Static and dynamic characteristics of SO2-O2 aqueous solution in the microstructure of porous carbon materials

  • Shi YinEmail author
  • Yan-Qiu Chen
  • Yue-Li Li
  • Wang-Lai CenEmail author
  • Hua-Qiang Yin
Research Article


Porous carbon material facilitates the reaction SO2 + O2 + H2O → H2SO4 in coal-burned flue gas for sulfur resources recovery at mild conditions. It draws a long-term mystery on its heterogeneous catalysis due to the complicated synergic effect between its microstructure and chemical components. To decouple the effects of geometric structure from chemical components, classical molecular dynamics method was used to investigate the static and dynamic characteristics of the reactants (H2O, SO2 and O2) in the confined space truncated by double-layer graphene (DLG). Strong adsorption of SO2 and O2 by the DLG was observed, which results in the filling of the solute molecules into the interior of the DLG and the depletion of H2O. This effect mainly results from the different affinity of the DLG to the species and can be tuned by the separation of the two graphene layers. Such dimension dependence of the static and dynamic properties like distribution profile, molecular cluster, hydrogen bond and diffusion coefficient were also studied. The conclusions drawn in this work could be helpful to the further understanding of the underlying reaction mechanism of desulfurization process in porous carbon materials and other applications of carbon-based catalysts.


Molecular dynamics Flue gas desulfurization Graphene Sulfur dioxide Heterogeneous catalysis 



This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51508356) and the Scientific Research Foundation of the Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province, China (No. 2017GZ0376). We also acknowledge the Institute of New Energy and Low Carbon Technology in Sichuan University for computational service support.

Supplementary material

11783_2018_1058_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (114 kb)
Supplementary Material


  1. Alexiadis A, Kassinos S (2008a). Molecular simulation of water in carbon nanotubes. Chemical Reviews, 108(12): 5014–5034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexiadis A, Kassinos S (2008b). Influence of water model and nanotube rigidity on the density of water in carbon nanotubes. Chemical Engineering Science, 63(10): 2793–2797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexiadis A, Kassinos S (2008c). Self-diffusivity, hydrogen bonding and density of different water models in carbon nanotubes. Molecular Simulation, 34(7): 671–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen M P, Tildesley D J (1987). Computer Simulation of Liquids. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Berendsen H J C, Grigera J R, Straatsma T P (1987). The missing term in effective pair potentials. Journal of Physical Chemistry, 91(24): 6269–6271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhatnagar A, Hogland W, Marques M, Sillanpää M (2013). An overview of the modification methods of activated carbon for its water treatment applications. Chemical Engineering Journal, 219: 499–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryk T, Haymet A D J (2004). The ice/water interface: Density–temperature phase diagram for the SPC/E model of liquid water. Molecular Simulation, 30(2–3): 131–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bukowski R, Szalewicz K, Groenenboom G C, van der Avoird A (2007). Predictions of the properties of water from first principles. Science, 315(5816): 1249–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen Y, Yin S, Li Y, Cen W, Li J, Yin H (2017). Curvature dependence of single-walled carbon nanotubes for SO2 adsorption and oxidation. Applied Surface Science, 404: 364–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dreyer D R, Park S, Bielawski C W, Ruoff R S (2010). The chemistry of graphene oxide. Chemical Society Reviews, 39(1): 228–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. English C A, Venables J A (1974). The structure of the diatomic molecular solids. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 340(1620): 57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ewald P P (1921). Die Berechnung optischer und Elektrostatischer gitterpotentiale. Ann. Phys., 369(3): 253–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaur V, Asthana R, Verma N (2006). Removal of SO2 by activated carbon fibers in the presence of O2 and H2O. Carbon, 44(1): 46–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holt J K, Park H G, Wang Y, Stadermann M, Artyukhin A B, Grigoropoulos C P, Noy A, Bakajin O (2006). Fast mass transport through sub-2-nanometer carbon nanotubes. Science, 312(5776): 1034–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang C, Li C, Shi G (2013). Graphene based catalysts. Energy & Environmental Science, 5(10): 8848–8868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hummer G, Rasaiah J C, Noworyta J P (2001). Water conduction through the hydrophobic channel of a carbon nanotube. Nature, 414(6860): 188–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalra A, Garde S, Hummer G (2003). Osmotic water transport through carbon nanotube membranes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(18): 10175–10180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koga K, Gao G T, Tanaka H, Zeng X C (2001). Formation of ordered ice nanotubes inside carbon nanotubes. Nature, 412(6849): 802–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuharski R A, Rossky P J (1985). A quantum mechanical study of structure in liquid H2O and D2O. Journal of Chemical Physics, 82(11): 5164–5177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu X, Sun F, Qu Z, Gao J, Wu S (2016). The effect of functional groups on the SO2 adsorption on carbon surface I: A new insight into noncovalent interaction between SO2 molecule and acidic oxygencontaining groups. Applied Surface Science, 369: 552–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lizzio A A, DeBar J A (1997). Mechanism of SO2 removal by carbon. Energy & Fuels, 11(2): 284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lum K, Chandler D, Weeks J D (1999). Hydrophobicity at small and large length scales. Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 103(22): 4570–4577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mark P, Nilsson L (2001). Structure and dynamics of the TIP3P, SPC, and SPC/E water models at 298 K. Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 105(43): 9954–9960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martins Costa M T C (2005). QM/MM simulations of polyols in aqueous solution. Journal of Molecular Structure THEOCHEM, 729(1–2): 47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miners S A, Rance G A, Khlobystov A N (2016). Chemical reactions confined within carbon nanotubes. Chemical Society Reviews, 45(17): 4727–4746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moin S T, Lim L H V, Hofer T S, Randolf B R, Rode B M (2011). Sulfur dioxide in water: structure and dynamics studied by an ab initio quantum mechanical charge field molecular dynamics simulation. Inorganic Chemistry, 50(8): 3379–3386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Plimpton S (1995). Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics. Journal of Computational Physics, 117(1): 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Raymundo-Pinero E, Cazorla-Amoros D, Salinas-Martinez de Lecea C, Linares-Solano A (2000). Factors controlling the SO2 removal by porous carbons: Relevance of the SO2 oxidation step. Carbon, 38(3): 335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ren X, Chen C, Nagatsu M, Wang X (2011). Carbon nanotubes as adsorbents in environmental pollution management: A review. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2–3(170): 395–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ryckaert J P, Ciccotti G, Berendsen H J (1977). Numerical integration of the cartesian equations of motion of a system with constraints: Molecular dynamics of n-alkanes. Journal of Computational Physics, 23(3): 327–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shi J (2013). On the synergetic catalytic effect in heterogeneous nanocomposite catalysts. Chemical Reviews, 113(3): 2139–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sokolic F, Guissani Y, Guillot B (1985). Molecular dynamics simulations of thermodynamic and structural properties of liquid SO2. Molecular Physics, 56(2): 239–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Striolo A (2006). The mechanism of water diffusion in narrow carbon nanotubes. Nano Letters, 6(4): 633–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Striolo A (2007). Water self-diffusion through narrow oxygenated carbon nanotubes. Nanotechnology, 18(47): 475704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tomsic A, Gebhardt C R (2005). A comparative study of cluster-surface collisions: Molecular-dynamics simulations of (H2O)1000 and (SO2)1000. Journal of Chemical Physics, 123(6): 64704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu K, Zhou B, Xiu P, Qi W, Wan R, Fang H (2010). Kinetics of water filling the hydrophobic channels of narrow carbon nanotubes studied by molecular dynamics simulations. Journal of Chemical Physics, 133(20): 204702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zawadzki J (1987). Infrared studies of SO2 on carbons–II. The SO2 species adsorbed on carbon films. Carbon, 25(4): 495–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang H, Cen W, Liu J, Guo J, Yin H, Ning P (2014). Adsorption and oxidation of SO2 by graphene oxides: A van der Waals density functional theory study. Applied Surface Science, 324: 61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang H, Pan X, Han X, Liu X, Wang X, Shen W, Bao X (2013). Enhancing chemical reactions in a confined hydrophobic environment: An NMR study of benzene hydroxylation in carbon nanotubes. Chemical Science (Cambridge), 4(3): 1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhu C, Dong S (2013). Recent progress in graphene-based nanomaterials as advanced electrocatalysts towards oxygen reduction reaction. Nanoscale, 5(5): 1753–1767CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Architecture and Environment and National Engineering Research Center for Flue Gas DesulfurizationSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.Institute of New Energy and Low Carbon TechnologySichuan UniversityChengduChina
  3. 3.Chengdu ZXTY Environmental Technologies Co. Ltd.ChengduChina

Personalised recommendations