4.7 Article

Effect of co-dopants on hydrogen desorption/absorption of HfCl4- and TiO2-doped NaAlH4

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 33, Issue 21, Pages 6195-6200

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.08.019

Keywords

NaAlH4; Hydrogen desorption; TiO2; HfCl4; Co-dopant

Funding

  1. Petroleum and Petrochemical College (PPC)
  2. Research Unit for Petrochemical and Environment Catalysts
  3. Ratchadapisek Somphot Endowment
  4. National Science and Technology Development Agency
  5. Petroleum and Petrochemical Technology Consortium
  6. Chulalongkorn University
  7. UOP LLC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The segregation of bulk Al after the hydrogen desorption may be one of many reasons why there is the incomplete hydrogen re-absorption and the need for higher desorption temperature in subsequent desorption of HfCl4- and TiO2-doped NaAlH4. In this work, we attempted to improve hydrogen storage capacity of 4 mol% HfCl4- and 4 mol% TiO2-doped NaAlH4 by adding a co-dopant (graphite, activated carbon, and MCM-41) using ball milling technique. it was found that the co-dopants significantly affect the hydrogen desorption/re-absorption of the hydride. Results show that the hydrogen re-absorption capacity of HfCl4- and TiO2-doped NaAlH4 added with the co-dopants increases 10-50% as compared with that without a co-dopant, and graphite seems to be the best co-dopant. Moreover, the hydrogen desorption temperature in the subsequent cycle of co-dopant doped samples decreases about 10-15 degrees C compared to the sample without a co-dopant. It could be explained that high porosity and large surface area of the co-dopants would decrease the segregation of bulk Al after the desorption and improve hydrogen diffusion in/out bulk of desorbed/re-absorbed samples. (C) 2008 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available