| Literature DB >> 32098426 |
Thi Thu Le1, Claudio Pistidda1, Clarissa Abetz2, Prokopios Georgopanos2, Sebastiano Garroni3, Giovanni Capurso1, Chiara Milanese4, Julián Puszkiel1,5, Martin Dornheim1, Volker Abetz2,6, Thomas Klassen1,7.
Abstract
In this work, the possibility of creating a polymer-based adaptive scaffold for improving the hydrogen storage properties of the system 2LiH+MgB2+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3) was studied. Because of its chemical stability toward the hydrogen storage material, poly(4-methyl-1-pentene) or in-short TPXTM was chosen as the candidate for the scaffolding structure. The composite system was obtained after ball milling of 2LiH+MgB2+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3) and a solution of TPXTM in cyclohexane. The investigations carried out over the span of ten hydrogenation/de-hydrogenation cycles indicate that the material containing TPXTM possesses a higher degree of hydrogen storage stability.Entities:
Keywords: carbon-based polymer; confined complex hydrides; confinement; hydrogen storage
Year: 2020 PMID: 32098426 PMCID: PMC7078616 DOI: 10.3390/ma13040991
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Summary of integral expressions for different reaction models [59,60,61,62].
| Kinetic Rate Models | Rate Equations in the Reduced-Time-Scale Form |
|---|---|
| D1 one-dimensional diffusion | α2/0.25 |
| D2 two-dimensional diffusion | [α + ((1 − α)ln(1 − α))]/0.1534 |
| D3 Jander eq. for three-dimensional diffusion | [(1 − (1 − α)1/3)2]/0.04255 |
| D4 Ginstling-Braunshtein eq. | [1 − 2/3α − (1 − α)2/3]/0.0367 |
| R2 two-dimensional interface controlled | [1 − (1 − α)1/2]/0.29289 |
| R3 three-dimensional interface controlled | [1 − (1 − α)1/3]/0.20629 |
| F1 JMA − n = 1 | −ln(1 − α)/0.6931 |
| F2 JMA − n = 1/2 | −ln(1 − α)1/2/0.832 |
| F3 JMA − n = 1/3 | −ln(1 − α)1/3/0.8849 |
| F4 JMA − n = 1/4 | −ln(1 − α)1/4/0.9124 |
| F5 JMA − n = 2/5 | −ln(1 − α)2/5/0.8636 |
Figure 1Hydrogenation profiles and cycling capability of the composites Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3) with TPXTM (a) and without TPXTM scaffold (b).
Figure 2Dehydrogenation profiles and cycling capability of the composites Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3) with TPXTM (a) and without TPXTM scaffold (b).
Figure 3Reversible hydrogen capacity for dehydrogenation over the cycling of the confined and non-confined Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3) materials.
Figure 4SEM images of non-confined Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3): (a) as-milled and (b) as-cycled material; and Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3)+TPXTM; (c,d) as-milled material at different magnifications, (e) as-cycled material.
Figure 5SEM image (a) and EDX elemental mapping (b) of the cycled RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3)+TPXTM (Fe, C, B, Mg, and O).
Figure 6XRD patterns of the composites (A) Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3): (a) after milling and (b) after cycling; and (B) Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3) with TPXTM: (a) after milling and (b) after cycling.
Figure 7FT-IR spectrum of the non-confined and confined Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3) materials: (A) (a) Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3) after milling; (b) Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3) with TPXTM after milling; (c) Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3) after 10th cycle; (d) Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3) with TPXTM after 10th cycle; and (e) pure 3TiCl3·AlCl3. (B) Zoom of (A) between 2890 to 3150 ppm.
Figure 8(t/t0.5)experimental vs. (t/t0.5)theoretical plots for Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3) at the 2nd hydrogenation at 400 °C and under 50 bar of H2. The method assumes that the most suitable reaction model provides a linear fitting with R2 close to 1 and a slope of about 1.
Fitting parameters extracted from corresponding applied models (referred to Figure 8).
| Fraction from 0.10 to 0.93 | Intercept Value | Intercept Error | Slope Value | Slope Error | Statistics Adj. R-Square |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 one-dimensional diffusion | −0.73706 | 0.05423 | 1.82867 | 0,04359 | 0.98213 |
| D2 two-dimensional diffusion | −1.18716 | 0.08155 | 2.42902 | 0.06556 | 0.97721 |
| D3 Jander eq. for three dimensional diffusion | −2.10247 | 0.2053 | 3.6289 | 0.16504 | 0.9378 |
| D4 Ginstling-Braunshtein eq. for three dimensional diffusion | −1.44381 | 0.10988 | 2.76764 | 0.08833 | 0.9684 |
| F1 JMA − n = 1 | −0.58708 | 0.04133 | 1.69726 | 0.03323 | 0.98788 |
| R2 two-dimensional phase | −0.17235 | 0.02398 | 1.16644 | 0.01928 | 0.99133 |
| R3 three-dimensional phase boundary | −0.28582 | 0.001866 | 1.11148 | 0.0015 | 0.99583 |
| F2 JMA − n = 1/2 | 0.23639 | 0.01434 | 0.74068 | 0.01153 | 0.99231 |
| F3 JMA − n = 1/3 | 0.48376 | 0.01625 | 0.48267 | 0.01306 | 0.97709 |
| F4 JMA − n = 1/4 | 0.60815 | 0.01487 | 0.3597 | 0.01195 | 0.96584 |
| F5 JMA − n = 2/5 | 0.38489 | 0.01619 | 0.58345 | 0.01301 | 0.98432 |
Figure 9(t/t0.5)experimental vs. (t/t0.5)theoretical plots for Li-RHCd+7.5(3TiCl3·AlCl3) with TPXTM at the 2nd hydrogenation at 400 °C and under 50 bar of H2. The method assumes that the most suitable reaction model provides a linear fitting with R2 close to 1 and a slope of about 1.
Fitting parameters extracted from corresponding applied models (referred to Figure 9).
| Fraction from 0.10 to 0.93 | Intercept Value | Intercept Error | Slope Value | Slope Error | Statistics Adj. R-Square | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 one-dimensional diffusion | −0.5432 | 0.04743 | 1.59934 | 0.03605 | 0.984 | |
| D2 two-dimensional diffusion | −0.93653 | 0.06158 | 2.13041 | 0.0468 | 0.98478 | |
| D3 Jander eq. for three dimensional diffusion | −1.74044 | 0.16713 | 3.19363 | 0.12701 | 0.95175 | |
| D4 Ginstling-Braunshtein eq. for three dimensional diffusion | −1.16156 | 0.08411 | 2.43031 | 0.06392 | 0.97833 | |
| F1 JMA − n = 1 | −0.4105 | 0.02734 | 1.48735 | 0.02078 | 0.99379 | |
| R2 two-dimensional phase | −0.04597 | 0.0256 | 1.01779 | 0.01945 | 0.98844 | |
| R3 three-dimensional phase boundary | −0.14561 | 0.01717 | 1.04599 | 0.01305 | 0.99587 | |
| F2 JMA − n = 1/2 | 0.31754 | 0.01728 | 0.64549 | 0.01313 | 0.98692 | |
| F3 JMA − n = 1/3 | 0.53768 | 0.01789 | 0.41974 | 0.0136 | 0.96747 | |
| F4 JMA − n = 1/4 | 0.64873 | 0.01593 | 0.3124 | 0.01211 | 0.9541 | |
| F5 JMA − n = 2/5 | 0.44955 | 0.01835 | 0.50783 | 0.01395 | 0.97641 |