4.6 Article

Why Only Ionic Liquids with Unsaturated Heterocyclic Cations Can Dissolve Cellulose: A Simulation Study

期刊

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 3417-3428

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b00073

关键词

Cellulose; Ionic liquids; Hydrogen bonds; Electrostatic interaction; Diffusion coefficient

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [91434111, 91434203]
  2. National Key Basic Research Program of China [2015CB251401]
  3. Center for Mesoscience, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences [COM201SA003]
  4. Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS [QYZDYSSW-JSC011]
  5. State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Complex Systems, IPE, CAS [MPCS-2015-A-05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, ionic liquids (ILs) have become a promising solvent for cellulose pretreatment in biorefinery. However, almost all the ILs that can dissolve cellulose have an unsaturated heterocyclic cationic structure, while the ILs with cations of a saturated ring can hardly dissolve cellulose. To reveal the underlying mechanism, four kinds of ILs composed of unsaturated and saturated cations (1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium, 1-butylpyridinium, 1-butyl-l-methylpyrrolidinium, and 1-butyl-1methylpiperidinium) and the acetate anion were explored as the solvents for a cellulose bunch by molecular dynamics simulation. It was shown that the cellulose bunch only dissolved in the ILs containing cations with an unsaturated heterocyclic ring. The reason lies in two aspects. One is the structure factor: the pi electron delocalization of the unsaturated heterocyclic ring makes the cation more active to interact with cellulose and provides more space for acetate anions to form hydrogen bonds with cellulose. The other is the dynamic effect: the larger volume of cations with the saturated heterocyclic ring results in a slow transfer of both cations and anions, which is not beneficial to the dissolution of cellulose.

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