Siloxane - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Siloxane

The Experts below are selected from a list of 43641 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Siloxane – Free Register to Access Experts & Abstracts

Raül Muñoz – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a review on the state of the art of physical chemical and biological technologies for biogas upgrading
    Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio\ technology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Raül Muñoz, Leslie Meier, Israel Díaz, David Jeison
    Abstract:

    The lack of tax incentives for biomethane use requires the optimization of both biogas production and upgrading in order to allow the full exploitation of this renewable energy source. The large number of biomethane contaminants present in biogas (CO2, H2S, H2O, N2, O2, methyl Siloxanes, halocarbons) has resulted in complex sequences of upgrading processes based on conventional physical/chemical technologies capable of providing CH4 purities of 88–98 % and H2S, halocarbons and methyl Siloxane removals >99 %. Unfortunately, the high consumption of energy and chemicals limits nowadays the environmental and economic sustainability of conventional biogas upgrading technologies. In this context, biotechnologies can offer a low cost and environmentally friendly alternative to physical/chemical biogas upgrading. Thus, biotechnologies such as H2-based chemoautrophic CO2 bioconversion to CH4, microalgae-based CO2 fixation, enzymatic CO2 dissolution, fermentative CO2 reduction and digestion with in situ CO2 desorption have consistently shown CO2 removals of 80–100 % and CH4 purities of 88–100 %, while allowing the conversion of CO2 into valuable bio-products and even a simultaneous H2S removal. Likewise, H2S removals >99 % are typically reported in aerobic and anoxic biotrickling filters, algal-bacterial photobioreactors and digesters under microaerophilic conditions. Even, methyl Siloxanes and halocarbons are potentially subject to aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation. However, despite these promising results, most biotechnologies still require further optimization and scale-up in order to compete with their physical/chemical counterparts. This review critically presents and discusses the state of the art of biogas upgrading technologies with special emphasis on biotechnologies for CO2, H2S, Siloxane and halocarbon removal.

  • A review on the state-of-the-art of physical/chemical and biological technologies for biogas upgrading
    Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Raül Muñoz, Leslie Meier, Israel Díaz, David Jeison
    Abstract:

    The lack of tax incentives for biomethane use requires the optimization of both biogas production and upgrading in order to allow the full exploitation of this renewable energy source. The large number of biomethane contaminants present in biogas (CO2, H2S, H2O, N2, O2, methyl Siloxanes, halocarbons) has resulted in complex sequences of upgrading processes based on conventional physical/chemical technologies capable of providing CH4 purities of 88–98 % and H2S, halocarbons and methyl Siloxane removals >99 %. Unfortunately, the high consumption of energy and chemicals limits nowadays the environmental and economic sustainability of conventional biogas upgrading technologies. In this context, biotechnologies can offer a low cost and environmentally friendly alternative to physical/chemical biogas upgrading. Thus, biotechnologies such as H2-based chemoautrophic CO2 bioconversion to CH4, microalgae-based CO2 fixation, enzymatic CO2 dissolution, fermentative CO2 reduction and digestion with in situ CO2 desorption have consistently shown CO2 removals of 80–100 % and CH4 purities of 88–100 %, while allowing the conversion of CO2 into valuable bio-products and even a simultaneous H2S removal. Likewise, H2S removals >99 % are typically reported in aerobic and anoxic biotrickling filters, algal-bacterial photobioreactors and digesters under microaerophilic conditions. Even, methyl Siloxanes and halocarbons are potentially subject to aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation. However, despite these promising results, most biotechnologies still require further optimization and scale-up in order to compete with their physical/chemical counterparts. This review critically presents and discusses the state of the art of biogas upgrading technologies with special emphasis on biotechnologies for CO2, H2S, Siloxane and halocarbon removal.

David Jeison – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a review on the state of the art of physical chemical and biological technologies for biogas upgrading
    Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio\ technology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Raül Muñoz, Leslie Meier, Israel Díaz, David Jeison
    Abstract:

    The lack of tax incentives for biomethane use requires the optimization of both biogas production and upgrading in order to allow the full exploitation of this renewable energy source. The large number of biomethane contaminants present in biogas (CO2, H2S, H2O, N2, O2, methyl Siloxanes, halocarbons) has resulted in complex sequences of upgrading processes based on conventional physical/chemical technologies capable of providing CH4 purities of 88–98 % and H2S, halocarbons and methyl Siloxane removals >99 %. Unfortunately, the high consumption of energy and chemicals limits nowadays the environmental and economic sustainability of conventional biogas upgrading technologies. In this context, biotechnologies can offer a low cost and environmentally friendly alternative to physical/chemical biogas upgrading. Thus, biotechnologies such as H2-based chemoautrophic CO2 bioconversion to CH4, microalgae-based CO2 fixation, enzymatic CO2 dissolution, fermentative CO2 reduction and digestion with in situ CO2 desorption have consistently shown CO2 removals of 80–100 % and CH4 purities of 88–100 %, while allowing the conversion of CO2 into valuable bio-products and even a simultaneous H2S removal. Likewise, H2S removals >99 % are typically reported in aerobic and anoxic biotrickling filters, algal-bacterial photobioreactors and digesters under microaerophilic conditions. Even, methyl Siloxanes and halocarbons are potentially subject to aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation. However, despite these promising results, most biotechnologies still require further optimization and scale-up in order to compete with their physical/chemical counterparts. This review critically presents and discusses the state of the art of biogas upgrading technologies with special emphasis on biotechnologies for CO2, H2S, Siloxane and halocarbon removal.

  • A review on the state-of-the-art of physical/chemical and biological technologies for biogas upgrading
    Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Raül Muñoz, Leslie Meier, Israel Díaz, David Jeison
    Abstract:

    The lack of tax incentives for biomethane use requires the optimization of both biogas production and upgrading in order to allow the full exploitation of this renewable energy source. The large number of biomethane contaminants present in biogas (CO2, H2S, H2O, N2, O2, methyl Siloxanes, halocarbons) has resulted in complex sequences of upgrading processes based on conventional physical/chemical technologies capable of providing CH4 purities of 88–98 % and H2S, halocarbons and methyl Siloxane removals >99 %. Unfortunately, the high consumption of energy and chemicals limits nowadays the environmental and economic sustainability of conventional biogas upgrading technologies. In this context, biotechnologies can offer a low cost and environmentally friendly alternative to physical/chemical biogas upgrading. Thus, biotechnologies such as H2-based chemoautrophic CO2 bioconversion to CH4, microalgae-based CO2 fixation, enzymatic CO2 dissolution, fermentative CO2 reduction and digestion with in situ CO2 desorption have consistently shown CO2 removals of 80–100 % and CH4 purities of 88–100 %, while allowing the conversion of CO2 into valuable bio-products and even a simultaneous H2S removal. Likewise, H2S removals >99 % are typically reported in aerobic and anoxic biotrickling filters, algal-bacterial photobioreactors and digesters under microaerophilic conditions. Even, methyl Siloxanes and halocarbons are potentially subject to aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation. However, despite these promising results, most biotechnologies still require further optimization and scale-up in order to compete with their physical/chemical counterparts. This review critically presents and discusses the state of the art of biogas upgrading technologies with special emphasis on biotechnologies for CO2, H2S, Siloxane and halocarbon removal.

Bart Van Meerbeek – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • tem characterization of a silorane composite bonded to enamel dentin
    Dental Materials, 2010
    Co-Authors: Atsushi Mine, Jan Munck, Annelies Van Ende, Marcio Vivan Cardoso, Takuo Kuboki, Yasuhiro Yoshida, Bart Van Meerbeek
    Abstract:

    Abstract Objectives The low-shrinking composite composed of combined Siloxane–oxirane technology (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) required the development of a specific adhesive (Silorane System Adhesive, 3M ESPE), in particular because of the high hydrophobicity of the silorane composite. The purpose of this study was to characterize the interfacial ultra-structure at enamel and dentin using transmission elecelectron microscopy (TEM). Methods Non-demineralized/demineralized 70–90 nm sections were prepared following common TEM specimen processing procedures. Results TEM revealed a typical twofold build-up of the adhesive resiresin, resulting in a total adhesive layer thickness of 10–20 μm. At bur-cut enamel, a tight interface without distinct dissolution of hydroxyapatite was observed. At bur-cut dentin, a relatively thin hybrid layer of maximum a few hundreds of nanometer was formed without clear surface demineralization. No clear resin tags were formed. At fractured dentin, the interaction appeared very superficial (100–200 nm). Distinct resin tags were formed due to the absence of smear plugs. Silver-nitrate infiltration showed a varying pattern of both spot- and cluster-like appearance of nano-leakage. Traces of Ag were typically detected along some part of the enamel–adhesive interface and/or between the two adhesive resiresin layers. Substantially more Ag-infiltration was observed along the dentin–adhesive interface of bur-cut dentin, as compared to that of fractured dentin. Conclusions The nano-interaction of Silorane System Adhesive should be attributed to its relatively high pH of 2.7. The obtained tight interface at both enamel and dentin indicates that the two-step self-etch adhesive effectively bridged the hydrophilic tooth substrate with the hydrophobic silorane composite.

  • TEM Characterization of a Silorane Composite Bonded to Enamel/Dentin
    Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials, 2010
    Co-Authors: Atsushi Mine, Jan Munck, Annelies Van Ende, Marcio Vivan Cardoso, Takuo Kuboki, Yasuhiro Yoshida, Bart Van Meerbeek
    Abstract:

    Abstract Objectives The low-shrinking composite composed of combined Siloxane–oxirane technology (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) required the development of a specific adhesive (Silorane System Adhesive, 3M ESPE), in particular because of the high hydrophobicity of the silorane composite. The purpose of this study was to characterize the interfacial ultra-structure at enamel and dentin using transmission elecelectron microscopy (TEM). Methods Non-demineralized/demineralized 70–90 nm sections were prepared following common TEM specimen processing procedures. Results TEM revealed a typical twofold build-up of the adhesive resiresin, resulting in a total adhesive layer thickness of 10–20 μm. At bur-cut enamel, a tight interface without distinct dissolution of hydroxyapatite was observed. At bur-cut dentin, a relatively thin hybrid layer of maximum a few hundreds of nanometer was formed without clear surface demineralization. No clear resin tags were formed. At fractured dentin, the interaction appeared very superficial (100–200 nm). Distinct resin tags were formed due to the absence of smear plugs. Silver-nitrate infiltration showed a varying pattern of both spot- and cluster-like appearance of nano-leakage. Traces of Ag were typically detected along some part of the enamel–adhesive interface and/or between the two adhesive resiresin layers. Substantially more Ag-infiltration was observed along the dentin–adhesive interface of bur-cut dentin, as compared to that of fractured dentin. Conclusions The nano-interaction of Silorane System Adhesive should be attributed to its relatively high pH of 2.7. The obtained tight interface at both enamel and dentin indicates that the two-step self-etch adhesive effectively bridged the hydrophilic tooth substrate with the hydrophobic silorane composite.