4.8 Article

Characterization of the surface chemistry of carbon materials by potentiometric titrations and temperature-programmed desorption

Journal

CARBON
Volume 46, Issue 12, Pages 1544-1555

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2008.06.045

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CNPq - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico
  2. Ministerio da Ciencia e Tecnologia (MCT)
  3. FCT
  4. FEDER [POCI/EQU/57369/2004]
  5. FCT [POCI/N001/2005]
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [POCI/EQU/57369/2004] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

TWO methods currently used to characterize oxygen-containing functional groups on the surface of carbon materials are compared, namely potentiometric titration (PT) and temperature-programmed desorption (TPD). Two materials were used, activated carbon and multi-walled carbon nanotubes, which were subsequently modified by oxidative treatments in order to produce samples with different amounts of surface groups. The concentrations of carboxylic acid groups determined by both techniques are in good agreement, but the quantitative result obtained by TPD is closer to the analytical concentration of the species obtained by elemental analysis. Discrepancies between the quantitative results are more pronounced at higher pK(a) values (weak acids), where the concentrations determined by PT are lower than those obtained by TPD. This directly reflects the effects of neglecting the electrostatic interaction parameter. The TPD method was particularly suited for the characterization of samples modified with ethylenediamine, which is anchored to specific oxygenated groups. PT results are useful to describe the material behaviour in aqueous solutions, where the activity of the surface groups depends not only on their concentrations, but also on their environment. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available