4.6 Article

Evidence on the formation of dimers of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in a laminar diffusion flame

期刊

COMMUNICATIONS CHEMISTRY
卷 3, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s42004-020-00357-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche through the LABEX CAPPA [ANR-11-LABX-0005]
  2. Ministry of Higher Education and Research, Hauts de France Regional Council
  3. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the Contrat de Projets Etat Region (CPER CLIMIBIO)
  4. H2020 project Portable Nano Particle Emission Measurement System (PEMs4Nano) [724145]
  5. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [724145] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comprehensive understanding of soot nucleation in flame combustion is still lacking. Here the authors identify homo- and heterodimers of small-to-moderate size polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the gas to soot transition region of a laminar diffusion methane flame as viable intermediates in the soot nucleation process. The role of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the formation of nascent soot particles in flames is well established and yet the detailed mechanisms are still not fully understood. Here we provide experimental evidence of the occurrence of dimerization of PAHs in the gas phase before soot formation in a laminar diffusion methane flame, supporting the hypothesis of stabilization of dimers through the formation of covalent bonds. The main findings of this work derive from the comparative chemical analysis of samples extracted from the gas to soot transition region of a laminar diffusion methane flame, and highlight two different groups of hydrocarbons that coexist in the same mass range, but show distinctly different behavior when processed with statistical analysis. In particular, the identified hydrocarbons are small-to-moderate size PAHs (first group) and their homo- and heterodimers stabilized by the formation of covalent bonds (second group).

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