## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{**XEROGEL**} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{**SILCLX10**} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{**SILCLX40**} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{**SILTF2 NX10**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SILTF2 NX40**} \\ \hline
**Form** & \(\delta\) & **intgr** & \% & \(\delta\) & **intgr** & \% & \(\delta\) & **intgr** & \% & \(\delta\) & **intgr** & \% \\  & (**ppm**) & (**ppm**) & **intgr** & (**ppm**) & (**ppm**) & (**ppm**) & (**ppm**) & (**ppm**) & (**ppm**) & (**ppm**) & (**ppm**) & **intgr** & \% \\ \hline Q2 & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / & / \\ Q3 & / & / & / & -101.14 & 0.02 & 1.74 & -102.28 & 0.02 & 1.47 & / & / & / & / & / & / \\ Q4 & -117.31 & 0.49 & 1185 & -101.021 & 0.13 & 11.30 & -111.47 & 0.10 & 7.35 & -110.41 & 0.13 & 10.48 & -110.56 & 1.00 & 14.25 \\ T2 & -72.38 & 2.64 & 63.92 & -66.06 & 1.00 & 86.96 & -66.68 & 1.00 & 73.53 & -66.03 & 1.00 & 80.56 & -65.65 & 5.09 & 72.51 \\ T3 & -63.58 & 1.00 & 24.21 & / & / & / & -58.10 & 0.24 & 17.65 & -56.10 & 0.11 & 8.87 & -56.49 & 0.93 & 13.25 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: \({}^{29}\)Si CPMAS results for supported ILs in xerogel matrix. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Samples** & **S\({}_{\text{BET}}\) (m\({}^{2}\)/g)** & **V\({}_{\text{p}}\) (cm\({}^{3}\)/g)** & **Pore Size (nm) 1** & **Diameter (nm) 2** & **\(\rho_{\text{s}}\) (g/cm\({}^{3}\)) 3** \\ \hline
**XEROGEL** & 9 & 0.016 & 7.1 & 8.2 & 1.80 \\
**SILTF2 NX20** & 4 & 0.008 & 7.5 & 10.2 & 3.08 \\
**SILTF2 NX40** & 1 & 0.002 & 4.9 & 5.6 & -- \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Structural properties for ILs in xerogel silica Data obtained from N\({}_{2}\) sorption (S\({}_{\text{BET}}\), V\({}_{\text{p}}\)) shows that partially replacing MTMS with the IL decreases the specific surface area and the pore volume indicating that the support is more compact according to the density values. CO\({}_{2}\) adsorption tests were performed immediately after the synthesis of the materials. The tested materials were the Xerogel, SILTF2 NX20, SILCLX20, and SILCLX40. It is worth noting that for the calculation of the adsorption in excess and absolute from the PTGA data, the density value for the sample SILTF2 NX20 obtained through helium pycnometry (see Table 2) was used. As the experimental CO\({}_{2}\) adsorption curves, absolute and in excess, were very similar due to employing the low working pressure, only the absolute adsorption data is presented Figure 3 as a function of CO\({}_{2}\) pressure. It is evident that the sample SILCLX20 exhibits the greater capacity to CO\({}_{2}\) adsorption, reaching a value of 0.35 g CO\({}_{2}\)/g adsorbent at 1.0 MPa. The sample with the same IL, but with greater immobilized concentration SILCLX40 has a very low performance, only 0.07 g CO\({}_{2}\)/g adsorbent at the same pressure, which indicates that increasing the amount of IL immobilized in the xerogel hinders the adsorption capacity. This effect can be caused by both a block of the solid's pores by the IL and IL trapped without accessibility or free volume to adsorb CO\({}_{2}\). Surprisingly, the adsorption result obtained for SILTF2 NX20 (0.05 g CO\({}_{2}\)/g adsorbent at 1.0 MPa) is very low. As the Tf\({}_{2}\)N\({}^{-}\) anion has a hydrophobic character, it was expected that it would improve the IL-CO\({}_{2}\) interaction. This result can be attributed to a low IL interaction with the xerogel silica networking. The concentration of IL immobilized in the support as mentioned earlier has a slight adverse effect on adsorption efficiency, as the higher the concentration of IL support, the lower the mass of CO\({}_{2}\) adsorbed. Results obtained with SILCLX20 were distinguished from all the others and is an exceptional mark. Figure 2: SEM (x 3000)—spheres of ionic liquids (MeO)\({}_{3}\)Sipmim.Tf\({}_{2}\)N in xerogel matrix.