Yating Ye1, L Vega Martín1, M J Sánchez Montero1,2,3, D López-Díaz1,4, M M Velázquez1,2,3, M D Merchán1,2,3. 1. Departamento de Química Física, Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad de Salamanca, E-37008 Salamanca, Spain. 2. Grupo de Nanotecnología, Universidad de Salamanca, E37008 Salamanca, Spain. 3. Laboratorio de Nanoelectrónica y Nanomateriales, USAL-NANOLAB, Universidad de Salamanca, E37008 Salamanca, Spain. 4. Departamento de Química Analítica, Química Física e Ingeniería Química, Universidad de Alcalá. 28871 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
The reduction of CO2 emissions and its elimination from the atmosphere has become one of the major problems worldwide, since CO2 is the main cause of the greenhouse effect and climate change. In recent years, a great number of carbonaceous materials that can be used as CO2 adsorbents have been synthesized. The strategy is usually to synthesize the materials and determine their adsorption capacity without studying previously the factors that influence this capacity. In this work, different properties of the adsorbents are analyzed to study their influence on the CO2 adsorption capacity. For this purpose, 10 adsorbents have been synthesized using different strategies and characterized with X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, and micro-Raman spectroscopy. The percentage of sp2 carbons, the position of the D + D' peak of the second-order Raman spectrum, the micropore volume, and the grain size of the C sp2 domains have been related to the amount of CO2 adsorbed by the adsorbents. The results confirm a linear relationship between the volume of the micropores and the CO2 uptake and it proves that CO2 retention is favored in those materials that, in addition to having a high volume of micropores, also have low grain size of C.
The reduction of CO2 emissions and its elimination from the atmosphere has become one of the major problems worldwide, since CO2 is the main cause of the greenhouse effect and climate change. In recent years, a great number of carbonaceous materials that can be used as CO2 adsorbents have been synthesized. The strategy is usually to synthesize the materials and determine their adsorption capacity without studying previously the factors that influence this capacity. In this work, different properties of the adsorbents are analyzed to study their influence on the CO2 adsorption capacity. For this purpose, 10 adsorbents have been synthesized using different strategies and characterized with X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, and micro-Raman spectroscopy. The percentage of sp2 carbons, the position of the D + D' peak of the second-order Raman spectrum, the micropore volume, and the grain size of the C sp2 domains have been related to the amount of CO2 adsorbed by the adsorbents. The results confirm a linear relationship between the volume of the micropores and the CO2 uptake and it proves that CO2 retention is favored in those materials that, in addition to having a high volume of micropores, also have low grain size of C.
Multiple
human activities and their negative impact on the environment
have led researchers to dedicate a high number of working hours to
retaining and eliminating CO2, which is one of the main
causes of the greenhouse effect.[1,2] The most promising and
effective technologies have been adsorption[3] and absorption;[4,5] however, because of the disadvantages
of absorption on liquids such as corrosion of the equipment and the
high energy cost of regeneration,[6,7] adsorption
on solids for capture and storage has made it the most efficient and
economical technology. Researchers have focused their attention on
solid-based adsorbents that are easy to handle, ecofriendly, economical,
and easy to regenerate.[8] There is no lack
of papers in the literature dedicated to improving the CO2 retention capacity of adsorbents.[9] However,
the large-scale production of nanomaterials for CO2 capture
application still needs more work.[10,11]According
to recent published reviews regarding CO2 retention,[3,9,12] the main adsorbents studied are
activated carbon,[13,14] porous carbon fibers,[15,16] graphene derivatives,[17−19] and noncarbonaceous adsorbents
such as metallic organic frameworks (MOFs),[20−22] zeolites,[23] porous polymers,[24] materials based on alkali metals and materials based on metal oxides.[25] Carbon-based adsorbents such as activated carbons,[13,14] fibers, and nanotubes,[15,16] carbon microsheets,[17] graphite, or graphene and its derivatives[18,19] are identified as promising adsorbents, because of their high availability,
economic profitablility, high specific surface area, ease of modifying
the structure of the pores, and the possibility of functionalizing
the surface.[26] The other two solid materials
most considered as efficient CO2 adsorbents are zeolites
and MOFs, because of their high porosity and specific nature.[3,9]In 2020, Hao et al. prepared a composite material of carbon
nanotubes
with numerous heteroatoms that gave one of the best values for adsorption
capacity, viz., a maximum of 5.7 and 3.7 mmol/g of CO2 adsorbed
at 273 and 298 K, respectively.[27] The increase
in CO2 adsorption capacity is not only due to the improvement
of the surface, but also the development of the 3D structure, which
could accelerate the diffusion of the gas and maximize the filling
of the micropores. Xu et al.[28] presented
a hybrid material prepared with MOFs and graphene oxide exhibiting
the highest CO2 capture at 273 K reported to date. The
MOF was modified using graphene oxide and a double salt of Zn and
Cu, resulting in a solid with a high specific surface area and pore
volume (1554 m2 g–1 and 0.711 cm3 g–1), which could maximize the yield increasing
the CO2 adsorption capacity from 6.85 mmol g–1 to 9.02 mmol g–1, and the CO2/N2 selectivity at 1 bar increased 1.8 times that of pristine
material.[28] Chowdhury and Balasubramanian[29] and Shang et al.[30] both have studied the CO2 uptake on 3D materials from
graphene. Chowdhury et al. proposed a physical modification at various
temperatures to form a 3D rGO. On the other hand, Shang et al. proposed
a chemical modification method to obtain composites. Both obtained
a good surface area and pore volume; however, the CO2 uptake
at 298 K was very different, viz., 2.45 and 8.02 mmol g–1 respectively.In designing an ideal adsorbent material, particularly
for CO2 adsorption, it is necessary to know the relationships
between
the material’s structure and its adsorption properties. The
work of Firdaus et al.[31] includes a comparative
study of the capture of CO2 performed on graphene, carbon
nanotubes, zeolites, and metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) over the
last 12 years. It is observed that the best yields for the capture
of CO2 does not simply correspond to nanomaterials with
the largest surface area or the largest pore volume. The presence
of polar functional groups (epoxy, hydroxyl, carboxylic) in graphene
derivatives, or the addition of metals to MOFs, may increase dispersion
forces and therefore adsorption capacity.[31] In addition to these two factors, surface area and pore volume,
pore size could play an important role in improving CO2 uptake, and a strategy to improve it could focus on the design of
materials with abundant and narrow micropores. According to a purely
molecular sieving mechanism driven by gas diffusion, a reduction in
pore size could lead to an improvement in CO2 selectivity.[31] Normally, noncarbonaceous materials such as
MOFs and zeolites contain an ordered internal pore or channel structure
that leads to an increase in pore size and a decrease of CO2 capture at low pressure. Carbonaceous materials such as graphene
derivatives or nanotubes contain heterogeneous slit-shaped holes and
generally do not have a homogeneous pore network, so CO2 adsorption is more difficult to predict.[22] In view of all these cases, it is reasonable to conclude that nanomaterials
with high specific surface area, large pore volume, and relatively
small pore size would provide ideal texture properties for the CO2 adsorbent, although there is a need for further investigation
of the properties that govern the mechanisms that optimize this adsorption
capacity.The preparation of adsorbent materials based on carbon
continues
to be a promising strategy, because of its low cost, availability,
possibility of modifying the porous structure, or even chemically
functionalizing its surface.[9] Therefore,
in a previous work, we have prepared different hybrids based on graphene
oxide using polyaniline and magnetite nanoparticles as the second
components.[32] Our results showed that these
hybrids increase the CO2 retention more than 10 times,
with respect to pure graphene oxides, and they showed that the CO2 uptake linearly increases with the micropore volume of solids.
Accordingly, to develop new and high-quality adsorbents, it is necessary
to understand which of the structural characteristics have a greater
influence on the microporosity of these nanomaterials. With this objective
in mind, in the current work, we have obtained graphene oxide-based
nanomaterials prepared by different methodologies, which allow us
to obtain materials with different structural properties, such as
C sp2 percentage, grain size, or surface area.Based
on our previous experience,[32] we
have selected two types of graphene-oxide based materials: a graphene
oxide doped with polyaniline, a strategy with which it was possible
to increase the CO2 retention capacity of the starting
graphene oxide more than 10 times,[32] and
hybrid hydrogels of graphene oxide with activated carbon microporous
fiber (ACF) prepared by the hydrothermal method with different GO/ACF
ratio.
Experimental Section
Chemical and Materials
Graphene
oxide was synthesized
by the oxidation of natural graphite flakes (99.02%) from Qingdao
Super Graphite Co., Ltd.The reagents used for graphite oxidation
and at the activation process were NaNO3 (99%), H2SO4 (98% w/w), KMnO4 (>99%), H2O2 (30% w/w), KOH, HCl (35%), and aniline, which were
provided
by Sigma–Aldrich (St. Louis, MO). FeCl3·6H2O was supplied by Panreac Química SLU (Barcelona, Spain).
All reagents were used without purification. We used ultrapure water
from a RiOs and Milli-Q combined system from Millipore.A commercial
activated carbon fiber (ACF) supplied by Kynol Europe
(Hamburg, Germany) was used. According to the details provided by
the supplier, ACF was from Novoloid textile fiber and activated in
a one-step process combining carbonization and activation at 900–1000
°C.Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), and
helium (He) were supplied by Praxair, Inc., and Oxygen (O2) by L’Air Liquide, Madrid, Spain. The minimum purity was
99.999%.
Synthesis and Activation of Polyaniline–Graphene Oxide
Nanocomposite
Graphene oxide was obtained by oxidizing graphite
flakes with a modified Hummer’s method proposed by our group,[33−35] using 12 or 24 h of oxidation, respectively. The solids obtained
are named GO12 and GO24, respectively.The GO/polyaniline nanocomposite
was synthesized via an in situ polymerization procedure previously
reported.[36,37] Briefly, aniline was added to graphene oxide
(GO12) dispersions of 2 mg/mL prepared by sonication 1 h in 15 min
cycles. The GO:aniline mass ratio was (15:85). The graphene oxide
dispersions were mixed with aniline and sonicated for 1 h (15 min
cycles). The polymerization was performed under stirring by careful
addition of 6 mL of H2O2 (30%), 4.5 mL of HCl
(37%) and 1 mL of FeCl3·6H2O (0.1 M). More
details can be obtained from a previous work.[32] Finally, the solids were washed with acetone to eliminate the excess
of graphene oxide and dried under vacuum at 60 °C for 24 h and
thermally activated at 400 °C under inert gas in a tubular furnace
for 1 h. The adsorbent obtained is named GO12PANI.Chemical
activation of the nanocomposite was performed by dissolving
400 mg of the nancomposite in 20 mL of 7 M KOH stirring for 4 h at
400 rpm and 20 h of static contact.[38] After
that, the solid was filtered through a polycarbonate membrane (0.2
μm) and dried at 60 °C for 24 h. The next step of thermal
activation was programmed at 550 °C under inert gas in a tubular
furnace for 2 h by ramping the temperature at a rate of 2 °C/min.
After activation, the product was washed with 0.1 M HCl solution and
then dried under vacuum at 60 °C for 24 h. The solid obtained
was named GO12PANIK.
Synthesis of Hybrid Hydrogels from Graphene
Oxide and Activated
Carbon Fibers
The preparation of the GO/activated carbon
fibers hydrogels was performed by introducing a mixture of the two
components GO24 and activated carbon fibers (ACF) into a 100 mL Teflon-lined
autoclave, so that the final GO24 concentration was always 2 mg/mL.
For this, a 50 mL aqueous suspension of 4 mg/mL of GO24 homogenized
in an ultrasound bath for 5 min was mixed with 50 mL of an aqueous
suspension of ACF, and then ground and dispersed in an ultrasonic
treatment for 5 min. To facilitate the grinding of the ACF to powder,
a piece of cloth was dipped into liquid N2 and ground on
an agate mortar. The mixture was stirred for 5 min in an ultrasound
bath. Three samples were prepared in which the GO24/ACF weight ratio
was 30/70, 50/50, and 70/30.The Teflon-lined autoclave reactor
was filled with 60 mL of the mixture and heated to 180 °C by
ramping the temperature at a rate of 2 °C/min. The temperature
was maintained for 12 h. The samples obtained were named GO24FH37,
GO24FH55, and GO24FH73, respectively. After 12 h, the Teflon-lined
autoclave was naturally cooled to room temperature and the product
was filtered under vacuum over a 0.22 μm PVDF membrane. Finally,
the samples were dried in an oven at 60 °C for 24 h. To favor
the self-assembly between ACF and the GO, the sample containing GO24/ACF
at a weight ratio of 50/50 was prepared by replacing the water used
to prepare the suspension of the ACF with a 2.9 × 10–4 M (below cmc) solution of cetylpyridinium chloride GOFH55CPy. As
a control, the GO24H sample was also prepared by introducing 60 mL
of a 2 mg/mL aqueous suspension of GO24 into the hydrothermal reactor
and subjecting it to the same treatment.
Structural Characterization
X-ray photoelectron spectra
(XPS) of powder samples were recorded in a PHI Versa Probe II (Physical
Electronics, USA), equipped with an excitation source of Al Kα
(1486.6 eV) at 25 W and a 1.3 V and 20.0 μA neutralizer. The
high-resolution spectra were recorded working at an analyzer pass
energy of 29.35 eV.Powder XRD patterns were recorded in a Bruker
D8 Advance powder diffractometer using Cu Kα1,2 radiation
(λ = 1.54050 Å) between 5° and 80° (2θ)
with a step size of 0.05° and a step time of 2.6 s. The tube
operated at 40 kV and 30 mA. Interlayer spacing d002, values were obtained by Bragg’s law for (002)
reflection. The grain size (C) was calculated from
the (100) reflection, using the equation of Scherrer:[39]C = 0.9 λ/(β cos θ),
where β is the half weight width (in radians) and θ is
the diffraction angle.The porous structure was determined by
the 77 K N2 adsorption/desorption
isotherms, over the relative pressure range of 0 to 1, in an ASAP
2010 (Micromeritics) system after degasification in 0.1 mbar and at
423 K for at least 12 h. The surface area was calculated with the
BET equation within the range of relative pressure of 0.05 < P/P0 < 0.30.The adsorption
capacities of GO/ACF hydrogels and of GO24PANIK
were evaluated by performing the CO2 adsorption isotherms
at 273 K, over a relative pressure range of 0 to 0.034, in an ASAP
2010 (Micromeritics). The narrow microporosity was evaluated by the
CO2 adsorption isotherms at 273 K in the ASAP 2010 (Micromeritics).
The micropore volume (Vmp) and the characteristic
energy of adsorption (E0) were calculated
using the Dubinin–Radushkevich model (see details in Section S2 of the Supporting Information) at
relative pressures of <0.01.[40,41]
Results and Discussion
As a part of our two strategies, we have selected two graphene
oxides obtained from the exfoliation of graphite by chemical oxidation.
Since the final characteristics of the material are dependent widely
on the degree of oxidation,[33−35,42,43] we have used graphene oxides obtained after
different oxidation times and reduced via the hydrothermal method.
Hydrothermal reduction is widely used because it is an environmentally
friendly method that decreases the oxygen content cost effectively.[44−46] As a third strategy, thermal[47] and chemical
activation with KOH[48,49,47] has been tested, starting from a graphene oxide hybridized with
polyaniline, since this provided good results as a CO2 adsorbent
in a previous work.[32] Finally, we have
selected the combination of GO with activated carbon fibers, because
fibers present a high degree of microporosity, and because the hybrids
can increase the mechanical properties of fibers avoiding the necessity
of handling the fibers in the form of finely divided powder.
Characterization
of Hybrids by XPS
Using X-ray photoelectron
spectroscopy (XPS), the content of C, N, and O, the degree of oxidation,
and reduction of the different samples, as well as the C sp2/C sp3 and C/O ratio, have been determined.Wide
spectra in the binding energy range 298–525 eV were obtained
to identify the surface elements presented and to obtain a quantitative
analysis (see Table S1 in the Supporting
Information). Figure A shows the spectra for the C 1s core level, of GO12PANIK and an
illustrative spectrum of a composite of GO with ACF, GO24FH37, is
presented in Figure B. The other spectra are collected in Figures S1 and S2 in the Supporting Information. C 1s core-level spectra
of GO12, GO24, and GOH are asymmetric lines that can be deconvolved
into three functions assigned to aromatic carbon bonds (284.8 eV),
to C–O bonds corresponding to alcohol or epoxy groups (286.4
eV) and to COO– groups (287.9 eV).[50][35,51] Results in Table show the three components of C 1s core level
spectra for neat graphene oxides centered at 284.8, 286.4, and 288
eV, respectively. C 1s core-level spectra for N-doped GO composite
(GO12PANI and GO12PANIK) should be fit to four peaks, a fourth peak
centered at 285.6 eV assigned to the C–N bond appears.[52] The appearance of the N 1s spectra between 412
and 490 eV (Figure S1 in the Supporting
Information) and the peak of C–N bonds in C 1s core level at
GO12PANI and GO12PANIK spectra unequivocally demonstrate the formation
of the hybrid material between graphene oxide and PANI. The percentage
of both C–O and COOH groups in the GO/PANI nanocomposites decreases,
compared with that of graphene oxide. This fact shows that the interactions
between graphene oxide and PANI is through those O groups. Simultaneously,
the percentage of C sp2 increases in the composites with
PANI due to the aromatic groups of PANI. This proves the functionalization
of graphene oxide with the polymer PANI. Table collects the binding energy values of each
chemical group. The percentage of each chemical group is calculated
from the area of each peak related to the total area of the band.
For comparison, data corresponding to GO12PANI[32] are also given in Table .
Figure 1
X-ray photoelectron spectra of C 1s core level of (A)
N-doped composite
GO12PANIK and (B) GO24/ACF composite (GO24FH37).
Table 1
Values of Binding Energies and Percentages
of Different Groups for Nanocomposites and Hydrogels Obtained from
XPS Measurements
sample
C 1s emission
max. binding
energy (eV)
composition
(%)
C/O
C sp2/C sp3
GO12
C=C
284.6
44 ± 3
2.3
0.8
C–O
286.1
38 ± 2
COOH
287.9
18 ± 1
GO12PANIa
C=C
284.6
64 ± 4
14.3
1.8
C–N
285.6
20 ± 1
C–O
286.7
12 ± 1
COOH
288.0
4.0 ± 0.2
GO12PANIK
C=C
284.6
63 ± 4
12.5
1.7
C–N
285.6
27 ± 1
C–O
286.7
4.9 ± 0.5
COOH
288.0
5.1 ± 0.2
GO24
C=C
284.8
60 ± 2
0.9
1.5
C–O
286.4
28 ± 2
COOH
288.4
12 ± 1
GO24H
C=C
284.8
51 ± 2
6.6
1.1
C–O
286.4
40 ± 2
COOH
288.4
9 ± 1
GO24FH73
C=C
284.5
53 ± 4
3.7
1.1
C–O
285.7
28 ± 1
COOH –
288.0
12 ± 1
CO3–
290.4
7.0 ± 0.2
GO24FH55
C = C
284.5
55 ± 4
4.2
1.2
C–O
286.0
23 ± 1
COOH
288
7 ± 1
CO3–
290.8
15.0 ± 0.2
GO24FH55CPy
C = C
284.6
55 ± 4
4.1
1.2
C–O
285.6
29 ± 1
COOH
288
7.3 ± 0.8
CO3–
290.8
8.7 ± 0.2
GO24FH37
C = C
284.5
55 ± 4
4.5
1.2
C–O
285.7
29 ± 1
COOH
288
9.8 ± 0.5
CO3–
290.4
6.2 ± 0.2
Carbon Fibers (ACF)
C=C–
284.5
67 ± 4
10.3
2.1
C–O
286.0
17 ± 1
COOH
288
9 ± 1
CO3–
290
7.0 ± 0.5
Data taken from
ref (32).
X-ray photoelectron spectra of C 1s core level of (A)
N-doped composite
GO12PANIK and (B) GO24/ACF composite (GO24FH37).Data taken from
ref (32).C 1s core-level spectra for GO/ACF
hydrogels in the 285 eV region
are deconvolved into four surface functional group contributions with
binding energies at 284.8, 286.4, 287.9, and 290 eV. The fourth component
is carbonate (CO32–) present in ACF.[53,54]Table also shows
that the hydrothermal treatment causes a decrease of the most oxidized
groups attached at the edges of platelets, C=O groups, as expected
since the hydrothermal process is a reduction process. It is interesting
to notice that the hybrids containing ACF, present an almost constant
percentage of C sp2. Besides, the percentage of C–O
and C=O groups are almost independent of the ACF attached to
the graphene oxide.
XRD Analysis
In samples obtained
by different treatments,
it is necessary to check if the treatments performed to the different
composites modify the crystallinity and graphitization degrees of
graphene oxide. Therefore, the XRD diffractograms and the Raman spectra
of all samples were recorded. Concerning the XRD analysis, the diffractograms
are plotted in Figure .
Figure 2
X-ray diffractograms of: (A) GO12, GO12PANI, and GO12PANIK; (B)
GO24, GO24H, and GO24/ACF composites of different GO/ACF ratio. For
the sake of clarity, the diffractograms are vertically shifted.
X-ray diffractograms of: (A) GO12, GO12PANI, and GO12PANIK; (B)
GO24, GO24H, and GO24/ACF composites of different GO/ACF ratio. For
the sake of clarity, the diffractograms are vertically shifted.Previous studies have referred to the diffractogram
of graphite,
an intense crystalline peak at 2θ = 26.4° (lattice spacing
calculated from the Bragg equation was 0.34 nm), assigned to the (002)
diffraction peak.[46] It is also referenced
how after oxidation, the peak shifts to a lower angle at 2θ
between 10° and 12° with a lattice spacing of 0.81 nm.[46] The increase of the interlayer distance is due
to the intercalation of water and oxygen functional groups on the
basal plane.[46] Besides, the peak disappears
when graphene oxide is reduced by thermal treatment.[34] In our samples, this peak only appears in GO12 (Figure A) prepared by 12
h of oxidation at 2θ = 11.6°. The lattice spacing calculated
from the Bragg equation was 0.76 nm, in accordance with the value
previously obtained by specular neutron reflectivity measurements
for GO adsorbed at the air/water interface.[43,55] In the case of samples obtained by the hydrothermal treatment, the
disappearance of this peak can be attributed to the thermal reduction,
while, in the case of GO24 prepared by oxidation during 24 h (Figure B), the absence of
the peak can be attributed to the break of the c-axis
order produced by the strong oxidation.[34,46]In the
XRD patterns of GO12/PANI composites (Figure A), we can observe two peaks at ∼25°
and 43°, corresponding to the (002) and the (100) reflections,
respectively, and the diffraction peak of graphene oxide disappears
due to the exfoliation of GO during the polymerization of aniline.[56] The interlayer distance value between carbon
layers was calculated using Bragg′s law (d002 ≈ 0.36 nm). From the width at half height of
(100) peak, and the Scherrer′s equation, we obtain the grain
size, C, resulting in a value of ∼12 nm for
GO12PANI and decreasing to ∼9 nm after chemical and thermal
activation.XRD patterns of the GO/ACF hydrogels present a broad
(002) peak
and a small peak from the (100) reflection. The hydrothermal reduction
broadens and makes the (002) peak dominant,[46] and the peak at 11° characteristic of GO is undetectable, Only
in GO24FH37 with GO/ACF ratio 30/70 some reflection under 10°
appears. The distance value between sp2 carbon layers d002 resulted around 0.36 nm for all the hydrogels.
The grain size C is close to 5 nm for all the hydrogels
(Table S2 in the Supporting Information).
The decrease of the interlayer spacing from 0.76 nm for GO to 0.36
nm for hybrids is attributed to GO reduction due to thermal treatment.
Thus, when the O-groups at the basal plane and at the edges decrease,
the GO nanoplatelets are closer. A similar behavior has been observed
for the grain size. ACF appears to be an amorphous material in view
of the XRD diffractogram, so the formation of hybrids with ACF decreases
the crystallinity, as previously justified by our group,[34] and leads to lower grain size values (C ≈ 5 nm).
Raman Analysis
The Raman spectra
of the samples were
recorded deposited onto silicon wafer. The analysis of the first-
and second-order Raman spectra has made it possible to obtain information
on the type of defects and vacancies on the C sp2 lattice[34,35,57] generated in the carbon network
during the preparation of hybrid materials. The spectra corresponding
with the first-order Raman signal are plotted in Figure A. All samples present a Raman
spectrum with the two bands D and G centered at ∼1350 and 1585
cm–1 respectively, characteristic of the graphenic
materials. This reveals that the treatment used to fabricate the hydrogels
retains the graphitization of graphene oxide. The G (∼1585
cm–1) peak is due to the bond stretching of sp2 carbons in rings and chains, while the D (∼1350 cm–1) peak originates from the breathing modes of the
six membered rings that are activated by defects.[46] All the hydrogels prepared with GO and ACF exhibit these
characteristic peaks; even carbon fibers have a similar Raman spectrum.
Figure 3
Raman
spectra for hydrogels GO24/ACF: GO24, GO24H, GO24FH73, GO24FH55
at fiber zone, GO24FH55 at GO zone, GO24FH37 and carbon fibers: (A)
first-order Raman spectra, (B) deconvolution of first-order Raman
spectra of GO24FH37 hydrogel, (C) second-order Raman spectra, and
(D) deconvolution of second-order Raman spectra for GO24FH37 hydrogel.
For the sake of clarity, the spectra featured in panels (A) and (C)
are vertically shifted.
Raman
spectra for hydrogels GO24/ACF: GO24, GO24H, GO24FH73, GO24FH55
at fiber zone, GO24FH55 at GO zone, GO24FH37 and carbon fibers: (A)
first-order Raman spectra, (B) deconvolution of first-order Raman
spectra of GO24FH37 hydrogel, (C) second-order Raman spectra, and
(D) deconvolution of second-order Raman spectra for GO24FH37 hydrogel.
For the sake of clarity, the spectra featured in panels (A) and (C)
are vertically shifted.The first-order Raman
spectrum of carbonaceous materials cannot
be simplified in two width bands (Figure A). According to our previous works,[34,35] the Raman spectra of the first order can be fitted to five peaks
(Figure B), assigned
to D*, D, D″, G, and D′ bands. The D* band was previously
observed in several carbonaceous materials[58,59] and in the case of graphene oxide can be related to disordered graphitic
lattices provided by the existence of Csp3 bonds. Besides,
the D″ peak (∼1500–1550 cm–1) was related to the amorphous phases[60] since its intensity decreased with the crystallinity. We also proved
that the ID/IG peak intensity ratio does not reveal significant differences about
the number of defects on the samples. However, when the D′
band was interpreted according to the double-resonance mechanism,
it can be related to the type of defects on the basal plane. Accordingly, AD′/AD values
close to 0.14 are characteristic of vacancies, while C sp3 and grain-boundary defects present values of 0.07 and 0.29, respectively.[61−63]Figure B shows an
illustrative example of the deconvolution process corresponding to
GOFH73. Similar behavior was observed for the rest of the samples.
For details, all Raman spectra are collected at the Figure S3 in the Supporting Information and the best parameters
obtained from fits are in Table S3 in the
Supporting Information. In the case of PANI composites, the Raman
spectrum of PANI completely masked the GO spectrum; therefore, it
was not possible to analyze this.To analyze the type of defects
in each sample, we have calculated
the ratio between the areas of the D′ and D bands (AD′/AD),[61−63] and the values are shown in Table S4 in
the Supporting Information. Results show that the AD′/AD values for GO24
(0.11) and GO24H (0.10) are close to the value corresponding to vacancy
defects and agree very well with the value previously obtained for
graphene oxide synthesized by the oxidation of the same type of graphite.[35] However, in the case of ACF, the AD′/AD ratio was characteristic
of sp3 defects (0.07). This type of defects was also observed
in the hydrogels with different percentage of ACF when the Raman spectrum
was taken in the fiber regions, however, the AD′/AD values in the regions
in which the GO sheets predominate are the same as the pure GO sheets
(see Table S4). This behavior suggests
that, within the hybrids, there are different domains in which fibers
or GO sheets predominate. To confirm this fact, the SEM images of
hybrids deposited onto silicon were taken and are shown in Figure .
Figure 4
SEM images of mixed hydrogels
of GO24 and carbon fibers: (A) activated
carbon fibers, (B) GO24FH37, (C) GO24FH55, and (D) GOFH73.
SEM images of mixed hydrogels
of GO24 and carbon fibers: (A) activated
carbon fibers, (B) GO24FH37, (C) GO24FH55, and (D) GOFH73.As can be seen in Figure , different domains of both materials, ACF, and GO
can be
observed in the GO/ACF hydrogels. As was expected, when the carbon
fibers percentage increases, the number of domains of fibers increases
(see Figure D). This
behavior is consistent with the Raman results in which a unique sample
(for example, GOFH55 presents two different values of the AD’/AD ratio
(see Table S3 in the Supporting Information):
0.08 and 0.14, corresponding to sp3 defects and to vacancies
defects, depending on the region selected to record the Raman spectrum,
ACF, or GO, respectively.The second-order Raman spectra of
the hydrogels are plotted in Figure C. In a previous
work, the spectra were fitted to four Lorentzian functions centered
at ∼2500, 2690, 2930, and 3190 cm–1 previously
assigned to G*-band interpreted according to the double resonance,
because of an intervalley process involving an in-plane transverse
optical (iTO) phonon and one longitudinal acoustic (LA) phonon,[64] 2D (overtone), D+D′ (combination band),
and 2D′ (overtone) band, respectively. The position of the
combination band (D + D′) is related with the chemical composition
in graphene oxide samples.[35] In the next
section, this parameter will be related with the CO2 adsorption
capacity. Figure D
shows an example of the Raman spectra of GOFH73. The experimental
spectra agree very well with those calculated by the sum of the four
Lorentzian functions from the best fit parameters shown in Table S5 in the Supporting Information.
Porous
Structure
The characterization of the texture
of the solids, SBET and volume of micropores
has been performed using the adsorption isotherms of N2 at 77 K and of CO2 at 273 K. Figure S6 in the Supporting Information shows the N2 adsorption–desorption
isotherms at 77 K for GO24/ACF hybrids and for ACF. According to Figure S6, ACF shows a type I isotherm, whereas
all composites have a combination of type I and type IV isotherms.
The small hysteresis loop suggests the existence of mesopores in composites.
N2 isotherms for GO12/PANI hybrids could not be obtained
completely because of the low N2 adsorption of the materials. Table shows the surface
area (ABET) values calculated from N2 adsorption isotherms and the BET equation. The micropore
volume (Vmp) and the characteristic energy
of adsorption (E0) values were calculated
from CO2 isotherms and the Dubinin–Radushkevich
model.[32,40,65] (See the details
in Section S2 in the Supporting Information.)
Table 2
ABET Obtained
by N2 Adsorption Isotherms at 77 Ka
sample
ABET (m2/g)
Vmp (cm3/g)
E0 (kJ/mol)
Qads (mmol/g)
GO12
–
0.03
21.3
0.40
GO12PANI
–
0.07
23.3
0.82
GO12PANIK
–
0.15
28.2
1.93
GO24
–
0.01
16.8
0.22
GO24H
184
0.06
24.4
0.64
GO24FH73
562
0.15
22.1
2.22
GO24FH55
696
0.21
22.0
3.00
GO24FH55CPY
704
0.22
21.8
3.17
GOFH37
815
0.24
21.8
3.59
ACF
1395
0.41
20.2
5.42
Pore structure parameters obtained
via the Dubinin–Radushkevich model from CO2 adsorption
isotherms (273 K and pCO =
1 bar) for GO/PANI composites and for GO/ACF hydrogels.
Pore structure parameters obtained
via the Dubinin–Radushkevich model from CO2 adsorption
isotherms (273 K and pCO =
1 bar) for GO/PANI composites and for GO/ACF hydrogels.Table clearly
shows that graphene oxides (GO12 and GO24) present negligible values
of the surface area (ABET) and volume
of micropore (Vmp), with anticipated low
CO2 retention capacity. Although the ABET and Vmp values obtained
for GO24H are low, 184 m2/g and 0.057 cm3/g,
respectively, it can be said that the hydrothermal treatment develops
a certain degree of porosity. Doping with PANI does not increase ABET determined by N2, although it
develops some microporosity determined by CO2 adsorption
at 273 K. Chemical activation of GO12PANI with KOH, followed by thermal
activation at 550 °C, develops microporosity accessible to CO2 molecules, as observed by the Vmp value obtained for GO12PANIK. However, the activation treatment
does not develop microporosity accessible to N2.GO/ACF hydrogels show an increase of both ABET and Vmp as the percentage of
ACF increases, but they do not reach the values of the ACF. Since
ACF is a highly microporous material, it gives the hydrogel very useful
textural properties for CO2 retention. The low values found
for E0, the characteristic energy value
(16–28 kJ/mol) suggests a physisorption mechanism for all materials. E0 values vary as a function of the micropore
size. The narrower micropores have higher E0 values. The microporosity developed in the GO12PANIK composite is
very narrow. All the GO/ACF hydrogels have very similar E0 values, indicating that the micropores have the similar
size.
CO2 Adsorption on Composites
As can be seen
in Table , the CO2 uptake for the materials increases as follows: GO12 ≈
GO24 < G24OH < GO12PANI < GO12PANIK < GO24FH73 < GO24FH55
< GO24FH55CPy < GO24FH37 < ACF. GO12 and GO24 present very
low CO2 adsorption capacity (∼0.40 and 0.22 mmol/g
at 1 bar, respectively), which allows us to affirm that the oxidation
time of graphene oxide is not a determining parameter in the CO2 retention capacity. When doping with polyaniline, GO12PANI
achieved a CO2 uptake of 0.8 mmol/g at 1 bar, 2 times higher
than that obtained for the original GO12. This behavior agrees with
the results obtained previously.[32,65−71] To improve the adsorption capacity of our materials, the N-doped
sample is subjected to chemical activation treatment with KOH,[66,72] followed by a thermal activation treatment at 550 °C. CO2 adsorption isotherms are shown in Figure . The result obtained, in terms of adsorption
capacity for the composite activated, GO12PANIK, was 1.93 mmol/g at
1 bar, which is almost 5 times greater than that observed for the
original GO12, and 2.4 times the adsorption capacity of the material
doped with nitrogen GO12PANI (Figure A).
Figure 5
CO2 adsorption isotherms recorded at 273 K
(A) for GO12
and composites GO12PANI and GO12PANIK and (B) for mixed hydrogels
at different GO24/ACF ratios. GO isotherms were included as benchmarks.
CO2 adsorption isotherms recorded at 273 K
(A) for GO12
and composites GO12PANI and GO12PANIK and (B) for mixed hydrogels
at different GO24/ACF ratios. GO isotherms were included as benchmarks.Figure B shows
the adsorption isotherms of the mixed hydrogels prepared at different
GO24/ACF ratios. For comparison, the adsorption isotherms of GO24
and of the hydrogel GO24H have been included. As can be seen in Figure B, the hydrothermal
treatment to GO24 increases, the CO2 adsorption capacity
from 0.22 to 0.64 mmol/g at 1 bar, reaching a level close to that
obtained with N-doped GO (GO12PANI) without chemical activation. In
the CO2 adsorption isotherms obtained for the GO/ACF mixed
hydrogels, it is observed that the adsorption capacity of the hydrogels
increases as the ACF content increases. The hydrogel with the lowest
proportion of ACF (GO24FH73) provides a CO2 retention capacity
of 2.23 mmol/g at 1 bar, exceeding the retention capacity of GO12PANIK,
the N-doped composite with the best adsorption capacity. The CO2 uptake increases as the GO24/ACF ratio increases, up to 3.59
mmol/g at 1 bar for GO24FH37. However, note that no synergistic effects
have been observed between GO24 and ACF, and the retention capacity
presented by pure ACF (5.42 mmol/g at 1 bar) has not been exceeded
in any mixed hydrogels. This fact can be due to the existence of separated
domains in the hydrogels, as was demonstrated by Raman spectra and
SEM images. To improve the homogeneity of hydrogels and avoid the
existence of two separated domains, we added the surfactant cetylpyridinium
chloride to the hydrogel of 50% GO24/ACF ratio. The result shows a
slight increase in the retention capacity of GO24FH55CPy (Table ), but not a synergistic
effect. Although a thermodynamic mixture of the two domains could
be expected using the surfactant solution, it has not been achieved,
as can be seen in Figure S5 in the Supporting
Information.To analyze the influence of the structural properties
on the CO2 retention capacity, Figure presents some of the evaluated properties
with the
CO2 uptake at 1 bar. In Figure A, the CO2 uptake at 1 bar is
plotted versus the micropore volume. The results show an excellent
linear correlation, which agrees very well with previous results.[32] This fact confirms again that CO2 is physisorbed in micropores, and consequently, the increase of
the micropore volume results in a more efficient CO2 adsorption.
It becomes necessary to investigate the structural properties responsible
for the increase of micropores in these solids. Therefore, in Figure B, we analyze the
influence of percentage of C sp2 on the CO2 uptake.
The results in Figure B do not show a clear trend between these two parameters. Although
the amount of CO2 adsorbed in the hybrids that contain
ACF increases with the percentage of C sp2, it does not
occur for the rest of the materials, where the increase in CO2 adsorption capacity with the percentage of C sp2 is very slight. Similar information has been obtained from the plot
of the CO2 adsorption capacity against the position of
the combination band (D + D′). In Figure C, for samples hybridized with ACF, the adsorption
capacity increases when the position of the band, related to the percentage
of C sp2, shifts toward higher wave numbers. It can be
concluded that another structural property more related with the structure
of the fibers should be responsible for the increase of the micropore
volume observed in these samples. With this objective in mind, Figure D shows the variation
of the CO2 uptake with the grain size C, obtained by XRD. As can be seen in Figure D, the CO2 retention capacity
decreases when the grain size increases. Since the retention capacity
linearly increases with the micropore volume, our results unequivocally
demonstrate that the solids with small grain size present a higher
micropore volume and consequently, higher CO2 retention
capacity.
Figure 6
Plot of the CO2 uptake at 1 bar against (A) the volume
of micropores from the Dubinin–Radushkevich equation, (B) the
percentage of C sp2 obtained by XPS, (C) the position of
the (D+D′) band of the second-order Raman spectra, and (D)
the grain size C by the XDR (100) peak from the Scherrer
equation.
Plot of the CO2 uptake at 1 bar against (A) the volume
of micropores from the Dubinin–Radushkevich equation, (B) the
percentage of C sp2 obtained by XPS, (C) the position of
the (D+D′) band of the second-order Raman spectra, and (D)
the grain size C by the XDR (100) peak from the Scherrer
equation.The results obtained lead us to
conclude that the CO2 retention capacity is strongly conditioned
by the presence and proportion
of ACF, so that the porosity of the fiber governs the behavior of
mixed hydrogels.Regarding the preparation methodology, we started
with two graphene
oxides prepared with different oxidation times, and the conclusion
obtained is that the oxidation time does not significantly modify
the CO2 uptake. The hydrothermal method improves the adsorption
capacity of GO to 12% of the ACF capacity and drives to a similar
adsorption capacity (15%) to that obtained by doping GO with N synthesized
by in situ polymerization of aniline. Activation with KOH of the last
material represents a substantial increase of the CO2 retention
capacity, reaching a value close to 36% of the ACF adsorption capacity.
However, the introduction of microporous ACF in hydrogels assumes
a high increase of the ability of CO2 adsorption. Furthermore,
this capacity increases with the proportion of ACF, but a synergistic
effect was not detected (see Figure S7 in
the Supporting Information).
Conclusions
In
this work, different procedures have been used to synthesize
GO-based nanomaterials designed to retain CO2, with the
objective of determining the structural factors that affect the quality
of the adsorbent. Our results prove again that micropore volume is
a crucial parameter to improve the CO2 retention capacity.
We also demonstrate that the C sp2 is not a determining
parameter in the creation of microporosity. From Raman and adsorption
results, it appears that the type of defects in the graphenic network
does not have a great influence on CO2 retention, although
more efforts should be made to clarify this subject. However, our
results demonstrate a clear dependence of the CO2 retention
capacity with the grain size C obtained by XRD measurements.
Thus, when the crystallite size decreases, CO2 retention
significantly increases. On the other hand, the different methodologies
that have been proposed for the preparation of adsorbents, viz., hydrothermal
synthesis, doping with N, activation with KOH, and mixing with fibers,
involve successive modifications that progressively increase the amorphous
character of the materials, decrease the grain size, and therefore,
improve the adsorption capacity. We expect that these results help
prepare carbon-derived adsorbents with the highest CO2 adsorption
capacity.
Authors: Beatriz Martín-García; M Mercedes Velázquez; Francesco Rossella; Vittorio Bellani; Enrique Diez; Jose Luis García Fierro; Jose Antonio Pérez-Hernández; Juan Hernández-Toro; Sergi Claramunt; Albert Cirera Journal: Chemphyschem Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 3.102
Authors: David López-Díaz; Maria Mercedes Velázquez; Santiago Blanco de La Torre; Ana Pérez-Pisonero; Raquel Trujillano; José Luis García Fierro; Sergi Claramunt; Albert Cirera Journal: Chemphyschem Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 3.102
Authors: Luís Mafra; Tomaž Čendak; Sarah Schneider; Paul V Wiper; João Pires; José R B Gomes; Moisés L Pinto Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 15.419