4.7 Article

Economic assessment of the production of subcritically dried silica-based aerogels

期刊

JOURNAL OF NON-CRYSTALLINE SOLIDS
卷 516, 期 -, 页码 26-34

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2019.04.016

关键词

Silica aerogel; Subcritical drying; Life cycle assessment; Life cycle cost; Thermal insulating aggregates

资金

  1. CERIS - IST, Universidade de Lisboa
  2. FCT, Foundation for Science and Technology [FCT PTDC/ECM/11826/2010 - Nanorender]
  3. FCT
  4. Saint-Gobain Weber Portugal S.A. [SFRH/BDE/112796/2015]
  5. FCT [FCT SFRH/BD/132239/2017]
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BDE/112796/2015] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traditionally, most commercial aerogels are produced by supercritical drying methods which make their application undesirable, more expensive, and less energy efficient. This paper presents the economic assessment of silica-based aerogels synthesized via ambient pressure drying. Three different approaches were considered in this paper: the production of inorganic aerogel and of two hybrid aerogels. The synthesized aerogels will be incorporated as aggregates in wall coatings to improve their thermal performance. The application of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology is exceedingly important since it considers all costs associated with a product, process or activity during their physical and economic life, allowing the optimization of the total costs. It was possible to evaluate the production stages of the subcritical silica aerogels that influence their final cost and their relative contribution. These results allow to identify the main aspects that influence the total cost of the synthesis process. It is important to emphasize that this study is suitable for laboratory scale activities leading to high costs. It naturally follows that an adjustment to industrial scale applications is of paramount importance and should be made to maximise the economies of scale and to achieve additional gains in efficiency.

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