4.8 Article

Insight into effective denitrification and desulfurization of liquid fuel with deep eutectic solvents: an innovative evaluation criterion to filtrate extractants using the compatibility index

期刊

GREEN CHEMISTRY
卷 20, 期 13, 页码 3112-3120

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8gc00828k

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFB0602500]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR2016BM29]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [18CX05024A]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China [18CX02144A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tremendous attention has been paid to removal of N-/S-containing compounds from liquid fuel due to the necessity of reducing NOx and SOx emissions. In this work, the compatibility index (CI or PCI) was developed as a new criterion to evaluate the removal efficiency (R-e) of quinoline, carbazole and dibenzothiophene (DBT) in deep eutectic solvents (DESs). For alkaline quinoline, acid-base extraction was pronounced, and ChCl/mandelic acid was the optimal extractant to achieve a removal efficiency of 99.2 wt% (CI = 0.37). For near-neutral carbazole and DBT, polarity compatible extraction was the predominant mechanism. The highest R-e value of 94.9 wt% for carbazole removal was obtained in the ChCl/mandelic acid extractant (PCI = -0.044). DBT was difficult to remove directly because of its low molecular polarity. After adding H2O2, the desulfurization efficiency was found to increase to 99.1 wt% in the ChCl/p-toluenesulfonic acid extractant (PCI = 0.014). Furthermore, experiments with real diesel confirmed that the highest desulfurization and denitrification efficiency was 67.7 wt% and 63.7 wt%, respectively, in ChCl/p-toluenesulfonic acid. The compatibility index developed in this study has the potential to simplify the filtration operation of extractants and to intensify the removal efficiency of N-/S-containing compounds in the category of green extraction.

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