4.8 Article

Type 3 Porous Liquids for the Separation of Ethane and Ethene

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 932-936

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.0c19044

关键词

porous liquids; ethane/ethene separation; metal organic frameworks; zeolites; ionic liquids

资金

  1. InvestNI (PoC Grant) [620]
  2. EPSRC [R005540]
  3. EPSRC [EP/R005540/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study assessed the potential of formulating a porous liquid for the separation of ethane and ethene. By tailoring Type 3 porous liquids, high selectivity for ethene over ethane was achieved, suggesting potential application in cyclic separation processes.
We assess the potential for formulating a porous liquid that could be used as a selective solvent for the separation of ethane and ethene. Ethane-ethene separation is performed on very large scales by cryogenic distillation, but this uses large amounts of energy. Solvents that are selective to ethane or ethene could potentially enable more efficient liquid-based separation processes to be developed, but to date such solvents have been elusive. Here, Type 3 porous liquids, which consist of microporous solids dispersed in size-excluded liquid phases, were tailored toward the separation of ethane and ethene. A high selectivity for ethene over ethane (25.6 at 0.8 bar) and a high capacity was achieved for zeolite AgA dispersed in an Ag-containing ionic liquid. Unusually for liquid phases, the selectivity for ethane over ethene (2.55 at 0.8 bar) could also be achieved using either the metal-organic framework (MOF) Cu(Qc)(2) (Qc = quinoline-5-carboxylate) dispersed in sesame oil or ZIF-7 in sesame oil, the latter showing gated uptake. The efficiency of the Cu(Qc)(2) synthesis was increased by developing a mechanochemical method. The regeneration of Cu(Qc)(2) in sesame oil and ZIF-7 in sesame oil was also demonstrated, suggesting that these or similar porous liquids could potentially be applied in cyclic separation processes.

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

4.8
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