4.6 Article

Kinetics study of heterogeneous reactions of ozone with erucic acid using an ATR-IR flow reactor

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 16, 期 9, 页码 4350-4360

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c3cp54646b

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Corporation for Science Advancement [20192]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20933001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ozone initiated heterogeneous oxidation of erucic acid (EA) thin film was investigated using a flow system combined with attenuated total reflection infrared spectroscopy (ATR-IR) over wide ranges of ozone concentrations (0.25-60 ppm), thin film thickness (0.1-1.0 mu m), temperatures (263-298 K), and relative humidities (0-80% RH) for the first time. Pseudo-first-order rate constants, k(app), and overall reactive uptake coefficients, gamma, were obtained through changes in the absorbance of C=O stretching bands at 1695 cm(-1), which is assigned to the carbonyl group in carboxylic acid. Results showed that the reaction followed the Langmuir-Hinshelwood mechanism and k(app) was largely dominated by surface reaction over bulk phase reaction. In addition, both the k(app) and the g values showed very strong temperature dependences (similar to two orders of magnitude) over the temperature range; in contrast, they only slightly increased with increasing RH values from 0-80%. According to the k(app) values as a function of temperature, the activation energy for the heterogeneous reaction was estimated to be 80.6 kJ mol(-1). Our results have suggested that heterogeneous reactions between ozone and unsaturated solid surfaces likely have a substantially greater temperature dependence than liquid ones. Moreover, the hygroscopic properties of EA thin films before and after exposure to ozone were also studied by measurement of water uptake. Based on the hygroscopicity data, the insignificant RH effect on reaction kinetics was probably due to the relatively weak water uptake by the unreacted and reacted EA thin films.

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