidation mech- anism for supercritical water conditions and those for combustion conditions is reactions in supercritical

water involving C6H5OO predicted to be formed by C6H5 reacting with O2. Through the adjustment of the rate coefficients of two pathways of C6H5OO, whose values are unknown, the model accurately predicts the measured benzene and phenol concentration profiles at 813 K, 246 bar, stoichiometric , and 3–7 s residence time and reproduces the finding that the dioxide con- centration exceeds that of carbon at all reaction conditions and levels of benzene conversion. Comparison of the model predictions to benzene SCWO data measured at several different conditions reveals that the model qualitatively explains the trends of the data and gives good quantitative agreement without further adjustment of rate coefficients.

Introduction [2–7], carbon monoxide [3,5,6], [5,6,8,9], [6,7,10–14], and phenol [15]. The model Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) is a reme- predictions have been compared, with varying de- diation process for treating aqueous organic wastes. grees of success, to experimentally measured species When organic compounds and oxygen are brought concentration profiles. together in water well above its critical point of 221 An elementary reaction mechanism for benzene bar and 647 K, the organic is oxidized to carbon di- oxidation under supercritical water conditions was and water, heteroatoms are converted to their developed [16] based on a detailed kinetic mecha- corresponding mineral acids and can be neutralized using a suitable base, and any forms N or nism for benzene oxidation under combustion con- 2 ditions [17,18]. The present paper reports results ob- N2O [1]. The present working hypothesis maintains that SCWO proceeds by free- reactions and tained using this developed mechanism to identify that the individual elementary reactions are similar reactions controlling benzene oxidation under su- to those which would take place in combustion at percritical water conditions. The model predictions the temperature and pressure of SCWO. Further- are compared with benzene and phenol concentra- more, water, which serves as the reaction medium tion profiles measured in our experimental investi- and participates in reactions both as a reactant and gation of benzene SCWO at 750–860 K and sub- to as a third-body collider, does not interfere with re- supercritical (139–278 bar) under -rich action events through solvation effects. to fuel-lean conditions for reactor residence times of The free-radical reaction pathway hypothesis has 3–7 s [19]. The details of these experiments are re- received support by multiple attempts to model re- ported elsewhere [19], but briefly benzene SCWO actions using low-pressure combustion mechanisms was studied in an 11 mL Hastelloy C276 tubular adapted to SCWO conditions. Previous modeling ef- plug-flow reactor. Temperature was controlled by forts yielded kinetic mechanisms describing the immersing the reactor in a fluidized sand bath. oxidation of simple compounds such as Aqueous feed solutions of benzene and oxidant were

1529 1530 ELEMENTARY REACTION KINETICS pressurized, preheated, and delivered to the reactor. CHEMDIS [28,29] implement the bimolecular The reactor effluent was immediately quenched and Quantum Rice Ramsperger Kassel (QRRK) analysis analyzed for unreacted benzene and oxidation prod- of Dean [26] and allow the estimation of the pres- ucts. Upwards of 90% of the reacted benzene was sure and temperature dependence of the rate coef- accounted for in phenol, carbon monoxide, carbon ficients for such reactions. Westmoreland et al. [30] dioxide, and methane. and Dean [26] discussed the governing bimolecular The various mechanisms developed to model ben- and unimolecular QRRK equations and compared zene combustion successfully predict the oxidation predicted and measured rate coefficients. In the of benzene as well as many other stable and radical present study, two important chemically activated intermediates [17,18,20–24]. The main shortcom- reactions, between H and O2 and between phenyl ings of these models are their pronounced overpred- (C6H5) and O2, were evaluated. ictions of the concentrations of C6H5,C6H5O, and ↔↔ C6H5OH. Given that these species are the primary H O2 HO2* OH O products of benzene oxidation, this inaccuracy is The addition/ between H and troubling. As noted by Chai and Pfefferle [25], the O is one of the most important chain-branching current benzene oxidation models, developed pri- 2 steps in low-pressure combustion. The addition/ marily for temperatures above 1600 K and fuel-rich elimination pathway proceeds through the formation conditions, are not usable outside of the temperature of the activated intermediateHO* , which can be sta- and stoichiometric conditions for which they were 2 bilized to HO or dissociate to OH and O. The rela- adjusted, and the understanding of the detailed ox- 2 tive importance of the two pathways depends on idation mechanism is particularly poor at 900–1300 pressure and temperature, with the HO -forming K and fuel-lean conditions. Under SCWO condi- 2 pathway favored at higher pressures. tions, new reaction pathways may be accessible due Cobos et al. [31] studied the recombination reac- to the higher pressure, and thermal decomposition tion forming HO at 298 K and 1–200 bar and esti- pathways with high activation barriers which play im- 2 mated the high-pressure rate coefficient for recom- portant roles at combustion conditions may be in- bination by extrapolating measured fall-off curves. accessible due to the lower temperatures. Therefore, Westmoreland et al. [30] used this high-pressure rate comparisons of the predictions of a current benzene coefficient in a bimolecular QRRK analysis of the combustion mechanism [17,18] against our data for reaction between H and O . The rates of both the the SCWO of benzene will test the robustness of the 2 stabilization (to HO ) and addition/elimination (to mechanism while furthering the understanding of 2 OH and O) pathways were successfully predicted benzene oxidation. over wide ranges of temperature and pressure. A bimolecular QRRK analysis similar to that of Westmoreland et al., conducted using CHEMACT Adaptation of Benzene Oxidation Mechanisms with rate coefficients from Cobos et al. [31] and from Combustion to Supercritical Water Baulch et al. [32], predicted HO2 to be the primary Conditions product of the reaction between H and O2 at 246 bar and 813 K (for which conditions the most com- The most obvious modification necessary to make plete set of benzene concentration data are available low-pressure combustion mechanisms suitable for [19]) with a rate coefficient close to the high-pres- SCWO conditions is adjustment of reaction rate co- sure limit [31]. Further calculations reveal excellent efficients for the effect of pressure. Unimolecular agreement between the predicted and measured rate coefficients are well known to depend on pres- rate coefficients for the recombination reaction in sure to a power which is unity in the low-pressure the high- [31] and low-pressure limit [32] and the limit, zero in the high-pressure limit, and fractional addition/elimination pathway [32]. in the intermediate-pressure or fall-off region. The transitions to the low- and high-pressure limits occur ↔ at reaction-specific pressures. C6H5 O2 Products Recombination reactions exhibit the same pres- The identity and formation rate of products of the sure dependence as unimolecular reactions when reaction between phenyl and oxygen are a focus of only one reaction pathway is possible. When addi- continuing study. In previous benzene oxidation tional products can be formed by chemically acti- mechanisms, the products were set to phenoxy vated pathways, a complex pressure and tempera- (C6H5O) and O [17,18,20–23]. A semiglobal path- ture dependence can result from the competition way was also included in some of these mechanisms between the stabilization and the decomposition [17,18,23]: and/or isomerization pathways [26,27], and experi- ↔ mentally measured rate coefficients cannot be ex- CH65O 22CO CH 22C 23 H (R1) trapolated directly to other temperatures and pres- Frank et al. [33] studied the reaction of phenyl sures. The computer programs CHEMACT [27] and with O2 between 900 and 1800 K and 1.3 to 2.5 bar ANALYSIS OF A BENZENE SCWO MECHANISM 1531

TABLE 1 within 10% to 20% (Table 1), indicating that the es- Comparison of predicted and experimental rate timated value of kϱ for C6H5OO* dissociation to constants at 2.3 bar for the overall reaction C6H5O and O may not be a source of significant ⇔ C6H5 O2 C6H5O O error. Since C6H5OO was predicted to be the main re- Measured by Predicted action product of C6H5 and O2, bimolecular and un- T(K) Frank et al. [33] by QRRK imolecular reactions of C6H5OO were also incor- porated into the benzene SCWO mechanism [16]. 1000 1.2 1012 1.6 1012 The rates of the unimolecular reaction were found 1100 1.6 1012 2.0 1012 to dominate at supercritical water conditions. The 1200 2.0 1012 2.2 1012 unimolecular decomposition reactions of C6H5OO tested in the SCWO mechanism are ↔ CHOO65CHO 65 O (R2) and proposed two sets of products: (1) C6H5O and ↔ CHOO65CHO 642 H (R3) O and (2) p-benzoquinone (C6H4O2) and H. The second of these overall addition/elimination path- CHOO↔ CH CO (R4) ways was necessary to explain their observation of 65 55 2 fast initial H production. Rate coefficients were mea- The rate coefficient of reaction R2 was calculated sured for both pathways and were included in a using QRRK analysis and the reverse rate constant mechanism by Tan and Frank [24]. by microscopic reversibility. Inclusion of reactions Yu and Lin [34] performed a direct study on the R3 and R4 was necessary, as will be shown below, to reaction between C6H5 and O2 at 297–500 K and gain agreement between the predicted and experi- 20–80 Torr. The overall reactions leading to C6H5O mental benzene concentration profile. However, re- and O or C6H4O2 and H proceed first through the actions R3 and R4 are not elementary reactions, and formation of an energized C6H5OO radical rate coefficients for these overall steps were chosen (C6H5OO*), which can undergo stabilization, isom- so as to affect the radical pool to give the best fit erization, and/or dissociation to new products. Yu between the mechanism predictions and the ben- and Lin measured the recombination rate coefficient zene concentration profile measured at 813 K, 246 for C6H5 O2 by monitoring C6H5OO formation bar, and residence times of 3–7 s. Their reverse rate and found it to be pressure independent under their coefficients were calculated by microscopic reversi- conditions. The sole reaction product was C6H5OO, bility. Since the present rate coefficients for reac- consistent with their Rice–Ramsperger–Kassel– tions R3 and R4 are semiempirical, any attempt to Marcus prediction that stabilization to C6H5OO use them in other models should be pursued with dominates over addition/elimination to C6H5O and caution. While the mechanisms by which reactions OorC6H4O2 and H below 1000 K and between 20 R3 and R4 take place have not been experimentally and 80 Torr. determined and likely involve never observed inter- Since the reaction between C6H5 and O2 proceeds mediates, theoretical calculations using func- through the formation of C6H5OO*, the rate coef- tional analysis show that reactions R3 and R4 involve ficients for the addition/elimination pathways mea- one common isomerization path through a dioxetane sured at the conditions of Frank et al. [33] or used cyclic intermediate. After this first isomerization, a in low-pressure mechanisms [17,18,20–24] are not path to C6H4O2 H is present. A second series applicable at SCWO conditions. CHEMDIS was (unzipping process) is also present, along with an- used to calculate the rate coefficients for stabilization other isomerization series. The rate-controlling step (to C6H5OO) and addition/elimination (to C6H5O involves a 3,2,0 bicyclic (four plus five member ring) and O). The high-pressure rate coefficient for tight transition state. CO2 results from the unimo- C6H5OO formation was taken from Yu and Lin [34], lecular decomposition of this bicyclic [35–37]. and the high-pressure rate coefficient for dissocia- Justification for the inclusion of reaction R3 comes tion of C6H5OO* to C6H5O and O was estimated from the detection of C6H4O2 during benzene com- from microscopic reversibility and assuming the re- bustion at both fuel-rich and fuel-lean conditions at verse reaction has a pre-exponential factor for dif- 900–1300 K [25], our observation of C6H4O2 in the fusion-controlled reactions (A 1012 cm3 mol1 oxidation of benzene under supercritical water con- 1 s ) and no energy barrier (Ea 0). At 813 K and ditions [16,19], and the incorporation of the overall 246 bar, the calculated stabilization rate coefficient reaction of C6H5 and O2 to C6H4O2 and H in the is two orders of magnitude larger than that for ad- benzene combustion mechanism of Tan and Frank dition/elimination to C6H5O and O. A comparison [24]. Since the reaction between C6H5 and O2 pre- between the predicted and measured [33] rate co- dominantly forms C6H5OO at 246 bar and 813 K, efficients for the addition/elimination pathway at 2.3 reaction R3 was used in place of the addition/elim- bar and from 1000 to 1200 K showed agreement to ination reaction suggested by Frank et al. [33] to 1532 ELEMENTARY REACTION KINETICS account for C6H4O2 production. Further reactions of C6H4O2 were accounted for by incorporating a recent submechanism [38] by which C6H4O2 is fully oxidized. Reaction R4 is included to explain the very early appearance of CO2 in benzene oxidation under su- percritical water conditions [16]. The CO2 yields ex- ceeded those of CO at all conditions studied and for all conversions of benzene. Observations of CO2 yields always exceeding those of CO were also re- ported in the SCWO of phenol [15,39] and substi- tuted phenols [40–43], leading to speculation of pathways for CO2 formation which do not involve CO. Additionally, in benzene combustion at 900– 1300 K and at 350 Torr, Chai and Pfefferle [25] mea- sured high amounts of CO2 at low benzene conver- sions and postulated CO2 production by routes other than the reaction of OH and CO. Carpenter [35], Barckholtz et al. [36] and our work [37] show that the reaction of C6H5 and O2 to formation of Fig. 1. Benzene concentration profiles predicted by the C5H5 and CO2. In the present study, since C6H5OO supercritical water benzene oxidation mechanism: T 813 3 is the primary reaction product of C6H5 and O2 at K; P 246 bar; U 1.0; [C6H6]0 0.6 10 mol/L; 246 bar and 813 K, reaction R4 was included in place (᭺) experimental data; — — mechanism of Shandross et of an addition/elimination reaction. al. [17] and Shandross [18]; ——— SCWO mechanism in- ↔ cluding reaction R3 C6H5OO C6H4O2 H with kf,3 8 1 ↔ 4.0 10 s and reaction R4 C6H5OO C5H5 CO2 8 1 Comparison of Model Predictions and with kf,4 1.6 10 s ; ------SCWO mechanism with- Measurements of Benzene Oxidation under out reaction R3 or R4; —--– SCWO mechanism including 8 1 Supercritical Water Conditions only reaction R3 with kf,3 4.0 10 s . The predictions of the benzene SCWO mecha- nism [16], developed by adapting the benzene com- slowest benzene oxidation rate that can be achieved bustion mechanism of Shandross et al. [17] and through adjustment of kf,3 (without including reac- Shandross [18] for the present conditions (813 K, tion R4). 246 bar, and fuel equivalence ratio, U, of 1.0), are The net rates of formation or destruction of key compared in Fig. 1 (solid line) against the experi- species by the individual reactions in the mechanism mental data (points). Also shown is the profile pre- were calculated to determine the controlling reac- dicted by the original mechanism of Shandross et al. tions at 813 K and 246 bar with stoichiometric oxy- [17] and Shandross [18] (long-dashed line), which gen. By comparing the net rates of all reactions in- generally represents the predictions of low-pressure volving a single species, the primary destruction and benzene combustion mechanisms at SCWO condi- formation pathways were determined. tions. Dissociation reactions of C6H5OO to C6H4O2 Benzene was found to react almost exclusively by and H and C5H5 and CO2 were necessary in the reactions R5 and R6: SCWO mechanism to improve the agreement be- tween the predictions and the data. With their in- ↔ CH66OH CHOH 65 H (R5) clusion, the shape and position of the predicted ↔ benzene concentration profile agree with the exper- CH66OH CH 65H 2 O (R6) imental data. The absolute values of the rate coef- ficients of reactions R3 and R4 were found not to with reaction R6 accounting for over 97% of the ox- have significant effects on the model predictions as idation rate of benzene at 813 K and 246 bar. The long as the ratio of kf,4 to kf,3 is equal to 0.4. If this rate coefficient used for reaction R6 [32] is the same ratio is larger or smaller than 0.4, the predicted ben- as that used by Shandross et al. [17] and Shandross zene reaction rate is too slow or too fast, respectively. [18]. Although reaction R5 is recognized to proceed Without inclusion of reaction R3 or R4, the pre- by a chemically activated pathway [44], given the dicted benzene oxidation rate is too fast and the re- relative unimportance of reaction R5 the rate coef- action delay is too small (short-dashed line). The in- ficient used [45] is the same as that used by Shan- duction time can be varied from 0 to a maximum of dross et al. [17] and Shandross [18]. The destruction ϳ1 s by changing the rate coefficient of reaction of phenyl radical (C6H5) formed by reaction R6 is R3. The dashed-and-dotted line represents the completely accounted for by reaction R7: ANALYSIS OF A BENZENE SCWO MECHANISM 1533

↔ CH55HO 2CHO 55 OH (R8)

C5H5O then undergoes ring-opening reactions, leading eventually to CO and CO2. Since the oxidation of benzene proceeds mainly by reaction R6, the reaction delay (or induction time) and the subsequent rate of benzene reaction are determined by the rate of OH radical generation, which, in the present mechanism, is primarily by re- action R8. If the global reactions R3 and R4 are not incor- porated into the mechanism, reaction R2 is the dom- inant C6H5OO destruction channel. With O formed by reaction R2, excess OH is generated directly by reaction R9 ↔ O HO2 OH OH (R9) and indirectly by the following series of reactions: CH O ↔ CHO H (R10) Fig. 2. Phenol concentration profiles predicted by the 66 65 supercritical water benzene oxidation mechanism: T 813 H O ↔ HO (R11) 3 22 K; P 246 bar: U 1.0; [C6H6]0 0.6 10 mol/L; ↔ (experimental data; — — mechanism of Shandross et HO22222HO HO O (R12 (ٗ) al. [17] and Shandross [18]; ——— SCWO mechanism in- ↔ ↔ HO22 OH OH (R13) cluding reaction R3 C6H5OO C6H4O2 H with kf,3 8 1 ↔ 4.0 10 s and reaction R4 C6H5OO C5H5 CO2 Reaction R6 proceeds much too quickly, and the 8 1 with kf,4 1.6 10 s ; ------SCWO mechanism with- present mechanism overpredicts the benzene oxi- out reaction R3 or R4; —--– (almost hidden by ———) dation rate. SCWO mechanism including only reaction R3 with As stated previously, the rate coefficients of reac- 8 1 kf,3 4.0 10 s . tions R3 and R4 were chosen to optimize model- data agreement for the benzene concentration pro- ↔ file. Including reaction R3 with a higher rate CH65O 2C 65 H OO (R7) constant than reaction R2 eliminates the rapid for- mation of O and the subsequent overproduction of OH by reaction R9. Since reaction R3 generates H, The fate of C6H5OO is the most critical unknown. OH formation proceeds through reactions R11, R12, Comparisons with the data suggest that the radical- and R13, and inclusion of reaction R3 alone cannot forming, chain-branching loss channel to C6H5O decrease the rate of benzene oxidation sufficiently and O (reaction R2) can only be a minor channel, to bring the model into agreement with the data. As and analysis of thermochemistry and the kinetics discussed earlier, the reaction of H and O2 produc- from the density functional analysis supports the ra- ing OH and O is not important at SCWO conditions. tio of 0.4 for kf,4/kf,3 under SCWO conditions [37]. To gain model-data agreement, reaction R4 was in- The reactions and associated rate constants of cy- cluded. The inclusion of reaction R4 slows the ben- clopentadienyl (C5H5) and cyclopentadiene (C5H6) zene oxidation rate, as C5H5 is relatively unreactive. in the Shandross mechanism were taken from the Reaction R4 also provides a pathway for CO2 for- mechanism of Emdee et al. [21], in which the C5H5 mation to account for the experimental observation submechanism was based on the outline presented that CO2 yields exceed those of CO for all measured by Brezinsky [46], and the abstraction of H from residence times and reaction conditions [19]. With- C5H6 by HO2, OH, H, and O was estimated from out reaction R4, the model incorrectly predicts that the analogous reactions with . In the the CO2 concentration remains below that of CO for SCWO-mechanism, we computed rate coefficients residence times less than 7 s. Even with reaction R4, using CHEMDIS for the addition and combination the model underpredicts the concentrations of CO reactions of C5H5 and C5H6 at 246 bar from 300 and CO2, reflecting inadequate chemistry for further to 1000 K using the data presented in Zhong and oxidation of intermediate species. A large fraction of Bozzelli [47,48]. Reactions with the highest rate co- carbon remains as C6H4O2, and C6H3O2,C5H5O, efficients at 813 K and 246 bar were included in C4H4, and H2CCCCH are also significant. the benzene SCWO mechanism, according to Figure 2 demonstrates that with inclusion of re- which C5H5 from reaction R4 reacts primarily by actions R3 and R4, the predicted C6H5OH concen- reaction R8: tration profile agrees with the experimental data. 1534 ELEMENTARY REACTION KINETICS

Fig. 3. Comparison of predicted (—᭜—) and measured Fig. 5. Comparison of predicted (lines) and measured (᭺) benzene conversions at various temperatures: s 6.2 (symbols) benzene conversions at four water : (᭜, 3 ᭺ s; P 246 bar; U 1.0; [C6H6]0 0.6 10 mol/L. ––)q 0.091 g/mL (P 278 bar); ( , ———) q 0.079 g/mL (P 246 bar); (,-----)q 0.072 g/mL (P .(bar); (ٗ,—--–)q 0.041 g/mL (P 139 bar 228 3 T 813 K; [C6H6]0 0.6 10 mol/L; U 1.0.

Rate coefficients for reactions R14 and R15 were kept at the values used by Shandross et al. [17] and Shandross [8]. Given that reactions R14 and R15 are the principal reactions involving both C6H5O and C6H5OH and that C6H5OH is minor compared with C6H5 as a benzene decomposition product, C6H5O is also not a key intermediate in the SCWO mech- anism. Without reaction R3, excess C6H5O is formed by reaction R2, leading to the overprediction of C6H5OH. With all reactions which to C6H5OH formation in the SCWO mechanism involving C6H5O with the exception of reaction R5, and given that reaction R5 is not competitive with reaction R6 at these conditions, agreement between the experi- mental and predicted C6H5OH concentrations in- dicates that C6H5O concentration is now properly F . 4. Comparison of predicted (lines) and measured ig predicted as long as the C6H5O/C6H5OH chemistry (symbols) benzene concentrations at three fuel equivalence is correctly represented. ratios (U): (᭿,––)U 0.5; (᭺, ———) U 1.0;(, To test the robustness of the mechanism, the ----) U 2.5. T 813 K; P 246 bar; [C6H6]0 0.6 model predictions were compared with benzene 10 3 mol/L. SCWO measurements over considerable ranges of reactor conditions [19]. No further adjustments were made to the mechanism. The rate constants of Without reactions R3 and R4, phenol is overpre- reactions R3 and R4 were treated as temperature ϳ dicted by a factor of 100. Phenol is initially formed independent. Benzene concentrations predicted by by reaction R5, destroyed by reaction R14, and then the model as a function of temperature at a given reformed in reaction R15 in an equimolar exchange: pressure, equivalence ratio, and residence time are compared with the experimental data in Fig. 3. Pre- C6H5OH CH2CHCHCH dicted benzene concentration profiles are compared ↔ CHO65C 46 H (R14) with the data at equivalence ratios from 0.5 to 2.5 at a given temperature and pressure in Fig. 4 and over ↔ CHO65CH 56CHOH 65C 55 H (R15) a range of water densities or pressures at a given ANALYSIS OF A BENZENE SCWO MECHANISM 1535 temperature and equivalence ratio in Fig. 5. The 5. Dagaut, P., Daney de Marcillac, B., Tan, Y., Cathonnet, good agreement seen between predictions and ex- M., and Boettner, J.-C., J. Chim. Phys. 92:1124 (1995). perimental data in all cases is especially encouraging 6. Brock, E. E., and Savage, P. E., AIChE J. 41:1874 in view of the ranges of conditions covered. (1995). 7. Alkam, M. K., Pai, V. M., Butler, P. B., and Pitz, W. J., Combust. 106:110 (1996). Summary and Conclusions 8. Webley, P. A., and Tester, J. W., Energy 5:411 A benzene SCWO mechanism was developed us- (1991). ing published benzene combustion mechanisms and 9. Savage, P. E., Yu, J. L., Stylski, N., and Brock, E. E., submechanisms describing the oxidation of key in- J. Supercrit. Fluids 12:141 (1998). termediates. To adapt the benzene combustion 10. Webley, P. A., and Tester, J. W., in Supercritical Fluid mechanism to the lower temperatures and higher Science and Technology (K. P. Johnston and J. M. L. pressures of SCWO, new reaction pathways were Penninger, eds.), ACS Symposium Series 406, Ameri- added and QRRK theory was used to calculate the can Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1989, p. 259. rate coefficients and predict reaction products for 11. Butler, P. B., Bergan, N. E., Bramlette, T. T., Pitz, pressure-dependent reactions. The most important W. J., and Westbrook, C. K., Oxidation of Hazardous difference between the benzene oxidation mecha- Waste in Supercritical Water: A Comparison of Mod- nism for supercritical water conditions and those for eling and Experimental Results for Methanol Destruc- combustion conditions is reactions in supercritical tion, U.S. Department of Energy report DE91- water involving C H OO predicted to be formed by 017097, 1991. 6 5 12. Schmitt, R. G., Butler, P. B., Westbrook, C. K., and C6H5 reacting with O2. By adjusting the rate con- stants of two proposed, global thermal decomposi- Pitz, W. J., Destruction of Hazardous Waste in Super- critical Water, Part II: A Study of High Pressure Meth- tion reactions of C6H5OO, the first forming p-ben- zoquinone and H and the second forming anol Oxidation Kinetics, U.S. Department of Energy report DE92-008559, 1991. cyclopentadienyl and CO2, the model was fit to the benzene concentration profile measured during 13. Butler, P. B., Bergan, N. E., Bramlette, T. T., West- SCWO at 813 K, 246 bar, and 3–7 s residence time brook, C. K., and Pitz, W. J., “Oxidation of Hazardous with stoichiometric oxygen. The resulting mecha- Waste in Supercritical Water, Part I: A Comparison of nism accurately reproduces the experimental ben- Modeling and Experimental Results for Methanol De- zene and phenol concentration profiles at these con- struction,” U.S. Department of Energy report DE92- ditions and predicts well the benzene concentration 008565, 1991. profiles under SCWO conditions ranging from 750 14. Dagaut, P., Cathonnet, M., and Boettner, J.-C., J. Su- to 850 K, 139 to 278 bar, and equivalence ratios from percrit. Fluids 9:33 (1996). 0.5 to 2.5. 15. Gopalan, S., and Savage, P. E., in Innovations in Su- percritical Fluids (K. W. Hutchenson and N. R. Foster, Acknowledgments eds.), ACS Symposium Series 608, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1995, p. 217. We are grateful for helpful collaboration with K. A. 16. DiNaro, J. L., Ph.D. thesis, “Oxidation of Benzene in Smith, W. A. Peters, the other members of the Massachu- Supercritical Water: Experimental Measurements and setts Institute of Technology SCWO research group, R. A. Development of an Elementary Reaction Mecha- Shandross, H. Richter, and D. F. Kronholm and partial nism,” Department of Chemical Engineering, Massa- support from the URI (grant no. DAAL03-92-G-0177) and chusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, AASERT Programs (grant no. DAAH04-94-G-0145) of the 1999. Army Research Office, both under the supervision of R. 17. Shandross, R. A., Longwell, J. P., and Howard, J. B., Shaw, the SERDP grant under S. F. Rice at Sandia Na- Proc. Combust. Inst. 26:711 (1996). tional Laboratories, and the National Institute of Environ- 18. Shandross, R. A., Ph.D. thesis, “Expermental and mental Health Sciences Superfund program. Theoretical Study of Hydrogen and Benzene Destruc- tion Chemistries,” Department of Chemical Engineer- ing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam- REFERENCES bridge, MA, 1996. 19. DiNaro, J. L., Tester, J. W., Swallow, K. C., and How- 1. Killilea, W. R., and Swallow, K. C., J. Supercrit. Fluids ard, J. B., AIChE J. (2000). 5:72 (1992). 20. Bittker, D. A., Combust. Sci. Technol. 79:49 (1991). 2. Holgate, H. R., and Tester, J. W., Combust. Sci. Tech- 21. Emdee, J. L., Brezinsky, K., and Glassman, I., J. Phys. nol. 88:369 (1993). Chem. 96:2151 (1992). 3. Holgate, H. R., and Tester, J. W., J. Phys. Chem. 98:810 22. Lindstedt, R. P., and Skevis, G., Combust. Flame (1994). 99:551 (1994). 4. Paterson, C., Breshears, D., and Foy, B., Combust. Sci. 23. Zhang, H.-Y., and McKinnon, J. T., Combust. Sci. Technol. 89:411 (1993). Technol. 107:261 (1995). 1536 ELEMENTARY REACTION KINETICS

24. Tan, Y., and Frank, P., Proc. Combust. Inst. 26:677 36. Barckholtz, C., Fadden, M. J., and Hadad, C. M., J. (1996). Phys. Chem. 103:8108 (1999). 25. Chai, Y., and Pfefferle, L. D., Fuel 77:313 (1998). 37. Sebbar N., Bockhorn, H., and Bozzelli, J. W., 28th 26. Dean, A. M., J. Phys. Chem. 89:4600 (1985). Symposium (International) on Combustion, The Com- 27. Dean, A. M., Bozzelli, J. W., and Ritter, E. R., Com- bustion Institute (2000) [Abstract only]. bust. Sci. Technol. 80:63 (1991). 38. Alzueta, M. U., Oliva, M., and Glarborg, P., Int. J. 28. Ing, W.-C., Ph.D. thesis, Department of Chemical En- Chem. Kin. 30:683 (1998). gineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, New- 39. Krajnc, M., and Levec, J., AIChE J. 42:1977 (1996). ark, NJ, 1995. 40. Martino, C. J., Savage, P. E., and Kasiborski, J., Ind. 29. Chang, A. Y., Bozzelli, J. W., and Dean, A. M., Zeit- Eng. Chem. Res. 34:1941 (1995). schrift fu¨r Physikalische Chemie (2000). 41. Martino, C. J., and Savage, P. E., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 30. Westmoreland, P. R., Howard, J. B., Longwell, J. P., 36:1391 (1997). and Dean, A. M., AIChE J. 32:1971 (1986). 42. Martino, C. J., and Savage, P. E., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 31. Cobos, C. J., Hippler, H., and Troe, J., J. Phys. Chem. 38:1784 (1999). 89:342 (1985). 43. Martino, C. J., and Savage, P. E., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 32. Baulch, D. L., Cobos, C. J., Cox, R. A., Esser, C., 38:1775 (1999). Frank, P., Just, T., Kerr, J. A., Pilling, M. J., Troe, J., 44. Lay, T. S., Bozzelli, J. W., and Seinfeld, J. H., J. Phys. Walker, R. W., and Warnatz, J., J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Chem. 100:6543 (1996). Data 21:411 (1992). 45. He, Y. Z., Mallard, W. G., and Tsang, W., J. Phys. 33. Frank, P., Herzler, J., Just, T., and Wahl, C., Proc. Com- Chem. 92:2196 (1988). bust. Inst. 25 (1994). 46. Brezinsky, K., Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 12:1 (1986). 34. Yu, T., and Lin, M. C., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 116:9571 47. Zhong, X., and Bozzelli, J. W., Int. J. Chem. Kin. 29:893 (1994). (1997). 35. Carpenter, B. K., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 115:9806 48. Zhong, X., and Bozzelli, J. W., J. Phys. Chem. 102:3537 (1993). (1998).

COMMENTS

Alexander Fridman, University of Illinois at Chicago, rate constant increases strongly with increasing pressure.

USA. Standard mechanisms of C6H6 oxidation in gas phase Could this account for preferential finding CO2 and not cannot be used for oxidation in supercritical water. When CO? looking for special new oxidation channels in supercritical water, it would probably be important to take into consid- Author’s Reply. The addition of OH to benzene to form eration formation and following ion-molecular reac- a cyclohexadienyl-OH adduct followed by reaction with O2 → tions like H3O H2O H4O OH, and so on, is important in (Lay et al., 1997), leading to OH formation. Such reactions in supercritical but not very important in combustion. The lifetime for dis- conditions can be important when working at higher tem- sociation of the cyclohexadienyl-OH adduct back to OH perature limits. benzene is not the order of 1 s at atmospheric temperature, but only about 3 ls at SCWO temperatures. A more im- Author’s Reply. Ionic reactions were not considered be- portant reaction of the cyclohexadienyl-OH adduct at cause the supercritical water environment at our conditions SCWO conditions is H-atom elimination to phenol H. (475–600 C, 250 bar) does not support ionic species due Here, reverse dissociation to benzene OH is favored to the low dielectric constant of water. In addition, typical because of the higher of OH benzene relative ionization potentials are 200 kcal/mol, whereas bond en- to H phenol and a slightly lower (less than 2 kcal/mol) ergies are about 100 kcal/mol. lower enthalpy for the dissociation. This reaction was taken into account by including the high pressure value of He et ● al. (1988) for the overall reaction. The reaction of CO and OH proceeds through the for- Horst Hippler, University of Karlsruhe, Germany. There mation of an activated HOCO intermediate. At high pres- is an alternative mechanism for the oxidation of benzene sures, the stabilization pathway to HOCO dominates over from atmospheric chemistry. OH radicals add to the ben- the dissociation pathway to CO2 H (Fulle et al., 1996). s zene OH C6H6 C6H6OH (pre-equilibrium) and then Stabilized HOCO can then undergo reaction, including C6H6OH reacts with O2. Could this be an alternative start dissociation back to CO OH or to CO2 H. As is the into the SCWO of benzene? Additionally, the oxidation of case with the cyclohexadienyl-OH adduct, reverse disso- CO with OH is strongly pressure dependent. The ciation to products is favored over the CO2 H pathway.