4.8 Article

Unraveling the crystallization mechanism of CoAPO-5 molecular sieves under hydrothermal conditions

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 127, 期 41, 页码 14454-14465

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja054014m

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hydrothermal crystallization of CoAPO-5 molecular sieves has been studied using time-resolved in-situ SAXS/WAXS, UV-vis, Raman, and XAS. Data collected during heating to 180 degrees C allowed the observation of different steps occurring during the transformation of the amorphous gel into a crystalline material from a macroscopic and atomic perspective. Raman spectroscopy detected the initial formation of Al-O-P bonds, whereas SAXS showed that these gel particles had a broad size distribution ranging from ca. 7 to 20 nm before crystallization began. WAXS showed that this crystallization was sharp and occurred at around 160 degrees C. Analysis of the crystallization kinetics suggested a one-dimensional growth process. XAS showed that Co2+ transformed via a two-stage process during heating involving (i) a gradual transformation of octahedral coordination into tetrahedral coordination before the appearance of Bragg peaks corresponding to AFI, suggesting progressive incorporation of Co2+ into the poorly ordered Al-O-P network up to ca. 150 degrees C, and (ii) a rapid transformation of remaining octahedral Co2+ at the onset of crystallization. Co2+ was observed to retard crystallization of AFI but provided valuable information regarding the synthesis process by acting as an internal probe. A three-stage, one-dimensional crystallization mechanism is proposed: (i) an initial reaction between aluminum and phosphate units forming a primary amorphous phase, (ii) progressive condensation of linear Al-O-P chains forming a poorly ordered structure separated by template molecules up to ca. 155 degrees C, and (iii) rapid internal reorganization of the aluminophosphate network leading to crystallization of the AFI crystal structure.

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

4.8
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