4.6 Article

Molecular Screening of Alcohol and Polyol Adsorption onto MFI-Type Zeolites

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 28, 期 9, 页码 4491-4499

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/la204710j

关键词

-

资金

  1. Catalysis Center for Energy Innovation (CCEI), an Energy Frontier Research Center
  2. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0001004]
  3. National Science Foundation (NSF) [EFRI-937706]
  4. CCEI
  5. Directorate For Engineering
  6. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [0853685] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Configurational-bias grand canonical Monte Carlo (CB-GCMC) simulations and expanded ensemble (EE)-CB-GCMC simulations were performed to obtain adsorption isotherms of alcohols and polyols onto MFI-type zeolites from the gas phase and aqueous solution. In adsorption from both phases, Henry's constants and heats of adsorption at infinite dilution for straight-chain alcohols, diols, and triols in silicalite-1 are found to increase, and the saturation loadings decrease with increasing carbon number. Adsorption of straight-chain alcohols is more favorable than that of branched-chain alcohols. Henry's constants increase with increasing number of hydroxyl groups for gas-phase adsorption but decrease for adsorption from aqueous solution due to the strong hydrophilic solvent effect of water. The location of the hydroxyls does not affect significantly the adsorption from aqueous solution but does so in gas-phase adsorption. The saturation pressures for gas-phase adsorption decrease by orders of magnitude from the alcohols to the triols. Nonframework cations increase the adsorption of the small alcohols by an order magnitude at low concentrations (<1 mg/mL), but result in only a factor of 2 increase for larger alcohols like butanol at low concentrations (<0.03 mg/mL), and then decrease the adsorption at higher concentrations. Overall, the simulated results are in reasonable agreement with available experimental data.

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