4.0 Article

Validation of the silicon nanoparticle production on the pilot plant scale via long-term gas-phase synthesis using a microwave plasma reactor

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaecs.2023.100195

关键词

Gas-phase synthesis; Pilot scale; Plasma; Silicon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper demonstrates the scalability of a gas-phase reaction method for producing crystalline silicon nanoparticles using a microwave-assisted plasma reactor. The study shows that the process technology can be successfully scaled up from laboratory scale to pilot plant scale while maintaining consistent particle characteristics. The production of spherical crystalline silicon particles with a high production rate is achieved, and the stability of the synthesis process is monitored.
The formation of crystalline silicon nanoparticles by homogeneous gas-phase reactions as a direct way to produce high-purity raw material is applied. For this purpose, a microwave-assisted plasma reactor is used. Goal of this paper is to show the scalability of our process technology from laboratory scale to pilot plant scale while maintaining the particle characteristics. This is demonstrated by producing and analyzing silicon nanoparticles during long-term synthesis in a pilot-scale microwave plasma reactor over a period of six hours. The focus is on a high production rate in conjunction with consistent particle characteristics. A continuous production of the mostly spherical crystalline silicon particles with a count median diameter (CMD) of 23.4 nm and a geometric standard deviation of 1.5 is shown using TEM analysis. The stability of the synthesis process is monitored by means of regular sampling and analyzing batch samples extracted from the process every 30 min. Here it is shown that the CMD varies statistically between 21 and 26 nm. Moreover, the decomposition rate of the pre-cursor was determined to be 99%, while the energy supply remained constant. A constant production rate of about 200 g center dot h-1 is shown.

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

4.0
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