4.6 Article

Highly Selective CO2 Capture on Waste Polyurethane Foam-Based Activated Carbon

Journal

PROCESSES
Volume 7, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr7090592

Keywords

waste polyurethane foam; physical activation; high selectivity; CO2 capture; ultra-micropore

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21802101]
  2. Scientific and Technological Innovation Programs of Higher Education Institutions in Shanxi
  3. Shanxi Province Science Foundation for Youths [201801D221129]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Low-cost activated carbons were prepared from waste polyurethane foam by physical activation with CO2 for the first time and chemical activation with Ca(OH)(2), NaOH, or KOH. The activation conditions were optimized to produce microporous carbons with high CO2 adsorption capacity and CO2/N-2 selectivity. The sample prepared by physical activation showed CO2/N-2 selectivity of up to 24, much higher than that of chemical activation. This is mainly due to the narrower microporosity and the rich N content produced during the physical activation process. However, physical activation samples showed inferior textural properties compared to chemical activation samples and led to a lower CO2 uptake of 3.37 mmol.g(-1) at 273 K. Porous carbons obtained by chemical activation showed a high CO2 uptake of 5.85 mmol.g(-1) at 273 K, comparable to the optimum activated carbon materials prepared from other wastes. This is mainly attributed to large volumes of ultra-micropores (<1 nm) up to 0.212 cm(3)g(-1) and a high surface area of 1360 m(2)g(-1). Furthermore, in consideration of the presence of fewer contaminants, lower weight losses of physical activation samples, and the excellent recyclability of both physical- and chemical-activated samples, the waste polyurethane foam-based carbon materials exhibited potential application prospects in CO2 capture.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available