4.7 Article

Perspectives of suspension plasma spraying of palladium nanoparticles for preparation of thin palladium composite membranes

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 468, 期 -, 页码 233-241

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2014.06.003

关键词

Composite palladium membrane; Suspension plasma spraying; Thermal spraying of palladium; Diffusion barrier layer; Hydrogen separation

资金

  1. Helmholtz Research School of Energy Related Catalysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Suspension plasma spraying (SPS) of Pd nanoparticles was evaluated as a new method for coating of dense Pd films for Hy separation on porous substrates. The substrates were prepared by coating porous sinter metal disks with a porous yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ) layer acting as a barrier against intermetallic diffusion between the sinter metal and the Pd membrane (diffusion barrier layer, DBL). Before applying the Pd coating, the sinter metal substrates were characterized by N-2 permeance measurements. The maximum pore sizes before and after coating of the DBL were determined. For SPS of Pd, particles with diameters in the range between 250 nm and 550 nm were suspended in ethyl cellulose containing diethylene glycol monobutyl ether solution. A wide process parameter field was tested in the SPS. After Pd coating, the membrane morphology was characterized with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and electron probe microanalysis (EPMA), and the membrane performance was evaluated with N-2 and H2 permeation measurements. The thickest Pd layer (9.5 gm) showed an ideal H-2/N-2 permselectivity of 60 at 350 degrees C and a H-2 permeability of 1.2 X 10 -7exp( - 1392/T) mol m(-1) s(-1) Pa- (15. Yet rather thick Pd layers of around 10 gm were required to close the pores of the rough YSZ layers, but with further optimizations, SPS appears to be a promising new way for the fabrication of robust Pd coatings on porous substrates. A particular advantage is seen in the very quick deposition. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据