Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:36:49.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Towards the application of large mordenite particles as Positron Emission Particle Tracking tracers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2018

Daniel S. Parsons*
Affiliation:
School of Chemistry, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
Andrew Ingram
Affiliation:
School of Chemical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
Joseph A. Hriljac
Affiliation:
School of Chemistry, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
*
Get access

Abstract

In this study, we report developments towards the application of large zeolite particles, with diameter ca. 40 μm, as tracers in Positron Emission Particle Tracking (PEPT) imaging using 68Ga. The influence of intrapore Na+ and TEA+ (tetraethylammonium) cation concentrations and framework Si/Al ratio on the morphology of mordenite particles has been investigated, advancing understanding of the relationship between these factors. Moreover, the influence of ethanol concentration in the gel during aging on intrapore cation concentration, Si/Al ratio and particle morphology has also been investigated. Additionally, facile ion-exchange between aqueous Ga3+ and intrapore H+ in mordenite has been demonstrated. The influence of pH and gallium speciation on ion-exchange has been investigated to determine favourable conditions for 68Ga3+ uptake by the zeolite.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2018 

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

REFERENCES

Parker, D. in Industrial Tomography, edited by Wang, M. (Woodhead Publishing, Amsterdam, 2015). p. 223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, X., Parker, D. J. and Smith, M. D., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 562, 345 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aghbashlo, M., Sotudeh-Gharebagh, R., Zarghami, R., Mojumdar, A. S. and Moustoufi, N., Drying Technol. 35, 1005 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, L., Wang, Q., Liu, H., Sun, T., Fan, D., Yang, M., Tian, P. and Liu, Z., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 10, 32239 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Y.. Wang, L., Liu, H., Tian, P., Yang, M., Xu, S. and Liu, Z., Chin. J. Catal. 36, 1910 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mao, Y., Zhou, Y., Wen, H., Xie, J., Zhang, W. and Wang, J., New J. Chem. 38, 3295 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loch, C., Maziene, B. and Comar, D., J. Nucl. Med. 21, 1971 (1980)Google Scholar
Rudolph, W. W. and Pye, C. C., PCCP Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 4, 4319 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanno, H. and Hirashi, J., Phys. Chem. Lett. 68, 46 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sipos, P., Megyes, T. and Berkesi, O., J. Solution Chem. 37, 1411 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar