| Literature DB >> 35520324 |
Giacomo Damilano1, Antero Laitinen2, Pia Willberg-Keyriläinen2, Tiina Lavonen2, Riina Häkkinen2, Wim Dehaen1, Koen Binnemans1, Lauri Kuutti2.
Abstract
This study deals with an investigation of how substitution of an alcohol group by a thiol group in mixtures of choline chloride with a series of bio-sourceable molecules affects the physico-chemical properties of the mixtures and their ability to dissolve metal oxides. All of the thiol mixtures studied showed a higher affinity and selectivity for late transition metals and the physical properties of the mixtures were improved compared to their alcohol analogues (i.e. lower viscosity, wider liquid range). The metal solubility was assessed via determination of the final concentration of the metal oxides dissolved in thiol mixtures via inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES). The thiol function selectively improved the solubilities of the late transition metal oxides (i.e. copper and zinc), which are valuable metals often present as residue in industrial waste. The solubility of iron oxides was much lower than that of the valuable metals, which is a significant benefit in industrial applications. The different solubilization behaviour of metal oxides in the thiol and alcohol mixtures was further investigated via UV-vis absorption and infrared spectroscopy. This study allowed the potential of these deep-eutectic solvents for the selective recovery of metals to be assessed. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 35520324 PMCID: PMC9054895 DOI: 10.1039/d0ra03696j
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Visual observation of the minimum conditions required to the formation of the DES under magnetic stirring. All molar ratio from of 3 : 1 to 1 : 3 were tested but herein are reported only the mixtures achieving an homogeneous liquid phase
| HBA : HBD (molar ratio) | Appearance at 20–22 °C |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| ChCl : GA (1 : 2) | Clear homogeneous liquid | 2 | 20–22 |
| ChCl : GA (1 : 3) | Clear homogenous liquid | 2 | 20–22 |
| ChCl : TGA (1 : 2) | Clear homogenous liquid | 2 | 20–22 |
| ChCl : TGA (1 : 3) | Clear homogenous liquid | 2 | 20–22 |
| ChCl : LA (1 : 2) | Clear homogenous liquid | 2 | 20–22 |
| ChCl : LA (1 : 3) | Clear homogenous liquid | 2 | 20–22 |
| ChCl : TLA (1 : 2) | Clear homogenous liquid | 2 | 20–22 |
| ChCl : TLA (1 : 3) | Clear homogenous liquid | 2 | 20–22 |
| ChCl : MA (1 : 1) | Clear homogenous liquid | 2 | 60–70 |
| ChCl : TMA (1 : 1) | Clear faint yellow homogenous liquid | 4 | 60–70 |
| ChCl : DTT (1 : 2) | Clear homogenous liquid | 3 | 20–22 |
| ChCl : DTT (1 : 3) | Clear homogenous liquid | 3 | 20–22 |
A precipitate was observed after refrigerating the sample overnight at 6 °C.
Fig. 1Graphical representation of the HBD used in our analysis. From the top left corner to the bottom right corner: [A] – glycolic acid (GA), [B] – lactic acid (LA), [C] – malic acid(MA), [D] – dithiothreitol (DTT), [E] – thioglycolic acid (TGA), [F] – thiolactic acid(TLA) and [G] – thiomalic acid (TMA).
Physical characterization of the DESs
| HBA : HBD (ratio) |
| g. t. p. | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| ChCl : GA (1 : 2) | 0.3 ± 0.0 | −79 ± 0 | 3 |
| ChCl : GA (1 : 3) | — | −78 ± 2 | 3 |
| ChCl : TGA (1 : 2) | — | −95 ± 0 | 3 |
| ChCl : TGA (1 : 3) | — | −94 ± 2 | 3 |
| ChCl : LA (1 : 2) | 0.7 ± 0.0 | −70 ± 2 | 3 |
| ChCl : LA (1 : 3) | — | −68 ± 2 | 3 |
| ChCl : TLA (1 : 2) | 0.1 ± 0.0 | −88 ± 0 | 3 |
| ChCl : TLA (1 : 3) | — | −87 ± 3 | 3 |
| ChCl : MA (1 : 1) | 30.4 ± 0.6 | −48 ± 0 | 3 |
| ChCl : TMA (1 : 1) | 28.1 ± 0.8 | −58 ± 1 | 3 |
| ChCl : DTT (1 : 2) | — | −64 ± 3 | 5 |
| ChCl : DTT (1 : 3) | 0.32 ± 0.0 | −69 ± 3 | 5 |
Viscosity measured at 25 °C (vide ESI).
Glass transition temperature according to the DSC analyses.
Characteristic IR absorption bands (cm−1) for the studied DESs[26],a
| ChCl : GA (1 : 2) | ChCl : TGA (1 : 2) | ChCl : LA (1 : 2) | ChCl : TLA (1 : 2) | ChCl : DTT (1 : 3) | Assignment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3280 (w) | 3280 (w) | 3279 (w) | — | 3309 (vs.) | v (OH)COOH |
| 2564 (w) | 2553 (w) | 2548 (w) | v (SH) | ||
| 1729 (vs.) | 1717 (vs.) | 1730 (vs.) | 1723 (vs.) | v (C | |
| 1419 (m) | 1414 (m) | 1456 (m) | 1452 (m) | vsy (–CO2)COOH | |
| 1194 (vs.) | 1171 (vs.) | ω (CH2) | |||
| 1079 (vs.) | 1082 (m) | 1084 (m) | 1077 (m) | 1066 (vs.) | v (C–OH)COOH |
| 1049 (m) | 1043 (m) | 1057 (m) | 1044 (vs.) | v (C–OH)CH2OH | |
| 993 (w) | 1003 (w) | 1005 (m) | 1002 (w) | 1005 (w) | v (C–C) |
vs. very strong, s strong, m medium, w weak, sh shoulder. ν stretching, νsy symmetric, νas asymmetric, δs bending, ρ rocking, ω wagging, τ twisting.
Dissolved metal content in the various DES (g L−1)
| FeO | Fe2O3 | CoO | LiCoO2 | NiO | Cu2O | CuO | Ag2O | Au2O3 | ZnO | CdO | PbO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ChCl : GA (1 : 2) | 2.99 | 27.9 | 6.97 | 3.5 | 0.1 | 84.18 | 3.11 | 0.62 | 42.22 | 50.28 | 96.96 | 0.82 |
| ChCl : TGA (1 : 2) | 29.91 | 23.79 | 43.98 | 22.11 | 2.44 | 0.62 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.03 | 122.07 | 213.31 | 0.51 |
| ChCl : LA (1 : 2) | 3.86 | 29.61 | 8.3 | 11.62 | 0.27 | 77.16 | 25.36 | 0.58 | 31.22 | 13.52 | 42.09 | 0.22 |
| ChCl : TLA (1 : 2) | 20.21 | 50.42 | 0.35 | 0 | 0 | 83.99 | 60.22 | 0.63 | 0.05 | 90.95 | 93.75 | 0.26 |
| ChCl : DTT (1 : 3) | 9.89 | 30.68 | 1.46 | 0.93 | 4.51 | 2.93 | 3.18 | 0.27 | 3.19 | 21.85 | 12.67 | 80.81 |
| ChCl : ethylene glycol (1 : 2) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.36 | 0.00 | — | — | 0.43 | — | — |
| ChCl : malonic acid (1 : 2) | 4.28 | 0.32 | 3.10 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 15.67 | 11.97 | — | — | 13.86 | — | — |
The data herein reproduced may have been obtained via a different procedure. The data were converted from ppm assuming the density of ChCl : EG (1 : 2) and ChCl : malonic acid (1 : 2) at 50 °C to be 1.10 g mL−1 and 1.17 g mL−1, respectively.[11]
Fig. 2Graphical representation of the dissolution selectivity of the subset of the metal oxides selectively dissolved in large amounts in the DESs vs. iron oxides dissolution. This is a numerical elaboration of the data are listed within Table 4. Each of the listed metal oxide was normalized by the amount of iron oxides dissolved under the same conditions.