| Literature DB >> 35424068 |
Minju N1,2,3, Balagopal N Nair4,5, Savithri S1,2,3.
Abstract
Inorganic silica aerogels derived from sodium silicate are voluminous three-dimensional open networks with exceptional properties such as a density as low as ∼100 kg m-3, high porosity (∼99%), low thermal conductivity (∼0.01 W m-1 K-1), high specific surface area (∼1000 m2 g-1), low refractive index (∼1.05) and high optical transmittance (∼95%) depending on their preparation conditions. They are processed through the sol-gel route, which is a reliable methodology to produce high-grade porous materials. Ambient pressure drying has been developed as a low-cost route for the preparation of sodium silicate-derived aerogels, overcoming the difficulties with the use of organosilane precursors and super critical drying. Silica aerogels can be hydrophobic or hydrophilic depending on their synthetic procedure and surface silanol groups. Owing to their unusual properties, these inorganic aerogels have been applied in both commercial and high-tech engineering applications such as thermal insulation, separation, coatings, optics, nuclear particle detection, sensing, and catalysis. This review provides information on the unique features of a wide array of silica aerogels and their potential applications and recent developments in the field of science and technology. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35424068 PMCID: PMC8698247 DOI: 10.1039/d0ra09793d
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Fig. 1Schematic route for the sol–gel process.[4]
Fig. 2Different grades of silica aerogels: (i) silica (a) hydrogel and (b) aerogel beads;[39] (ii) ambient pressure dried silica aerogel granules well modified by TMCS;[41] (iii) spring back effect during the ambient drying of surface-modified gel;[20] (iv) transparent micro-silica aerogel beads;[42] (v) (a) TMCS modified (10% V) and (b) unmodified mesoporous silica aerogel beads, and (c) photograph showing the super hydrophobicity of the aerogel beads on the surface of water;[43] (vi) silica aerogels prepared by (a) single step and (b–d) two-step sol–gel process;[44] (vii) aerogel membranes;[7] (viii) mesoporous silica aerogels heat treated at different temperatures (a) untreated, (b) 300 °C, (c) 500 °C, and (d) 800 °C;[45] (ix) (a) silica alcogel spheres and (b) aerogel particles after ambient-pressure drying;[46] and (x) aerogels prepared by (a) co-precursor, (b) surface derivatization and (c) two-step modification.[47]
Physical properties of silica aerogels synthesized from sodium silicate by different researchersa
| Raw material | Solvent used for pore water exchange | Catalyst | Silylating agent | Gelation pH | Drying method | Density (g cm−3) | Contact angle (°) | Thermal conductivity (W m−1 K−1) | Porosity (%) | Pore size (nm) | Surface area (m2 g−1) | Total pore volume (cm3 g−1) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice husk | EtOH | Sulphuric acid | — | 5–5.5 | SCD | 0.08 | — | — | 95 | 11–18 | 773 | 3.6 | Halim 2018 (ref. |
| Rice husk ash | EtOH | NaOH | — | 5 | SCD | 0.07 | — | — | 16.32 | 729.82 | 3.39 | Sheng 2015 (ref. | |
| Sodium silicate | EtOH | Sulphuric acid | TMCS | 6 | APD | 0.36 | — | — | 81.7 | 26.35 | 719 | 3.4 | Sarawade 2012 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | IsoprOH | Acetic acid | — | 3.8 | APD | — | — | — | — | 6.71 | 473.93 | 0.02 | Minju 2017 (ref. |
| Industrial grade sodium silicate | Acetone | NaOH | Unmodified | 4–5 | APD | — | — | — | — | 7.59 | 602 | 1.15 | Pouretedal 2012 (ref. |
|
| MPTMS | 3.89 | 387.9 | 0.46 | |||||||||
| Fly ash | EtOH | H2SO4 | TMCS | 10 | APD | — | — | — | — | 7.69–24.09 | 362.2–578.5 | 0.74–3.20 | Shi 2010 (ref. |
| NaOH | 5–6 | 21.48 | 907.9 | 4.88 | |||||||||
| Native corn starch | EtOH | Emulsification | TMOS | — | SCD | <0.25 | — | — | >85 | 14–18 | 1000 | — | Garcia 2015 (ref. |
| Rice husk | EtOH | Acetic acid | TMCS | 5 | APD | 0.07 | 135 | 0.041 | 95 | 11–20 | 600–700 | 2–3 | Halim 2018 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | EtOH | Acid/base catalysis | — | 3.5 | APD | 0.318 | — | — | — | — | 869 | 2.65 | Smith 1992 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | Hexane | NH4OH | TMCS | 4 | APD | — | — | — | — | 10 | 681 | — | Sarawade 2006 (ref. |
| Rice hull ash | EtOH | Nitric acid | TEOS | 4–9 | APD | 0.27–0.85 | — | — | 61.23–87.53 | 3.24–10.22 | 238–673 | 0.45–1.17 | Karakuzu 2016 (ref. |
| Citric acid | 0.28–0.75 | 65.71–87.35 | 3.37–9.43 | 261–726 | 0.52–1.06 | ||||||||
| Sodium silicate | MeOH | HCl/NH4F | TMES/TMCS | — | APD | 0.14 | 131.8 | — | 92.7 | 14.04 | 458 | 3.22 | Nah 2018 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | MeOH | HCl and NH4F | TMCS | — | APD | 0.1 | 144.09 | — | 94.3 | 27.41 | 623.2 | 4.27 | Nah 2018 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | MeOH | HCl | TMCS | 4 | APD | — | — | — | 76.9–89.7 | 14.9–17.4 | 412–485 | 2.64–3.65 | Motahari 2015 (ref. |
| 8 | 58.2–66.9 | 12.3–25.8 | 250–367 | 0.61–1.86 | |||||||||
| Sodium silicate/PMMA | EtOH | NH4OH | TMCS | 5–5.5 | APD | 0.3–0.78 | — | — | 45–87 | 15.62–48.61 | 256.34–687.28 | 1.04–3.04 | Ma 2016 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate |
| Nitric acid | HMDZ | — | APD | 0.1–0.5 | 140–152 | — | — | 4.78–9.9 | 394–637 | 0.45–0.90 | Julio 2014 (ref. |
| Industrial grade sodium silicate | — | H2SO4 | Unmodified | 5.5 | APD | — | — | — | — | 8.75 | 648.6 | 1.48 | Khan 2018 (ref. |
| TMCS | 9.49 | 487.5 | 1.2 | ||||||||||
| Sodium silicate | IsoprOH | NH4OH | TMCS | — | APD | 0.25 | 146 | — | 88.6 | 24 | 815 | 3.5 m3 g−1 | Sebdani 2016 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | IsoprOH | NH3 | TMCS | 5 | APD | 0.18 | 146.4 | — | 91.8 | 23.93 | 815.14 | 3.53 m3 g−1 | Sebdani 2012 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | EtOH | NH4OH | TMCS | 6 | APD | 0.09–0.17 | 165 | — | 92.32–95.34 | 1.7–50 | 456–817 | He 2015 (ref. | |
| Industrial grade sodium silicate | — | H2SO4 | — | 5 | Oven | 0.36 | — | — | 80.95 | 7.51 | 358 | 0.91 | Sarawade 2011 (ref. |
| Microwave | 0.29 | 84.52 | 10.21 | 437 | 1.27 | ||||||||
| Spray | 0.23 | 88.16 | 17.41 | 679 | 1.96 | ||||||||
| Oil shale ash | Hexane | H2SO4 | HMDZ | 7 | Fluidized bed drying | 0.08 | — | — | — | 14.1 | 789 | 2.77 | Gao 2010 (ref. |
| Industrial grade sodium silicate | EtOH | NH3 | TMCS | — | APD | 0.104–0.15 | — | 0.021–0.031 | 93.4–95.3 | 10–12.3 | 626.2–804.5 | 2.81–3.45 | Shao 2015 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | Hexane | HCl | TMCS/HMDSO | 10.55,10.85 | APD | 0.11–0.13 | 143–145 | 0.022–0.025 | 92–93 | 66–100 | 310–425 | 0.40–2.87 | Pooter 2018 (ref. |
| Industrial water glass | EtOH | NH4OH | TMCS | — | APD | — | — | 0.03–0.038 | — | 10.06–12.15 | 139–250 | 0.58–1.06 | Jia 2018 (ref. |
| Water glass | EtOH | HCl | TMCS | 6.2 | APD | 0.09–0.12 | 106–161 | — | 91.3–94.5 | 131–156 | 469–680 | 1.8–3.3 | He 2015 (ref. |
| Industrial water glass | EtOH | Oxalic acid | TMCS | 4 | APD | 0.07–0.09 | — | — | 95.59–96 | 8.64–16.31 | 524–776 | 2.72–3.1 | Sarawade 2011 (ref. |
| Wheat husk ash | EtOH | NH3 | TMCS | 5–6 | APD | 0.06–0.16 | 147 | 0.009–0.012 | 90.1–96.5 | 9–15 | 513–587 | 2.3–4 | Liu 2016 (ref. |
| Rice husk char | — |
| — | 4.9 | APD | — | — | — | — | 2.07–2.74 | 709–936 | 0.37–0.62 | Li 2011 (ref. |
| Water glass | EtOH | NaOH | HMDSO | 5.5 | APD | 0.09–0.11 | 128, 147 | 0.022–0.099 | 91.21–96.33 | 2–50 | 466–651 | — | Liu 2012 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate/TiOCl2 | EtOH | NH4OH | TMCS | 3.5 | APD | 0.12–0.47 | — | — | — | 6.5–14.9 | 623–726 | 1.3–3 | Kim 2013 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | EtOH | NH4OH | HMDZ | 4.6 | APD | 0.14–0.21 | — | — | ∼82–93 | — | — | ∼2.2–6 | Rao 2004 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate |
| Pyridine | TMCS | — | APD | 0.12 | — | 0.01 | 94 | ∼4–7.5 | ∼560–650 | — | Yeo 2007 (ref. |
| Bamboo leaves |
| HCl | HMDZ | 7 | SCD | 0.07 | — | 0.0311 | 97.9 | — | 331 | 1.38 | Kow 2016 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | MeOH, hexane | Acetic acid | TMCS | — | APD | 0.04–0.1 | 149 | 95–97.8 | — | — | 10–24.5 | Shewale 2008 (ref. | |
| HMDZ | 0.09–0.12 | 143 | 93.9–95.1 | 16.1–18.7 | |||||||||
| Sodium silicate | EtOH, | NH3 | TMCS | 6 | APD | 0.08 | 93.6 | 12.3 | 917 | 2.8 | Sarawade 2010 (ref. | ||
| Sodium silicate |
| H2SO4 | TMCS | 7 | Spray drying | 0.27 | 155 | — | — | 16.4 | 870 | 2.2 | Sarawade 2010 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | MeOH | NH4OH | TMCS | — | APD | 0.1 | 166 | 0.104 | 94.87 | 120 | — | 9.49 | Rao 2008 (ref. |
| EtOH | 0.16 | 164 | 0.115 | 92.05 | <100 | — | 5.94 | ||||||
| PrOH | 0.16 | 172 | 0.12 | 91.79 | >130 | — | 5.74 | ||||||
| IsoPrOH | 0.07 | 166 | 0.091 | 96.6 | >130 | — | 13.77 | ||||||
| BuOH | 0.17 | 163 | 0.13 | 91.28 | <100 | — | 5.37 | ||||||
| IsoBuOH | 0.17 | 161 | 0.122 | 91.54 | >130 | — | 5.55 | ||||||
| Hexanol | 0.19 | 165 | 0.21 | 90.03 | — | — | 4.75 | ||||||
| Sodium silicate | MeOH/ | NH4F/HCl | TMCS | — | APD | 0.13 | 143 | 0.128 | 93.4 | 17.9 | 425 | 2.29 | Bangi 2013 (ref. |
| Fly ash acid sludge | EtOH | NH4OH | TMCS | 5–6 | APD | 0.09 | 140 | — | — | 12.62 | 700 | 3.29 | Cheng 2016 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate |
| HNO3 | HMDS | — | FBD | 0.05–0.07 | — | — | — | 8.5–8.75 | 639–783 | 1.43–1.79 | Bhagat 2008 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate |
| HNO3 | HMDS | — | APD | 0.08–0.64 | 150 | — | — | 5.4–10.1 | 173–778 | 0.25–2.34 | Bhagat 2008 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | MeOH | Tartaric acid | TMCS | — | APD | 0.08 | 146 | 0.09 | 95 | — | — | 11.4 | Bangi 2008 (ref. |
| Rice hull ash | EtOH | H2SO4 | TEOS | — | APD | 0.33 | — | — | 87 | 26.5 | 499 | 3.31 | Li 2008 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | IsoPrOH | NH3 | TMCS | 5 | APD | 0.13–0.16 | — | — | 80.8–83.8 | 6–16 | 677.94–1046.88 | — | Kim 2007 (ref. |
| Rice husk ash | EtOH | HNO3 | TEOS | 6 | APD | 0.67 | — | — | 80 | 10–40 | 273 | 3.1 | Nayak 2009 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | EtOH | NH4OH | TMCS | — | APD | 0.1–0.3 | — | — | 88–96 | 10 | 730–950 | — | Lee 2006 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | MeOH | Tartaric acid | TMCS | — | APD | 0.07 | 145 | — | 97 | 70 | 510 | 14.62 | Gurav 2009 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | EtOH | NH3/H2SO4 | TEOS | — | APD | 0.14 | — | — | 93.7 | 9.72 | 610.64 | 1.48 | Geng 2010 (ref. |
| Industrial grade sodium silicate |
| NH4OH | TMCS | 3.5 | APD | 0.12–0.14 | ≥ 120 | 92–95 | 9.7–11.04 | 670–724 | 3.36–3.48 | Hwang 2008 (ref. | |
| Water glass | — | NaOH | HMDSO/TMCS | — | N2 steam of 1500 L h−1 at 200 °C | 0.1 0.16 | — | 0.01–0.015 | >85 | 14 | 700 | 92 | Schwertfeger 1998 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | EtOH | NH4OH | HMDZ | 5–6 | SCD | 0.07–0.13 | 123–149 | 0.015–0.017 | 94–97 | 36.9–142 | 441–782 | 7.2–15.7 | Zhao 2015 (ref. |
| Rice husk ash | EtOH | H2SO4 | TEOS | — | APD | 0.32 | — | — | 85 | 9.8 | 315 | 0.78 | Tadjarodi 2012 (ref. |
| Industrial micro silica | EtOH | NaOH | TMCS | 6 | APD | 0.11–0.19 | 130 | — | 91.5–95.1 | 5.22–8.02 | 767–828 | 1.61–2.78 | Shi 2013 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate |
| HNO3 | HMDS/TMCS/TEOS | — | APD | — | 103–109 | — | — | 17.1–17.78 | 345–936 | 0.395–1.715 | Sorour 2016 (ref. |
| Bagasse ash | — | NH4OH | TMCS/HMDS | 8–9 | APD | — | — | — | — | 5.7–12.3 | 450.2–1360.4 | 0.75–1.93 | Nazriati 2011 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | EtOH | NH3 | MTES/TMCS | — | APD | 0.12–0.61 | 80–146 | — | 72.3–94.5 | 3.34–14.28 | 665.73–971.23 | 0.71–3.55 | Shao 2013 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | Hexane | NH3 | TMCS | 4–5 | APD | 0.18 | 145 | — | — | 17.67 | 823 | 3.63 | Yaqubzadeh 2016 (ref. |
| Water glass | EtOH | CO2 gas | MTMS/TMCS | 9 | APD | — | 154 | — | — | 33–71.4 | 314–492 | 0.0733–0.1595 | Wu 2018 (ref. |
| Rice husk ash | EtOH | Acetic acid | TEOS | 7 | APD | 0.37 | — | — | 83 | 10.7 | 294.4 | 1.022 | Temel 2017 (ref. |
| HCl | 0.38 | 83 | 11.79 | 268 | 0.998 | ||||||||
| HNO3 | 0.29 | 87 | 11.19 | 287.7 | 0.923 | ||||||||
| Oxalic acid | 0.21 | 90 | 10.85 | 322.5 | 1.048 | ||||||||
| H2SO4 | 0.39 | 82 | 10.33 | 294.9 | 1.044 | ||||||||
| Sodium silicate | MeOH | Citric acid | DMCS | — | APD | 0.23 | 140 | 0.125 | 87.8 | — | — | — | Rao 2011 (ref. |
| DMDC | 0.22 | 142 | 0.122 | 88.2 | |||||||||
| TMCS | 0.09 | 144 | 0.091 | 95.7 | |||||||||
| HMDZ | 0.22 | 140 | 0.122 | 88.3 | |||||||||
| HMDSO | 0.52 | < 90 | 0.19 | 72.8 | |||||||||
| Bagasse ash | — | NH4OH | TMCS/HMDS | 4 | APD | — | 140 | — | — | 3.77 | 1113.76 | 2.13 | Nazriati 2014 (ref. |
| Water glass | EtOH | HCl/diluted water glass | TMCS | 5 | APD | 0.0762 | 162.3 | 0.0237 | 96.54 | 13.8 | 776.1 | 3 | Pan 2017 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | EtOH | NH4OH | MTMS | — | APD | 0.152 | 60 | 0.164 | 92.05 | — | — | 6.05 | Rao 2007 (ref. |
| MTES | 0.164 | 65 | 0.170 | 91.45 | 5.51 | ||||||||
| VTMS | 0.157 | 70 | 0.169 | 91.94 | 5.84 | ||||||||
| PTMS | 0.145 | 80 | 0.154 | 92.56 | 6.37 | ||||||||
| PTES | 0.149 | 85 | 0.152 | 92.15 | 6.18 | ||||||||
| DMDMS | 0.131 | 88 | 0.134 | 93.32 | 7.10 | ||||||||
| TMMS | 0.110 | 130 | 0.121 | 94.35 | 8.58 | ||||||||
| TMCS | 0.105 | 155 | 0.118 | 94.61 | 9.01 | ||||||||
| BTSA | 0.090 | 150 | 0.102 | 95.38 | 10.60 | ||||||||
| HMDZ | 0.060 | 165 | 0.091 | 96.90 | 16.15 | ||||||||
| Recycled coal gangue | Heptane/EtOH | H2SO4 | TMCS | — | APD | 0.19 | — | 0.027 | 91.4 | 27.5 | 690 | 4.81 | Zhu 2016 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | MeOH | NH4F/HCl | TMCS | — | APD | 0.11 | 142 | 0.12 | — | — | 560 | — | Bangi 2019 (ref. |
| Sodium silicate | MeOH | Citric acid monohydrate | FAS | — | SCD | — | 145–158 | — | — | 2.6–3.4 | 280.1–590.2 | 0.18–0.53 | Lin 2019 (ref. |
APD – ambient pressure drying, SCD – super critical drying, FBD – fluidized bed drying, EtOH – ethanol, MeOH – methanol, PrOH – propanol, IsoPrOH – isopropanol, BuOH – butanol, IsoBuOH – isobutanol, TMCS – trimethylchlorosilane, MPTMS – mercaptopropyl trimethoxysilane, TMOS – tetramethoxysilane, TEOS – tetraethoxysilane, TMES – trimethylethoxysilane, HMDZ/HMDS – hexamethyldisilazane, HMDSO – hexamethyldisiloxane, MTES – methyltriethoxysilane, MTMS – methyltrimethoxysilane, MTES – methyltriethoxysilane, DMCS – dimethylchlorosilane, DMDC – dimethyldichlorosilane, VTMS – vinyltrimethoxysilane, PTMS – phenyl trimethoxysilane, PTES – phenyl triethoxysilane, DMDMS – dimethyldimethoxysilane, TMMS – trimethylmethoxysilane, BTSA – bis(trimethylsilyl) acetamide, HMDZ – hexamethyldisilazane, and FAS – fluoroalkylsilane.
Fig. 3Graph showing the variation in gelation time and volume shrinkage with Na2SiO3/H2O molar ratio.[48]
Fig. 4Silica aerogels dried at ambient pressure for different aging times and at different temperatures.[53]
Fig. 5Graph showing the change in density with the water vapour passing period and gel aging period.[52]
Characteristic FTIR peaks of silica aerogels[47,54,55]
| Peak positions | Chemical bonds |
|---|---|
| Strong absorption peak near 1090 cm−1, 1180 cm−1 and weak peak at around 800 cm−1 | Asymmetric and symmetric bending of Si–O–Si |
| Strong peak near 460 cm−1 | Bending of O–Si–O |
| Weak peak at around 2950 cm−1 and 2900 cm−1 | CH3 terminal from surface treatment |
| Peaks near 1276, 1260, 867, 850 and 758 cm−1 | Si–C originating from surface treatment |
| Wide band at around 3500 cm−1 and the peak at around 1600 cm−1 | Surface-adsorbed hydroxyl groups |
| Oscillations between 1300 cm−1 and 1650 cm−1 | Bending of H–O–H |
| Weak peak near 960 cm−1 | Stretching of Si–OH |
| Peaks at 2980, 2926, and 1450 cm−1 | CH3 and CH2 bonds |
Fig. 6Flow chart showing the preparation of silica aerogel beads.[43]
Fig. 7Schematic route for the development of aerogels using CO2 as a gelation agent.[81]
Fig. 8Flow chart for the preparation of translucent aerogels.[60,91]
Fig. 9Industrial applications of sodium silicate aerogels.[7,60,92–95]
Cost of aerogel per board foot (adapted from ref. 81)
| Aerogel costs | |
|---|---|
| Material | Aerogel cost ($/board foot) |
| TMOS | 7.91 |
| TEOS | 4.15 |
| Sodium silicate | 0.63 |
| Resorcinol-formaldehyde (RF) | 1.34 |
| Phenol-formaldehyde (PF) | 0.42 |
| RF : PF (50 : 50) | 0.89 |
| Melamine-formaldehyde | 1.14 |
| Phenolic-furfural | 0.73 |
Fig. 10Schematic diagram of the synthesis of AEP composites.[71]
Fig. 11Picture and SEM image of aerogel–glass fiber composites aged under (a and c) acidic and (b and d) basic conditions.[63]
Fig. 12(a) Reaction scheme for the adsorption of CO2 on amine-modified silica aerogel and (b) CO2 adsorption capacity at 75 °C.[60]
Fig. 13CO2 absorption flux of silica aerogel membrane.[86]
Fig. 14Optical images of (a) dusty surface of aerogel coating, (b) self-cleaned surface and (c) effect of sand paper abrasion cycle on contact angle.[92]
Summary of sodium silicate-derived aerogels for various industrial applications
| Material | Application | Property utilised | Remarks | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MPTMS modified silica aerogel | Adsorbent for Cu2+, Cd2+, and Pb2+ ions | Surface area | The optimum adsorption values are found as 90.1, 181.8, and 250.0 mg g−1, respectively, for Cu2+, Cd2+, and Pb2+ ions; contact time = 30 min, adsorbent dose = 0.05 g and pH = 6 for Cd2+ and Pb2+ ions, adsorbent dose = 0.1 g and pH = 4 for Cu2+ ions | Pouretedal 2012 (ref. |
| TEPA/APTMS modified silica aerogel | CO2 adsorbent | Surface area/porosity | CO2 adsorption capacity of 3.26 mmol g−1 at 75 °C, 1 atm pressure | Minju 2017 (ref. |
| Polysaccharide-based aerogel microspheres | Oral drug delivery | Specific surface area and surface chemistry | An amorphous drug-loaded delivery system with loadings in the range of 11–24 wt%. Specific loading capacity up to 1.54 × 10−4 g m−2 for ketoprofen and 2.38 × 10−4 g m−2 for benzoic acid was obtained | Garcia 2015 (ref. |
| Silica aerogel–PVA core–shell | Thermal insulation | Thermal conductivity | The thermal conductivity of the core shell structure (0.035 W m−1 K−1) was lower than that of silica aerogel (0.041 W m−1 K−1) owing to good thermal insulation and very thin coating of PVA. The PVA shell also remarkably improved the thermal stability | Halim 2018 (ref. |
| Silica aerogel–Glass fiber composites | Fire shield for steel frame structures | Porosity | The composites made at pH 4 show considerably higher fire resistance (28–42 min.) compared to those made at pH 8 (11–23 min). The highest fire resistance was obtained for samples with 89.7% porosity and the lowest fire resistance for samples with 58.2% porosity | Motahari 2015 (ref. |
| Super hydrophobic hybrid aerogel powder | Water transport at microscale level | Hydrophobicity | Hybrid aerogel powder with high lipophilic/hydrophilic ratios were achieved, with tapping densities as low as 0.120 g cm−3 and contact angle up to 152° | Julio 2014 (ref. |
| Silica aerogel powder | Thermal insulation | Pore size/pore volume | Aerogels modified with HMDSO achieved thermal conductivity as low as 0.022 W m−1 K−1 | Pooter 2018 (ref. |
| Aerogel/expanded perlite (AEP) composite | Thermal insulation | Mesopore volume, surface area, thermal conductivity | The mesoporous volumes and BET specific surface areas of AEP (0.58–1.06 cm3 g−1 and 139–250 m2 g−1) were about 100–280 times and 50–150 times that of expanded perlite EP (3.78 E−3–8.32 × 10−3 and 1.62–3.31 m2 g−1), respectively. The thermal conductivities of AEP (0.03–0.038 W m−1 K−1) decreased by 14.7–31.8% compared to that of EP (0.044–0.047 W m−1 K−1) | Jia 2018 (ref. |
| TiO2–SiO2 aerogel composites | Photo catalysis | Surface area, super ior textural properties, hydrophobicity | The as-synthesized TiO2–SiO2 aerogel composite was hydrophobic and exhibited the highest activity toward decolorization of methylene blue. Calcination tailored the property from hydrophobic to hydrophilic and the formed samples possessed lower activities | Kim 2013 (ref. |
| Super hydrophobic SiO2 surface | Scratch & heat resistance, self-cleaning | Hydrophobicity | The super hydrophobic (water contact angle and sliding angle 169.80° and 4°) coatings maintained water repellency under 350 °C for 4 h and durable super- hydrophobicity for 6 months at ambient conditions and excellent thermal and mechanical stabilities (abrasion resistance under (∼2178 Pa pressure applied) | Zhao 2018 (ref. |
| Silica aerogel membranes | Membranes for miniaturized motionless gas pumps | Density, pore size, surface modification | Optimal pumping performance was found for devices with integrated membranes with low-density (0.062 g cm−3) and an average pore size of 142 nm. The membranes gave an air flow rate density of 3.85 sccm cm−2 at an operating temperature of 400 °C | Zhao 2015 (ref. |
| Silica aerogel coated on macroporous Al2O3 membrane supports | Membranes for CO2 absorption | Hydrophobicity | A stable CO2 absorption flux of 1.5 mmol m−2 s−1 was observed and the membranes could be used continuously for at least 4 days | Lin 2019 (ref. |
| TiO2–SiO2 oxide composites | Barrier properties against UV radiation of textile fabrics | Surface area | Modification of polyester woven and nonwoven fabric with oxide composites increased the UPF values to above 50 | Stefanska 2012 (ref. |
| Hydrophobic silica aerogel | Oil adsorption | Density, pore volume, hydrophobicity | Silica aerogel with NaOH/microsilica weight ratio | Shi 2013 (ref. |
| Hydrophobic silica aerogel | Oil adsorption | Surface area, contact angle, pore volume | Silica aerogel prepared from HMDS showed maximum oil removal of 96% and 90% from saline and non-saline oily wastewater, respectively | Sorour 2016 (ref. |
| Expanded perlite (EP) modified by aerogel | Thermal insulation | Thermal conductivity, pore size | Aerogel-modified EP board had a lower thermal conductivity (0.077 W m−1 K−1) than unmodified EP board (0.083 W m−1 K−1) | Wang 2011 (ref. |
| Silica aerogel | Thermal insulation | Thermal conductivity, bulk density | The final aerogel material presents a good thermal insulation property of 26.5 × 10−3 W m−1 K−1 | Zhu 2016 (ref. |
| SiO2/TiO2 aerogel composites | Photo catalytic activity | Surface area, pore size | The binary aerogel composite exhibited significant photocatalytic efficiency, the decolorizing efficiency for methyl orange reached 84.9% after 210 min UV light irradiation | Xu 2016 (ref. |
| Silica aerogel | Naphthalene adsorption | Surface area, pore volume, density, hydrophobicity | The optimum adsorption parameters obtained through central composite design (CCD) approach was time 120 min, pH = 4 and amount of adsorbent 4 g L−1 with an experimental adsorption capacity of 24.68 mg L−1 and a predicted value of 24.9 mg L−1 | Yaqubzadeh 2016 (ref. |