4.8 Article

Optical band gap analysis of soot and organic carbon in premixed ethylene flames: Comparison of in-situ and ex-situ absorption measurements

期刊

CARBON
卷 158, 期 -, 页码 89-96

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2019.11.087

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministero dello Sviluppo EconomicoeAccordo di Programma MSE-CNR per la Ricerca del Sistema Elettrico Nazionale
  2. Swedish Research Council FORMAS [2018-00949]
  3. Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship [794156 - USFAOD - H2020-MSCA-IF-2017]
  4. Vinnova [2018-00949] Funding Source: Vinnova
  5. Formas [2018-00949] Funding Source: Formas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The similarity of in-situ and ex-situ absorption/extinction properties was found by comparing data sets obtained in premixed flat ethylene flames (C/O = 0.77); both ex-situ absorption measurements at CNR of Naples and in-situ laser extinction/absorption measurements at Lund University. The optical band gap analysis was performed as a method to separate/evaluate the contributions to the UV-Visible absorption from organic carbon and soot by selecting two spectral regions; above 685 nm where only soot is assumed to absorb radiation and below 685 nm, where both soot and organic carbons absorb. Optical band gap for soot was analyzed separately from organic carbon, obtaining their individual contribution to the spectral absorption from inception, throughout the growth region up to soot aggregation. While the optical band gap of soot strongly decreased along the flame from 1 to 0.1 eV, the band gap for organic carbons remained constant at similar to 1.7-1.8 eV. By using the relationship of the optical band gap with nanostructural parameters (layer length and aromatic rings number), the average molecular weight of organic carbon around 400 u resulted rather far away from the molecular weight of 1000-2000 mass units evaluated for incipient soot consistently with the view of PAH species sticking together for particle inception. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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