| Literature DB >> 27883014 |
F-X Ouf1, P Parent2, C Laffon2, I Marhaba2, D Ferry2, B Marcillaud1, E Antonsson3,4, S Benkoula3, X-J Liu5, C Nicolas3, E Robert3, M Patanen3,6, F-A Barreda7, O Sublemontier7, A Coppalle8, J Yon8, F Miserque9, T Mostefaoui10, T Z Regier11, J-B A Mitchell12, C Miron3,13.
Abstract
Many studies have been conducted on t<span class="Chemical">he environmental impacts of combustion generated aerosols. Due to their complex composition and morphology, their chemical reactivity is not well understood and new developments of analysis methods are needed. We report the first demonstration of in-flight X-ray based characterizations of freshly emitted soot particles, which is of paramount importance for understanding the role of one of the main anthropogenic particulate contributors to global climate change. Soot particles, produced by a burner for several air-to-fuel ratios, were injected through an aerodynamic lens, focusing them to a region where they interacted with synchrotron radiation. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and carbon K-edge near-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy were performed and compared to those obtained for supported samples. A good agreement is found between these samples, although slight oxidation is observed for supported samples. Our experiments demonstrate that NEXAFS characterization of supported samples provides relevant information on soot composition, with limited effects of contamination or ageing under ambient storage conditions. The highly surface sensitive XPS experiments of airborne soot indicate that the oxidation is different at the surface as compared to the bulk probed by NEXAFS. We also report changes in soot's work function obtained at different combustion conditions.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27883014 PMCID: PMC5121651 DOI: 10.1038/srep36495
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematic view of the experimental setup used in our synchrotron radiation-based XPS and NEXAFS experiment of non-supported soot particles at the PLEIADES beamline.
Operating conditions of the MiniCAST and characteristics of the emitted particles.
| Setpoint | Propane (mL/min) | Air (mL/min) | Db (nm) | Dpp (nm) | Fractal dimension | Density (kg/m3) | Crystallite length Lc (nm) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAST1 | 60 | 1.5 | 211 | 27 | 1.73 | 1543 | 2.8 | |
| CAST2 | 1.15 | 212 | 36 | 1.75 | 1234 | 2.7 | ||
| CAST3 | 1.0 | 138 | 30 | 1.79 | 1321 | 0.6 |
OC/TC: Organic-to-total carbon ratio, Db: count median electrical mobility diameter (SMPS) - Dpp: count median primary particle diameter (TEM).
*From39.
Figure 2Size distribution of the soot samples injected in the analysis chamber in the three selected experimental conditions (set points), as measured with the SMPS.
Figure 3TEM and HRTEM images of soot particles produced by the miniCAST for each set point and analysed off-line on samples deposited on carbon-coated copper grids.
The crystallites length (Lc), the primary particle diameter (Dpp) and the electrical mobility diameter (Db) of a soot aggregate are shown at the bottom of the figure.
Figure 4C1s NEXAFS spectra recorded on the aerosol phase at the PLEIADES beamline at SOLEIL, for different set points of the miniCAST aerosol source.
The data have been vertically shifted for display.
Figure 5Top: Comparison between the C1s NEXAFS spectra recorded on the aerosol phase on the PLEIADES beamline at SOLEIL with those recorded on the supported samples on the SGM beamline at CLS.
Bottom: R values for the three set points and the two phases; the inferred crystallite sized are also indicated (see text).
Figure 6Comparison of C1s XPS spectra recorded on the aerosol phase at the PLEIADES beamline at SOLEIL for each set point.
Work functions associated to different soot samples.
| Source | Work function (eV) | Structure | OC/TC (%) | Dpp (nm) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soot (CAST1) | 4.77 ± 0.13 | Ordered | 4 | 27 | Present study |
| Soot (CAST2) | 4.05 ± 0.13 | Ordered | 47 | 36 | |
| Soot (CAST3) | 4.20 ± 0.13 | Less ordered | 87 | 30 | |
| Soot (butane) | 4.34–4.40 | ? | ? | ? | |
| Soot (benzene) | 4.47–4.45 | ? | ? | ? | |
| Soot (naphthalene) | 4.74–4.55 | ? | ? | ? | |
| Graphite | 4.37–4.63 | ? | 0 | ∞ | |
| Assumption for soot | 5.00 | ? | ? | ? | |
| Graphite | 4.60 | Turbo | 0 | ∞ | |
| Graphite | 4.35 | Turbo | 0 | ∞ | |
| Diesel soot | 4.85 | ? | ? | 25 | |
| Model soot | 4.37 | Ordered | ? | 30 |
*From Müller et al.21.
**Considering errors due to the gas calibration (0.01 eV), the uncertainty in the value of 284.7 eV of the sp2-hybridized carbon in graphitic planes (0.1 eV), the fitting procedure used for determining the position of the C1s peak of each spectra (0.01 eV) and the step size of XPS spectra (0.08 eV).
Figure 7Work function of soot as a function of the primary particle diameter.