4.8 Article

Selective extraction of neutral nitrogen compounds found in diesel feed by 1-butyl-3-methyl-imidazolium chloride

期刊

GREEN CHEMISTRY
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 524-531

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b800789f

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To produce ultra low-sulfur gasoline and meet the new regulations, the improvement of the HDS reaction by the removal of inhibitors, like nitrogen- containing compounds ( N-compounds) commonly found in middle distillates used for diesel feed, could be worth considering. Liquid-liquid extraction using 1-butyl-3-methyl-imidazolium chloride ( BMIm(+) Cl-) was found to be a very promising approach for the removal of neutral N-compounds with high selectivity towards sulfur. BMIm+ Cl- was first evaluated using synthetic solution with dibenzothiophene and carbazole as model compounds, and a high selectivity for N-compounds was found. In order to explain the observed selectivity, the extraction of heterocyclic aromatic compounds from a hydrocarbon mixture by BMIm+ Cl- was studied as the function of the toluene/n-dodecane ratio. The extraction of sulfur-containing compounds and basic N-compounds decreased when the mass fraction of toluene increased, whereas the extraction of proton donor N-compounds was found to be almost independent of the mass fraction of toluene. We thus assumed that the selective extraction of indole and carbazole by BMIm+ Cl- could be explained both by electron pair acceptor properties of the imidazolium ring and by the binding of the hydrogen-donor group with chloride anion of the RTIL. BMIm+ Cl- was then evaluated using straight-run diesel feed, containing 13400 ppm S and 105 ppm N. An extraction of up to 50% of the N-compounds was obtained in one step, whereas the sulfur concentration reduction was only 5%. The selectivity of the extraction process towards heterocyclic aromatic compounds and polyaromatic compounds using BMIm+ Cl- was further emphasized by two-dimensional GC-MS analysis of the extracted compounds.

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

4.8
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