4.4 Article

Deep Eutectic Solvents for the Separation of Toluene/1-Hexene via Liquid-Liquid Extraction

期刊

SEPARATIONS
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/separations9110369

关键词

liquid-liquid extraction; deep eutectic solvents; COSMO-RS

资金

  1. Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia
  2. [IFKSURG-2-620]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study successfully separated toluene from 1-hexene using deep eutectic solvents through liquid-liquid extraction. Experimental results showed minimal cross-contamination in the extraction mechanism.
The separation of aromatic/olefin mixtures is a difficult task in the petrochemical industry, since the boiling points of these hydrocarbons are very similar. This work aims to use deep eutectic solvents (DESs) for the extraction of toluene from 1-hexene by liquid-liquid extraction. A total of 53 DESs were studied qualitatively and quantitatively using the COSMO-RS approach to separate the binary mixture of toluene and 1-hexene. The selectivity, capacity, and performance index of all DESs were evaluated by calculating the activity coefficient at infinite dilution. The sigma-profile and sigma-potential of each component were interpreted to evaluate the interactions between the different species. We then selected three DESs for experimental validation, namely benzyltriphenylphosphonium chloride:triethylene glycol BzTPPCl:TEG (1:8), tetrabutylammonium bromide:triethylene glycol TBABr:TEG (1:3), and tetrabutylammonium bromide:ethylene glycol TBABr: EG (1:4). Experimental liquid-liquid equilibrium data were obtained for the ternary mixtures {1-hexene (1) + toluene (2) + DES (3)} at T = 298.15 K and atmospheric pressure. Based on the selectivity data and the solute distribution ratio, the feasibility of different DESs as extractive solvents was tested. Finally, H-1 NMR was performed to elucidate the extraction mechanism. No DES was found in the raffinate phase, indicating minimal cross-contamination.

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

4.4
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