4.7 Article

Synthesis and modification of Zeolitic Imidazolate Framework (ZIF-8) nanoparticles as highly efficient adsorbent for H2S and CO2 removal from natural gas

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2019.103058

关键词

Nanoparticles; Zeolitic Imidazolate Framework (ZIF-8); ED functionalization; Highly efficient adsorbent; Acid gas adsorption

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, synthesis and modification of some ZIF-8 nanoparticles in different functionalization media using ethylenediamine (ED) were investigated for H2S and CO2 efficient removal form synthetic natural gas mixture. Characterization of the prepared ZIF-8 nanoparticles was performed using X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), dynamic light scattering (DLS), and N-2 adsorption/desorption analysis. XRD and FTIR analysis of the ZIF-8 nanoparticles before and after H2S adsorption revealed that their structure does not considerably change. CO2 and H2S removal efficiencies of the nanoparticles were evaluated at 25 degrees C and their Co-adsorption performance was also measured in static and dynamic modes at 25 degrees C and 0-13 bar. The unmodified ZIF-8 nanoparticles (WS-ZIF-8) adsorption capacities for CH4, CO2 (20 bar and 25 degrees C) and H2S (10 bar and 25 degrees C) were found as 4.4, 10.8, 18.8 mmol/g, respectively. Those for modified ZIF-8 nanoparticles (ED-ZIF-8) increased by 15%, 22% and 3 times, respectively. Mixed gas H2S adsorption of ED-ZIF-8 nanoparticles measurements up to 3 mol. % H2S approved their improved acid gases removal efficiencies and also structural stability confirmed by XRD analysis. The unmodified ZIF-8 nanoparticles breakthrough times for H2S and CO2 adsorbed from mixed gas of CH4 / CO2 / H2S / He as 88.8 / 7.3 / 3 / 1 mol. % at 25 degrees C and 2 bar were found as (similar to) 190 and 308 s, respectively, while those for modified ZIF-8 nanoparticles considerably improved (similar to) 400 and 531 s, respectively.

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