Chemical Effects of Carbon Dioxide Addition on Dimethyl Ether and Ethanol Flames: A Comparative Study

The chemical effects of CO₂ addition on premixed laminar low-pressure dimethyl ether and ethanol flames were studied by comprehensive numerical analysis from fuel-lean to fuel-rich conditions. Added CO₂ is assumed as normal reactive CO₂ and fictitious inert CO₂ to assess the chemical effects of CO₂. The dilution and thermal effects of CO₂ addition decrease C₂H₂ mole fractions in ethanol flames instead of DME flames, but the chemical effects can reduce C₂H₂ mole fractions in both DME and ethanol flames at all equivalence ratios, which reveals that C₂H₂ formation can be suppressed chemically by CO₂ addition. The chemical effects have a weak influence on formaldehyde formation in both DME and ethanol flames. The CO₂ chemical effects only result in a slight decrease of acetaldehyde peak mole fractions in DME flames but not in ethanol flames at all equivalence ratios. Mole fractions of the H radical decrease because of the chemical effects of CO₂ addition by shifting the equilibrium of CO + OH = CO₂ + H in both DME and ethanol flames at all equivalence ratios, and mole fractions of OH and O radicals also decrease for equivalence ratios of 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2, whereas the chemical effects of added CO₂ enhance the productions of OH and O radicals for rich conditions at an equivalence ratio of 1.5

Effects of carbon nanotubes additions on flash ignition characteristics of Fe and Al nanoparticles

<p>The influences of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) additions on the flash ignition characteristics of Iron (Fe) and aluminum (Al) nanoparticles (NPs) were presented. CNTs can be used as the additive to these metal nanoparticles for improving the flash ignition and burning processes. Different mass fractions of CNTs additions were considered. The mixture of Al and CNTs could combust in air with obvious giant flame, whereas the mixture of Fe and CNTs combusted under a relative stable condition with slight red light. The temperature distributions were measured using non-contact optical method and showed that Al NPs mixed with CNTs were burning at a higher temperature level than Fe NPs. Although different mass fractions of CNTs cannot significantly change the overall flash ignition phenomenon, CNTs additions influenced the minimum ignition energy (MIE) of mixtures. The appropriate content of CNTs addition can decrease the Fe NPs MIE significantly. However, the Al NPs MIE decreased all along with the increase of CNTs content. The micro- and nano- structures of Fe and Al NPs with CNTs additions before and after ignitions were examined by scanning electron microscope and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy. It was found that the special thermal conductive characteristics of CNTs and the cross-connected features for metal particles with CNTs caused the enhancement of flash ignition.</p

Effects of Flame Configuration and Soot Aging on Soot Nanostructure and Reactivity in <i>n</i>‑Butanol-Doped Ethylene Diffusion Flames

Soot has received considerable attention since it is a major pollutant in exhaust gas from fossil fuel combustion and it causes adverse climate and health effects. This work focused on soot morphology, nanostructure, and reactivity variations regarding the soot collected in different flame configurations of <i>n</i>-butanol-doped ethylene inverse diffusion flame (IDF) and normal diffusion flame (NDF) at different heights above burner surface (HAB = 20, 30, and 40 mm). The effects of flame configuration and soot aging on structural and reactivity characteristics were analyzed with emphasis on the differences of young and mature soot generated in IDF and NDF without and with <i>n</i>-butanol addition at specific positions, respectively. The effects of fuel-side <i>n</i>-butanol addition on IDF and NDF soot structures and reactivity were also evaluated. The soot obtained using thermophoretic sampling technique was analyzed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to investigate soot morphology evolutions along the centerline and the boundary of the flames at different axial locations. Moreover, soot samples collected by quartz plate were characterized by thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA), high-resolution transmission electron spectroscopy (HRTEM), Raman spectroscopy, elemental analyzer, and surface area and porosimetry analyzer. It showed the soot generated in IDF and NDF could have different nanostructure and reactivity relying on the flame configurations and soot aging. The oxidation reactivity for soot in IDF without and with <i>n</i>-butanol addition slightly decreased with the increase of collection height. While as the collection height rose in ethylene and ethylene/<i>n</i>-butanol NDF, the final mass loss percent of soot and the average oxidation rate increased. The <i>n</i>-butanol addition in IDF and NDF generally enhanced soot oxidation reactivity. The structural analysis via high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) and Raman indicated that soot from IDF with and without <i>n</i>-butanol addition was young, which presented amorphous particles with irregular shapes. Whereas, the ethylene NDF and ethylene/<i>n</i>-butanol NDF soot were composed of well-defined spherical particles and showed a typical core–shell structure. Furthermore, HRTEM photographs displayed an evident discrepancy between the oxidation modes of soot from ethylene and ethylene/<i>n</i>-butanol IDF and NDF at HAB = 30 mm. High correlations between the nanostructure and reactivity for the soot of ethylene IDF and NDF without and with <i>n</i>-butanol addition were found. With an increase in the degree of crystallization in soot nanostructure, the soot reactivity decreased

Superior Catalytic Activity of Electrochemically Reduced Graphene Oxide Supported Iron Phthalocyanines toward Oxygen Reduction Reaction

Structure and surface properties of supporting materials are of great importance for the catalytic performance of the catalysts. Herein, we prepared the iron phthalocyanine (FePc) functionalized electrochemically reduced graphene oxide (ERGO) by the electrochemical reduction of FePc/GO. The resultant FePc/ERGO exhibits higher catalytic activity toward ORR than that of FePc/graphene. More importantly, the onset potential for ORR at FePc/ERGO positively shifts by 45 mV compared with commercial Pt/C in alkaline media. Besides, FePc/ERGO displays enhanced durability and selectivity toward ORR. The superior catalytic performance of FePc/ERGO for ORR are ascribed to the self-supported structure of ERGO, uniformly morphology and size of FePc nanoparticles

Table_1_Comparative functional analyses of PHR1, PHL1, and PHL4 transcription factors in regulating Arabidopsis responses to phosphate starvation.xlsx

To cope with phosphate (Pi) starvation, plants trigger an array of adaptive responses to sustain their growth and development. These responses are largely controlled at transcriptional levels. In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), PHOSPHATE RESPONSE 1 (PHR1) is a key regulator of plant physiological and transcriptional responses to Pi starvation. PHR1 belongs to a MYB-CC-type transcription factor family which contains 15 members. In this PHR1 family, PHR1/PHR1-like 1(PHL1) and PHL2/PHL3 form two distinct modules in regulating plant development and transcriptional responses to Pi starvation. PHL4 is the most closely related member to PHR1. Previously, using the phr1phl4 mutant, we showed that PHL4 is also involved in regulating plant Pi responses. However, the precise roles of PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant Pi responses and their functional relationships with PHR1 have not been clearly defined. In this work, we further used the phl1phl4 and phr1phl1phl4 mutants to perform comparative phenotypic and transcriptomic analyses with phr1, phr1phl1, and phr1phl4. The results showed that both PHL1 and PHL4 act redundantly and equally with PHR1 to regulate leaf senescence, Pi starvation induced-inhibition of primary root growth, and accumulation of anthocyanins in shoots. Unlike PHR1 and PHL1, however, the role of PHL4 in maintaining Pi homeostasis is negligible. In regulating transcriptional responses to Pi starvation at genomic levels, both PHL1 and PHL4 play minor roles when acts alone, however, they act synergistically with PHR1. In regulating Pi starvation-responsive genes, PHL4 also function less than PHL1 in terms of the number of the genes it regulates and the magnitude of gene transcription it affects. Furthermore, no synergistic interaction was found between PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant response to Pi starvation. Therefore, our results clarified the roles of PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant responses to Pi starvation. In addition, this work revealed a new function of these three transcription factors in regulating flowering time.</p

Table_4_Comparative functional analyses of PHR1, PHL1, and PHL4 transcription factors in regulating Arabidopsis responses to phosphate starvation.xlsx

To cope with phosphate (Pi) starvation, plants trigger an array of adaptive responses to sustain their growth and development. These responses are largely controlled at transcriptional levels. In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), PHOSPHATE RESPONSE 1 (PHR1) is a key regulator of plant physiological and transcriptional responses to Pi starvation. PHR1 belongs to a MYB-CC-type transcription factor family which contains 15 members. In this PHR1 family, PHR1/PHR1-like 1(PHL1) and PHL2/PHL3 form two distinct modules in regulating plant development and transcriptional responses to Pi starvation. PHL4 is the most closely related member to PHR1. Previously, using the phr1phl4 mutant, we showed that PHL4 is also involved in regulating plant Pi responses. However, the precise roles of PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant Pi responses and their functional relationships with PHR1 have not been clearly defined. In this work, we further used the phl1phl4 and phr1phl1phl4 mutants to perform comparative phenotypic and transcriptomic analyses with phr1, phr1phl1, and phr1phl4. The results showed that both PHL1 and PHL4 act redundantly and equally with PHR1 to regulate leaf senescence, Pi starvation induced-inhibition of primary root growth, and accumulation of anthocyanins in shoots. Unlike PHR1 and PHL1, however, the role of PHL4 in maintaining Pi homeostasis is negligible. In regulating transcriptional responses to Pi starvation at genomic levels, both PHL1 and PHL4 play minor roles when acts alone, however, they act synergistically with PHR1. In regulating Pi starvation-responsive genes, PHL4 also function less than PHL1 in terms of the number of the genes it regulates and the magnitude of gene transcription it affects. Furthermore, no synergistic interaction was found between PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant response to Pi starvation. Therefore, our results clarified the roles of PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant responses to Pi starvation. In addition, this work revealed a new function of these three transcription factors in regulating flowering time.</p

Table_3_Comparative functional analyses of PHR1, PHL1, and PHL4 transcription factors in regulating Arabidopsis responses to phosphate starvation.xlsx

To cope with phosphate (Pi) starvation, plants trigger an array of adaptive responses to sustain their growth and development. These responses are largely controlled at transcriptional levels. In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), PHOSPHATE RESPONSE 1 (PHR1) is a key regulator of plant physiological and transcriptional responses to Pi starvation. PHR1 belongs to a MYB-CC-type transcription factor family which contains 15 members. In this PHR1 family, PHR1/PHR1-like 1(PHL1) and PHL2/PHL3 form two distinct modules in regulating plant development and transcriptional responses to Pi starvation. PHL4 is the most closely related member to PHR1. Previously, using the phr1phl4 mutant, we showed that PHL4 is also involved in regulating plant Pi responses. However, the precise roles of PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant Pi responses and their functional relationships with PHR1 have not been clearly defined. In this work, we further used the phl1phl4 and phr1phl1phl4 mutants to perform comparative phenotypic and transcriptomic analyses with phr1, phr1phl1, and phr1phl4. The results showed that both PHL1 and PHL4 act redundantly and equally with PHR1 to regulate leaf senescence, Pi starvation induced-inhibition of primary root growth, and accumulation of anthocyanins in shoots. Unlike PHR1 and PHL1, however, the role of PHL4 in maintaining Pi homeostasis is negligible. In regulating transcriptional responses to Pi starvation at genomic levels, both PHL1 and PHL4 play minor roles when acts alone, however, they act synergistically with PHR1. In regulating Pi starvation-responsive genes, PHL4 also function less than PHL1 in terms of the number of the genes it regulates and the magnitude of gene transcription it affects. Furthermore, no synergistic interaction was found between PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant response to Pi starvation. Therefore, our results clarified the roles of PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant responses to Pi starvation. In addition, this work revealed a new function of these three transcription factors in regulating flowering time.</p

Table_2_Comparative functional analyses of PHR1, PHL1, and PHL4 transcription factors in regulating Arabidopsis responses to phosphate starvation.xlsx

To cope with phosphate (Pi) starvation, plants trigger an array of adaptive responses to sustain their growth and development. These responses are largely controlled at transcriptional levels. In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), PHOSPHATE RESPONSE 1 (PHR1) is a key regulator of plant physiological and transcriptional responses to Pi starvation. PHR1 belongs to a MYB-CC-type transcription factor family which contains 15 members. In this PHR1 family, PHR1/PHR1-like 1(PHL1) and PHL2/PHL3 form two distinct modules in regulating plant development and transcriptional responses to Pi starvation. PHL4 is the most closely related member to PHR1. Previously, using the phr1phl4 mutant, we showed that PHL4 is also involved in regulating plant Pi responses. However, the precise roles of PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant Pi responses and their functional relationships with PHR1 have not been clearly defined. In this work, we further used the phl1phl4 and phr1phl1phl4 mutants to perform comparative phenotypic and transcriptomic analyses with phr1, phr1phl1, and phr1phl4. The results showed that both PHL1 and PHL4 act redundantly and equally with PHR1 to regulate leaf senescence, Pi starvation induced-inhibition of primary root growth, and accumulation of anthocyanins in shoots. Unlike PHR1 and PHL1, however, the role of PHL4 in maintaining Pi homeostasis is negligible. In regulating transcriptional responses to Pi starvation at genomic levels, both PHL1 and PHL4 play minor roles when acts alone, however, they act synergistically with PHR1. In regulating Pi starvation-responsive genes, PHL4 also function less than PHL1 in terms of the number of the genes it regulates and the magnitude of gene transcription it affects. Furthermore, no synergistic interaction was found between PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant response to Pi starvation. Therefore, our results clarified the roles of PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant responses to Pi starvation. In addition, this work revealed a new function of these three transcription factors in regulating flowering time.</p

DataSheet_1_Comparative functional analyses of PHR1, PHL1, and PHL4 transcription factors in regulating Arabidopsis responses to phosphate starvation.pdf

To cope with phosphate (Pi) starvation, plants trigger an array of adaptive responses to sustain their growth and development. These responses are largely controlled at transcriptional levels. In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), PHOSPHATE RESPONSE 1 (PHR1) is a key regulator of plant physiological and transcriptional responses to Pi starvation. PHR1 belongs to a MYB-CC-type transcription factor family which contains 15 members. In this PHR1 family, PHR1/PHR1-like 1(PHL1) and PHL2/PHL3 form two distinct modules in regulating plant development and transcriptional responses to Pi starvation. PHL4 is the most closely related member to PHR1. Previously, using the phr1phl4 mutant, we showed that PHL4 is also involved in regulating plant Pi responses. However, the precise roles of PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant Pi responses and their functional relationships with PHR1 have not been clearly defined. In this work, we further used the phl1phl4 and phr1phl1phl4 mutants to perform comparative phenotypic and transcriptomic analyses with phr1, phr1phl1, and phr1phl4. The results showed that both PHL1 and PHL4 act redundantly and equally with PHR1 to regulate leaf senescence, Pi starvation induced-inhibition of primary root growth, and accumulation of anthocyanins in shoots. Unlike PHR1 and PHL1, however, the role of PHL4 in maintaining Pi homeostasis is negligible. In regulating transcriptional responses to Pi starvation at genomic levels, both PHL1 and PHL4 play minor roles when acts alone, however, they act synergistically with PHR1. In regulating Pi starvation-responsive genes, PHL4 also function less than PHL1 in terms of the number of the genes it regulates and the magnitude of gene transcription it affects. Furthermore, no synergistic interaction was found between PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant response to Pi starvation. Therefore, our results clarified the roles of PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant responses to Pi starvation. In addition, this work revealed a new function of these three transcription factors in regulating flowering time.</p

Table_5_Comparative functional analyses of PHR1, PHL1, and PHL4 transcription factors in regulating Arabidopsis responses to phosphate starvation.xlsx

To cope with phosphate (Pi) starvation, plants trigger an array of adaptive responses to sustain their growth and development. These responses are largely controlled at transcriptional levels. In Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana), PHOSPHATE RESPONSE 1 (PHR1) is a key regulator of plant physiological and transcriptional responses to Pi starvation. PHR1 belongs to a MYB-CC-type transcription factor family which contains 15 members. In this PHR1 family, PHR1/PHR1-like 1(PHL1) and PHL2/PHL3 form two distinct modules in regulating plant development and transcriptional responses to Pi starvation. PHL4 is the most closely related member to PHR1. Previously, using the phr1phl4 mutant, we showed that PHL4 is also involved in regulating plant Pi responses. However, the precise roles of PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant Pi responses and their functional relationships with PHR1 have not been clearly defined. In this work, we further used the phl1phl4 and phr1phl1phl4 mutants to perform comparative phenotypic and transcriptomic analyses with phr1, phr1phl1, and phr1phl4. The results showed that both PHL1 and PHL4 act redundantly and equally with PHR1 to regulate leaf senescence, Pi starvation induced-inhibition of primary root growth, and accumulation of anthocyanins in shoots. Unlike PHR1 and PHL1, however, the role of PHL4 in maintaining Pi homeostasis is negligible. In regulating transcriptional responses to Pi starvation at genomic levels, both PHL1 and PHL4 play minor roles when acts alone, however, they act synergistically with PHR1. In regulating Pi starvation-responsive genes, PHL4 also function less than PHL1 in terms of the number of the genes it regulates and the magnitude of gene transcription it affects. Furthermore, no synergistic interaction was found between PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant response to Pi starvation. Therefore, our results clarified the roles of PHL1 and PHL4 in regulating plant responses to Pi starvation. In addition, this work revealed a new function of these three transcription factors in regulating flowering time.</p