Development of 3D-printed polymer-zeolite composite monoliths for gas separation

A 3D-Printed Zeolitic Imidazolate Framework-8 Monolith For Flue- and Biogas Separations by Adsorption: Influence of Flow Distribution and Process Parameters

“…Couck et al (2017) and Couck et al (2018) reported 3D-printed monolithic structures based on ZSM-5 and SAPO-34 zeolites for the separation of CO 2 from N 2 and/or CH 4 . Thakkar et al (2018) reported the performance of 5A and 13× based monolithic adsorbent. Also, hybrid 3D-printed structures containing activated carbon and zeolite for CO 2 capture using electrical swing adsorption are reported (Regufe et al, 2019).…”

Fabricating Mechanically Robust Binder‐Free Structured Zeolites by 3D Printing Coupled with Zeolite Soldering: A Superior Configuration for CO2 Capture

“…Table S4 in the Supporting Information summarizes the mechanical performance of reported structured zeolites manufactured by 3D printing (0.05–1.54 MPa) or other shaping strategies, such as direct extrusion (2.58 MPa), sacrificial templating (0.085 MPa), pulsed current processing (1.6–2.2 MPa), freeze casting (0.045–1.38 MPa), and slip casting (0.21–0.75 MPa) . It is clear that ZM‐BF exhibits a much higher mechanical strength than most of the reported structured zeolites, which is only lower than that of 3D‐printed polymer‐zeolite composite monoliths . However, the 3D‐printed polymer‐zeolite composite monoliths suffered from severe reduction of the specific surface area (59 m 2 g −1 ) and CO 2 adsorption capacity (1.83 mmol g −1 ) due to the heavy use of Torlon polymer and the possible zeolite pore blockage.…”

“…[28][29][30][31] However, due to the difficulty of integrating individual zeolite crystals with robust interfacial binding, the practical use of 3D-printed structured zeolites is severely restricted by their insufficient mechanical strength. [33,35,36] Thus, it is highly desirable to develop a facile strategy to fabricate 3D-printed binder-free hierarchically structured zeolites with merit of fusing mechanical robustness, fast mass diffusion, and high zeolite loading for the practical pressure/temperature swing adsorption. [13,34] The tradeoff among mechanical strength, mass loading of active zeolites, and diffusion kinetics remain a challenging hurdle for the practical application of 3D-printed structured zeolites.…”

“…The external surface area and mesopore volume of ZM-BF are 40 m 2 g −1 and 0.040 cm 3 g −1 , respectively, which are higher than the parental NaX powders (S ext = 32 m 2 g −1 and V mes = 0.017 cm 3 g −1 ), as a result of the mesoporous character of ZM-BF. [35] However, the 3D-printed polymer-zeolite composite monoliths suffered from severe reduction of the specific surface area (59 m 2 g −1 ) and CO 2 adsorption capacity (1.83 mmol g −1 ) due to the heavy use of Torlon polymer and the possible zeolite pore blockage. In accordance with the SEM observations, the micrometer-sized macroholes (about 1 µm) are caused by the agglomeration of interconnected zeolite NaX particles (2-3 µm).…”

“…For instance, in fixed bed reactors, structured zeolites must withstand frequent and long‐time pressure changes; although the incorporation of some printing ink additives (e.g., organic or inorganic binders) can improve the mechanical stability to some extent, it inevitably results in diffusion limitation, partial pore blocking, and dilution of the active zeolites . The trade‐off among mechanical strength, mass loading of active zeolites, and diffusion kinetics remain a challenging hurdle for the practical application of 3D‐printed structured zeolites . Thus, it is highly desirable to develop a facile strategy to fabricate 3D‐printed binder‐free hierarchically structured zeolites with merit of fusing mechanical robustness, fast mass diffusion, and high zeolite loading for the practical pressure/temperature swing adsorption.…”