4.7 Article

Porous CaO-MgO Nanostructures for CO2 Capture

期刊

ACS APPLIED NANO MATERIALS
卷 4, 期 10, 页码 10969-10975

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsanm.1c02428

关键词

CaO-MgO; self-sustained combustion; porous nanostructures; monolith; CO2 capture

资金

  1. DST-FIST

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monolithic porous nanostructures of CaO-MgO composites were synthesized by a rapid self-sustained combustion reaction, showing enhanced cycle stability and CO2 capture capacity with the addition of MgO.
Monolithic porous nanostructures of CaO-MgO composites were synthesized by a rapid self-sustained combustion reaction of molded pellets made of a mixture of nitrate salts of calcium and magnesium, urea, and starch. Urea is the fuel, and starch acts as a binder and a removable in situ template leading to porous monoliths. The synthesis is rapid, single-step, and solvent-free. In addition, the products retained a small quantity (1-2%) of carbon formed from starch. Porous monoliths were probed for high-temperature (650 degrees C) CO2 capture at atmospheric pressure in a 20% CO2 gas stream. While the pristine CaO porous nanostructure captured 76.8 mass % of CO2 initially, it retained only a capture of 22 mass %, equivalent to 28% carbonation efficiency, after 100 carbonation-decarbonation cycles. The CaO-MgO porous nanostructures with varied amounts of MgO (10-40 mol %) exhibit CO2 capture capacities of 67-51 mass % of the sorbent. CaO80-MgO20 porous nanostructures captured 61.6 mass % of CO2 and retained 84.6% (52.1 mass % of CO2) of its initial capacity after 100 carbonation-decarbonation cycles. Thus, the hetero-oxide porous nanostructures exhibit enhanced cycle stability in addition to high CO2 capture capacity, repressing the sintering-induced limitation of porous CaO. The high carbonation efficiency and cycling stability of the porous nanostructures as CO2 sorbents are attributed to the synergistic combination of large surface area, a porous network, and an inert MgO stabilizer.

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