| Literature DB >> 30886842 |
Deonildo Faggion1, Wellington D G Gonçalves1, Jairton Dupont1.
Abstract
CO2 electroreduction is among the most promising approaches used to transform this green-house gas into useful fuels and chemicals. Ionic liquids (ILs) have already proved to be the adequate media for CO2 dissolution, activation, and stabilization of radical and ionic electrochemical active species in aqueous solutions. In general, IL electrolytes reduce the overpotential, increase the current density, and allow for the modulation of solution pH, driving product selectivity. However, little is known about the main role of these salts in the CO2 reduction process the assumption that ILs form solvent-separated ions. However, most of the ILs in solution are better described as anisotropic fluids and display properties of an extended cooperative network of supramolecular species. That strongly reflects their mesoscopic and nanoscopic organization, inducing different processes in CO2 reduction compared to those observed in classical electrolyte solutions. The major aspects concerning the relationship between the structural organization of ILs and the electrochemical reduction of CO2 will be critically discussed considering selected recent examples.Entities:
Keywords: carbon dioxide; electrochemistry; ionic liquids; oxidation; reduction
Year: 2019 PMID: 30886842 PMCID: PMC6409344 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2019.00102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.221
Selected examples of CO2ERR employing ionic liquids.
| 1 | Ag | reductive peak −1.61 V vs. Ag/AgI | −1.80 V vs. Ag/AgI | dimethyl carbonate (74) | charge passed, 1.0 F.mol−1 | Bare [BMIM][BF4] | Zhang et al., |
| 2 | Pt disk | reductive peak −1.8 V vs. silver wire | −1.8 V vs. silver wire | n/a | 5.7 | [EMIM][BF3Cl] | Snuffin et al., |
| 3 | Au | n/a | −1.16 vs. Ag/AgCl | CO (85) | 7 | 0.1 mol dm−3 KHCO3 | Ohmori et al., |
| 4 | Ag | n/a | −1.50 vs. cell potencial | CO (96) | n/a | 18% [EMIM][BF4] in water | Rosen et al., |
| 5 | Bi-CMEC | −1.80 vs. SCE | −2.00 vs. SCE | CO (82) | 31 | [EMIM][PF6] | Medina-Ramos et al., |
| 6 | Bi-CMEC | −1.80 vs. SCE | −2.00 vs. SCE | CO (82) | 26 | [EMIM][BF4] | Medina-Ramos et al., |
| 7 | Bi-CMEC | −1.80 vs. SCE | −2.00 vs. SCE | CO (79) | 17 | [BMIM][Cl] | Medina-Ramos et al., |
| 8 | Bi-CMEC | −1.80 vs. SCE | −2.00 vs. SCE | CO (74) | 20 | [BMIM][Br] | Medina-Ramos et al., |
| 9 | Bi-CMEC | −1.80 vs. SCE | −2.00 vs. SCE | CO (87) | 25 | [BMIM][OTf] | Medina-Ramos et al., |
| 10 | Imidazole | −0.32 vs. Ag/AgCl | −0.80 vs. Ag/AgCl | CH3OH (9) | 0.095 | 0.1 mol dm−3 NaClO4 | Iijima et al., |
| 11 | Pb | −2.30 vs. Ag/AgNO3 | −2.40 vs. Ag/AgNO3 | Oxalate (78) | 0.6 | 0.1 mol dm−3 TEAP/ACN | Sun et al., |
| 12 | Pb | −2.12 vs. Ag/AgNO3 | −2.25 vs. Ag/AgNO3 | Carboxylate (55) | 0.6 | 0.1 mol dm−3 [EMIM][NTf2]/ACN | Sun et al., |
| 13 | MoO2/Pb | −2.22 vs. Fc/Fc+ | −2.45 vs. Fc/Fc+ | 20 | 0.3 M [BMIM][PF6] in ACN | Oh and Hu, | |
| 14 | MoO2/Pb | −2.22 vs. Fc/Fc+ | −2.45 vs. Fc/Fc+ | n/a | 0.3 mol dm−3 [BMIM][PF6] in ACN + 0.1 mol dm−3 water | Oh and Hu, | |
| 15 | MoO2/Pb | −2.22 vs. Fc/Fc+ | −2.45 vs. Fc/Fc+ | n/a | 0.3 mol dm−3 [BMIM][PF6] in ACN + 0.2 mol dm−3 water | Oh and Hu, | |
| 15 | MoO2/Pb | −2.22 vs. Fc/Fc+ | −2.45 vs. Fc/Fc+ | HCO2− (6) | n/a | 0.3 mol dm−3 [BMIM][PF6] in ACN + 0.3 mol dm−3 water | Oh and Hu, |
| 16 | Ag | ~−0.62 vs. Ag/AgNO3 | −0.70 vs. Ag/AgNO3 | Charge (10 C) | 0.1 mol dm−3 [P66614][124Triz] in ACN + 0.7 mol dm−3 of water | Hollingsworth et al., | |
| 17 | Ag | ~−0.62 vs. Ag/AgNO3 | −1.90 vs. Ag/AgNO3 | Charge (10 C) | 0.1 mol dm−3 [P66614][124Triz] in ACN + 0.7 mol dm−3 of water | Hollingsworth et al., | |
| 18 | Ag | reductive peak −1.5 V vs. Cc+ /Cc | n/a | n/a | 0.7 mA.cm−2 | Bare [PMIM][NTf2] | Tanner et al., |
| 19 | Ag | reductive peak −1.5 V vs. Cc+ /Cc | n/a | n/a | −1.5 | Bare [EMIM][NTf2] | Tanner et al., |
| 20 | Ag | reductive peak (−1.1 V vs. Cc+/Cc) | n/a | n/a | −1.60 | Bare [BMIM][NTf2] | Tanner et al., |
| 21 | Ag | reductive peak −1.05 V vs. Cc+ /Cc | n/a | n/a | −1.5 | Bare[BMIM][NTf2] | Tanner et al., |
| 22 | Ag | reductive peak −1.05 V vs. Cc+ /Cc | n/a | n/a | −0.8 | Bare [BMIM][BF4] | Tanner et al., |
| 23 | Ag | reductive peak −1.6 V vs. Cc+ /Cc | n/a | n/a | 0.75 | Bare [BMIM][FAP] | Tanner et al., |
| 24 | Ag | −2.20 V vs. Fc+/Fc | −2.4 V vs. Fc+/Fc | n/a | ~10.0 | 0.1 M [Bu4N][PF6] + 0.02 M [Ethyl 2-Methyl Imimidazolium][BF4] + | Lau et al., |
| 25 | Ag | −2.15 V vs. Fc+/Fc | −2.4 V vs. Fc+/Fc | n/a | ~16.0 | 0.1 M [Bu4N][PF6] + 0.02 M [Ethyl 2,3- dimethyl Imimidazolium][BF4] | Lau et al., |
| 26 | Ag | −2.30 V vs. Fc+/Fc | −2.4 V vs. Fc+/Fc | n/a | ~5.5 | 0.1 M [Bu4N][PF6] + 0.02 M [Ethyl 2,3,4,5- tetramethyl Imimidazolium][BF4][BF4] | Lau et al., |
Figure 1(A) CO2 adsorption phenomena in ILs, (B) bicarbonate equilibrium for the acetate anion in the presence of water and CO2, (C) Effect of lower viscosity and higher current density in ILs solutions and (D) a supramolecular-like effect near the electrode.