4.6 Article

New criteria combined of efficiency, greenness, and economy for screening ionic liquids for CO2 capture

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.02.025

关键词

CO2 capture; Ionic liquids; Greenness; Efficiency; Economy; Criteria

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21173267]
  2. Basic Research Funds in Renmin University of China from the Central Government [12XNLL05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ionic liquids (ILs) are deemed as promising solvents for CO2 capture in the near future, however, some of them have very low sorption capacity, some of them are toxic, and most of them are expensive. These characters make the application of ILs not so efficient, green, and economic. Criteria were proposed to evaluate the utility of CO2 capture by ILs in this study. The sorption capacity (C) is an absolute criterion to characterize the efficiency of the CO2 capture. Besides capacity, the toxicity (7) and the price (P) of the ILs are also important for the industrial application of ILs. Thus, the capacity-toxicity ratio (R-g=C/T), the capacity-price ratio (R-e=C/P), and the capacity-toxicity-price ratio (R-ge=C/TP), were proposed as relative criteria for assessing the greenness, the economy, and the green-economy for CO2 capture by ILs, respectively. More practically, composite criteria R-i vertical bar(c>0.5), which mean R-i with a threshold capacity greater than 0.5 expressed with the relative value, including composite greenness criterion, composite economy criterion, and composite greenness-economy criterion, were proposed with considering both the absolute and relative values for CO2 capture by ILs. These criteria combine the efficient, green, and economical of CO2 capture together. They were used to review the utility of pervious results for CO2 capture by ILs. The design of green and economical ILs in the future might also be favorable by taking the hint from these criteria. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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