4.6 Article

Selective extraction of CO2 from simulated flue gas using polymeric ionic liquid sorbent coatings in solid-phase microextraction gas chromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1217, 期 27, 页码 4517-4522

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.04.080

关键词

Ionic liquids; Flue gas; Polymeric ionic liquids; Solid-phase microextraction; Carbon dioxide

资金

  1. Division of Chemistry from the National Science Foundation
  2. Chemical, Environmental, Bioengineering, and Transport Systems Division from the National Science Foundation [CHE-0748612]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The CO2 selectivity of two polymeric task-specific ionic liquid sorbent coatings, poly(1-vinyl-3-hexylimidazolium) bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]imide [poly(VHIM-NTf2)] and poly(1-vinyl-3-hexylimidazolium) taurate [poly(VHIM-taurate)], was examined using solid-phase microextraction (SPME) for the determination of CO2 in simulated flue gas. For comparison purposes, a commercial SPME fiber, Carboxen (TM)-PDMS, was also studied. A study into the effect of humidity revealed that the poly(VHIM-taurate) fiber exhibited enhanced resistance to water, presumably due to the unique mechanism of CO2 capture. The effect of temperature on the performance of the PIL-based and Carboxen fibers was examined by generating calibration curves under various temperatures. The sensitivity, linearity, and linear range of the three fibers were evaluated. The extraction of CH4 and N-2 was performed and the selectivities of the PIL-based and Carboxen fibers were compared. The poly(VHIM-NTf2) fiber was found to possess superior CO2/CH4 and CO2/N-2 selectivities compared to the Carboxen fiber, despite the smaller film thicknesses of the PIL-based fibers. A scanning electron microscopy study suggests that the amine group of the poly(VHIM-taurate) is capable of selectively reacting with CO2 but not CH4 or N-2, resulting in a significant surface morphology change of the sorbent coating. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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