4.7 Article

Facilely synthesized meso-macroporous polymer as support of poly (ethyleneimine) for highly efficient and selective capture of CO2

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 314, 期 -, 页码 466-476

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2016.12.004

关键词

Porous polymer; Poly(divinylbenzene); Poly(ethyleneimine) Physical impregnation; CO2 adsorption; Selectivity

资金

  1. Center for Understanding and Control of Acid Gas-Induced Evolution of Materials for Energy (UNCAGE-ME), an Energy Frontier Research Center-U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0012577]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poly(ethyleneimine) (PEI) impregnated adsorbents are promising alternatives to amine-based liquid absorbents for post-combustion capture of CO2. A current challenge is to identify meso- and/or macroporous supports with large pore volumes that can be facilely synthesized from a cost-effective approach as supports for PEI. In this work, hierarchically nanoporous poly(divinylbenzene) (PDVB) is synthesized through a one-step polymerization of readily available divinylbenzene (DVB) under solvothermal conditions without use of any template or catalyst. The synthesized PDVB is found to have abundant mesomacropores, as well as a large pore volume. Subsequently, a series of PEI-impregnated PDVB sorbents is prepared and their performance for the selective adsorption of CO2 is investigated. The PEI-PDVB composites are found to exhibit promising CO2 capacities and exceptionally high CO2/N-2 selectivities. The strength of CO2 adsorption is experimentally determined by direct calorimetric measurements. The PEI-PDVB composites show excellent stability under both dry and humidified sorption conditions during extended adsorption-desorption cycles. Based on the results obtained, these PEI-PDVB composites are identified as sorbents with significant potential for application in practical CO2 capture from industrial gas streams. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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