| ²é¿´: 387 | »Ø¸´: 0 | ||
lemonbaobao½ð³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
|
[ÇóÖú]
ÂÛÎÄÐÞ¸ÄÇóÖú£¬Éó¸åÈËÌáµ½ÁËraft like particles
|
¼±Ç󣡣¡£¡£¡![]() ÎÒµÄÂÛÎÄÀïÃæ¶ÔÓÚ´ß»¯¼ÁµÄ±íÕ÷£¬XRDºÍTEM²â³öÀ´µÄƽ¾ùÁ£¾¶±È½ÏС£¬¶øCOÎü¸½Ëã³öÀ´µÄ±È½Ï´ó£¬ËùÒÔÉó¸åÈËÌáÁËÕâôһ¶Î»°¡£½¨Òéassuming more raft like (instead of spherical) particles¡£ ¿ÉÊÇÎÒ²éÁËÎÄÏ×£¬ÀïÃæÃ»½Ì¼ÙÉèraft like particleÔõôËãÁ£¾¶°¡£¿£¿£¿ ÁíÍ⣬Pd/CNTsµÄ´ß»¯¼Á»¹ÓÐʲô±ÈCO»¯Ñ§Îü¸½¸ü׼ȷµÄ²âÁ¿·½·¨Ã´£¿ ÎÒ¸ÃÔõô°ì£¿£¿£¿ ![]() ![]() ÏÂÃæÊÇÉó¸åÈ˵ÄÒâ¼û£º ¡°The discrepancies between the particle sizes obtained from the TEM and CO chemisorptions is a little troubling (pg. 13 and top of pg. 14). It¡¯s always tricky to get these particle sizes correct, by either method. Perhaps the authors should re-check their calculations, assuming more raft like (instead of spherical) particles, to determine if this would provide better agreement. At least, they should specify the adsorbed CO molecular surface area that they used, where they obtained this value from, and maybe search to see if better alternatives for CO/Pd exist. Note that the TEM-XRD agreement is pretty good, which calls into question the CO chemisorption¡± ¸÷λ´óÏÀ£¬°ï°ïÎÒ°É£¡£¡ |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
2026ÄêÒ¶ÆóËï»ù½ð
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
ÎÒ¾ÍÊÇÉêÇëÒ»¸öÃæÉÏÏîÄ¿¶øÒÑ£¬ÕâÆÀÉóÒâ¼ûÊǰ´ÕÕ½ÜÇàµÄÌõ¼þÆÀµÄ°É£¿
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
ÊÛSCIÒ»ÇøÎÄÕ£¬ÎÒ:8.O.55.1.O.54,¿ÆÄ¿ÆëÈ«,¿ÉÙ¤¼±
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
ÓжàÉÙÈËÊǽñÌì²éϵͳ֪µÀ½á¹ûµÄ£¿
ÒѾÓÐ18È˻ظ´
ÊÛSCI-T0PÎÄÕ£¬ÎÒ:8O.5.5.1.O.54,¿ÆÄ¿ÆëÈ«,¿É+¼±
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
ÊÛSCIÎÄÕ£¬ÎÒ:8O.5.5.1O.54,¿ÆÄ¿È«,¿ÉÊ®¼±
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
ÊÛSCIÒ»ÇøÎÄÕ£¬ÎÒ:8.O.55.1.O.54,¿ÆÄ¿ÆëÈ«,¿ÉÙ¤¼±
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
¹ú×ÔÈ»ÆÀÉóÒâ¼û
ÒѾÓÐ15È˻ظ´
Ϊʲô×ÊÖúÊý¸÷´ó¸ßУ¶¼´´Ð¸ߣ¬×Ô¼ºÉêÇëÔõô¾ÍÕâôÄÑ
ÒѾÓÐ13È˻ظ´
¹ú×ÔÈ»ÃæÉϸ´ÅÌ~»¶ÓÌÖÂÛ
ÒѾÓÐ14È˻ظ´











»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥
ͶƱ:
30