<p>This study systematically investigated the process differences between aluminum and silicon as reductants in the vacuum reduction of magnesite. The objective is to optimize the reduction process by minimizing both the temperature and time, while ensuring a reduction degree that meets or exceeds that of the Pidgeon process. The results indicated that elevating the reduction temperature significantly enhanced magnesium reduction efficiency, whereas prolonging the reaction time showed limited effectiveness. Under identical reaction parameters, aluminothermic reduction achieved a higher reduction degree compared to silicothermic reduction. Adding CaO promoted the reaction by binding with SiO<sub>2</sub> or Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> in the products. For silicothermic reduction conducted at 1200 °C for 2 hours, a reduction degree of 83.7 pct was attained with a CaO/MgO molar ratio of 0.8. However, for aluminothermic reduction at 1100 °C for 2 h, a comparable reduction degree of 83.08 pct was achieved with a lower CaO/MgO molar ratio of 0.5. These findings indicated that aluminothermic reduction required lower reaction temperatures and less CaO addition to achieve a similar reduction degree compared to silicothermic reduction. Phase composition analysis <i>via</i> XRD and SEM–EDS revealed that Ca<sub>2</sub>SiO<sub>4</sub> was the dominant phase in the silicothermic reduction slag, whereas Ca<sub>12</sub>Al<sub>14</sub>O<sub>33</sub> emerged as the primary phase in the aluminothermic reduction slag.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

The Process Difference Between Aluminum and Silicon as Reducers in Vacuum Reduction of Magnesite

  • Qiyuan Mi,
  • Yuxin Tian,
  • Yong Hou,
  • Dapeng Zhong,
  • Liwen Hu,
  • Xuewei Lv

摘要

This study systematically investigated the process differences between aluminum and silicon as reductants in the vacuum reduction of magnesite. The objective is to optimize the reduction process by minimizing both the temperature and time, while ensuring a reduction degree that meets or exceeds that of the Pidgeon process. The results indicated that elevating the reduction temperature significantly enhanced magnesium reduction efficiency, whereas prolonging the reaction time showed limited effectiveness. Under identical reaction parameters, aluminothermic reduction achieved a higher reduction degree compared to silicothermic reduction. Adding CaO promoted the reaction by binding with SiO2 or Al2O3 in the products. For silicothermic reduction conducted at 1200 °C for 2 hours, a reduction degree of 83.7 pct was attained with a CaO/MgO molar ratio of 0.8. However, for aluminothermic reduction at 1100 °C for 2 h, a comparable reduction degree of 83.08 pct was achieved with a lower CaO/MgO molar ratio of 0.5. These findings indicated that aluminothermic reduction required lower reaction temperatures and less CaO addition to achieve a similar reduction degree compared to silicothermic reduction. Phase composition analysis via XRD and SEM–EDS revealed that Ca2SiO4 was the dominant phase in the silicothermic reduction slag, whereas Ca12Al14O33 emerged as the primary phase in the aluminothermic reduction slag.