8596 J. Phys. Chem. A, Vol. 101, No. 46, 1997
Schoppelrei and Brill
thermal regime revealed only a small difference in the rate in
a 316 SS cell compared to a Ti cell. This result suggests that
dominate, and heat will not be generated at a fast enough rate
to sustain burning. In the absence of H2O, it is possible that
the transport properties and concentrations of the key catalytic
species are too low to accelerate the rate in the stage of the
reaction studied. Only when the [NH3OH]NO3 concentration
is 5 M or higher do all of the necessary properties for fast
reaction become sufficiently optimized to sustain combustion.
As a result, the global Arrhenius parameters yielding the
appropriate rates to model the combustion process of concen-
trated [NH3OH]NO3 solutions are most likely the result of a
different rate-controlling process than exists below 475 K. In
any case the Arrhenius parameters for the combustion regime
are probably a mixture of transport rates and reaction rates in
the heated surface reaction zone.
8
wall catalysis is not a major factor, which makes zeroth-order
kinetics a less appropriate description for the hydrothermal
regime. Alternatively, the complexity of the rate constant in
eq 9 may be responsible for the absence of a simple order
behavior. We have no method to probe the individual steps of
(5)-(8) in the hydrothermal regime.
Table 1 lists the first-order rate constants treated statistically
as discussed above. The precision in the rate constants is
generally satisfactory, but it is apparent that an uncertainty of
a factor of 2 or less exists in the accuracy on the basis of the
differences incurred when the cell was dismantled and reas-
sembled. This degree of uncertainty in the accuracy of rate
constants is in line with our past experience in reaction rate
7,8,29
Acknowledgment. We are grateful for support of this work
by the Army Research Office on the URI Project DAAL03-
measurements at hydrothermal conditions.
A possible
explanation is that flow-rate changes occur from an occasional
phase separation (bubble) somewhere in the flow path. A phase
separation did not take place in the observation region because
no gaseous N2O was detected.
9
2-G-0174. The sample of hydroxylamine in H2O was gener-
ously supplied by Hugo Galletta of Howard Hall Division, R.W.
Greeff & Co.
+
Figure 4 shows the Arrhenius plot for NH3OH destruction
References and Notes
and N2O formation. The rates of these processes were statisti-
cally indistinguishable and are, therefore, included together on
the same plot. The resulting values of Ea ) 103 ( 21 kJ/mol
and ln(A/s) ) 21 ( 5 are obtained. This value of Ea lies close
(
1) Klein, N.; Freedman, E. Proc. JANNAF Propuls. Mtg. 1984, 2,
287.
(2) Klein, N. Prog. Aeronaut. Astronaut. 1988, 109, Chapter 14.
(3) Liquid Propellant XM46 Handbook; Dowler, W. L., Ferraro, N.
W., Eds.; ARDEC: Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, July 1994.
1
4
to that previous estimated for reaction 3 at 292-308 K, but
no preexponential factor was previously available. It is also in
the range of 129 ( 29 kJ/mol given previously based on the
thermal explosion method for <1.5 m solutions of [NH3OH]-
NO3.8 These results suggest that the components of [NH3OH]-
NO3 react by (3), itself a complex process, and that (3) controls
the overall rate. At higher concentrations of [NH3OH]NO3, the
autocatalysis, possibly by the HNO2 thus formed, accelerates
the rate of reaction and release of heat, giving a lower apparent
activation energy, i.e., 66 ( 8 kJ/mol.8
(4) Vosen, S. R. Combust. Sci. Technol. 1989, 68, 85.
(
5) Shaw, B. D.; Williams, F. A. Proceedings of the 24th Symposium
(
International) on Combustion; The Combustion Institute: Pittsburgh, PA,
1992; p 1923.
(6) Klein, N.; Freedman, E. 19th JANNAF Combust. Mtg. 1982, 1.
7) Kieke, M. L.; Schoppelrei, J. W.; Brill, T. B. J. Phys. Chem. 1996,
00, 7455.
(
1
(
8) Schoppelrei, J. W.; Kieke, M. L.; Brill, T. B. J. Phys. Chem. 1996,
1
00, 7463.
(
9) Schoppelrei, J. W.; Kieke, M. L.; Wang, X.; Klein, M. T.; Brill, T.
B. J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 14343.
10) Cronin, J. T.; Brill, T. B. J. Phys. Chem. 1986, 90, 178.
(11) Schoppelrei, J. W.; Brill, T. B. Unpublished results.
12) Cvetanovic, R. J.; Singleton, D. L. Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 1977, 9,
81.
Relation to Combustion. Some of the mechanistic and
(
kinetic details discussed above appear to apply to very concen-
10,22,23,28,30
trated solutions and to solid [NH3OH]NO3.
In
(
particular, accelerating rate observed is consistent with auto-
catalysis. A type of nonlinear behavior is also noted in the
formation rate of the decomposition gases from pyrolysis of
4
(13) McKibben, J. M.; Bercaw, J. E. USAEC, DP-1248, 1971.
(14) Pembridge, J. R.; Stedman, G. J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. 1979,
>
12 M solutions of [NH3OH]NO3 upon flash heating under
1657.
(15) Klein, N. ARBRL-TR-02471, Ballistic Research Laboratory, Ab-
erdeen Proving Ground, MD, Feb 1983.
16) Morgan, T. D. B.; Stedman, G.; Hughes, M. N. J. Chem. Soc. B
968, 344.
.5 MPa of Ar.10 At high concentrations, however, the gaseous
3
10,22,23,30
products frequently include N2, NO, and NO2,
latter two products can form by various secondary reactions in
but the
(
1
31
mixtures containing HNO2 and HNO3. The activation energy
for solid [NH3OH]NO3 (eq 10)28 resembles that for eq 4, which
is consistent with the catalytic role of a species such as HNO2.
The rate constant of eq 10 and the kinetics determined in this
article are the same at 408 K, which is reasonable on the basis
of the roughly similar temperature range in which they were
measured.
(17) Gowland, R. J.; Stedman, G. J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 1981, 43, 2859.
14
(18) Bennett, M. B.; Brown, G. B.; Maya, L.; Posey, F. A. Inorg. Chem.
1982, 21, 2461.
19) Gowland, R. J.; Stedman, G. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun. 1983,
038.
(
1
9
1
(
91.
(
61.
20) Horv a´ th, A.; P o´ ta, G.; Stedman, G. Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 1994, 26,
21) Bourke, G. C.; Stedman, G. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1992, 2,
From the practical point of view, however, it is useful to know
whether the kinetics of reaction 2 for a dilute solution or eq 10
for solid [NH3OH]NO3 apply to the combustion of concentrated
(22) Lee, H. S.; Thynell, S. T. 33rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference, AIAA97-3232, Seattle, WA, July 1997.
(
(
(
23) Oxley, J. C.; Brower, K. R. SPIE 1988, 872, 63.
24) Bothner-By, A. A.; Friedman, L. J. Chem. Phys. 1952, 20, 459.
25) Clusius, K.; Effenberger, E. HelV. Chim. Acta 1955, 38, 1834.
[NH3OH]NO3 solutions. With an estimated surface tempera-
5
ture of 600 K for a burning solution of 9.1 M [NH3OH]NO3,
-
2
-1
the kinetics of neither eq 10 (k ) 4 × 10 s ) nor Figure 4
(26) Hussain, M. A.; Stedman, G.; Hughes, M. N. J. Chem. Soc. B 1968,
597.
(27) Uematsu, M.; Franck, E. U. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 1980, 9,
291.
28) Ratveev, V. A.; Rubszov, U. E. IzV. Akad. Nauk Ser. Khim. 1993,
1, 1897.
-
1
(
k ) 1 s ) are fast enough. The model rate constants required
5
to fit the burning rate of 5-9 M [NH3OH]NO3 solutions are
1
4
5 -1
in the range of k ) 2 × 10 -2.2 × 10 s . Thus, we concluded
that the rate of decomposition of [NH3OH]NO3 is suppressed
either by the large excess of H2O in 0.1-0.2 m [NH3OH]NO3
or by the virtual absence of H2O as in the solid [NH3OH]NO3.
When the [NH3OH]NO3 concentration is low, reaction 4 cannot
(
1
(29) Maiella, P. G.; Brill, T. B. J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 14352.
(30) van Dijk, C. A.; Priest, R. G. Combust. Flame 1984, 57, 15.
(31) Kaiser, E. W.; Wu, C. H. J. Phys. Chem. 1977, 81, 187.