4.6 Article

Inhibition and Promotion of Pyrolysis by Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) and Sulfanyl Radical (SH)

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 120, 期 45, 页码 8941-8948

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.6b09357

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Computational Infrastructure (NCI) Australia
  2. Pawsey Computing Centre in Perth
  3. Australian Research Council (ARC)
  4. Murdoch University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study resolves the interaction of sulfanyl radical (SH) with aliphatic (C-1-C-4) hydrocarbons, using CBS-QB3 based calculations. We obtained the C-H dissociation enthalpies and located the weakest link in each hydrocarbon. Subsequent computations revealed that, H abstraction by SH from the weakest C H sites in alkenes and alkynes, except for ethylene, appears noticeably exothermic. Furthermore, abstraction of H from propene, 1-butene, and iso-butene displays pronounced spontaneity (i.e., Delta(r)G degrees < -20 kJ mol(-1) between 300-1200 K) due to the relatively weak allylic hydrogen bond. However, an alkyl radical readily abstracts H atom from H2S, with H2S acting as a potent scavenger for alkyl radicals in combustion processes. That is, these reactions proceed in the opposite direction than those involving SH and alkene or alkyne species, exhibiting shallow barriers and strong spontaneity. Our findings demonstrate that the documented inhibition effect of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) on pyrolysis of alkanes does not apply to alkenes and alkynes. During interaction with hydrocarbons, the inhibitive effect of H2S and promoting interaction of SH radical depend on the reversibility of the H abstraction processes. For the three groups of hydrocarbon, Evans Polanyi plots display linear correlations between the bond dissociation enthalpies of the abstracted hydrogens and the relevant activation energies. In the case of methane, we demonstrated that the reactivity of SH radicals toward abstracting H atoms exceeds that of HO2 but falls below those of OH and NH2 radicals.

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