4.6 Article

Rational Design and Facile Synthesis of Boranophosphate Ionic Liquids as Hypergolic Rocket Fuels

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 24, 期 40, 页码 10201-10207

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.201801593

关键词

boron; boranophosphates; hypergolic; ignition delay; ionic liquids

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21702196, 11472251, 21703218]
  2. National Postdoctoral Program for Innovative Talents [BX201600137]
  3. PRC's 1000 Plan Recruitment Program for Young Talents

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The design and synthesis of new hypergolic ionic liquids (HILs) as replacements for toxic hydrazine derivatives have been the focus of current academic research in the field of liquid bipropellant fuels. In most cases, however, the requirements of excellent ignition performances, good hydrolytic stabilities, and low synthetic costs are often contradictory, which makes the development of high-performance HILs an enormous challenge. Here, we show how a fuel-rich boranophosphate ion was rationally designed and used to synthesize a series of high-performance HILs with excellent comprehensive properties. In the design strategy, we introduced the {BH3} moiety into the boranophosphate ion for improving the self-ignition property, whereas the complexation of boron and phosphite was used to improve the hydrolytic activity of the borohydride species. As a result, these boranophosphate HILs exhibited wide liquid operating ranges (>220 degrees C), high densities (1.00-1.10gcm(-3)), good hydrolytic stabilities, and short ignition delay times (2.3-9.7milliseconds) with white fuming nitric acid (WFNA) as the oxidizer. More importantly, these boranophosphate HILs could be readily prepared in high yields from commercial phosphite esters, avoiding complex and time-consuming synthetic routes. This work offers an effective strategy of designing boranophosphate HILs towards safer and greener hypergolic fuels for liquid bipropellant applications.

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