4.6 Article

Protic ionic liquids with fluorous anions: physicochemical properties and self-assembly nanostructure

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 14, 期 22, 页码 7981-7992

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c2cp40463j

关键词

-

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council
  2. Australian Research Council (ARC)
  3. CSIRO

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of 11 new protic ionic liquids with fluorous anions (FPILs) have been identified and their self-assembled nanostructure, thermal phase transitions and physicochemical properties were investigated. To the best of our knowledge this is the first time that fluorocarbon domains have been reported in PILs. The FPILs were prepared from a range of hydrocarbon alkyl and heterocyclic amine cations in combination with the perfluorinated anions heptafluorobutyrate and pentadecafluorooctanoate. The nanostructure of the FPILs was established by using small- and wide-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS and WAXS). In the liquid state many of the FPILs showed an intermediate range order, or self-assembled nanostructure, resulting from segregation of the polar and nonpolar hydrocarbon and fluorocarbon domains of the ionic liquid. In addition, the physicochemical properties of the FPILs were determined including the melting point (T-m), glass transition (T-g), devitrification temperature (T-c), thermal stability and the density rho, viscosity eta, air/liquid surface tension gamma(LV), refractive index n(D), and ionic conductivity kappa. The FPILs were mostly solids at room temperature, however two examples 2-.pyrrolidinonium heptafluorobutyrate (PyrroBF) and pyrrolidinium heptafluorobutyrate (PyrrBF) were liquids at room temperature and all of the FPILs melted below 80 degrees C. Four of the FPILs exhibited a glass transition. The two liquids at room temperature, PyrroBF and PyrrBF, had a similar density, surface tension and refractive index but their viscosity and ionic conductivity were very different due to dissimilar self-assembled nanostructure.

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