4.7 Article

Structural Investigation of Zn(II) Insertion in Bayerite, an Aluminum Hydroxide

期刊

INORGANIC CHEMISTRY
卷 55, 期 18, 页码 9306-9315

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.6b01436

关键词

-

资金

  1. Villum Foundation [VKR022364, VKR023453]
  2. Institut Francais du Danemark
  3. Clay Mineral Society (USA)
  4. Ministry of Higher Education and Science Grant [AU-2010-612-181]
  5. EPSRC
  6. University of Warwick
  7. Birmingham Science City Program
  8. Advantage West Midlands
  9. European Regional Development Fund
  10. Villum Fonden [00007292, 00007169] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bayerite was treated under hydrothermal conditions (120, 130, 140, and 150 degrees C) to prepare a series of layered double hydroxides (LDHs) with an ideal composition of ZnAl4(OH)(12)(SO4)(0.5)center dot nH(2)O (ZnAl4-LDHs). These products were investigated by both bulk techniques (powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD), transmission electron microscopy, and elemental analysis) and atomic-level techniques (H-1 and Al-27 solid-state NMR, IR, and Raman spectroscopy) to gain a detailed insight into the structure of ZnAl4-LDHs and sample composition. Four structural models 10 (one stoichiometric and three different defect models) were investigated by Rietveld refinement of the PXRD data. These were assessed using the information obtained from other characterization techniques, which favored the ideal (nondefect) structural model for ZnAl4-LDH, as, for example, Al-27 magic-angle spinning NMR showed that excess Al was present as amorphous bayerite (Al(OH)(3)) and pseudoboehmite (AlOOH). Moreover, no evidence of cation mixing, that is, partial substitution of Zn(II) onto any of four Al sites, was observed. Altogether this study highlights the challenges involved to synthesize pure ZnAl4-LDHs and the necessity to use complementary techniques such as PXRD, elemental analysis, and solid-state NMR for the characterization of the local and extended structure of ZnAl4-LDHs.

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

4.7
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