| Literature DB >> 31561514 |
Leonardo C Pacheco-Londoño1,2, José L Ruiz-Caballero3,4,5, Michael L Ramírez-Cedeño6, Ricardo Infante-Castillo7, Nataly J Gálan-Freyle8,9, Samuel P Hernández-Rivera10.
Abstract
In the fields of Security and Defense, explosive traces must be analyzed at the sites of the terrorist events. The persistence on surfaces of these traces depends on the sublimation processes and the interactions with the surfaces. This study presents evidence that the sublimation process of these traces on stainless steel (SS) surfaces is very different than in bulk quantities. The enthalpies of sublimation of traces of four highly energetic materials: triacetone triperoxide (TATP), 2,4-dinitrotoluene (DNT), 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), and 1,3,5- trinitrohexahydro-s-triazine (RDX) deposited on SS substrates were determined by optical fiber coupled-grazing angle probe Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy. These were compared with enthalpies of sublimation determined by thermal gravimetric analysis for bulk amounts and differences between them were found. The sublimation enthalpy of RDX was very different for traces than for bulk quantities, attributed to two main factors. First, the beta-RDX phase was present at trace levels, unlike the case of bulk amounts which consisted only of the alpha-RDX phase. Second, an interaction between the RDX and SS was found. This interaction energy was determined using grazing angle FTIR microscopy. In the case of DNT and TNT, bulk and traces enthalpies were statistically similar, but it is evidenced that at the level of traces a metastable phase was observed. Finally, for TATP the enthalpies were statistically identical, but a non-linear behavior and a change of heat capacity values different from zero was found for both trace and bulk phases.Entities:
Keywords: FTIR; explosive; grazing angle; sublimation; thermogravimetric analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31561514 PMCID: PMC6804148 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24193494
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Grazing angle probe fiber-optic (GAP) experimental setup for the sublimation highly energetic material (HEM).
Figure 2Mid-infrared (MIR) reflectance spectra for different HEMs undergoing sublimation on stainless steel (SS) surfaces. (a) TATP at 24 C, (b) 2,4-DNT at 35 C, (c) TNT at 70 C, and (d) RDX at 80 C.
Figure 3Calibration curves for RDX on SS by classical least squares (CLS) and PLS models.
Figure 4Prediction of using the PLS model vs. time for RDX on SS at different temperatures.
Figure 5Arrhenius plots of GAP and TGA data used to obtain the sublimation rates for TATP, 2,4-DNT, TNT, and RDX. The units for GAP are s and for TGA are kg·s.
Enthalpy of sublimation for HEM and desorption energy for RDX on SS.
| Exp | HEM | Range of |
| R | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GAP | TATP | 14–33 | 20.9 | 144 ± 14 | 0.997 |
| TGA_1 | TATP | 20–65 | 37.5 | 83 ± 5 | 0.999 |
| TGA_2 | TATP | 22–64 | 44.0 | 87 ± 3 | 1.000 |
| TGA_3 | TATP | 21–63 | 37.8 | 86 ± 2 | 1.000 |
| GAP | 2,4-DNT | 23–35 | 36.0 | 94 ± 5 | 0.986 |
| TGA | 2,4-DNT | 25–75 | 46.6 | 94 ± 2 | 0.998 |
| GAP | TNT | 40–70 | 55.0 | 111 ± 6 | 0.998 |
| TGA | TNT | 40–65 | 52.5 | 95 ± 3 | 0.997 |
| GAP | RDX | 22–80 | 56.2 | 153 ± 5 | 0.998 |
| TGA | RDX | 55–125 | 90.0 | 99 ± 3 | 0.987 |
| TPM | RDX | ||||
| 5 | 117 ± 2 | ||||
| 10 | 142 ± 3 | ||||
| 20 | 200 ± 3 |
Enthalpies of sublimation for standards (kJ/mol) and (kJ/mol·K) for HEMs.
| Molecule | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TATP | 104 ± 15 | 99 ± 6 | 107 ± 3 | 102 ± 3 |
| 2,4-DNT | 103 ± 11 | 100 ± 5 | ||
| TNT | 117 ± 31 | 120 ± 9 | ||
| RDX | 165 ± 22 for | 112 ± 20 for | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TATP | 8.6 ± 0.9 | 1.21 ± 0.09 | 1.50 ± 0.04 | 1.24 ± 0.04 |
| 2,4-DNT | 1.1 ± 0.9 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | ||
| TNT | 0.3 ± 1.0 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | ||
| RDX | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 0.2 ± 0.3 |
Enthalpies of sublimation and values for TATP from this study and the literature.
| N of | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GAP | 20.9 | 19 | 8.6 ± 0.9 | 142 ± 14 |
| TGA_1 | 37.5 | 14 | 1.21 ± 0.09 | 83 ± 5 |
| TGA_2 | 44 | 42 | 1.50 ± 0.04 | 87 ± 2 |
| TGA_3 | 37.8 | 88 | 1.24 ± 0.03 | 85 ± 2 |
| Damour et al., 2010 [ | 14.3 | 27 | 0 | 86.2 ± 1 |
| Ramirez et al., 2006 [ | 50.0 | 7 | 0.75 ± 0.08 | 85.8 |
| Felix et al., 2011 [ | 50.0 | 8 | - | 72.1 |
| Oxley et al., 2005 [ | 40 | 6 | 0.3 ± 0.5 | 109 |
| Oxley et al., 2009 [ | 32.2 | 7 | 0.6 ± 0.7 | 73 |
| Dunayevskiy et al., 2007 [ | 0 | - | - | 81.3 |
| Espinosa-Fuentes et al., 2015 [ | 46 | 32 | 1.5 | 103.8 ± 0.2 |
Enthalpies of sublimation for DNT, TNT, and RDX in this study and the in literature.
| HEM | Autor |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| DNT | This work from GAP | 36 | 94 ± 5 |
| DNT | This work from TGA | 46.6 | 94 ± 2 |
| DNT | Lenchitz 1970 [ | 64 | 98.3 ± 2.5 |
| DNT | Lenchitz 1970 [ | 25 | 99.6 ± 2.5 |
| DNT | Felix et al., 2011 [ | 52.4 | 96.2 |
| DNT | Pella 1976 [ | 37 | 95.80 ± 1.25 |
| DNT | Lenchitz 1971 [ | – | 99.6 ± 1.3 |
| TNT | This work from GAP | 55 | 111 ± 6 |
| TNT | This work from TGA | 52.5 | 95 ± 3 |
| TNT | Edwards 1950 [ | – | 118.4 |
| TNT | Dionne et al., 1986 [ | 25 | 113 |
| TNT | Gershanik et al., 2010 [ | 40 | 97 ± 7 |
| TNT | Oxley et al., 2005 [ | 36 | 137 |
| TNT | Eiceman et al., 1997 [ | 114.5 | 87 |
| TNT | Leggett 1977 [ | 26 | 141.1 ± 0.2 |
| TNT | Hikal et al., 2014 [ | 67.5 | 95.9 ± 1 |
| TNT | Hikal et al., 2011 [ | – | 100.2 |
| TNT | Mu et al., 2003 [ | 32.5 | 131 |
| TNT | Chickos et al., 2002 [ | 35 | 112.4 |
| TNT | Cundall et al., 1978 [ | 25 | 113.2 ± 1.5 |
| TNT | Felix et al., 2011 [ | 54.8 | 106.8 |
| TNT | Pella 1977 [ | – | 99.2 ± 2.0 |
| TNT | Lenchitz 1971 [ | 25 | 104.6 ± 1.7 |
| TNT | Lenchitz 1970 [ | 65 | 103.3 ± 2.5 |
| TNT | Jones 1960 [ | – | 118.4 ± 4.2 |
| TNT | Hikal 2019 [ | 55 | 105.9 ± 1.4 |
| TNT | Hikal 2019 [ | 55 | 102.1 ± 2.7 |
| TNT | Hikal 2019 [ | 55 | 105.8 ± 1.6 |
| TNT | Lee 2019 [ | 18.5 | 104.4 ± 2.4 |
| RDX | This work from GAP | 56.2 | 150 ± 5 |
| RDX | This work from TGA | 90 | 99 ± 3 |
| RDX | Rosen et al., 1969 [ | – | 130.2 |
| RDX | Gershanik et al., 2012 [ | 65 | 115 - 134 |
| RDX | Eiceman et al., 1997 [ | 130 | 115 |
| RDX | Hikal et al., 2011 [ | – | 128 |
| RDX | Hikal et al., 2014 [ | 120 | 130 ± 2 |
| RDX | Cundall et al., 1978 [ | 25 | 134.3 |
| RDX | Felix et al., 2011 [ | 92 | 99.5 |
| RDX | Chickos et al., 2002 [ | – | 112.5 ± 0.8 |
| RDX | Rosen et al., 1969 [ | 77 | 130.1 |
Figure 6Plot of thickness vs. T(C) from TPM-TDS and d(R/R)/dT vs. T.