4.6 Article

AgBF4/[emim][BF4] supported ionic liquid membrane for carbon monoxide/nitrogen separation

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENERGY CHEMISTRY
Volume 29, Issue -, Pages 31-39

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jechem.2018.02.004

Keywords

Supported ionic liquid membranes; [emim][BF4]; AgBF4; Carbon monoxide separation

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21406235]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, AgBF4/[emim][BF4] supported ionic liquid membranes (SILMs) were prepared successfully for CO/N-2 separation using nitrogen pressure immobilization procedures. The incorporation of AgBF4 could decrease membrane weight loss, improve the pressure-resistant ability, and keep the critical pressure (0.45 MPa) of the SILMs. The high viscosity and undissolved AgBF4 solids in membrane liquid would disturb gas molecular transport through membrane and give rise to the gas transport resistance. Therefore, the gas permeability decreased remarkably with increasing AgBF4 carrier content in the membrane. When the molar ratio of AgBF4 to [emim][BF4] increased from 0:1 to 0.3:1, the CO/N-2 selectivity of the SILMs showed a great increase from similar to 1 to similar to 9 at 20 degrees C and 0.4MPa, suggesting that AgBF4 was an effective carrier for CO facilitated transport. The permeabilities of N-2 and CO increased at higher transmembrane pressure, indicating that molecular transport would dominate the transport process at high pressure. The temperature-dependent gas permeability followed the Arrhenius equation. Moreover, the differences between the activation energies of CO and N-2 became larger after introducing AgBF4, resulting in more obvious decrease in the CO/N-2 selectivity at higher operating temperature. (C) 2018 Science Press and Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier By, and Science Press. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available