4.6 Article

Insights into the Chloride versus Bromide Effect on the Formation of Urea-Quaternary Ammonium Eutectic Solvents

期刊

INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH
卷 61, 期 32, 页码 11988-11995

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c01274

关键词

-

资金

  1. CIMO- Mountain Research Center [UIDB/50011/2020, UIDP/50011/2020, LA/P/0006/2020]
  2. FCT/MEC (PIDDAC) [UIDB/00690/2020]
  3. CICECO-Aveiro Institute of Materials [UIDB/50011/2020, UIDP/50011/2020, LA/P/0006/2020]
  4. CIMO- Mountain Research Center - national funds through the FCT/MEC (PIDDAC) [UIDB/00690/2020]
  5. FCT [UIDB/50011/2020]
  6. FEDER [UIDP/50011/2020]
  7. [SFRH/BD/135976/2018]
  8. [022161]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the intermolecular interactions between urea and quaternary ammonium salts by measuring the solid-liquid equilibria of their binary mixtures. It was found that anion transfer increases with alkyl chain lengths, leading to negative deviations in urea-rich side. Using bromides instead of chlorides can dampen the nonideality of urea.
The intermolecular interactions of urea and quaternary ammonium salts relevant to their thermodynamic nonideality were here investigated by measuring the solid-liquid equilibria of their binary mixtures. The experimental data revealed that the anion transfer between the quaternary ammonium salt and urea increases with increasing alkyl chain lengths, leading to negative deviations from ideality in the urea-rich side for [N4,4,4,4]- based systems. However, the use of bromides instead of chlorides dampens the nonideality of urea because of larger size and lower electronegativity of the anion. The behavior of urea when mixed with ChCl or ChBr was found to be remarkably different, indicating that its nonideality in the ChCl/urea eutectic solvent is governed by urea-chloride rather than hydroxyethyl-urea interactions. The conclusions presented highlight the contribution of charge delocalization in the formation of deep eutectic solvents of type III.

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

4.6
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