Monoliths advantages

Use of the peUetted converter, developed and used by General Motors starting in 1975, has declined since 1980. The advantage of the peUetted converter, which consists of a packed bed of small spherical beads about 3 mm in diameter, is that the pellets were less cosdy to manufacture than the monolithic honeycomb. Disadvantages were the peUetted converter had 2 to 3 times more weight and volume, took longer to heat up, and was more susceptible to attrition and loss of catalyst in use. The monolithic honeycomb can be mounted in any orientation, whereas the peUetted converter had to be downflow. AdditionaUy, the pressure drop of the monolithic honeycomb is one-half to one-quarter that of a similar function peUetted converter. 

The need for higher bed conductivity has lead to research aimed at producing carbons that combine high packing density and improved conductivity. If a monolithic block of carbon adsorbent can be produced which eliminates void spaces there are several advantages ... 

The carbons are broadly comparable in terms of their maximum concentration and implied energy efficiency but the two monolithic forms offer the advantage of smaller pressure vessel sizes and improved heat transfer. 

The most likely CVD applications of these superconductors to reach the practical stage are coatings for semiconductor and other electronic-related applications. For 1 arger current-carrying applications, a superconductor coating over a metallic conductor such as copper may also become a practical design because of its advantage over a monolithic superconductor wire. It is able to handle current excursions and has better mechanical properties. 

In the design of optimal catalytic gas-Hquid reactors, hydrodynamics deserves special attention. Different flow regimes have been observed in co- and countercurrent operation. Segmented flow (often referred to as Taylor flow) with the gas bubbles having a diameter close to the tube diameter appeared to be the most advantageous as far as mass transfer and residence time distribution (RTD) is concerned. Many reviews on three-phase monolithic processes have been pubhshed [37-40]. 

Describe the advantages and disadvantages of the following reactor types with reference to heat and mass transfer. For each reactor discuss one reaction for which it may be appropriate to use that reactor, (a) fluidized bed reactor, (b) A continuous counter-current flow reactor, (c) A monolith reactor. 

The time of the hybrid approach has come already [9,10]. It allows one without delay to analyze the advantages of micro reactors, especially facing today s industrial time demands. The monolith approach needs more time for development, but can be built on the progress achieved so far. The respective developments will certainly gain an additional impetus when more and better tailor-made applications especially for this concept are identified. 

The trickle-bed reactor (TBR) and slurry reactor (SR) are the most commonly used for multiphase reactions in the chemical industries. A new reactor type, the monolithic reactor (MR), offers many advantages. Therefore, these three types of reactors are discussed below in more detail. Their general characteristics are given in Table 5.4-44. With respect to slurry reactors, the focus will be on mechanically agitated slurry reactors (MASR) because these are more widely used in fine chemicals manufacture than column slurry reactors. 

Obviously, the least experience has been accumulated with monoliths, particularly in three-phase applications. They are also more expensive than the other reactors. Therefore, the use of monoliths can only be economically ju.stified for three-phase processes in which it offers a distinct advantage, like higher yield, improved. selectivity, increased throughput of a plant, or lower overall investment or operating costs. Of particular interest are situations in which a MR substantially simplifies the design or operation of a unit. 

A rather limited range of mesopores in terms of size and volume were observed in the skeletons of polymer monoliths. The porosity of the polymer monolith seems to be lower than that of silica monolith. The total porosity of these monoliths is in the range of 0.61-0.73, whereas interstitial (through-pore) porosity and mesopore porosity are 0.28-0.70 and 0.03-0.24, respectively. In the case of poly(butyl methacrylate-co-ethylene dimethacrylate), the observed porosity is around 0.61-0.71, resulting in permeability 0.15-8.43 x 10 14 m2, whereas the observed porosity of silica monoliths prepared in a capillary is 0.86-0.96 and the permeability is 7-120 x 10 14 m2. Higher permeability will be advantageous for 2D applications, as mentioned later. 

---