4.6 Review

Guide to CO2 Separations in Imidazolium-Based Room-Temperature Ionic Liquids

期刊

INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 2739-2751

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ie8016237

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Army Research Office [AB0-7CBT010, HDTRA1-08-1-0028]
  2. NSF [DMR-0552399]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Room-temperature ionic liquids (RTILs) are nonvolatile, tunable solvents that have generated significant interest across a wide variety of engineering applications. The use of RTILs as media for CO2 separations appears especially promising, with imidazolium-based salts at the center of this research effort. The solubilities of gases, particularly CO2, N-2, and CH4, have been studied in a number of RTILs. Process temperature and the chemical structures of the cation and anion have significant impacts on gas solubility and gas pair selectivity. Models based on regular solution theory and group contributions are useful to predict and explain CO2 solubility and selectivity in imidazolium-based RTILs. In addition to their role as a physical solvent, RTILs might also be used in supported ionic liquid membranes (SILMs) as a highly permeable and selective transport medium. Performance data for SILMs indicates that they exhibit large permeabilities as well as CO2/N-2 selectivities that Outperform many polymer membranes. Furthermore, the greatest potential of RTILs for CO2 separations might lie in their ability to chemically capture CO2 when used in combination with amines. Amines can be tethered to the cation or the anion, or dissolved in RTILs, providing a wide range of chemical solvents for CO2 capture. However, despite all of their promising features, RTILs do have drawbacks to use in CO2 separations, which have been overlooked as appropriate comparisons of RTILs to common organic solvents and polymers have not been reported. A thorough summary of the capabilities-and limitations-of imidazolium-based RTILs in CO2-based separations with respect to a variety of materials is thus provided.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据