4.7 Article

Design and prediction for highly efficient SO2 capture from flue gas by imidazolium ionic liquids

期刊

GREEN ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 130-136

出版社

KEAI PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gee.2020.08.008

关键词

Ionic liquids; Desulfurization; Quantum calculation; Langmuir simulation; Prediction

资金

  1. National Key Basic Research Program of China [2015CB251401]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21776235]
  3. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [LZ17B060001]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An efficient method for predicting the capture of SO2 from flue gas using imidazolium ionic liquids was reported. Through quantitative calculations and design, the absorption performance of various imidazolium ionic liquids for SO2 was predicted and validated through experiments.
An efficient method for prediction in the capture of SO2 from flue gas by imidazolium ionic liquids was reported, where the concentration of SO2 is 2000 ppm. On the basis of quantitative calculations through a combination of Langmuir simulation, theoretical calculation and quantum chemical method, SO2 absorption and desorption performance from flue gas by twelve kinds of imidazolium ionic liquids with different anions were designed and predicted. Then, among them, five kinds of imidazolium ionic liquids were chosen and prepared to investigate their behavior of SO2 absorption capacity, desorption residue, and available absorption capacity. The results indicated that the experimental values were in good agreement with the predicted values. Thus, an ideal ionic liquid [Emim][Tetz] was obtained through the predictive method for the capture of SO2 of 2000 ppm, which showed high available absorption capacity of 0.24 g SO2 per g ionic liquid and excellent reversibility. (C) 2020, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd.

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