4.6 Article

Combined Sulfur K-Edge XANES-EXAFS Study of the Effect of Protonation on the Sulfate Tetrahedron in Solids and Solutions

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 117, 期 35, 页码 8368-8376

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp404272e

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss Nataional Science Foundation (SNF) [200021_132320]
  2. European Community [290605]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200021_132320] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sulfur K-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) has been used to distinguish between aqueous and solid sulfates and to investigate changes in their speciation. Data have been collected for tetrahedrally coordinated S in K2SO4 and KHSO4 solids and aqueous solutions. With a first qualitative analysis of the X-ray absorption near-edge structure (XANES) spectra, it has been observed that those for solids are much more structured and distinguishable from those of aqueous solutions. The protonation state has a strong effect on the white line of sulfates and has been assigned to the different charge delocalization in the samples, the effect of the solvating water molecules and multiple scattering effects. In the extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) spectra, the backscattering from the first O shell dominated the EXAFS fine structure function, chi(k), but the nonlinear multiple scattering contributions occurring in the first coordination shell are significant and must be considered in the EXAFS analysis. The intensity of these contributions strongly depend on the symmetry of the system. For a distorted tetrahedron, the intensity of the multiple scattering contributions is less than that found in a regular tetrahedron. The FEFF code has been used to model the contributions of the multiple-scattering processes. The observed experimental evidence in the XAS data can be used to distinguish between sulfates in solids and liquids. This is applicable to many chemical, geochemical, and biological systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据