Revealing Hydrogen States in Carbon Structures by Analyzing the Thermal Desorption Spectra
<p>Processing of the thermal desorption spectrum (heating rate β = 25 K s<sup>−1</sup>, see Figure 1 in [<a href="#B7-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">7</a>]) of hydrogen for pyrolytic graphite (tape with sizes 0.5 × 1 × 40 mm) subjected irradiation (at <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>irr</sub>. = 873 K, for time <span class="html-italic">t</span><sub>ir</sub>r. = 7.5 × 103 s) with atomic hydrogen (flux ~5 × 10<sup>13</sup> cm<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>), by using a W-wire (at about 2773 K) as atomizer, as follows: (<b>a</b>) Deconvolution, with the help of the methodology [<a href="#B20-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">20</a>], by Gaussians (peaks ## 1–6). The dependence of the quadratic parameter of the theoretical curve from the experimental one on the Gaussian number is shown in the inset. Hence, it follows a suitable number of peaks (as 6). (<b>b</b>) Deconvolution, with the help of the numerical simulation [<a href="#B21-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">21</a>], by five non-Gaussians (peaks ## 1–5) corresponding to the first-order reactions and by one non-Gaussian (peak #6) corresponding to the second-order reaction.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>A mass 4 amu, i.e., D<sub>2</sub>, thermal desorption spectrum [<a href="#B10-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">10</a>] from the HOPG surface after a 2 min D atom dose at 2200 K onto a room temperature sample, i.e., <span class="html-italic">T</span><sub>irr</sub><sub>.</sub> ≈ 300 K and <span class="html-italic">t</span><sub>irr</sub><sub>.</sub> = 1.2 × 10<sup>2</sup> s (ramp rate: <span class="html-italic">β</span> = 2 K s<sup>−1</sup> below 450 K, <span class="html-italic">β</span> = 1 K s<sup>−1</sup> above), as follows: (<b>a</b>) Deconvolution, with the help of the methodology [<a href="#B20-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">20</a>], by Gaussians (peaks ## 1,2). The arrow indicates the maximum temperature of the thermal anneal performed before recording the STM image of “dimer structures” of hydrogen atoms on the graphite surface. (<b>b</b>) Deconvolution, with the help of the numerical simulation [<a href="#B21-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">21</a>], by non-Gaussians (peaks ## 1,2) corresponding to the first-order reactions. (<b>c</b>) Deconvolution, with the help of the numerical simulation [<a href="#B21-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">21</a>], by non-Gaussians (peaks ## 1,2) corresponding to the second-order reactions.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Approximation of the thermal desorption spectrum (from Figure 6 in [<a href="#B9-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">9</a>]) measured after admitting D atoms to clean HOPG surfaces at 150 K: (<b>a</b>) By four Gaussians (exposure 5.8 ML (1 ML = 3.8 × 10<sup>15</sup> cm<sup>−2</sup>)). (<b>b</b>) By four Gaussians (exposure 2.3 ML). (<b>c</b>) By three Gaussians (exposure 1.2 ML). (<b>d</b>) By five Gaussians (exposure 0.6 ML). (<b>e</b>) By three Gaussians (exposure 0.3 ML). (<b>f</b>) By three Gaussians (exposure 0.1 ML).</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Deconvolution of the thermal desorption spectrum (from <a href="#carbon-08-00006-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>d, <a href="#carbon-08-00006-t0A4" class="html-table">Table A4</a>) by non-Gaussians (peaks ## 1–4), with the help of the numerical simulation [<a href="#B19-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">19</a>,<a href="#B20-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">20</a>], in the approximation of the first-order reactions.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Deconvolution by four Gaussians (peaks #1–4) of the thermal desorption spectrum (from Figure 6 in [<a href="#B9-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">9</a>]) measured after admitting H atoms (exposure 5.8 ML, 1 ML = 3.8 × 10<sup>15</sup> cm<sup>−2</sup>) to clean HOPG surfaces at 150 K.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Deconvolution of the thermal desorption spectrum (from Figure 8c in [<a href="#B9-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">9</a>]) measured after admitting D atoms (exposure 12 ML, 1 ML = 3.8 × 10<sup>15</sup> cm<sup>−2</sup>) to clean HOPG surfaces at 150 K, as follows: (<b>a</b>) By three Gaussians (peaks #1–3), with the help of the methodology [<a href="#B20-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">20</a>]. (<b>b</b>) By three non-Gaussians, with the help of the numerical simulation [<a href="#B20-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">20</a>,<a href="#B21-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">21</a>], in the approximation of the first-order reactions.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Deconvolution, with the help of the numerical simulation [<a href="#B20-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">20</a>,<a href="#B21-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">21</a>], of thermal desorption spectrum measured after admitting D atoms to clean HOPG surfaces at 150 K, in the approximation of the first-order reactions, as follows: (<b>a</b>) By two non-gaussians for exposure 0.4 ML (Figure 8b in [<a href="#B9-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">9</a>]). (<b>b</b>) By one non-Gaussian for exposure 0.05 ML (Figure 8a in [<a href="#B9-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">9</a>]); 1 ML = 3.8 × 10<sup>15</sup> cm<sup>−2</sup>.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Deconvolution by four Gaussians (peaks #1–4) of the thermal desorption spectrum ((from <a href="#carbon-08-00006-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a> (HOPG-ZYN+2300 K) in [<a href="#B9-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">9</a>])) measured after admitting D atoms (exposure 12 ML, 1 ML = 3.8 × 10<sup>15</sup> cm<sup>−2</sup>) to clean HOPG surfaces at 150 K.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Deconvolution of the thermal desorption spectrum (the heating rate β = 2 K s<sup>−1</sup> [<a href="#B12-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">12</a>]) of deuterium for isotropic graphite after plasma exposure (90 min, 510 K), as follows: (<b>a</b>) By five Gaussians (peaks #1–5). (<b>b</b>) By five non-Gaussians, with the help of the numerical simulation [<a href="#B20-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">20</a>,<a href="#B21-carbon-08-00006" class="html-bibr">21</a>], in the approximation of the first-order reactions.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology and Materials
- (1)
- The results of studying the thermal desorption of hydrogen (of different content) in some carbon nanostructures and graphite, particularly, in the graphane-like structures, see Ref. [20];
- (2)
- The results of studying the characteristics and physics of processes of thermal desorption of deuterium from isotropic graphite at 700–1700 K, see Ref. [19];
- (3)
- The results of the kinetic analysis of the hydrogen thermal desorption spectra for graphite and advanced carbon nanomaterials, see Ref. [18].
3. Results
3.1. Results of Processing the TDS Data for Pyrolytic Graphite after Irradiation with Atomic Hydrogen
3.2. Interpretation of Peak #2 and #4
3.3. Interpretation of Peaks #3 and #5
3.4. Interpretation of Peak #6
3.5. Results of Processing the TDS Data for the (0001) Graphite Surface after Irradiation with Hydrogen Atoms, Relevance to Their Clustering
3.6. Interpretation of Results of Processing the TDS Data for the (0001) Graphite Surface after Irradiation with Hydrogen Atoms, Relevance to Their Clustering
3.7. Results of Processing the TDS Data for the (0001) Graphite Surface after Irradiation with Hydrogen Atoms, Relevance to Their Adsorption
3.8. Interpretation of Peak #1
3.9. Interpretation of Peaks #2 and #3
3.10. Interpretation of Peak #4
3.11. Results of Processing the TDS Data for Hydrogen Adsorption on Terraces and Terrace Edges of Graphite (0001) Surface after Irradiation with D Atoms
3.12. Results of Processing the TDS Data for Isotropic Graphite after Irradiation with Atomic Hydrogen in Plasma
3.13. Comparison with the Related Results of Processing the TDS Data for Nanoscale Carbon Structures
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Peak # | Tmax, K | Order Reactions | Q, kJ mol−1 | K0, s−1 | K(Tmax), s−1 | Q*, kJ mol−1 | γ | C0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1001 | First | 163 | 1.5 × 108 | 0.47 | 162 | 0.02 | 5.0 × 10−9 |
Second | 326 | 1.0 × 1017 | 0.97 | 325 | ||||
2 | 1145 | First | 201 | 7.3 × 108 | 0.49 | 201 | 0.25 | 6.2 × 10−8 |
Second | 402 | 2.2 × 1018 | 1.00 | 401 | ||||
3 | 1226 | First | 373 | 5.7 × 1015 | 0.73 | 371 | 0.04 | 1.0 × 10−8 |
Second | 745 | 8.6 × 1031 | 1.50 | 742 | ||||
4 | 1300 | First | 227 | 5.3 × 108 | 0.40 | 225 | 0.14 | 3.5 × 10−8 |
Second | 452 | 1.2 × 1018 | 0.82 | 451 | ||||
5 | 1389 | First | 441 | 2.6 × 1016 | 0.68 | 437 | 0.04 | 1.0 × 10−8 |
Second | 876 | 1.2 × 1033 | 1.40 | 874 | ||||
6 | 1538 | First | 189 | 6.3 × 105 | 0.24 | 188 | 0.51 | 1.3 × 10−7 |
Second | 377 | 3.0 × 1012 | 0.47 | 376 |
Peak # | Tmax, K | Order Reactions | Q, kJmol−1 | K0, s−1 | K(Tmax), s−1 | γ | θ(Tmax) | C0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 950 | first | 162 | 4.4 × 108 | 0.54 | 0.01 | 0.41 | 2.5 × 10−9 |
980 | second | 326 | 2.3 × 1017 | 0.97 | 0.02 | 0.53 | 5.0 × 10−9 | |
2 | 1122 | first | 230 | 2.8 × 1010 | 0.55 | 0.22 | 0.40 | 5.5 × 10−8 |
1129 | second | 340 | 4.1 × 1015 | 0.76 | 0.26 | 0.53 | 6.5 × 10−8 | |
3 | 1198 | first | 371 | 1.2 × 1016 | 0.78 | 0.05 | 0.39 | 1.3 × 10−8 |
1198 | second | 745 | 2.0 × 1032 | 1.49 | 0.03 | 0.52 | 7.5 × 10−9 | |
4 | 1259 | first | 225 | 9.2 × 108 | 0.43 | 0.13 | 0.40 | 3.2 × 10−8 |
1259 | second | 385 | 3.0 × 1015 | 0.67 | 0.13 | 0.53 | 3.3 × 10−8 | |
5 | 1360 | first | 441 | 6.2 × 1016 | 0.72 | 0.04 | 0.39 | 1.0 × 10−8 |
1360 | second | 807 | 7.0 × 1030 | 1.26 | 0.03 | 0.52 | 7.5 × 10−9 | |
6 | 1526 | first | 212 | 4.9 × 106 | 0.27 | 0.55 | 0.41 | 1.4 × 10−7 |
1526 | second | 320 | 3.9 × 1010 | 0.39 | 0.53 | 0.54 | 1.3 × 10−7 |
Peak # | Tmax, K | Order Reactions | Q, kJ mol−1 | K0, s−1 | K(Tmax), s−1 | Q*, kJ mol−1 | γ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 469 | first | 64.6 | 5.5 × 105 | 3.5 × 10−2 | 64.5 | 0.55 |
second | 130 | 2.1 × 1013 | 7.1 × 10−2 | 129 | |||
2 | 584 | first | 54.6 | 1.5 × 103 | 1.9 × 10−2 | 54.5 | 0.45 |
second | 110 | 2.5 × 108 | 3.9 × 10−2 | 110 |
Peak # | Tmax, K | Order Reactions | Q, kJ mol−1 | K0, s−1 | K(Tmax), s−1 | Q*, kJ mol−1 | γ | C0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
peaks ##1–4 in Figure 3a | ||||||||
1 | 353 | first | 6.2 | 4.9 × 10−2 | 5.9 × 10−3 | 6.1 | 0.24 | 1.2 × 10−8 |
second | 13 | 9.3 × 10−1 | 0.11 | 11.5 | ||||
2 | 436 | first | 60.8 | 7.4 × 105 | 3.8 × 10−2 | 60.3 | 0.04 | 2.1 × 10−9 |
second | 120 | 2.2 × 1013 | 7.6 × 10−2 | 120 | ||||
3 | 508 | first | 52.0 | 5.4 × 103 | 2.4 × 10−2 | 51.9 | 0.67 | 3.2 × 10−8 |
second | 104 | 2.5 × 109 | 4.8 × 10−2 | 104 | ||||
4 | 584 | first | 208 | 3.0 × 1017 | 7.3 × 10−2 | 207 | 0.05 | 2.2 × 10−9 |
second | 415 | 2.4 × 1036 | 0.15 | 415 | ||||
peaks ##1–4 in Figure 3b | ||||||||
1 | 361 | first | 6.3 | 4.7 × 10−2 | 5.7 × 10−3 | 6.2 | 0.19 | 6.9 × 10−9 |
second | 13.1 | 8.7 × 10−1 | 1.1 × 10−2 | 11.7 | ||||
2 | 497 | first | 128 | 1.7 × 1012 | 6.1 × 10−2 | 126 | 0.11 | 4.2 × 10−9 |
second | 251 | 2.7 × 1025 | 0.12 | 251 | ||||
3 | 500 | first | 42.3 | 5.4 × 102 | 2.0 × 10−2 | 42.1 | 0.66 | 2.4 × 10−8 |
second | 84.4 | 2.8 × 107 | 4.0 × 10−2 | 84.2 | ||||
4 | 581 | first | 212 | 8.6 × 1017 | 7.6 × 10−2 | 213 | 0.04 | 1.6 × 10−9 |
second | 430 | 7.0 × 1037 | 0.15 | 427 | ||||
peaks ##1–3 in Figure 3c | ||||||||
1 | 354 | first | 6.5 | 5.6 × 10−2 | 6.2 × 10−3 | 6.4 | 0.18 | 4.5 × 10−9 |
second | 13.4 | 1.2 | 1.2 × 10−2 | 12.2 | ||||
2 | 491 | first | 73.0 | 2.2 × 106 | 3.7 × 10−2 | 73.1 | 0.67 | 1.6 × 10−8 |
second | 147 | 3.5 × 1014 | 7.3 × 10−2 | 146 | ||||
3 | 567 | first | 90.8 | 8.0 × 106 | 3.4 × 10−2 | 90.4 | 0.15 | 3.6 × 10−9 |
second | 181 | 3.7 × 1015 | 6.8 × 10−2 | 181 | ||||
peaks ##1–5 in Figure 3d | ||||||||
1 | 457 | first | 12.6 | 2.0 × 10−1 | 7.3 × 10−3 | 12.6 | 0.16 | 2.3 × 10−9 |
second | 24.9 | 1.1 × 101 | 1.5 × 10−2 | 25.6 | ||||
2 | 477 | first | 76.2 | 9.0 × 106 | 4.0 × 10−2 | 75.8 | 0.37 | 5.3 × 10−9 |
second | 152 | 4.0 × 1015 | 8.0 × 10−2 | 152 | ||||
3 | 493 | first | 132 | 6.0 × 1012 | 6.4 × 10−2 | 130 | 0.33 | 4.7 × 10−9 |
second | 260 | 5.4 × 1026 | 0.13 | 261 | ||||
4 | 540 | first | 157 | 9.2 × 1013 | 6.4 × 10−2 | 156 | 0.05 | 7.0 × 10−10 |
second | 314 | 3.1 × 1029 | 0.13 | 313 | ||||
5 | 577 | first | 162 | 2.9 × 1013 | 5.8 × 10−2 | 161 | 0.09 | 1.3 × 10−9 |
second | 322 | 1.8 × 1028 | 0.12 | 322 | ||||
peaks ##1–3 in Figure 3e | ||||||||
1 | 451 | first | 13.2 | 2.6 × 10−1 | 7.8 × 10−3 | 13.2 | 0.25 | 1.8 × 10−9 |
second | 26.1 | 1.7 × 101 | 1.6 × 10−2 | 26.5 | ||||
2 | 485 | first | 99.6 | 2.7 × 109 | 5.1 × 10−2 | 100 | 0.65 | 4.7 × 10−9 |
second | 202 | 6.5 × 1020 | 0.10 | 200 | ||||
3 | 575 | first | 135 | 9.6 × 1010 | 4.9 × 10−2 | 134 | 0.10 | 7.1 × 10−10 |
second | 268 | 2.0 × 1023 | 9.7 × 10−2 | 268 | ||||
peaks ##1–3 in Figure 3f | ||||||||
1 | 411 | first | 8.4 | 7.0 × 10−2 | 6.0 × 10−3 | 8.4 | 0.33 | 1.2 × 10−9 |
second | 16.8 | 1.7 | 1.2 × 10−2 | 16.7 | ||||
2 | 484 | first | 104.5 | 1.0 × 1010 | 5.4 × 10−2 | 104.6 | 0.61 | 2.2 × 10−9 |
second | 211 | 6.0 × 1021 | 0.11 | 209 | ||||
3 | 576 | first | 160 | 1.7 × 1013 | 5.7 × 10−2 | 158 | 0.06 | 2.3 × 10−10 |
second | 317 | 6.4 × 1027 | 0.12 | 317 |
Peak # | Tmax, K | Q, kJ mol−1 | K0, s−1 | K(Tmax), s−1 | γ | θmax |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 457 | 12.6 | 2.0 × 10−1 | 7.3 × 10−3 | 0.15 | 0.52 |
2 | 490 | 120 | 3.9 × 1011 | 6.0 × 10−2 | 0.68 | 0.39 |
3 | 532 | 148 | 2.1 × 1013 | 6.3 × 10−2 | 0.05 | 0.39 |
4 | 578 | 161 | 2.0 × 1013 | 5.8 × 10−2 | 0.12 | 0.39 |
Peak # | Tmax, K | Order Reactions | Q, kJ mol−1 | K0, s−1 | K(Tmax), s−1 | Q*, kJ mol−1 | γ | C0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 420 | first | 21.5 | 7.0 | 1.5 × 10−2 | 21.4 | 0.25 | 9.9 × 10−9 |
second | 42.9 | 6.5 × 103 | 2.9 × 10−2 | 42.9 | ||||
2 | 472 | first | 49.0 | 6.9 × 103 | 2.6 × 10−2 | 48.7 | 0.62 | 2.5 × 10−8 |
second | 97.4 | 3.2 × 109 | 5.2 × 10−2 | 97.4 | ||||
3 | 507.5 | first | 160 | 2.2 × 1015 | 7.4 × 10−2 | 159 | 0.06 | 2.4 × 10−9 |
second | 319 | 1.1 × 1032 | 1.5 × 10−1 | 319 | ||||
4 | 563.5 | first | 170 | 4.0 × 1014 | 6.4 × 10−2 | 170 | 0.07 | 2.6 × 10−9 |
second | 341 | 5.0 × 1030 | 0.13 | 340 |
Peak # | Tmax, K | Order Reactions | Q, kJ mol−1 | K0, s−1 | K(Tmax), s−1 | Q*, kJ mol−1 | γ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 212 | first | 9.2 | 4.5 | 2.5 × 10−2 | 9.2 | 0.03 |
second | 18.9 | 2.3 × 103 | 4.8 × 10−2 | 18.0 | |||
2 | 506 | first | 45.6 | 1.1 × 103 | 2.1 × 10−2 | 45.4 | 0.90 |
second | 91.2 | 1.1 × 108 | 4.3 × 10−2 | 90.9 | |||
3 | 586 | first | 212 | 6.2 × 1017 | 7.4 × 10−2 | 212 | 0.07 |
second | 426 | 1.5 × 1037 | 0.15 | 424 |
Peak #. | Tmax, K | Q, kJ mol−1 | K0, s−1 | K(Tmax), s−1 | γ | θmax |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 215 | 6.0 | 4.5 × 10−1 | 1.6 × 10−2 | 0.06 | 0.56 |
2 | 508 | 62.0 | 6.8 × 104 | 2.9 × 10−2 | 0.79 | 0.41 |
3 | 583 | 160 | 1.2 × 1013 | 5.7 × 10−2 | 0.15 | 0.39 |
Peak # | Tmax, K | Q, kJ mol−1 | K0, s−1 | K(Tmax), s−1 | γ | θmax |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
the two peaks (non-Gaussians) in Figure 7a | ||||||
1 | 492 | 108 | 1.6 × 1010 | 5.4 × 10−2 | 0.89 | 0.40 |
2 | 583 | 145 | 5.0 × 1011 | 5.1 × 10−2 | 0.11 | 0.39 |
the peak (non-Gaussian) in Figure 7b | ||||||
1 | 492 | 113 | 5.6 × 1010 | 5.6 × 10−2 | 1.0 | 0.40 |
Peak # | Tmax, K | Order Reactions | Q, kJ mol−1 | K0, s−1 | K(Tmax), s−1 | Q*, kJ mol−1 | γ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 356 | first | 5.1 | 3.0 × 10−2 | 4.7 × 10−3 | 5.0 | 0.23 |
second | 10.6 | 3.3 × 10−1 | 9.0 × 10−3 | 9.5 | |||
2 | 502 | first | 122 | 3.2 × 1011 | 5.8 × 10−2 | 122 | 0.08 |
second | 244 | 3.0 × 1024 | 0.12 | 243 | |||
3 | 508 | first | 39.8 | 2.3 × 102 | 1.9 × 10−2 | 39.7 | 0.64 |
second | 80.0 | 6.3 × 106 | 3.7 × 10−2 | 79.5 | |||
4 | 587 | first | 219 | 2.4 × 1018 | 7.6 × 10−2 | 218 | 0.05 |
second | 437 | 1.3 × 1038 | 0.15 | 436 |
Peak # | Tmax, K | Order Reactions | Q, kJmol−1 | K0, s−1 | K(Tmax), s−1 | Q*, kJmol−1 | γ | C0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 643 | first | 51.5 | 4.5 × 102 | 3.0 × 10−2 | 51.2 | 0.18 | 2.0 × 10−6 |
second | 103 | 2.5 × 107 | 6.0 × 10−2 | 103 | ||||
2 | 786 | first | 61.2 | 2.8 × 102 | 2.4 × 10−2 | 61.0 | 0.50 | 5.4 × 10−6 |
second | 122 | 5.6 × 106 | 4.8 × 10−2 | 122 | ||||
3 | 918 | first | 138 | 2.7 × 106 | 3.9 × 10−2 | 137 | 0.06 | 6.1 × 10−7 |
second | 276 | 9.3 × 1012 | 7.9 × 10−2 | 275 | ||||
4 | 1013 | first | 138 | 4.2 × 105 | 3.2 × 10−2 | 137 | 0.07 | 7.6 × 10−7 |
second | 276 | 1.3 × 1017 | 6.5 × 10−2 | 275 | ||||
5 | 1183 | first | 93.4 | 2.1 × 102 | 1.6 × 10−2 | 93.0 | 0.19 | 2.0 × 10−6 |
second | 186 | 1.9 × 106 | 3.2 × 10−2 | 186 |
References
- Hou, J.; Shao, Y.; Ellis, M.W.; Moore, R.B.; Yi, B. Graphene-based electrochemical energy conversion and storage: Fuel cells, supercapacitors and lithium ion batteries. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, 15384–15402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Askari, M.B.; Salarizadeh, P.; Seifi, M.; Zadeh, M.H.R.; Bartolomeo, A.D. ZnFe2O4 nanorods on reduced graphene oxide as advanced supercapacitor electrodes. J. Alloy Compd. 2021, 860, 158497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanabe, T. Revisiting carbon materials as plasma-facing materials of a fusion reactor. Plasma Phys. Rep. 2019, 45, 300–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atsumi, H.; Kondo, Y. Retention and release of hydrogen isotopes in carbon materials priorly charged in gas phase. Fusion Eng. Des. 2018, 131, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.; Outlaw, R.A.; Wang, J.J.; Zhu, M.Y.; Smith, G.D.; Holloway, B.J. Thermal desorption of hydrogen from carbon nanosheets. J. Chem. Phys. 2006, 124, 194704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rajasekaran, S.; Abilid-Pedersen, F.; Ogasawara, H.; Nilsson, A.; Kaya, S. Interlayer carbon bond formation induced by hydrogen adsorption in few-layer supported graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013, 111, 085503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Denisov, E.A.; Kompaniets, T.N. Interaction of graphite with atomic hydrogen. Tech. Phys. 2001, 46, 240–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zecho, T.; Guttler, A.; Sha, X.; Jackson, B.; Kuppers, J. Adsorption of hydrogen and deuterium atoms on the (0001) graphite surface. J. Chem. Phys. 2002, 117, 8486–8492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zecho, T.; Guttler, A.; Kuppers, J. A TDS study of D adsorption on terraces and terrace edges of graphite (0001) surfaces. Carbon 2004, 42, 609–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hornekaer, L.; Šljivančanin, Ž.; Xu, W.; Otero, R.; Rauls, E.; Stensgaard, I.; Lægsgaard, E.; Hammer, B.; Besenbacher, F. Metastable structures and recombination pathways for atomic hydrogen on the graphite (0001) surface. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 96, 156104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hornekær, L.; Rauls, E.; Xu, W.; Sljivancanin, Z.; Otero, R.; Stensgaard, I.; Lægsgaard, E.; Hammer, B.; Besenbacher, F. Clustering of chemisorbed H(D) atoms on the graphite (0001) surface due to preferential sticking. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 97, 186102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nechaev, Y.S.; Alexandrova, N.M.; Shurygina, N.A.; Cheretaeva, A.O.; Kostikova, E.K.; Zaika, Y.V.; Makotchenko, V.G. Thermal desorption study of the states of deuterium and protium in nanostructured carbon materials subjected to plasma action. In The Abstracts Book of RE-2019; Polytech-Press: Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2019; pp. 23–24. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, F.-G.; Enomoto, M.; Tsuzaki, K. Applicability of the Kissinger’s formula and comparison with the McNabb–Foster model in simulation of thermal desorption spectrum. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2012, 51, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Legrand, E.; Oudriss, A.; Savall, C.; Bouhattate, J.; Feaugas, X. Towards a better understanding of hydrogen measurements obtained by thermal desorption spectroscopy using FEM modelling. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40, 2871–2881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebihara, K.-I.; Kaburaki, H.; Suzudo, T.; Takai, K. A numerical study on the validity of the local equilibrium hypothesis in modelling hydrogen thermal desorption spectra. ISIJ Int. 2009, 49, 1907–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nechaev, Y.S. The nature, kinetics, and ultimate storage capacity of hydrogen sorption by carbon nanostructures. Physics-Uspekhi 2006, 49, 563–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nechaev, Y.S.; Veziroglu, T.N. On the hydrogenation-dehydrogenation of graphene-layer-nanostructures: Relevance to the hydrogen on-board storage problem. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2015, 10, 54–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nechaev, Y.S.; Alexandrova, N.M.; Shurygina, N.A.; Cheretaeva, A.O.; Pisarev, A.A. On the kinetic analysis of the hydrogen thermal desorption spectra for graphite and advanced carbon nanomaterials. Fuller. Nanotub. Carbon Nanostruct. 2020, 28, 147–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nechaev, Y.S.; Alexandrova, N.M.; Shurygina, N.A.; Cheretaeva, A.O.; Kostikova, E.K.; Oechsner, A. On characteristics and physics of processes of thermal desorption of deuterium from isotropic graphite at 700–1700 K. J. Nucl. Mater. 2020, 535, 152162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nechaev, Y.S.; Alexandrova, N.M.; Cheretaeva, A.O.; Kuznetsov, V.L.; Öchsner, A.; Kostikova, E.K.; Zaika, Y.V. Studying the thermal desorption of hydrogen in some carbon nanostructures and graphite. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2020, 45, 25030–25042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaika, Y.V.; Kostikova, E.K.; Nechaev, Y.S. Hydrogen thermal desorption peaks: Modeling and interpretation. Tech. Phys. 2021, 66, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.H.; Yang, R.T. Ab initio molecular orbital study of adsorption of atomic hydrogen on graphite: Insight into hydrogen storage in carbon nanotubes. Carbon 2002, 40, 437–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nechaev, Y.S.; Alexandrova, N.M.; Shurygina, N.A.; Cheretaeva, A.O. On manifestation & physics of the Kurdjumov and spillover effects in carbon nanostructures, under intercalation of high density hydrogen. Fuller. Nanotub. Carbon Nanostruct. 2020, 28, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nayyar, I.; Ginovska, B.; Karkamkar, A.; Gennett, T.; Autrey, T. Physi-Sorption of H2 on Pure and Boron–Doped Graphene Monolayers: A Dispersion–Corrected DFT Study. J. Carbon Res. 2020, 6, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Habenschaden, E.; Küppers, J. Evaluation of flash desorption spectra. Surf. Sci. 1984, 138, L147–L150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nechaev, Y.S. Characteristics of hydride-like segregates of hydrogen at dislocations in palladium. Physics-Uspekhi 2001, 44, 1189–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podlivaev, A.I. Stone—Wales Graphane: Its Structure, Properties, and Thermal Stability. JETP Lett. 2019, 110, 691–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podlivaev, A.I. Thermal Stability of Hydrogen Clusters at Graphene and Stone—Wales Graphene Surfaces. JETP Lett. 2020, 111, 613–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nechaev, Y.S.; Denisov, E.A.; Shurygina, N.A.; Cheretaeva, A.O.; Kostikova, E.K.; Davydov, S.Y.; Öchsner, A. Revealing Hydrogen States in Carbon Structures by Analyzing the Thermal Desorption Spectra. C 2022, 8, 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/c8010006
Nechaev YS, Denisov EA, Shurygina NA, Cheretaeva AO, Kostikova EK, Davydov SY, Öchsner A. Revealing Hydrogen States in Carbon Structures by Analyzing the Thermal Desorption Spectra. C. 2022; 8(1):6. https://doi.org/10.3390/c8010006
Chicago/Turabian StyleNechaev, Yury S., Evgeny A. Denisov, Nadezhda A. Shurygina, Alisa O. Cheretaeva, Ekaterina K. Kostikova, Sergei Yu. Davydov, and Andreas Öchsner. 2022. "Revealing Hydrogen States in Carbon Structures by Analyzing the Thermal Desorption Spectra" C 8, no. 1: 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/c8010006