4.4 Article

Mesoporous silica synthesis in sub- and supercritcal carbon dioxide

Journal

KOREAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 983-990

Publisher

KOREAN INSTITUTE CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11814-010-0130-x

Keywords

Mesoporous Silica Synthesis; Mesopore Development; Pluronic F127 Triblock Copolymer; Liquid Carbon Dioxide Solvent; Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Solvent

Funding

  1. Center for Molecular and Materials Sciences, University of South Australia
  2. Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries, Republic of Korea [P-2004-09]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mesoporous silicas were synthesized from sodium silicate (Na2Si3O7) and tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS) with Pluronic F127 (polyethylene oxide-polypropylene oxide-polyethylene oxide, EO106PO70EO106) triblock copolymer using sub- and supercritical carbon dioxide (SubCO(2) and SCO2) respectively, as solvents. Templates were removed using liquid carbon dioxide (LCO2) and SCO2. The most efficient template removal was achieved by LCO2 - 92.7% (w/w), followed by LCO2 with ethanol entrainer - 85.6% (w/w), and by methanol - 78.8% (w/w). The best efficiency of template removal by SCO2 was 50.7%. Values of specific surface areas, A(BET), were increased by 10% with the increase of an ageing time from 6 to 24 hours for Na2Si3O7-based silicas at aqueous synthesis conditions, whereas the use of SCO2 reduced this value by 19.4%. For TEOS-based silicas synthesized using SCO2, A (BET) values increased by 3.8 times. Application of SCO2 for synthesis of TEOS-based silicas resulted in higher mesopore volumes of 0.719 and 1.241 mL/g with an average mesopore width varying from 3.4 to 3.9 nm. Although Na2Si3O7-based silicas have almost similar mesopore width range, their mesopore volumes were 7 times less than those for TEOS-based silicas. Formation of mesopores in Na2Si3O7- and TEOS-based silicas was at the expense of micropores when synthesized in SCO2.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available