4.6 Article

Intermolecular interactions upon carbon dioxide capture in deep-eutectic solvents

Journal

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
Volume 20, Issue 38, Pages 24591-24601

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8cp03724h

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Herein we report the CO2 uptake in potential deep-eutectic solvents (DESs) formed between hydrogen bond acceptors (HBAs) such as monoethanolammonium chloride ([MEA center dot Cl]), 1-methylimidazolium chloride ([HMIM center dot Cl]) and tetra-n-butylammonium bromide ([TBAB]) and hydrogen bond donors (HBDs) like ethylenediamine ([EDA]), diethylenetriamine ([DETA]), tetraethylenepentamine ([TEPA]), pentaethylenehexamine ([PEHA]), 3-amino-1-propanol ([AP]) and aminomethoxypropanol ([AMP]) and analyzed the outcome in terms of the specific polarity parameters. Among various combinations of HBAs and HBDs, [MEA center dot Cl][EDA]-, [MEA center dot Cl][AP]-, [HMIM center dot Cl][EDA]-and [HMIM center dot Cl][AP] showed excellent CO2 uptake which was further improved upon increasing the mole ratio of HBA : HBD from 1 : 1 to 1 : 4. The lowest CO2 uptake in [MEA center dot Cl][PEHA] (12.7 wt%) and [HMIM center dot Cl][PEHA] (8.4 wt%) despite the highest basicity of [PEHA] infers that the basicity is not the sole criteria for guiding the CO2 uptake but, in reality, CO2 capture in a DES relies on the interplay of H-bonding interactions between each HBA and HBD. The role of HBAs in guiding CO2 uptake was more prominent with weak HBDs such as [TEPA] and [PEHA]. The speciation of absorbed CO2 into carbamate, carbonate, and bicarbonate was favorable in DES characterized by comparable hydrogen bond donor acidity (alpha) and hydrogen bond acceptor basicity (beta) values, whereas the conversion of carbamate to carbonate/bicarbonate was observed to depend on a. The addition of water in DES resulted in lower CO2 uptake due to the decreased basicity (beta).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available