4.6 Article

The effect of nanoscale friction of mesoporous carbon supported ionic liquids on the mass transfer of CO2 adsorption

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 1097-1106

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c9cp05900h

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21606131, 21838004, 21676137, 21875108]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20191289]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [30918015104]
  4. Instrument & Equipment Open Funding of Nanjing University of Science and Technology
  5. Swedish Research Council [2018-04133]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Supported ionic liquids (ILs) are attractive alternatives for CO2 capture and the thickness of supported IL films plays a critical role in the CO2 mass transfer rate. However, the dependence of CO2 uptake on the IL film thickness differs as the system varies. In this work, atomic force microscopy (AFM) is employed to probe the 'nanofriction coefficient' to characterize the mobility of ILs at the solid interface, in which, the smaller the nanofriction coefficient, the faster are the ionic mobility and CO2 mass transfer. A monotonic and almost linear relationship for supported IL films is obtained between the resistance of CO2 mass transfer (1/k) and the nanofriction coefficient (mu), avoiding the controversy over the effect of supported IL film thickness on CO2 adsorption. The enhanced mass transfer of CO2 adsorption at IL-solid interfaces is observed at smaller resistance 1/k and friction coefficient mu. The low-friction driven local mobility (diffusion) of ILs at solid interfaces is enhanced, promoting the exchange mixing of the ILs adsorbing CO2 with the 'blank-clean' ions of the ILs, and thus accelerating the CO2 mass transfer. The proposed correlation links the nanoscale friction with the mass transfer of CO2 adsorption, providing a fresh view on the design of ultra-low frictional supported ILs for enhanced CO2 capture and separation processes.

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