4.6 Article

Unraveling the Twin and Tunability of the Crystal Domain Sizes in the Medium-Pore Zeolite ZSM-57 by Electron Crystallography

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 1029-1036

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.201804269

关键词

alkali metals; crystal growth; electron diffraction; transmission electron microscopy; twin structures; zeolites

资金

  1. CAS Pioneer Hundred Talents Program [Y706071202]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2018M630308]
  3. DICP Outstanding Postdoctoral Foundation [2017YB07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tailoring the morphology of a specific crystalline material through distinct crystal growth mechanisms (classical and nonclassical) is challenging. Herein, we report the two unique morphologies of a medium-pore (10x8-ring) zeolite, ZSM-57, prepared by employing an identical organic structure-directing agent (OSDA) and different inorganic cations, namely Na+ and K+, denoted as ZSM-57-Na (pentagonal nanoplates) and ZSM-57-K (pentagonal nanoprisms), respectively. The tunable twin domain size and twin boundaries in both samples have been unraveled at the atomic level by electron crystallography. It is of significance to note that the 10-ring pore openings run perpendicular to the pentagonal nanoplates and nanoprisms. Moreover, the distinct crystal growth mechanisms, which result in the different unique morphologies and tunable twin domains, were further determined by electron crystallography combined with other techniques. Nonclassical growth involving the aggregation of amorphous aluminosilicate nanoparticles to the smooth ZSM-57-Na crystal surface dominates the ZSM-57-Na crystallization process. For the ZSM-57-K sample, the classical layer-by-layer growth through the addition of silica molecules to advancing steps on the crystal surface dominates the ZSM-57-K crystallization process. The different morphologies of both samples result in the distinct catalytic lifespan of the methanol conversion and selectivity of lower olefins.

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