4.8 Article

Molecular Mechanism for the Self-Supported Synthesis of Graphitic Carbon Nitride from Urea Pyrolysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 1396-1406

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c03559

关键词

-

资金

  1. CSIR
  2. DST-Belspo program
  3. SERB grant [CRG/2020/000301]
  4. Indo-Belgian Research and Technology Cooperation project Optical Properties of MOFS/COFS [BL/13/IN16]
  5. FNRS-FRFC [2.5020.11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantum chemical calculations and kinetic Monte Carlo simulations were used to investigate the kinetics of one-pot synthesis of two-dimensional graphitic carbon nitride from urea pyrolysis. Two possible mechanisms were considered, with the pathway involving ammelide being preferred. The size, shape, density, and defects of the grids, as well as the relationship between rate constants and local reaction sites, play important roles in the formation of the extended g-C3N4 structures.
Quantum chemical calculations combined with kinetic Monte Carlo simulations are performed to decipher the kinetics for the one-pot synthesis of two-dimensional graphitic carbon nitride (g-C3N4) from urea pyrolysis. Two mechanisms are considered, one involving ammelide as the intermediate compound and the other considering cyanuric acid. Different grid growing patterns are investigated, and the size, shape, and density of the grids as well as the number and position of the defects are evaluated. We find that the mechanistic pathway involving ammelide is preferred. Larger g-C3N4 grids with lower density are achieved when the rate constant for melon growing is inversely proportional to the number of local reaction sites, while nearly filled smaller grids are obtained in the opposite scenario. Larger defects appear at the grid periphery while smaller holes appear throughout the grid. The synthesis of extended g-C3N4 structures is favored if the g-C3N4 growing propensity is directly proportional to the number of reaction sites.

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