4.7 Article

Separation of CO2 from the CO2/N2 mixed gas through ionic liquid membranes at the high feed concentration

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
Volume 423, Issue -, Pages 27-32

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2012.07.012

Keywords

Carbon dioxide; Ionic liquid membrane; High feed concentration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Separation of CO2 from the CO2/N-2 mixtures through ionic liquid membrane was carried out in this study. The CO2 volume fractions (X-CO2) at feed side were 0.3-0.5. The microporous polyvinylidine fluoride (PVDF) membrane and two species of ionic liquids, 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorphosphate ([bmim][PF6]) and 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide ([bmim][Tf2N]), were used as the material for supported membrane and room temperature ionic liquids, respectively. The PVDF membranes were impregnated with the ionic liquids. The total pressures at the feed side were varied from 1.05 to 1.21 atm. The experiment was performed under constant temperature at 40 degrees C. The gas flow rates of CO2/N-2 mixed gas at feed side were varied in range of 100-300 ml min(-1). The effects of total pressure difference, the total flow rate at the feed side and the CO2 concentration were investigated. It was found that the higher permeability of CO2 was obtained from the lower total pressure differential conditions. The feed flow rates do not have the significant effect on permeability of N-2. The [bmim][PF6] and [bmim][Tf2N] liquid membrane are given the equivalent CO2/N-2 selectivity for X-CO2 =0.5 even though the feed gas flow rate was adjusted. The carrier saturation inside the ionic liquid membrane at high CO2 concentration and high pressure difference constrain the permeation of CO2. The highest selectivity was obtained in the case of X-CO2 =0.3 at constant total pressure difference and feed gas flow rate. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available