4.6 Article

Adsorption Contraction Mechanics: Understanding Breathing Energetics in Isoreticular Metal-Organic Frameworks

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
Volume 122, Issue 33, Pages 19171-19179

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b04549

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [742743]
  2. PSL Research University [ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02]
  3. GENCI grant [A0030807069]
  4. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [641887]
  5. ANR/DFG Program FUN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A highly porous metal-organic framework DUT-48, isoreticular to DUT-49, is reported with a high surface area of 4560 m(2).g(-1) and methane storage capacity up to 0.27 g.g(-1) (164 cm(3).cm(-3)) at 6.S MPa and 298 K. The flexibility of DUT-48 and DUT-49 under external and internal (adsorption-induced) pressure is analyzed and rationalized using a combination of advanced experimental and computational techniques. While both networks undergo a contraction by mechanical pressure, only DUT-49 shows adsorption induced structural transitions and negative gas adsorption of n-butane and nitrogen. This adsorption behavior was analyzed by microcalorimetry measurements and molecular simulations to provide an explanation for the lack of adsorption-induced breathing in DUT-48. It was revealed that for DUT-48, a significantly lower adsorption enthalpy difference and a higher framework stiffness prevent adsorption-induced structural transitions and negative gas adsorption. The mechanical behavior of both DUT-48 and DUT-49 was further analyzed by mercury porosimetry experiments and molecular simulations. Both materials exhibit large volume changes under hydrostatic compression, demonstrating noteworthy potential as shock absorbers with unprecedented high work energies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available