Advertisement

Light Metals 2019 pp 1247-1253 | Cite as

Reactivity of Coke in Relation to Sulfur Level and Microstructure

  • Gøril JahrsengeneEmail author
  • Stein Rørvik
  • Arne Petter Ratvik
  • Lorentz Petter Lossius
  • Richard G. Haverkamp
  • Ann Mari Svensson
Conference paper
Part of the The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series book series (MMMS)

Abstract

The quality of coke materials available for anodes for the aluminium industry is changing and industrial cokes with higher impurity levels are now introduced. The cokes in the anodes must meet specifications with respect to impurity levels to ensure proper operation in the electrolysis cells, and a desired quality of the aluminium metal. The presence of sulfur has been observed to reduce the CO2 reactivity and a certain level of sulfur is therefore targeted in the anodes. In this work, the significance of varying sulfur and metal impurity content in industrial cokes were evaluated with respect to CO2 reactivity, accessible surface area, pore size distribution, surface oxide groups and crystallite reactive edge planes. While relatively similar cokes are observed to give a lower reactivity with increasing sulfur content, cokes that have distinct differences in surface properties can have dissimilar reactivity despite identical sulfur content. Correlations between pore size distribution and presence of S-S bound sulfur, possibly condensed Sx, was also observed.

Keywords

Petroleum coke Sulfur CO2 reactivity Accessible area Pore size distribution 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support from the Norwegian Research Council and the partners Hydro Aluminium, Alcoa, Elkem Carbon and Skamol through the project “Reactivity of Carbon and Refractory Materials used in Metal Production Technology” (CaRMa) is acknowledged. Technical support from Anne Støre and Jannicke Kvello, SINTEF Industry, is also acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Edwards L (2015) The History and Future Challenges of Calcined Petroleum Coke Production and Use in Aluminum Smelting. JOM 67(2):308–321.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edwards L, Backhouse N, Darmstadt H, Dion M-J (2012) Evolution of Anode Grade Coke Quality. In: Suarez, CE (ed) Light Metals 2012. The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society; Wiley, New Jersey, p 1204–1212.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Houston GJ, Øye HA (1985) Consumption of anode carbon during aluminium electrolysis I-III. Aluminium. 61:251–254, 346–349, 426, 428.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xiao J, Deng S-Y, Zhong Q-F, Ye S-L (2014) Effect of sulfur impurity on coke reactivity and its mechanism. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 24(11):3702–3709.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bensah YD, Foosnaes T (2010) The nature and effect of sulphur compounds on CO2 and air reactivity of petrol coke. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 5(6):35–43.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hume SM, Fischer WK, Perruchoud RC, Metson JB, Baker JB (1993) Influence of Petroleum Coke Sulphur Content on the Sodium Sensitivity of Carbon Anodes. In: Das, SK (ed) Light Metals 1993. The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, p 535–541.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jahrsengene G, Wells HC, Rørvik S, Ratvik AP, Haverkamp RG, Svensson AM (2018) A XANES Study of Sulfur Speciation and Reactivity in Cokes for Anodes Used in Aluminum Production. Metall. Mater. Trans. B 49(3):1434–1443.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Washburn EW (1921) Note on a Method of Determining the Distribution of Pore Sizes in a Porous Material. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 7(4):115–116.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barrett EP, Joyner LG, Halenda PP (1951) The Determination of Pore Volume and Area Distributions in Porous Substances. I. Computations from Nitrogen Isotherms. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 73(1):373–380.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Olivier JP (2008) The Surface Heterogeneity of Carbon and Its Assessment In: Tascón, J and E Bottani (ed) Adsorption by Carbons. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 147–166.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olivier JP, Winter M (2001) Determination of the absolute and relative extents of basal plane surface area and “non-basal plane surface” area of graphites and their impact on anode performance in lithium ion batteries. J. Power Sources 97–98:151–155.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thommes M, Kaneko K, V. Neimark A, Olivier J, Rodriguez-Reinoso F, Rouquerol J, Sing K (2015) Physisorption of gases, with special reference to the evaluation of surface area and pore size distribution (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl. Chem. 87(9–10):1051–1069.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Figueiredo JL, Pereira MFR, Freitas MMA, Órfão JJM (1999) Modification of the surface chemistry of activated carbons. Carbon 37(9):1379–1389.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tan Z (2014) Basic Properties of Gases. In: Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gases. Springer, Singapore, p 27–58.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slattery JC, Bird RB (1958) Calculation of the diffusion coefficient of dilute gases and of the self-diffusion coefficient of dense gases. AIChE J. 4(2):137–142.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gøril Jahrsengene
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stein Rørvik
    • 2
  • Arne Petter Ratvik
    • 2
  • Lorentz Petter Lossius
    • 3
  • Richard G. Haverkamp
    • 4
  • Ann Mari Svensson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringNTNU Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.SINTEF IndustryTrondheimNorway
  3. 3.Hydro Aluminium AS, Primary Metal TechnologyÅrdalNorway
  4. 4.School of Engineering and Advanced TechnologyMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations