4.6 Article

Mechanisms and Thermochemistry of Reactions of SiO and Si2O2 with OH and H2O

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 127, 期 18, 页码 4015-4026

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.3c00862

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents computational studies on the gas-phase reactions of SiO and Si2O2. The oxidation of SiO can lead to the efficient formation of silica or silicate dust particles in various environments. The reactions of SiO and the smallest SiO cluster, Si2O2, with OH radicals and H2O molecules are important factors influencing dust formation. The results suggest that the Si2O2 + OH reaction is faster than the SiO + OH reaction. The reaction of SiO + H2O is endothermic with high activation energies, while the formation of molecular complexes is more efficient. The efficiency of the Si2O2 + H2O reaction in producing Si2O3 may not be as high as previously thought, as the dissociation of H2O molecules to form OH radicals could accelerate the oxidation of SiO and Si2O2.
This paper reports on computational studies of gas-phase reactions of SiO and Si2O2. The oxidation of SiO can initiate efficient formation of silica or silicate dust particles in a wide range of environments. Both OH radicals and H2O molecules are often present in these environments, and their reactions with SiO and the smallest SiO cluster, Si2O2, affect the efficiency of eventual dust formation. Density functional theory calculations on these reactions, benchmarked against accurate coupled cluster calculations, indicate that the Si2O2 + OH reaction should be faster than SiO + OH. The reaction SiO + H2O -> SiO2 + H2 is both endothermic and has high activation energies to reaction. Instead, the formation of molecular complexes is efficient. The reaction of Si2O2 with H2O, which has been suggested as efficient for producing Si2O3, might not be as efficient as previously thought. If the H2O molecules dissociate to form OH radicals, oxidation of SiO and Si2O2 could be accelerated instead.

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