DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparison of Ammonia/Gasoline and Ammonia/Ethanol Fuel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparison of Ammonia/Gasoline and Ammonia/Ethanol Fuel COMPARISONCOMPARISON OFOF AMMONIAAMMONIA // GASOLINEGASOLINE ANDAND AMMONIAAMMONIA // ETHANOLETHANOL MIXTURESMIXTURES RakeshRakesh LeeladharLeeladhar ShawnShawn GrannellGrannell StanislavStanislav BohacBohac DennisDennis AssanisAssanis MechanicalMechanical EngineeringEngineering Dept.Dept. UniversityUniversity OfOf MichiganMichigan BackgroundBackground andand MotivationMotivation z We wish to use ammonia as a primary transportation fuel. z Ammonia works well at high engine loads but a combustion promoter is needed at lower loads. z Gasoline has previously been shown to be a good combustion promoter. z What about ethanol? Ethanol can be grown locally, can be carbon neutral, etc… z It would be very difficult or impossible to produce enough ethanol to displace all of the gasoline that we use. But we could produce enough to use it as a combustion promoter. z But is ethanol a good ammonia combustion promoter? OverviewOverview z ExperimentalExperimental EngineEngine z ComparisonComparison ofof EthanolEthanol andand GasolineGasoline CharacteristicsCharacteristics z Ethanol/AmmoniaEthanol/Ammonia FuelFuel MixMix z ComparisonComparison ofof Gasoline/AmmoniaGasoline/Ammonia andand Ethanol/AmmoniaEthanol/Ammonia FuelFuel MixMix MapsMaps z ComparisonComparison ofof RoughRough andand KnockKnock LimitsLimits z ComparisonComparison ofof ThermalThermal EfficiencyEfficiency z ConclusionsConclusions ComparisonComparison ofof EthanolEthanol GasolineGasoline PropertiesProperties PropertiesProperties GasolineGasoline E85E85 RONRON 9292 101101 DensityDensity (g/cm(g/cm3)) 0.740.74 0.790.79 HeatHeat ofof combustioncombustion (MJ/kg)(MJ/kg) 42.442.4 32.632.6 LatentLatent heatheat ofof vaporizationvaporization (KJ/kg)(KJ/kg) 420420 845845 StoichiometricStoichiometric AirAir FuelFuel RatioRatio 14.314.3 9.09.0 CharacteristicsCharacteristics ofof EthanolEthanol z EthanolEthanol hashas aa highhigh antiknockantiknock qualityquality duedue toto itsits highhigh octaneoctane number.number. z EthanolEthanol hashas aa highhigh latentlatent heatheat ofof vaporization.vaporization. z Advantage:Advantage: DecreasesDecreases thethe compressedcompressed gasgas temperaturetemperature duringduring thethe compressioncompression stroke.stroke. z Disadvantage:Disadvantage: PropertyProperty influencinginfluencing coldcold startstart ability.ability. ExperimentalExperimental InvestigationsInvestigations ¾ RoughnessRoughness LimitLimit ¾ There are various methods to determine the cycle to cycle variability which determines the vehicle drivability. ¾ Pressure related parameters, burn rate related parameters, flame front position parameters. ¾ Pressure related quantities are the easiest and the efficient way to determine the cycle to cycle variability. ¾ The IMEPn derived from the pressure data is expressed as Rough Limit= COV(IMEPn) = σimep/IMEPn×100 ¾ KnockKnock LimitLimit ¾ The maximum gasoline fraction used to avoid knock ¾ EfficiencyEfficiency ¾ It is the ratio maximum work output to input. Cooperative Fuel Research Engine (CFR) 83.4 mm bore diameter, 114.3 mm stroke, 625 cc swept volume displacement EffectEffect ofof CompressionCompression RatioRatio && LoadLoad onon CombustionCombustion PromoterPromoter InputInput atat RoughnessRoughness LimitLimit Rough Limit Map(Gasoline) Rough Limit Map(E85) 100 100 80 ) 80 % 8:1 COV~3% ( 8:1 COV~3% (% ) 60 60 10:1 COV~3% ut 10:1 COV~3% 40 p 40 12:1 COV~3% Input Input In 20 20 12:1 COV~3% 14:1 COV~4% LHV basis E85 E85 LHV basis LHV Gasoine 0 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Total Specific Fuel Input (J/l) Total Specific Fuel Input (J/l) ¾The fraction of required promoter input decreases drastically as load is increased. ¾The required promoter input (%) is the same for both gasoline and ethanol mixtures at the roughness limit. PromoterPromoter DensityDensity atat SparkSpark atat RoughRough LimitLimit 4.5 8:1, Gasoline/NH3 4 10:1, Gasoline/NH3 3.5 8:1, E85/NH3 10:1, E85/NH3 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 Compressed Promoter Density @ Spark (kJ/l) 0 00.511.522.533.544.5 Compressed NH3 Density @ Spark (kJ/l) PromoterPromoter DensityDensity atat SparkSpark atat RoughRough LimitLimit Gasoline E85 4.5 4.5 8:1, COV ~3% 4.0 8:1, COV ~3% 4.0 10:1, COV ~3% 10:1, COV ~3% 3.5 12:1, COV ~3% 3.5 12:1, COV ~3% 14:1, COV ~4% 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 (kJ/l) 2.0 Spark (kJ/l) 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 Compressed E85 Density @ Spark E85 Density Compressed Compressed Gasoline Density @ 0.0 0.0 012345678 012345678 Compressed NH3 Density @ Spark (kJ/l) Compressed NH3 Density @ Spark (kJ/l) TheThe promoterpromoter inputinput (%)(%) decreasesdecreases asas compressedcompressed NHNH3 densitydensity atat sparkspark increases.increases. PromoterPromoter DensityDensity atat SparkSpark atat RoughRough LimitLimit 8:1 and 10:1, E85/NH3 8:1 and 10:1, Gasoline/NH3 2.5 2.5 1000 RPM 2 2 1000 RPM ) 1300 RPM ) 1300 RPM 1600 RPM 1.5 1600 RPM kJ/l 1.5 kJ/l ( ( 1 1 ark ark ark ark p p S y = -0.113x + 1.363 S y = -0.2258x + 1.5712 0.5 0.5 Gasoline Density @ Density Gasoline 0 @ Density Promoter 0 012345678 012345678 NH3 Density @ Spark (kJ/l) NH3 Density @ Spark (kJ/l) Minimum gasoline requirement at spark= 1.36 Minimum E85 requirement at spark=1.57 Both the fuels require almost the same energy/volume at the spark!! PromoterPromoter DensityDensity atat SparkSpark atat RoughRough LimitLimit 8:1 and 10:1, Gasoline/NH3 and E85/NH3 2.5 2 1000 RPM 1300 RPM 1.5 1600 RPM 1 0.5 y = -0.1512x + 1.4252 0 Promoter Density @ Spark (kJ/l) Spark @ Promoter Density 012345678 NH3 Density @ Spark (kJ/l) IsIs AmmoniaAmmonia aa GoodGood FuelFuel ?? 800 700 600 500 400 300 E85/NH3 8:1 1000 RPM E85/NH3 8:1 1300 RPM 200 E85/NH3 8:1 1600 RPM Specific Promoter Input (J/l) Input Promoter Specific Gas/NH3 8:1 1000 RPM 100 Gas/NH3 8:1 1300 RPM Gas/NH3 8:1 1600 RPM 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Total Specific Fuel Input (J/l) ¾ The required promoter input decreases slightly as load is increased., showing that ammonia as a fuel having a slighter positive or neutral effect when used with both gasoline and ethanol at the rough limit. PromoterPromoter Input,Input, 10:1,10:1, AllAll SpeedsSpeeds 700 600 500 400 E85/NH3 10:1 1000 RPM E85/NH3 10:1 1300 RPM 300 E85/NH3 10:1 1600 RPM 200 Gas/NH3 10:1 1000 RPM Gas/NH3 10:1 1300 RPM 100 Gas/NH3 10:1 1600 RPM Specific Promoter Input (J/l) Input Promoter Specific 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Total Specific Fuel Input (J/l) HowHow DoesDoes PromoterPromoter InputInput VaryVary withwith Speed?Speed? 800 700 600 (J/L) 8:1 E85 10:1 E85 500 12:1 E85 14:1 E85 8:1 gas 10:1 gas 12:1 gas Specific Promoter Input @ NH3 cut-in point point cut-in @ Input NH3 Promoter Specific 400 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 Speed KnockKnock LimitLimit 100 90 80 8:1 E85/NH35 70 10:1 E85/NH3 60 12:1 E85/NH3 50 14:1 E85/NH3 40 8:1 Gasoline/NH3 30 10:1 Gasoline/NH3 20 12:1 Gasoline/NH3 10 14:1 Gasoline/NH3 0 Knock Limit LHV Basis (% Promoter) Promoter) (% Basis LHV Limit Knock 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Total Specific Fuel Input (Joules/Liter) KnockKnock andand RoughRough LimitLimit CrossoverCrossover –– GasolineGasoline 100 8:1 90 10:1 80 12:1 e) 70 14:1 16:1 60 50 40 30 LHV Basis (% Gasolin (% Basis LHV 20 10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Total Specific Fuel Input (Joules/Liter) ¾ %Gasoline decreases as total fuel input increases. ¾ At some point there is a crossover between roughness limited minimum gasoline fraction and knock limited maximum gasoline fraction. The crossover occurs at 12:1 CompressionCompression Ratio. KnockKnock andand RoughRough LimitLimit CrossoverCrossover –– E85E85 100 90 Rough Limit E85 80 70 8:1 Knock Limit 60 E85 10:1 Knock 50 Lim it E85 40 12:1 Knock 30 Limit E85 20 14:1 Knock LHV basis % E85 10 Limit E85 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Total Specific Fuel Input (J/l) The Crossover occurs at 13.5:1 Compression Ratio. ThermalThermal EfficiencyEfficiency AtAt RoughRough LimitLimit Gasoline E85 40 40 35 35 30 8:1 30 8:1 25 25 10:1 20 20 15 eeds 10:1 p 15 s 10 12:1 Net Indicated Indicated Net 10 5 12:1 5 Thermal%,All speeds Thermal%,All 0 0 Net Indicated Thermal%,All Thermal%,All Indicated Net 0 200 400 600 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 IMEPn IMEPn SummarySummary ofof Ethanol/NH3Ethanol/NH3 CombustionCombustion putput intointo figurefigure……FuelFuel MixMix SweepSweep atat 16001600 RPM,RPM, 10:110:1 andand IMEPIMEPn ~~ 550550 kPa.kPa. 100 90 80 Spark Advance(deg) 70 Ignition Delay(deg) 60 50 Burn Duration(degrees) 40 Net Indicated 30 Thermal% COV(IMEPn)% 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 ConclusionsConclusions ¾ TheThe knockknock andand roughrough limitlimit crossovercrossover occursoccurs atat ~13.5:1~13.5:1 forfor E85E85 andand ~12:1~12:1 forfor gasoline.gasoline. ¾ E85/NH3E85/NH3 hashas higherhigher knockknock limitlimit andand allowsallows forfor aa higherhigher maximummaximum compressioncompression ratioratio andand thermalthermal efficiency.efficiency. ¾ Gasoline/NH3Gasoline/NH3 hashas aa lowerlower roughnessroughness limitlimit andand allowsallows forfor aa slightlyslightly moremore fuelfuel mixturemixture flexibility.flexibility. ¾ TheThe roughnessroughness limitedlimited promoterpromoter fractionfraction isis foundfound toto bebe almostalmost thethe samesame forfor bothboth (Ethanol(Ethanol &Gasoline)&Gasoline) whenwhen usedused withwith AmmoniaAmmonia asas thethe primaryprimary fuel.fuel. ¾ TheThe fuelfuel blendblend doesdoes notnot changechange muchmuch withwith speed.speed. ¾ E85E85 isis anan attractiveattractive combustioncombustion promoter,promoter, likelike gasoline,gasoline, whenwhen usedused withwith ammoniaammonia asas thethe primaryprimary fuel.fuel. Acknowledgement Dennis Assanis , Chair, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan Stani Bohac, Research Scientist, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan Shawn Grannell, Doctoral Student, University of Michigan.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phosphine and Ammonia Photochemistry in Jupiter's
    40th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2009) 1201.pdf PHOSPHINE AND AMMONIA PHOTOCHEMISTRY IN JUPITER’S TROPOSPHERE. C. Visscher1, A. D. Sperier2, J. I. Moses1, and T.C. Keane3. 1Lunar and Planetary Institute, USRA, 3600 Bay Area Blvd., Houston, TX 77058-1113 2Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798, 3Department of Chemistry and Physics, The Sage Colleges, Troy, NY 12180, ([email protected], [email protected]) Introduction: The last comprehensive photo- tions involving the amino radical (NH2) play a larger chemical model for Jupiter’s troposphere was pre- role. We note that this is the first photochemical sented by Edgington et al. [1,2], based upon the work model to include P2H as an intermediate species in PH3 of Atreya et al. [3] and Kaye and Strobel [4-6]. Since photolysis. The equivalent N2Hx species are believed these early studies, numerous laboratory experiments to be important in the combustion chemistry of nitro- have led to an improvement in our understanding of gen compounds [15]. PH3, NH3-PH3, and NH3-C2H2 photochemistry [7-13]. Furthermore, recent Galileo, Cassini, and Earth-based observations have better defined the abundance of key atmospheric constituents as a function of altitude and latitude in Jupiter’s troposphere. These new results provide an opportunity to test and improve theoretical models of Jovian atmospheric chemistry. We have therefore developed a photochemical model for Jupi- ter’s troposphere considering the updated experimental and observational constraints. Using the Caltech/JPL KINETICS code [14] for our photochemical models, our basic approach is two- fold. The validity of our selected chemical reaction list is first tested by simulating the laboratory experiments of PH3, NH3-PH3, and NH3-C2H2 photolysis with pho- tochemical “box” models.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Solvents for Pahs Extraction and Enhancement of the Pahs Bioremediation in Coal- Tar-Contaminated Soils Pak-Hing Lee Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2000 Use of solvents for PAHs extraction and enhancement of the PAHs bioremediation in coal- tar-contaminated soils Pak-Hing Lee Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Environmental Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Lee, Pak-Hing, "Use of solvents for PAHs extraction and enhancement of the PAHs bioremediation in coal-tar-contaminated soils " (2000). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 13912. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/13912 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter fece, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quaiity of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substeindard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlilcely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
    [Show full text]
  • Ammonia As a Refrigerant
    1791 Tullie Circle, NE. Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2305, USA www.ashrae.org ASHRAE Position Document on Ammonia as a Refrigerant Approved by ASHRAE Board of Directors February 1, 2017 Expires February 1, 2020 ASHRAE S H A P I N G T O M O R R O W ’ S B U I L T E N V I R O N M E N T T O D A Y © 2017 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). For personal use only. Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE’s prior written permission. COMMITTEE ROSTER The ASHRAE Position Document on “Ammonia as a Refrigerant” was developed by the Society’s Refrigeration Committee. Position Document Committee formed on January 8, 2016 with Dave Rule as its chair. Dave Rule, Chair Georgi Kazachki IIAR Dayton Phoenix Group Alexandria, VA, USA Dayton, OH, USA Ray Cole Richard Royal Axiom Engineers, Inc. Walmart Monterey, CA, USA Bentonville, Arkansas, USA Dan Dettmers Greg Scrivener IRC, University of Wisconsin Cold Dynamics Madison, WI, USA Meadow Lake, SK, Canada Derek Hamilton Azane Inc. San Francisco, CA, USA Other contributors: M. Kent Anderson Caleb Nelson Consultant Azane, Inc. Bethesda, MD, USA Missoula, MT, USA Cognizant Committees The chairperson of Refrigerant Committee also served as ex-officio members: Karim Amrane REF Committee AHRI Bethesda, MD, USA i © 2017 ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). For personal use only. Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE’s prior written permission. HISTORY of REVISION / REAFFIRMATION / WITHDRAWAL
    [Show full text]
  • Safer Cocktail for an Ethanol/Water/Ammonia Solvent
    L A S C P LSC in Practice C P O C L Safer Cocktail for an Ethanol/Water/ K T I A I C Ammonia Solvent Mixture L S A Problem T A laboratory had been under pressure to move towards Using this mixture, the sample uptake capacity of I the newer generation of safer liquid scintillation ULTIMA-Flo AP, ULTIMA-Flo M and ULTIMA Gold O cocktails. Unfortunately, the sample composition of LLT (PerkinElmer 6013599, 6013579 and 6013377, one of their targets kept giving the researchers problems. respectively) at 20 °C was determined and N Before the lead researcher contacted PerkinElmer, the results were: they had tried PerkinElmer’s Opti-Fluor®, ULTIMA ULTIMA-Flo AP 4.00 mL in 10 mL cocktail N Gold LLT, and ULTIMA Gold XR. All of the safer O ™ ULTIMA-Flo M 4.25 mL in 10 mL cocktail cocktails could incorporate each of the constituents T as indicated by their sample capacity graphs. ULTIMA Gold LLT 4.25 mL in 10 mL cocktail E The problematic sample was an extraction solvent From these results, we observed that it was possible consisting of 900 mL ethanol, 50 mL ammonium to get 4.0 mL of the sample into all of these cocktails. hydroxide, 500 mL water and an enzyme containing In addition, we determined that it was not possible to 14C. The mixture had a pH in the range of 10 to 11. get 4 mL sample into 7 mL of any of these cocktails. To complete this work, we also checked for lumines- Discussion cence using 4 mL of sample in 10 mL of each cocktail.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving the Efficiency of Ammonia Electrolysis for Hydrogen Production
    Improving The Efficiency Of Ammonia Electrolysis For Hydrogen Production A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Ramasamy Palaniappan December 2013 © 2013 Ramasamy Palaniappan. All Rights Reserved. 2 This dissertation titled Improving the Efficiency of Ammonia Electrolysis for Hydrogen Production by RAMASAMY PALANIAPPAN has been approved for the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by Gerardine G. Botte Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Dennis Irwin Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology 3 ABSTRACT PALANIAPPAN, RAMASAMY, Ph.D., December 2013, Chemical Engineering Improving the Efficiency of Ammonia Electrolysis for Hydrogen Production Director of Dissertation: Gerardine G. Botte Given the abundance of ammonia in domestic and industrial wastes, ammonia electrolysis is a promising technology for remediation and distributed power generation in a clean and safe manner. Efficiency has been identified as one of the key issues that require improvement in order for the technology to enter the market phase. Therefore, this research was performed with the aim of improving the efficiency of hydrogen production by finding alternative materials for the cathode and electrolyte. 1. In the presence of ammonia the activity for hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) followed the trend Rh>Pt>Ru>Ni. The addition of ammonia resulted in lower rates for HER for Pt, Ru, and Ni, which have been attributed to competition from the ammonia adsorption reaction. 2. The addition of ammonia offers insight into the role of metal-hydrogen underpotential deposition (M-Hupd) on HER kinetics.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel Properties Comparison
    Alternative Fuels Data Center Fuel Properties Comparison Compressed Liquefied Low Sulfur Gasoline/E10 Biodiesel Propane (LPG) Natural Gas Natural Gas Ethanol/E100 Methanol Hydrogen Electricity Diesel (CNG) (LNG) Chemical C4 to C12 and C8 to C25 Methyl esters of C3H8 (majority) CH4 (majority), CH4 same as CNG CH3CH2OH CH3OH H2 N/A Structure [1] Ethanol ≤ to C12 to C22 fatty acids and C4H10 C2H6 and inert with inert gasses 10% (minority) gases <0.5% (a) Fuel Material Crude Oil Crude Oil Fats and oils from A by-product of Underground Underground Corn, grains, or Natural gas, coal, Natural gas, Natural gas, coal, (feedstocks) sources such as petroleum reserves and reserves and agricultural waste or woody biomass methanol, and nuclear, wind, soybeans, waste refining or renewable renewable (cellulose) electrolysis of hydro, solar, and cooking oil, animal natural gas biogas biogas water small percentages fats, and rapeseed processing of geothermal and biomass Gasoline or 1 gal = 1.00 1 gal = 1.12 B100 1 gal = 0.74 GGE 1 lb. = 0.18 GGE 1 lb. = 0.19 GGE 1 gal = 0.67 GGE 1 gal = 0.50 GGE 1 lb. = 0.45 1 kWh = 0.030 Diesel Gallon GGE GGE 1 gal = 1.05 GGE 1 gal = 0.66 DGE 1 lb. = 0.16 DGE 1 lb. = 0.17 DGE 1 gal = 0.59 DGE 1 gal = 0.45 DGE GGE GGE Equivalent 1 gal = 0.88 1 gal = 1.00 1 gal = 0.93 DGE 1 lb. = 0.40 1 kWh = 0.027 (GGE or DGE) DGE DGE B20 DGE DGE 1 gal = 1.11 GGE 1 kg = 1 GGE 1 gal = 0.99 DGE 1 kg = 0.9 DGE Energy 1 gallon of 1 gallon of 1 gallon of B100 1 gallon of 5.66 lb., or 5.37 lb.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquichek Ethanol/Ammonia Control SERUM CHEMISTRY CONTROLS Liquichek Ethanol/Ammonia Control
    Bio-Rad Laboratories SERUM CHEMISTRY CONTROLS Liquichek Ethanol/Ammonia Control SERUM CHEMISTRY CONTROLS Liquichek Ethanol/Ammonia Control A liquid control used to monitor the precision of Ethanol and Ammonia test procedures in the clinical laboratory. • Liquid • Normal, elevated and toxic concentrations of Ammonia • 2 year shelf life at 2–8°C • 20 day open-vial stability at 2–8°C Analytes Ammonia Ethanol Refer to the package insert of currently available lots for specific analyte and stability claims Ordering Information Cat # Description 544 Level 1 ..................................................................................... 6 x 3 mL 545 Level 2 ..................................................................................... 6 x 3 mL 546 Level 3 ..................................................................................... 6 x 3 mL 545X Trilevel MiniPak (1 of each level) .................................................................. 3 x 3 mL EQAS Independent QC Unity An independent, external assessment of laboratory Ongoing, proactive, unbiased daily QC that QC Data Management tools that help you create performance in comparison to your peers. helps identify errors as they occur or begin to trend. a strategy to reduce risk and streamline QC workflow. QCNet.com/eqas QCNet.com/independentqc QCNet.com/datamanagement Bio-Rad For further information, please contact the Bio-Rad office nearest you Laboratories, Inc. or visit our website at www.bio-rad.com/qualitycontrol Clinical Website www.bio-rad.com/diagnostics Australia
    [Show full text]
  • Cellulosic Ethanol Production Via Aqueous Ammonia Soaking Pretreatment and Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation Asli Isci Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2008 Cellulosic ethanol production via aqueous ammonia soaking pretreatment and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation Asli Isci Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Isci, Asli, "Cellulosic ethanol production via aqueous ammonia soaking pretreatment and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation" (2008). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 15695. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/15695 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cellulosic ethanol production via aqueous ammonia soaking pretreatment and simultaneous saccharification and fermentation by Asli Isci A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Co-majors: Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering; Biorenewable Resources and Technology Program of Study Committee: Robert P. Anex, Major Professor D. Raj Raman Anthony L. Pometto III. Kenneth J. Moore Robert C. Brown Iowa State University Ames, Iowa
    [Show full text]
  • Algorithmic Analysis of Chemical Dynamics of the Autoignition of NH3–H2O2/Air Mixtures
    energies Article Algorithmic Analysis of Chemical Dynamics of the Autoignition of NH3–H2O2/Air Mixtures Ahmed T. Khalil 1,2, Dimitris M. Manias 3, Efstathios-Al. Tingas 4, Dimitrios C. Kyritsis 1,2,* and Dimitris A. Goussis 1,2 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi 127788, UAE; [email protected] (A.T.K.); [email protected] (D.A.G.) 2 Research and Innovation Center on CO2 and H2 (RICH), Khalifa University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 127788, Abu Dhabi, UAE 3 Department of Mechanics, School of Applied Mathematics and Physical Sciences, National Technical University of Athens, 157 73 Athens, Greece; [email protected] 4 Perth College, University of the Highlands and Islands, (UHI), Perth PH1 2NX, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 8 September 2019; Accepted: 7 October 2019; Published: 21 November 2019 Abstract: The dynamics of a homogeneous adiabatic autoignition of an ammonia/air mixture at constant volume was studied, using the algorithmic tools of Computational Singular Perturbation. Since ammonia combustion is characterized by both unrealistically long ignition delays and elevated NOx emissions, the time frame of action of the modes that are responsible for ignition was analyzed by calculating the developing time scales throughout the process and by studying their possible relation to NOx emissions. The reactions that support or oppose the explosive time scale were identified, along with the variables that are related the most to the dynamics that drive the system to an explosion.
    [Show full text]
  • BENZENE Disclaimer
    United States Office of Air Quality EPA-454/R-98-011 Environmental Protection Planning And Standards June 1998 Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 AIR EPA LOCATING AND ESTIMATING AIR EMISSIONS FROM SOURCES OF BENZENE Disclaimer This report has been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication. Mention of trade names and commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of use. EPA-454/R-98-011 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page LIST OF TABLES.....................................................x LIST OF FIGURES.................................................. xvi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................xx 1.0 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT .......................................... 1-1 2.0 OVERVIEW OF DOCUMENT CONTENTS.............................. 2-1 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...................................... 3-1 3.1 NATURE OF POLLUTANT..................................... 3-1 3.2 OVERVIEW OF PRODUCTION AND USE ......................... 3-4 3.3 OVERVIEW OF EMISSIONS.................................... 3-8 4.0 EMISSIONS FROM BENZENE PRODUCTION ........................... 4-1 4.1 CATALYTIC REFORMING/SEPARATION PROCESS................ 4-7 4.1.1 Process Description for Catalytic Reforming/Separation........... 4-7 4.1.2 Benzene Emissions from Catalytic Reforming/Separation .......... 4-9 4.2 TOLUENE DEALKYLATION AND TOLUENE DISPROPORTIONATION PROCESS ............................ 4-11 4.2.1 Toluene Dealkylation
    [Show full text]
  • Dehydrogenation of Ethanol to Acetaldehyde Over Different Metals Supported on Carbon Catalysts
    catalysts Article Dehydrogenation of Ethanol to Acetaldehyde over Different Metals Supported on Carbon Catalysts Jeerati Ob-eye , Piyasan Praserthdam and Bunjerd Jongsomjit * Center of Excellence on Catalysis and Catalytic Reaction Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand; [email protected] (J.O.-e.); [email protected] (P.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +66-2-218-6874 Received: 29 November 2018; Accepted: 27 December 2018; Published: 9 January 2019 Abstract: Recently, the interest in ethanol production from renewable natural sources in Thailand has been receiving much attention as an alternative form of energy. The low-cost accessibility of ethanol has been seen as an interesting topic, leading to the extensive study of the formation of distinct chemicals, such as ethylene, diethyl ether, acetaldehyde, and ethyl acetate, starting from ethanol as a raw material. In this paper, ethanol dehydrogenation to acetaldehyde in a one-step reaction was investigated by using commercial activated carbon with four different metal-doped catalysts. The reaction was conducted in a packed-bed micro-tubular reactor under a temperature range of 250–400 ◦C. The best results were found by using the copper doped on an activated carbon catalyst. Under this specified condition, ethanol conversion of 65.3% with acetaldehyde selectivity of 96.3% at 350 ◦C was achieved. This was probably due to the optimal acidity of copper doped on the activated carbon catalyst, as proven by the temperature-programmed desorption of ammonia (NH3-TPD). In addition, the other three catalyst samples (activated carbon, ceria, and cobalt doped on activated carbon) also favored high selectivity to acetaldehyde (>90%).
    [Show full text]
  • Ethylene Glycol Ingestion Reviewer: Adam Pomerlau, MD Authors: Jeff Holmes, MD / Tammi Schaeffer, DO
    Pediatric Ethylene Glycol Ingestion Reviewer: Adam Pomerlau, MD Authors: Jeff Holmes, MD / Tammi Schaeffer, DO Target Audience: Emergency Medicine Residents, Medical Students Primary Learning Objectives: 1. Recognize signs and symptoms of ethylene glycol toxicity 2. Order appropriate laboratory and radiology studies in ethylene glycol toxicity 3. Recognize and interpret blood gas, anion gap, and osmolal gap in setting of TA ingestion 4. Differentiate the symptoms and signs of ethylene glycol toxicity from those associated with other toxic alcohols e.g. ethanol, methanol, and isopropyl alcohol Secondary Learning Objectives: detailed technical/behavioral goals, didactic points 1. Perform a mental status evaluation of the altered patient 2. Formulate independent differential diagnosis in setting of leading information from RN 3. Describe the role of bicarbonate for severe acidosis Critical actions checklist: 1. Obtain appropriate diagnostics 2. Protect the patient’s airway 3. Start intravenous fluid resuscitation 4. Initiate serum alkalinization 5. Initiate alcohol dehydrogenase blockade 6. Consult Poison Center/Toxicology 7. Get Nephrology Consultation for hemodialysis Environment: 1. Room Set Up – ED acute care area a. Manikin Set Up – Mid or high fidelity simulator, simulated sweat if available b. Airway equipment, Sodium Bicarbonate, Nasogastric tube, Activated charcoal, IV fluid, norepinephrine, Simulated naloxone, Simulate RSI medications (etomidate, succinylcholine) 2. Distractors – ED noise For Examiner Only CASE SUMMARY SYNOPSIS OF HISTORY/ Scenario Background The setting is an urban emergency department. This is the case of a 2.5-year-old male toddler who presents to the ED with an accidental ingestion of ethylene glycol. The child was home as the father was watching him. The father was changing the oil on his car.
    [Show full text]