Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:08:31.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The consequences for differential thermal analysis of assuming a reaction to be first-order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

E. C. Sewell
E. C. Sewell*
Affiliation:
Building Research Station, Watford
Get access

Abstract

From their isothermal experiments, Murray and White drew the conclusion that the dehydration reactions of clays are first-order with a rate factor of Arrhenius form. The object of this paper is to discuss whether differential thermal analysis can be used to confirm or refute this hypothesis. The problem, previously considered by Murray and White, of a sample heated at a constant rate throughout is recalled. Particular attention is drawn to the effect of heating rate on the temperature at which the maximum rate of reaction occurs.

To apply to differential thermal analysis, the treatment must be extended to take account of thermal gradients; as the mathematics involved is cumbersome, only results are considered. The most important result concerns the effects of sample size and dilution on the position of the turning-point. A disagreement with the results of experiments on kaolinite is pointed out; it is argued that only a small part of this disagreement is due to simplifications made in developing the theory, and it is concluded that the hypothesis that the clay reactions are first-order, with a rate factor of Arrhenius form, is only approximate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Clay Minerals Bulletin , Volume 2 , Issue 13 , December 1955 , pp. 233 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Grimshaw, R. W., Heaton, E. and Roberts, A. L. 1945 Trans. Brit. Ceram. Soc., 44, 69–92.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, R. C. 1954 Nature, 174, 688–97.Google Scholar
Murray, P. and White, J. 1949 Trans. Brit. Ceram. Soc., 48, 187–206.Google Scholar
Murray, P. 1950 Thesis, Sheffield.Google Scholar
van Nieuwenberg, C. J. and Pieters, H. A. 1929 Rec. Trav. Chim. Pays-Bas, 48, 27–36.Google Scholar
Robertson, R. H. S., Brindley, G. W. and Mackenzie, R. C. 1954 Amer. Min., 39, 118–138.Google Scholar
Sewell, E. C. 1953 Research Note, Building Research Station, D.S.I.R.Google Scholar
Sewell, E. C. 1955 Research Note, Building Research Station, D.S.I.R.Google Scholar
Speil, S. 1945 U.S. Bur. of Mines tech, pap. 664, Washington.Google Scholar
Stegmüller, L. 1953 Spreechsaal, 86, 1–8.Google Scholar
Stone, R. L. 1952 J. Amer. Ceram. Soc., 35, 90–99.Google Scholar
Vaughan, F. 1955 Clay Min. Bull., 13.Google Scholar