4.5 Article

An electrochemical setup designed for carbon dioxide solubility measurements in ionic liquids

期刊

REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
卷 92, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/5.0019479

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Sciences Research Institute [CHE-13-2-01]
  2. project VISSER - Emerging Interdisciplinary Research Grant [EIDR C2-B-02-612-07]
  3. Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs of the University of the Philippines
  4. Philippine Council for Industry, Energy, and Emerging Technology Research and Development of the Department of Science and Technology (PCIEERD-DOST)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The electrochemical setup designed and built is able to evaluate carbon dioxide solubility in ionic liquids. It allows simultaneous measurement of CO2 in gas and liquid phases, making it useful for in situ electrochemical measurements. The setup is a cost-effective alternative and can be used to determine the solubility of various gases in ionic liquids.
An electrochemical setup was designed and built to evaluate carbon dioxide solubility in ionic liquids. The setup can simultaneously measure amounts of CO2 in the gas and in the ionic liquid phase, making it very useful for in situ electrochemical measurements. The home-built glass cell is able to withstand high vacuum allowing the ionic liquid samples to be properly evacuated before characterization and kept free of contaminants during experiments. A pressure gauge attached to the setup enables continuous monitoring of gas added to the system. This kind of configuration can measure gas solubility in ionic liquids expressed as Henry's constants determined from generated plots of dissolved gas concentration in the ionic liquid vs headspace gas pressure. It also serves as a more economical alternative to other gas solubility measurement techniques, as it is predominantly made of glass, and requires minimal sample amounts. The setup can be useful in determining the solubility of various gases in ionic liquids.

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

4.5
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