4.4 Article

Cost-effective two-stage varying-temperature rapid crystallization of zeolite T and SAPO-34

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRYSTAL GROWTH
卷 441, 期 -, 页码 1-11

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2016.02.003

关键词

Nucleation; Hydrothermal crystal growth; Inorganic compounds

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China, China [21276148, 21076119]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Chemical Engineering (Tianjin University) of China [SKL-ChE-14B01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, zeolite T and SAPO-34 have been synthesized by two-stage varying temperature crystallization method (TVTC method). The feature of this method is dividing the hydrothermal process into two steps. The first step is lower temperature treatment which is favorable for the crystals nucleation and the second step is higher temperature treatment which is helpful to the crystals growth. The advantage of this method is that it greatly reduces the crystallization time and particle size compared to conventional constant temperature crystallization method (CCTC method). The influences of different initial and final temperatures on the zeolite crystallinity, morphology and particle size have been investigated in detail. Ultimately, the optimal crystallization conditions of zeolite T and SAPO-34 using this method have been summarized. The samples prepared with TVTC method and CCTC method also have been contrasted. With TVTC method, the synthesis time of zeolite T crystals is reduced from 7 days to 4 days and the synthesis time of SAPO-34 crystals is reduced from 48 h to 16 h. Furthermore, the sample prepared by TVTC method has higher crystallinity compared with the sample prepared by CCTC method. The particle size distributions of samples prepared by two methods have strongly confirmed that TVTC method is beneficial to form uniform and small zeolite particles. This paper provides an efficient and economical route to the industrial preparation of zeolite T and SAPO-34. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.4
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