4.7 Article

Investigation of Amine-Based Ternary Deep Eutectic Solvents for Efficient, Rapid, and Reversible SO2 Absorption

期刊

ENERGY & FUELS
卷 35, 期 24, 页码 20406-20410

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c03807

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [22108105, 22178154]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2020M671365]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20200896]
  4. Natural Science Foundation for Jiangsu Colleges and Universities [20KJB610016]
  5. Society Development Fund of Zhenjiang [SH2020020, SH2021019]
  6. Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program of Jiangsu University [202010299438X, 202110299243Y]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research demonstrated that amine-based ternary deep eutectic solvents exhibit good performance in absorbing sulfur dioxide, with rapid absorption rate, desirable absorption capacity, and cycling performance. The Lewis acid-base interaction and hydrogen bonding between the alkaline ternary DES and acidic SO2 contribute to the effective absorption, providing a novel route for preparing ideal absorbents for effective SO2 capture.
Effective and reversible absorption of sulfur dioxide (SO2) with commercially available and easily prepared absorbents now has drawn increasing concentration. In this work, a series of amine-based ternary deep eutectic solvents (DESs) composed of diethylenetriamine (DETA), acetamide (AA), and ethylene glycol (EG) were prepared to study the SO2 absorption performance. Results demonstrate that these obtained ternary DESs not only exhibit a rapid absorption rate but also present desirable absorption capacity and cycling performance. Mass capacity of 0.82 g of SO2/g of DES would be received with DETA/AA/EG (1:1:2) ternary DES, which could be ascribed to the Lewis acidbase interaction and hydrogen bonding between alkaline ternary DES and acidic SO2. This work would provide a novel route to prepare ideal absorbents for effective SO2 capture.

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

4.7
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