4.2 Article

Role of hydrogen bond capacity of solvents in reactions of amines with CO2: A computational study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 271-278

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jes.2020.01.019

关键词

CO2 capture; Amine solutions; Solvent effect; Hydrogen bond capacity; Quantum and molecular mechanics (QM/MM) simulation; Ab initio molecular dynamic (AIMD) simulation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21876024, 21677028]
  2. Major International (Regional) Joint Research Project [21661142001]
  3. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT_13R05]
  4. Programme of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities [B13012]
  5. Supercomputing Center of Dalian University of Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various computational methods were employed to investigate the zwitterion formation, a critical step for the reaction of monoethanolamine with CO2, in five solvents (water, monoethanolamine, propylamine, methanol and chloroform) to probe the effect of hydrogen bond capacity of solvents on the reaction of amine with CO2 occurring in the amine-based CO2 capture process. The results indicate that the zwitterion can be formed in all considered solvents except chloroform. For two pairs of solvents (methanol and monoethanolamine, propylamine and chloroform) with similar dielectric constant but different hydrogen bond capacity, the solvents with higher hydrogen bond capacity (monoethanolamine and propylamine) facilitate the zwitterion formation. More importantly, kinetics parameters such as activation free energy for the zwitterion formation are more relevant to the hydrogen bond capacity than to dielectric constant of the considered solvents, clarifying the hydrogen bond capacity could be more important than dielectric constant in determining the kinetics of monoethanolamine with CO2. (C) 2020 The Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.2
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