4.7 Article

A study on the coagulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon clusters to determine their collision efficiency

期刊

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
卷 157, 期 3, 页码 523-534

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2009.10.003

关键词

PAH; Soot; Aromatic site; Dimerisation; Kinetic Monte Carlo; Simulation; Modelling

资金

  1. Cambridge Commonwealth Trusts (CCT)
  2. Clare College, Cambridge
  3. Churchill College
  4. EPSRC [EP/C547241/1, EP/E01724X/1]
  5. EPSRC [EP/C547241/1, EP/E01724X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/C547241/1, EP/E01724X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a theoretical study on the physical interaction between polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their clusters of different sizes in laminar premixed flames. Two models are employed for this study: a detailed PAH growth model, referred to as the kinetic Monte Carlo-aromatic site (KMC-ARS) model [Raj et al., Combust. Flame 156 (2009) 896-913]; and a multivariate PAH population balance model, referred to as the PAH-primary particle (PAH-PP) model. Both the models are solved by kinetic Monte Carlo methods. PAH mass spectra are generated using the PAH-PP model, and compared to the experimentally observed spectra for a laminar premixed ethylene flame. The position of the maxima of PAH dimers in the spectra and their concentrations are found to depend strongly on the collision efficiency of PAH coagulation. The variation in the collision efficiency with various flame and PAH parameters is studied to determine the factors on which it may depend. A correlation for the collision efficiency is proposed by comparing the computed and the observed spectra for an ethylene flame. With this correlation, a good agreement between the computed and the observed spectra for a number of laminar premixed ethylene flames is found. (C) 2009 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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