journal article·2025-02-19

Molecular Simulation of CO2/CH4 Transport and Separation in Polystyrene-block-poly(ethylene oxide)/Ionic Liquid (IL) Membranes: Insights into Nanoconfined IL Effects

Azam Salmankhani, Alexander M. Lopez, Paul Scovazzo, Adam E. Smith, Sasan Nouranian

Publisher page

Abstract

The phenomenon of ionic liquid (IL) nanoconfinement within a copolymer/IL membrane reportedly enhances membrane selectivity, solubility, and transport in gas separations. Also, the copolymer/IL membrane morphology has been found to affect IL stability at high transmembrane pressures. In this work, a combined mesoscopic dynamics simulation and hybrid grand canonical Monte Carlo/molecular dynamics (GCMC-MD) simulations were carried out to investigate the morphologies, as well as CO 2 /CH 4 gas diffusivities, solubilities, and selectivities of polystyrene- b -poly(ethylene oxide) (PS- b -PEO)/1-Ethyl-3-methylimidazolium thiocyanate ([EMIM][SCN]) and PS- b -PEO/1-Ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide ([EMIM][Tf 2 N]) membranes. The latter simulations focused on nanoconfined ILs in the copolymer/IL phase boundaries at 2.5 and 5 nm confinement lengths. The investigated systems were four nanoconfined ILs, i.e., PS/[EMIM][SCN]/PEO (the IL forming a separate microphase, denoted IL-Micro), PS/[EMIM][Tf 2 N]/PEO, PS/[EMIM][SCN]-PEO/PS (the IL distributed in the PEO phase, denoted IL-PEO), and PS/[EMIM][Tf 2 N]-PEO/PS, and five control systems, i.e., PS/PEO/PS, bulk PS, bulk PEO, bulk [EMIM][SCN], and bulk [EMIM][Tf 2 N]. Based on the mesoscopic dynamics simulation results, the dominant membrane morphologies at IL loadings of <50 vol % were lamellar or cylindrical (favorable for both IL stability at high transmembrane pressures if the bedding planes are horizontal, i.e. at 90° to the nominal direction of the transmembrane pressure gradient) with the IL-PEO or IL-Micro phases. Also, there was an overall 50% match between the observed PS- b -PEO/[EMIM][SCN] and PS- b -PEO/[EMIM][Tf 2 N] membrane morphologies. Based on the MD simulation results, both CO 2 and CH 4 diffusivities were the smallest in the bulk PS (control) and highest in the PS/[EMIM][Tf 2 N]/PEO system (IL-Micro between the PS and PEO phases) at both confinement lengths. The CO 2 diffusivities were, on average, larger when the confinement length increased to 5 nm. The GCMC-MD results indicated that the CO 2 solubility in the IL-Micro phases was higher than in the corresponding bulk ILs at both confinement lengths, with the PS/[EMIM][Tf 2 N]/PEO system exhibiting the highest CO 2 solubility, followed by the PS/[EMIM][SCN]/PEO system. Additionally, the permselectivities of the nanoconfined IL systems were, on average, 40–50% larger than those of the bulk systems, with the highest permselectivity observed for PS/[EMIM][Tf 2 N]/PEO at the confinement length of 5 nm. Overall, the IL nanoconfinement between the PS and PEO phases (IL-Micro) leads to significant improvements in the CO 2 /CH 4 permselectivities, suggesting that strategies to create nanoconfined IL morphologies in the copolymer/IL membranes are very promising for optimizing the membrane gas separation performance.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Ionic liquids properties and applications · Membrane Separation and Gas Transport · Extraction and Separation Processes

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Chemical Engineering

University of Mississippi

Department of Biomedical Engineering

Center for Graphene Research and Innovation

Funding

Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems

References (68)

Show source-provided references
1. Nunes S. P. · 2020 · 29710.1016/B978-0-12-814681-1.00011-4 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.memsci.2018.12.08410.1016/j.memsci.2018.12.084 ↗
3. 10.1515/revce-2016-005410.1515/revce-2016-0054 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.memsci.2015.08.06010.1016/j.memsci.2015.08.060 ↗
5. 10.1039/c2cs35115c10.1039/c2cs35115c ↗
6. 10.1021/acs.macromol.3c0111110.1021/acs.macromol.3c01111 ↗
7. 10.1039/C4TA00661E10.1039/C4TA00661E ↗
8. 10.1016/j.poly.2018.08.07310.1016/j.poly.2018.08.073 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.memsci.2016.03.04510.1016/j.memsci.2016.03.045 ↗
10. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b0050910.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00509 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.cherd.2020.01.00610.1016/j.cherd.2020.01.006 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.memsci.2016.11.06510.1016/j.memsci.2016.11.065 ↗
13. 10.1039/D1SM00796C10.1039/D1SM00796C ↗
14. 10.1021/jacs.1c0078310.1021/jacs.1c00783 ↗
15. 10.1080/23746149.2020.173694910.1080/23746149.2020.1736949 ↗
16. 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c0393510.1021/acs.iecr.2c03935 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.molliq.2024.12490910.1016/j.molliq.2024.124909 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.seppur.2023.12466710.1016/j.seppur.2023.124667 ↗
19. 10.1021/acsami.1c1316910.1021/acsami.1c13169 ↗
20. 10.1021/acsami.7b1576210.1021/acsami.7b15762 ↗
21. 10.1021/acsapm.8b0008910.1021/acsapm.8b00089 ↗
22. 10.3390/nano710029910.3390/nano7100299 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.memsci.2022.12083710.1016/j.memsci.2022.120837 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.memsci.2015.07.05410.1016/j.memsci.2015.07.054 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.molliq.2013.06.01610.1016/j.molliq.2013.06.016 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.memsci.2012.10.04410.1016/j.memsci.2012.10.044 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.memsci.2009.07.02810.1016/j.memsci.2009.07.028 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.memsci.2017.09.06810.1016/j.memsci.2017.09.068 ↗
29. 10.1063/1.47312910.1063/1.473129 ↗
30. 10.1103/PhysRevE.56.81610.1103/PhysRevE.56.816 ↗
31. 10.1021/jp071097f10.1021/jp071097f ↗
32. 10.1021/acs.macromol.5b0110310.1021/acs.macromol.5b01103 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.memsci.2017.09.08610.1016/j.memsci.2017.09.086 ↗
34. 10.1021/acs.macromol.6b0141510.1021/acs.macromol.6b01415 ↗
35. 10.1021/jp980939v10.1021/jp980939v ↗
36. 10.1021/ma00040a01010.1021/ma00040a010 ↗
37. 10.1103/RevModPhys.64.104510.1103/RevModPhys.64.1045 ↗
38. 10.1021/ja962176010.1021/ja9621760 ↗
39. 10.1021/ct900009a10.1021/ct900009a ↗
40. 10.1007/s10822-018-0111-410.1007/s10822-018-0111-4 ↗
41. 10.1021/ar700050q10.1021/ar700050q ↗
42. 10.1021/je500952610.1021/je5009526 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.est.2023.10747010.1016/j.est.2023.107470 ↗
44. 10.1073/pnas.040803710210.1073/pnas.0408037102 ↗
45. 10.1021/acs.jpcb.7b0027210.1021/acs.jpcb.7b00272 ↗
46. 10.1093/nar/gkx31210.1093/nar/gkx312 ↗
47. 10.1063/1.44907110.1063/1.449071 ↗
48. Hockney, R. W.; E, J. W. Computer Simulation Using Particles, 1st ed. CRC Press, 1988; p 540.10.1201/9781439822050 ↗
49. 10.1021/i160019a01110.1021/i160019a011 ↗
50. 10.1021/j100640a01910.1021/j100640a019 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.bbamem.2016.02.00410.1016/j.bbamem.2016.02.004 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.jct.2013.11.00510.1016/j.jct.2013.11.005 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.supflu.2014.10.01310.1016/j.supflu.2014.10.013 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.jct.2023.10703810.1016/j.jct.2023.107038 ↗
55. Frenkel D. · 1996 · 50
56. 10.1016/j.jco.2007.05.00210.1016/j.jco.2007.05.002 ↗
57. 10.1021/jp047714710.1021/jp0477147 ↗
58. 10.1039/D3CP00349C10.1039/D3CP00349C ↗
59. 10.1016/S0896-8446(00)00092-910.1016/S0896-8446(00)00092-9 ↗
60. 10.1021/ie048825v10.1021/ie048825v ↗
61. 10.1016/j.apmt.2022.10145810.1016/j.apmt.2022.101458 ↗
62. 10.1039/D1TA10367A10.1039/D1TA10367A ↗
63. 10.1016/j.fluid.2013.10.03110.1016/j.fluid.2013.10.031 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.fluid.2007.06.00310.1016/j.fluid.2007.06.003 ↗
65. 10.1021/acs.jced.7b0047610.1021/acs.jced.7b00476 ↗
66. 10.1016/j.fluid.2014.03.01510.1016/j.fluid.2014.03.015 ↗
67. 10.1021/ie070414210.1021/ie0704142 ↗
68. 10.1021/acsami.7b1576210.1021/acsami.7b15762 ↗