4.6 Article

Effect of Carbonization Temperature of Rice Husk Char Preparation on SiC Structure and Composition of By-Products in SiC Synthesis with Magnesiothermic Reduction Method

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr11010133

关键词

rice husk char; carbonization; magnesiothermic reduction; silicon carbide polytype

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigates the influence of carbonization temperature of rice husk char on SiC structure and the composition of by-products in magnesiothermic reduction. Rice husk char was carbonized at temperatures of 700, 800, 900, and 1000 degrees C and converted to SiC through magnesiothermic reduction. The products were characterized by FT-IR, XRD, and SEM-EDS. The results indicate that carbonization at 1000 degrees C produced 2H-SiC and by-products of MgO, Mg2SiO4, and Si.
The structure of rice husk char is one of the factors that influence the morphology of SiC and the composition of by-products in the magnesiothermic reduction. This structure can be improved by carbonization. Therefore, this study aims to examine the effect of the carbonization temperature of rice husk char on the structure of SiC and identify the by-products formed by the magnesiothermic reduction. The rice husk char was made by carbonization at various temperatures of 700, 800, 900, and 1000 degrees C. They were converted to SiC by magnesiothermic reduction at 600 degrees C, washing with hydrochloric acid, calcination at 700 degrees C in an air atmosphere, and washing with a mixture of hydrofluoric acid and acetic acid. The products were characterized by FT-IR, XRD, and SEM-EDS. The results showed that creating SiC using the magnesiothermic method with carbonization at a temperature of 1000 degrees C produced a polytype 2H-SiC, and the by-products were MgO, Mg2SiO4, and Si. MgO was successfully separated in the washing step with a hydrochloric acid solution, while Mg2SiO4 was separated from SiC by washing using a mixture of hydrofluoric acid and acetic acid.

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