|
|
[求助]
求助:回答审稿人的问题
审稿人的问题:
Page 7 Line 25-27: The comparison of the crystallite size of the materials in this study with Degussa P25 makes little sense here. The 9.7 nm size was merely 仅仅estimated from XRD pattern. (If the Scherrer equation was used, it should be indicated in text. I actually do not think crystallite size calculated by Scherrer equation here is convincing enough, since it only provides a lower bound)There is no evidence that the 20-40 nm size of P25 was obtained with comparable approaches (I personally would assume that more direct evidence of the crystallite size of P25 would come from TEM).
我在文中是这么写的:According to the X-ray diffraction date, the lattice parameters of KLaTi2O6 were found to be a=b=c=0.3897 nm. The crystallite size was 9.7 nm, which was far less than that of Degussa P25 TiO2 with an average crystallite size of 20-40 nm (Han et al., 2007).
其实晶体粒径9.7是在做XRD的时候,仪器直接给出的crystal size值,仪器是这么算的: Williamson-Hall plot method (这种方法是日本株式会社Rigaku D/max 2500 X-ray diffraction analyzer 软件所采用的计算方法)
………………………………………….公式.( 1)
Where L is the crystallite size, K is determained by the crystallite configuration, K=1. β is the spread attributable to lattice strain and crystallite size alone. is the wavelength of the X-ray radiation ( = 0.15418 nm) and θ is the Bragg diffraction angle. Plotting against based on these results makes it possible to obtain crystallite size L from the gradient of the approximation line and lattice strain e from the y-intercept.
那我在文中改正的时候是该把公式(1)写上还是该把scherrer equation 写上?
![]()
公式(1).jpg |
» 猜你喜欢
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:
|