K. Iwasaki et al. / Journal of Molecular Liquids 246 (2017) 236–243
239
Table 2
Unfortunately, certain information about such phase transitions could
only be obtained using a specially manufactured DSC at this time [45].
Fitted parameters for the density of the RTILs with various cations.
RTILs
a/g·cm−3
b × 104/g·cm−3·K−1
|R|
3.3. Physicochemical properties
[C4mim][BF4]
1.413
1.339
1.392
1.340
1.297
1.288
1.207
−7.113
−6.510
−6.711
−6.362
−6.136
−6.048
−6.020
N0.9999
N0.9999
N0.9999
N0.9999
N0.9999
N0.9999
N0.9999
[C4mim][PhBF3]
[C2mim][PhBF3]
[C4py][PhBF3]
[C4mpyr][PhBF3]
[C4mpip][PhBF3]
[N4,4,4,1][PhBF3]
The density data for the [PhBF3]−-based RTILs at 298 K are given in
Table 1 along with other physicochemical properties. The temperature
dependence of the density (d) of the [PhBF3]−-based RTILs is shown
in Fig. 4. The solid lines depicted in the figure are straight lines that
were calculated using the least-squares method. In general, density
can be represented as a function of absolute temperature by the follow-
ing equation:
except [N1,1,1,3][PhBF3], were liquid salts at room temperature. K[PhBF3]
has a melting point of 568 K [30], but the cation exchange of K+ for the
organic cations caused a sudden drop in the melting point due to the
larger cation size and the asymmetric structure of the organic cations.
The resulting organic salts were stable in air without any undesirable re-
actions with oxygen and moisture even though they were moderately
hygroscopic. All the salts had a lower water miscibility than the salts
with [BF4]−, and the hydrophobic phenyl group in [PhBF3]− causes
this characteristic.
d ¼ a þ bT
ð1Þ
where a is the density at 0 K (g·cm−3), b is a volume expansion coeffi-
cient (g·cm−3·K−1), and T is the absolute temperature (K). The results
fitted by the least-squares method are summarized in Table 2. The cor-
relation coefficient (|R|) indicates the precision of the fitting. The densi-
ties of the [PhBF3]−-based liquid salts were 1.028–1.192 g·cm−3 at
298 K (Table 1), and these values were closely related to the cationic
volume. The ascending order of the cation volume based on the
B3LYP/6-31G+(d) level calculations using the Gaussian 09 program
[41] is [C2mim]+ (0.160 nm3) b [C4py]+ (0.203 nm3) b [C4mim]+
(0.207 nm3) b [C4mpyr]+ (0.211 nm3) b [C4mpip]+ (0.231 nm3) b
3.2. Thermal behavior
The TG analysis results for the [PhBF3]−-based salts are shown in Fig.
2 along with the results for [C4mim][BF4] as a comparison. The thermal
degradation temperatures determined at a 5 wt% loss are given in Table
1. All the salts exhibited clear weight losses at temperatures in the range
from 477 to 514 K, and their thermal stabilities were inferior to that of
[C4mim][BF4]. This result is attributed to the [PhBF3]− anion containing
a B–C bond because the bond dissociation energy of the B–C bond
[N4,4,4,1]
+ (0.319 nm3), and this order coincides with the descending
order of the density. Several research groups have concluded that the
molecular volumes of RTILs are related to some of their physicochemical
parameters, e.g., density, viscosity, melting point, and dielectric con-
stant [46–48]. As we will discuss later, a similar relationship was also
observed in our RTILs.
(92 kcal·mol−1) is smaller than that of the B–F bond (181 kcal·mol−1
)
The [PhBF3]−-based RTILs showed viscosities (η) ranging from 60 to
1870 mPa·s at 298 K and ionic conductivities (σ) ranging from 0.112 to
7.09 mS·cm−1 at 303 K (Table 1). The RTILs with aromatic cations, i.e.,
[C4mim]+, [C2mim]+, and [C4py]+, had favorable transport properties.
Most RTILs with a π-conjugated cation show a similar tendency [49,
50]. The compact volume of aromatic cations, not the liquid structure
of RTILs, contributes to the transport properties, as shown in Fig. 5,
and this indicates that the molecular volume is related to the viscosity
and conductivity. The following equations proposed by Krossing et al.
were used to fit the data [48].
in [BF4]− [42]. The TG curves also indicated that the thermal degrada-
tion reaction proceeds via multiple steps, whereas [C4mim][BF4]
showed a simple one-step curve. As expected, the weight losses ob-
served for the first one or two steps were very close to the wt% of the
[PhBF3]− in the original RTILs, e.g., 51 wt% in [C4mim][PhBF3] and
56 wt% in [C2mim][PhBF3]. The DSC curves for the same RTILs are
given in Fig. 3. Almost all the salts showed a glass-transition tempera-
ture (Tg) at 208–228 K, but they did not show significant crystallization
or melting behaviors, except for [N1,1,1,3][PhBF3], which showed a sharp
exothermic peak in the cooling process at ca. 313 K and a noticeable en-
dothermic peak in the heating process at 353 K without any glass-tran-
sition behavior (Fig. 3g). In the case of [C4mpy][PhBF3] and
[N4,4,4,1][PhBF3], small crystallization and melting behaviors were ob-
served (Fig. 3e and h). These behaviors are induced by the very slow dy-
namics derived from the unique properties of RTILs [43,44].
η ¼ a1eb
ð2Þ
ð3Þ
1Vm
2Vm
σ ¼ a2e−b
where a1 (mPa·s) and a2 (mS·cm−1) are the empirical pre-exponential
factors, b1 (nm−3) and b2 (nm−3) are the empirical constants, and Vm
(nm3) is the molecular volume of each organic cation and the
[PhBF3]− anion in the RTILs. Their volumes were estimated using quan-
tum chemical calculations, and the data are summarized in Table 1. The
fitting parameters for Eqs. (2) and (3) are a1 = 4.00 × 10−2, b1 = 22.9,
a2 = 3.48 × 104, and b2 = 26.8. Interestingly, even though
[C4mpip][PhBF3] has some deviations, the plots for all the RTILs agree
well with the equations, suggesting that the cation volume is an impor-
tant factor in the [PhBF3]−-based RTIL system. The obtained slopes, b1
and b2, were larger than those for the other anions, e.g., [BF4]−
,
[N(CN)2]−, and [N(SO2CF3)2]− [48]. The values for b1 are related to
the strength of the intermolecular interactions in the RTILs, and the
same applies to b2. In the [PhBF3]−-based RTILs, a stronger interaction
was observed compared to the RTILs with other anions, which was con-
trary to our expectation that the interionic interaction energy would de-
crease due to the electron-withdrawing phenyl group on the anion. The
unexpected behavior could be due to the extra interaction induced by
the dynamic contact resistance between the organic cation and the
bulky phenyl group on [PhBF3]−.
Fig. 5. Correlation between the ( ) ionic pair volume and viscosity at 298 K and the (
ionic pair volume and ionic conductivity at 303 K. The original data are given in Fig. 4 and
Table 1.
)