4.6 Article

Thermodynamic and Kinetic Aspects of Formamidinium Lead Iodide Thermal Decomposition

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 125, 期 40, 页码 21851-21861

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c06729

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sapienza Universita di Roma [RM11916B8879F09D]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that formamidinium lead iodide (FAPI) is more thermally stable compared to methylammonium lead iodide. The chemical processes responsible for its thermal degradation are complex. The activation energy values for decomposition obtained from X-ray diffraction (XRD) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) measurements reflect different steps of the process observed by the two techniques.
We report the results of a multi technique study on the thermodynamics and kinetics of formamidinium lead iodide (FAPI) thermal decomposition. Thermodynamics was investigated by means of Knudsen effusion techniques. Kinetics was studied either by temperature-controlled powder X-ray diffraction or by two isoconversional treatments of differential scanning calorimetry data. FAPI appears to be much more thermally stable compared to methylammonium lead iodide, as predictable from the lower acidity of the formamidinium cation compared to methylammonium. The chemical processes responsible for its thermal degradation appear to be quite complex as highlighted by the composition of the gaseous phase evolved during the process. The apparent activation energy values of the decomposition obtained from X-ray diffraction (XRD) (112 +/- 9 kJ/mol) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) measurements (205 +/- 20 and 410 +/- 20 kJ/mol, respectively, for the first and second decomposition steps identified by the deconvolution procedure) reflect the different steps of the process observed by the two techniques. The thermodynamic properties of the more important decomposition channels and the enthalpy of formation of FAPI were estimated by combining the results of Knudsen effusion measurements.

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