2018
DOI: 10.1002/aic.16181
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Solution‐reprocessable microporous polymeric adsorbents for carbon dioxide capture

Abstract: Solution-processable microporous polymers are promising materials for CO 2 capture because of their low synthetic cost and high processability. In this work, we for the first time systematically evaluate the feasibility of two microporous polymers, namely PIM-1 and its hydrolyzed form hPIM-1, as adsorbent materials for postcombustion CO 2 capture. By conducting ternary CO 2 /N 2 /H 2 O breakthrough experiments, PIM-1 demonstrates several promising features: moderate CO 2 working capacity, low water vapor uptak… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
16
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 71 publications
2
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Both MOF-808­(Zr) and MOF-808­(Hf) exhibited moderate methane uptake capacities of 0.39 and 0.29 mmol g –1 (Figure b, Table S3), respectively, at 1 bar and 298 K, which are comparable to those of Zr-based MOFs with similar surface areas (0.3–0.6 mmol g –1 ). ,, Because of having a higher surface area, MOF-808­(Zr) has a higher CO 2 uptake capacity (1.61 mmol g –1 ) than that of MOF-808­(Hf) (1.45 mmol g –1 , Figure c, Table S3). The CO 2 uptake capacity is much higher than polymeric ionic liquid PAPIL-2 (0.15 mmol g –1 ) and PIM-1 (1.66 mmol g –1 ) but fairly lower than NDPC-700 (3.8 mmol g –1 ), SIFSIX-2-Cu-i (∼2.39 mmol g –1 ), Mg 2 (dobdc)-(N 2 H 4 ) 2 (∼5.18 mmol g –1 ), and Mg 2 (dobdc) (∼5.91 mmol g –1 ) . However, MOF-808­(Zr) shows a comparable CO 2 uptake capacity to that of UiO-66­(Zr) (1.79 mmol g –1 ) despite its higher BET surface area, indicating its weaker interactions due to the enlarged pore size unfavorable for low-pressure gas storage applications. ,, …”
Section: Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Both MOF-808­(Zr) and MOF-808­(Hf) exhibited moderate methane uptake capacities of 0.39 and 0.29 mmol g –1 (Figure b, Table S3), respectively, at 1 bar and 298 K, which are comparable to those of Zr-based MOFs with similar surface areas (0.3–0.6 mmol g –1 ). ,, Because of having a higher surface area, MOF-808­(Zr) has a higher CO 2 uptake capacity (1.61 mmol g –1 ) than that of MOF-808­(Hf) (1.45 mmol g –1 , Figure c, Table S3). The CO 2 uptake capacity is much higher than polymeric ionic liquid PAPIL-2 (0.15 mmol g –1 ) and PIM-1 (1.66 mmol g –1 ) but fairly lower than NDPC-700 (3.8 mmol g –1 ), SIFSIX-2-Cu-i (∼2.39 mmol g –1 ), Mg 2 (dobdc)-(N 2 H 4 ) 2 (∼5.18 mmol g –1 ), and Mg 2 (dobdc) (∼5.91 mmol g –1 ) . However, MOF-808­(Zr) shows a comparable CO 2 uptake capacity to that of UiO-66­(Zr) (1.79 mmol g –1 ) despite its higher BET surface area, indicating its weaker interactions due to the enlarged pore size unfavorable for low-pressure gas storage applications. ,, …”
Section: Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…The CO 2 uptake capacity is much higher than polymeric ionic liquid PAPIL-2 (0.15 mmol g –1 ) and PIM-1 (1.66 mmol g –1 ) but fairly lower than NDPC-700 (3.8 mmol g –1 ), SIFSIX-2-Cu-i (∼2.39 mmol g –1 ), Mg 2 (dobdc)-(N 2 H 4 ) 2 (∼5.18 mmol g –1 ), and Mg 2 (dobdc) (∼5.91 mmol g –1 ) . However, MOF-808­(Zr) shows a comparable CO 2 uptake capacity to that of UiO-66­(Zr) (1.79 mmol g –1 ) despite its higher BET surface area, indicating its weaker interactions due to the enlarged pore size unfavorable for low-pressure gas storage applications. ,, …”
Section: Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As the adsorption progressed, Q st values decreased slowly and Q st values at the initial stage mainly reflected specific interactions. As shown in Figure S1b, FCTF-1 exhibited a relatively high Q st value, 28.5 kJ/mol, higher than that of PIM-1 (20.8 kJ/mol) and many other inorganic materials, signifying that incorporating FCTF-1 indeed improved affinity to CO 2 molecules. In addition, The CO 2 capacity also reflected the adsorption affinity to CO 2 and had a direct relation with the number of affinity sites.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…As compared with some other polymers in the literature, these MA-based polymers performed well in CO 2 uptakes (Table ). , …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%