2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2022.112352
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mechanistic insights into the effects of alkali metal ion on ZSM-11 zeolite synthesis and its catalytic alkylation performance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 66 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The calculation finely reproduced previous results on thermostability of PAs. Consistent with recent investigations, Δ G f of t2 is slightly positive and nearly thermal neutral, suggesting that t2 would be slightly less plausible with respect to OA (Figure ) and its concentration would be lower than OA at steady state. , However, the energy barriers for t2 formation and hydrolysis into t1­(OA) are similar and higher than ∼60 kJ/mol, showing that a large portion of t2 may exist for further evolution. The calculated Δ G f of t3 and c3-3-1 are −13.5 and −16.9 kJ/mol, respectively, at 298.15 K (Table ) and are in reasonable agreement with the reported Δ G when the formed H 2 O was treated explicitly. ,, The slight difference can be attributed to the theoretical implementation and computational setups.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The calculation finely reproduced previous results on thermostability of PAs. Consistent with recent investigations, Δ G f of t2 is slightly positive and nearly thermal neutral, suggesting that t2 would be slightly less plausible with respect to OA (Figure ) and its concentration would be lower than OA at steady state. , However, the energy barriers for t2 formation and hydrolysis into t1­(OA) are similar and higher than ∼60 kJ/mol, showing that a large portion of t2 may exist for further evolution. The calculated Δ G f of t3 and c3-3-1 are −13.5 and −16.9 kJ/mol, respectively, at 298.15 K (Table ) and are in reasonable agreement with the reported Δ G when the formed H 2 O was treated explicitly. ,, The slight difference can be attributed to the theoretical implementation and computational setups.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 84%