4.8 Article

Quantitative X-ray diffraction analysis and its application to various coals

期刊

CARBON
卷 39, 期 12, 页码 1821-1833

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0008-6223(00)00318-3

关键词

coal; x-ray diffraction; crystallite size; crystal structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A technique is presented to obtain the maximum structural information on carbonaceous materials from their X-ray scattering curves in the middle and high range of scattering angle. This technique involves a precise and systematic analysis of X-ray scattering curves. Four Australian black coals ranging in rank from semi-anthracite to HV bituminous are included in this study, and the results are compared with data in the literature. Based on qualitative observations, a simplified coal structure, in which only two types of carbon structures including crystalline carbon and amorphous carbon are considered, is suggested. The good agreement in intensity between experimental measurements and theoretical calculations demonstrates the validity of the simplified model. The quantitative analysis yields three structural parameters. viz., fraction of amorphous carbon (x(A)), aromaticity (f(a)) as well as crystallite size and its distribution (L(a), L(c), d(002), p(n)). As expected, coal was found to contain a significant amount of highly disordered material, amorphous carbon, which gradually decreases during the coalification process. In agreement with the TEM observations, coal crystallites are found to be around 6 Angstrom in diameter and piled up by 2-4 aromatic layers on average, with the high rank coal being more condensed in terms of the inter-layer spacing. However, our measurements suggest that the average crystallite height increases with coal rank from 7.5 Angstrom for Coal1-DD to 13.75 Angstrom for Coal5-YD. The measured aromaticity, which agrees with the results of NMR spectroscopy, shows a good relationship with the hydrogen content in coal. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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